Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 10

Recommendation to authorize City Attorney to prepare ordinance amending Section 5.24 of the Long Beach Municipal Code so the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to grant permission for certain professional or amateur boxing, kickboxing, mixed martial arts, and similar events within the Long Beach without the need for specific approval by the City Council. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06142022_22-0653

Okay. Thank you. Next up is item 29. Adam 29. Report from City Manager Recommendation to Authorize City Attorney to prepare ordinance amending Section 5.24 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. So the city manager is authorized to grant permission for certain professional or amateur boxing, kickboxing, mixed martial arts and similar events within the city of Long Beach citywide. I mean, I'm quick. That's been moved the second. Any public comment on item 29? There's no public comment. Members, please cast your vote. Motion is carried eight zero.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; declaring the 20-foot wide properties in the plat of Little’s 85th St. Addition, and adjacent to 8515 and 8521 Latona Ave NE, and adjacent to 8520 and 8526 2nd Ave NE, as surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of said properties to the owners of the adjoining properties; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents for the sale and transfer of the properties; and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed.

SeattleCityCouncil_03192018_CB 119191

Bill passed and show assignment please read agenda item number four the short title. Agenda item for accountable 1191 Anyone relating to the Department of Finance Administrator Services Committee recommends the bill pass. Customer Impact Show. Thank you. We have four parcels of property that are being sold. If this council approves two adjoining neighbors, its in the second northeast and 85th in Latonia neighborhood. The history of this is that there were starting in 1927, soon 20 foot wide. They called them playgrounds on both sides of two alleys. Then it went back and forth between the city for 1951 and 1962, and some of the properties were sold to adjoining property owners. And we ended up with four alley segments that remained in the city's control and our our FHA. So finance department notified other departments about these excess property, but they right along the an internal alley there, only about 1350 square feet. The properties were offered each to the adjoining property owners who offered $5,000 for the adjoining parcel. There's no other reasonable use for these parcels there. They're small, as I said, 1300 square feet. And they have been declared property surplus to the city's needs. And this action would authorize the FASB director to sell the properties to the owners. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any comments that please called a run on the passage of the bill? Macheda O'Brien. Swann, Bakeshop. Gonzalez, Purple Johnson, President Harrell eight in favorite unopposed. Bill passed and chair of the. Senate. Thank you. Please read the report from the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.

A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting Comprehensive Plan 2040, as the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the City and County of Denver. Adopts Comprehensive Plan 2040 as the city’s required comprehensive planning document to express the city’s vision for the future. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-2-19.

DenverCityCouncil_04222019_19-0302

On the wall you'll see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the meeting and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council's hold and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please vote Council Bill 302 on the floor? Certainly I move that council bill 19 served three zero to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded before we go into the hearing. Councilman Cashman, I understand that you have some amendments to offer this evening so that speakers may address these amendments during their comment period. If they should choose to. Would you do a brief description of them now? I will. Thank you, Mr. President. And I do not take lightly putting an amendment on the floor at this point, but for reasons I'll discuss a little bit more later, I felt it was important to do so. Later this evening, I will offer an amendment to Council Bill 302 to change the clerk's reference number to the Filed Comprehensive Plan to allow for inserting the following sentence on page 57 of the Comprehensive Plan under the environmentally, environmentally resilient introduction. And that amendment reads, The science is clear. Our planet is facing a global crisis attributed largely to human behavior that is changing climate patterns around the world. This environmental emergency threatens to alter our normal landscape, limiting where we can live, where we can grow our food, and how we are able to access natural resources. As we look to our future, we recognize that reversing our contribution to climate change is critical. How we plan our city can help us reduce our drain on resources and reduce Denver's carbon footprint to eliminate our collective contribution to the climate change crisis, that commitment must be our overarching guide. I will also offer an amendment to Council Bill 303 to change the clerk's reference number to the Filed Blueprint, Denver to allow for inserting the following sentence on page 27 of Blueprint Denver under the Vision Introduction. Same sentence, but I'll read it again. The science is clear. Our planet is facing a global crisis attributed largely to human behavior that is changing climate patterns around the world. This environmental emergency threatens to alter a normal landscape, limiting where we can live, where we can grow our food, and how we're able to access natural resources. As we look to our future, we recognize that reversing our contribution to climate change is critical. How we plan our city can help us reduce our drain on resources and reduce Denver's carbon footprint to eliminate our collective contribution to the climate change crisis. That commitment must be our overarching guide. Mr. President, I'll just add that this amendment has been put together with the cooperation of community planning and development and the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. Thank you very much, Councilman Cashman. The combined public hearing for Accountable 302 and Counsel 303 is open. Speakers may addressed either or both bills, including the amendments that Councilman Cashman just read out and will offer up with each bill when we vote later this evening at the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each bill and separately on the amendments as well. So with that, may we have the staff report? Hi. Good evening. Members of city council. My name is Jill Jennings Gorelick and I am the interim executive director for community planning and Development. And I I'm absolutely thrilled to be here in front of you tonight to present the final draft of Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. Based on three years of hard work by tens of thousands of Denver residents, neighborhood groups, community leaders and city staff, these plans reflect our shared community vision for an inclusive, connected and healthy city. I want to thank City Council for all of your time that you have put into shaping these plans. Your extensive review, countless briefings with staff and invaluable assistance to help us schedule public meetings has helped make tonight possible. I also want to thank the thousands of Denver ites who took the time to engage in this process and give us their thoughtful comments. These plans reflect their voice and we are excited to see them adopted and to begin implementation as we start that work of implementation. We look forward to continuing to partner with the community to make this vision a reality. Through such things as using zoning to improve residential design, protecting historic neighborhoods, and integrating cultural heritage into our preservation program, supporting public works and their updates to Denver street design standards for safer, greener, high quality streets and sidewalks, and creating a citywide incentive for building affordable housing near transit. Just to name a few. I will now turn it over to Sara Showalter, who will present the staff report on Comprehensive Plan 2040. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you, Joe. Good evening, City Council. I'm Sara Showalter with Community Planning and Development. And I'm going to talk about concert Comprehensive Plan 2040. So I just wanted to start with a quick reminder that we have a great foundation comprehensive plan. 2000 was a good starting point for us as we launched this process three years ago, and there's still some great values and vision components of that plan that we're carrying forward in the draft plan. Before you tonight, I also wanted to remind everybody that comprehensive plan 2040 is part of the Denver right package of plans that we've been working on for three years now. As a reminder, that includes five total plans, comprehensive plan 2040 plays the role of really tying all of those plans together. Denver Right. Was a very, very robust community outreach process. We were committed to try and reach as many people in Denver as we could. That includes all the different geographies of our city as well as as many demographics as we could hit as well. So we really focus on how do we engage people in different ways throughout the process. This included having traditional public meetings and community meetings was a huge component, but it also included a lot of other techniques to try and reach as many people as possible. So some of the different tools that we use was our website. We had a great interactive website with lots of surveys that included map based surveys where we could get comments on draft maps in the plan. We also had paper surveys that we brought, particularly to some of the focus groups that we did in communities that don't have as much online access. We did a lot of events, but we called our street team, which was a great group of staff and volunteers that went out to meet people where they are, recognizing that some people may never come to a public meeting, but we still want to hear from them. We, of course, also had a lot of volunteers that spent countless hours working on the different plans through the task forces, as well as the Denver right think tank. And we did office hours throughout the community as well, which was more focused on one on one time with staff for people to really dove into the content of the plans. I mean, all together that totaled over 25,000 touch points from the community. We don't have a way to track exactly how many different individuals participated because many people participated multiple times, taking different surveys, coming to different meetings. But we know it was well over 25,000 pieces of input received. And this is just a summary again of all the different tools we used. This is also a map showing how much we tried to reach every city council district throughout the city, going to the far corners of our city as well as the Corps. And through all of that community input and the many, many voices that we heard from, we were able to develop what we call our six vision elements that are the foundation of Denver. Right. And in particular, the foundation of the comprehensive plan. These are the six vision elements before you all walk through them. If folks aren't able to read them on the screen in just a minute and just wanted to remind everybody the role that the comprehensive plan plays, this document really is about what do we want Denver to be over the next 20 years? What are our values as a city and what are the important policies that guide us as we make decisions in the future? So all of those vision elements come together and they also have informed a series of goals under each vision element that tie together all of the plans that we have as a city, not just Denver. Right. Plans, but other plans, too, like the Climate Action Plan and Housing and Inclusive Denver. And imagine 2020, we really worked extensively across multiple departments in the city to reflect what we heard from the community, but also bring components of these city plans together and show how it's all interconnected and formed by the same vision. And so the way that the plan is organized, so there's a short chapter on each vision, and that vision element contains goals and then more detailed strategies. Under the goals we also have where to find more for each vision element, which is basically kind of a guide to point you to all the plans that are more that are most relevant to that vision element with more detailed strategies on how we'd actually implement. So we really want the comprehensive plan to play a role of bringing all of our plans together and kind of stitching them into one vision framework. So very quickly, I will walk through what's in each of those chapters. This is by no means a comprehensive review that the draft plan was included for you, and it's been online in its final form for people to view as well, but wanted to hit the highlights. So under the first vision element, equitable, affordable and inclusive, we very intentionally put this vision element first. I would say of all the community input, we heard the concerns around equity and really building an inclusive city where we have the ability for everyone who wants to afford to live here to do so was a huge theme. So some of the topics that you'll find addressed in the. Goals and strategies in this chapter deal with affordable housing, with equitable access to all the services and amenities that our city needs. Mitigating involuntary displacement for residents and businesses. Education. And really trying to integrate equity into all the work we do as a city. Thinking about how we can better integrate it into decision making, including things like our budget decisions and all of the plans that we do moving forward. Strong and authentic neighborhoods. We also heard so much about this from the community. We have so many wonderful, unique neighborhoods in Denver, and preserving them, reflecting what makes them so unique was very important to the community. So we have a lot in this chapter about urban design, historic preservation, creating complete neighborhoods. And. Safety was also another big concern that came up that's addressed here connected, safe and accessible. This element is really all about mobility, how we get around the city, making sure people feel safe. And we've designed a safe transportation network for all of our users, people of every age and every ability. It's also very much about providing the highest and best range of options for people and really thinking about what that means in terms of implementing and advancing a multimodal network. And this vision element, economically diverse and vibrant, is very much about how we can have a rounded economy in Denver, well-rounded economy that's diverse and sustainable and able to weather downturns because of that diversity. It's also very much about on the vibrant component, the arts, culture and creative industry that makes for a strong economy and a vibrant city environmentally resilient. This was a huge theme that we heard a lot from the community about. It is really important and it focuses a lot on climate change and the realities of that and what it will mean for Denver if we don't continue to work to adapt and mitigate climate change. Also, a lot about water and the importance of water conservation, solid waste reduction, protecting all of our waterways and the river in Denver , as well as green infrastructure, stormwater, soil remediation and as well. Another big topic under resiliency is emergency planning and making sure that we have a city ready and prepared for any large event that might come our way. And then we have healthy and active. We also heard a lot from the community about how much they treasure living in a city where we have access to mountain parks. We have so many great open spaces and trails and recreation and how vital that is to our vision going forward. This this vision element also says a lot about increasing and making sure we have equitable access to the health services that everybody needs, as well as including health analysis, which is something we already do in a lot of our plans, but looking for opportunities to advance that even more into our work as a city. And the final chapter in the comprehensive plan. This is an example where we use the Comprehensive Plan. 2000 is a great foundation. That document had a lot in it about the importance of regional collaboration. Still a very, very important theme now, and we're very aware that many of the vision elements in this plan can truly only be implemented with regional collaboration. Whether you're thinking about a transit network or our goals for open space and affordable housing, regional solutions will be really important. And as the core of the region and the city, that's the model for everybody. This chapter really tries to set the standard that Denver will be a model but also help read lead regional collaboration. There's a lot more in the plan. Happy to answer more questions tonight, but we have a lot of people here to speak. So I want to keep things moving. And I will close by saying that the proposed comprehensive plan 2040 conforms with our code requirements for a city comprehensive plan and staff recommends approval. And now I'm going to turn it over to David Gaspar to do a presentation on Blueprint Number. Thank you, Sarah. President Council. David Gaspar, Principal City Planner and Community Planning, Development and Project Manager for this update to Blueprint Denver. As with Sarah, we do want to mention that we are building off of an existing plan document blueprint. Denver, 22. If you're familiar with the appendix of the new plan, we did a thorough diagnostic of Blueprint Denver, which has been guiding our land use and transportation since that adoption and has served us very well. Moving forward to the new plan is in front of you today. It is our land use and transportation plan for growing and inclusive. Denver And we have three key elements to move that forward. First would be the addition of social equity factors to tailor solutions by neighborhood in the plan. It also contains a measured, common sense approach to growth in Denver out to 2040, and it does that by working on creating complete neighborhoods and connecting those complete neighborhoods across all of Denver with a complete multi-modal transportation network. When adopting a supplement to the comprehensive plan, there are three criteria to follow. It's an inclusive community process was used to develop the plan, that the plan was consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of the comprehensive plan, and that it demonstrates a long term view. So I'll just walk through those three questions with you tonight and try to answer them. So first, was an inclusive community process used to develop a blueprint? Denver Sara has already mentioned the considerable amount of Denver Rite Outreach with the 25,000 touch points. So I won't bring that back. But I do want to highlight our task force, which has 33 community members that were tasked to guide the plan throughout the entire process. They did bring an immense amount of professional, personal and community expertize to the process. And also they worked as a liaison back to the community to communicate how the plan was evolving. 20 meet meetings over a three year period at the task force met. Those meetings were open to the public and they provided feedback. Feedback on the community, values, vision elements, plan framework, draft maps and the draft recommendations that are in front of you tonight. We also had an equity subcommittee that was formed out of the task force, and they analyzed the public review draft of the plan, focusing on racial equity and institutional racism. We had six different community engagement windows ranging from 1 to 6 months throughout the three year process that included two public review drafts, the first being released in August of 2018 and then a revised public draft two coming out this January. Communication. Additional outreach thanks to the umbrella of Denver. Right. We had a significant amount of promotion of the planning process, which was great. Much help from council members, too, to get the word out on on all the efforts. We had a robust website that had all the Denver right plans in one location. Our public comments that were received through the public drafts were actually posted on our that website. We also had annotated versions of the drafts as we were trying to show our responses to those comments. We had translation services of of the key plan documents and the website content interpretation services and child care were available to public meetings and additional outreach. Focusing on underrepresented communities was another key component of the process. So start finding his blueprint. Denver was developed through an inclusive public process. Next is playing consistency. Is the plan consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of the comprehensive plan? Those are the six vision elements that Sara just went through with you. So I'll just step through each one of those and highlight the Blueprint Demo recommendations and how they advance. The comprehensive plan, first and foremost, with equitable, affordable and inclusive is the strong commitment to equity. We have those three equity concepts in our vision chapter and we also speak about completing creating complete neighborhoods for everyone in all of Denver, across all of our neighborhoods. It advances affordable housing and housing diversity in all of our neighborhoods and considers the potential for involuntary displacement with city led projects. Second Comprehensive Plan Vision elements Strong and Authentic Neighborhoods Blueprint Denver Recommendations focus on complete neighborhoods with increased access to amenities, high quality urban design in all of our neighborhoods, working to preserve the authenticity and character of our neighborhoods and empowering more people to be involved in planning processes, especially our small area plans as we go forward. Next Rear Vision element excuse me connected, safe and accessible places. Blueprint Denver presents the complete multimodal network to connect our neighborhoods and supports the city's Vision Zero Action Plan and mode share goals. It has recommendations related to equitable access to opportunity and services throughout Denver and focuses on growth near transit, especially in our centers and corridors. The economically diverse and a vibrant vision element here were focused on providing a diverse economy for all of Denver with a great mix of jobs throughout the city. Our job growth is focused on our regional centers, community centers and corridors with equal access to those job areas. We have targeted investments for small, locally owned businesses. Recommendations to preserving high value manufacturing areas and also promoting the innovation economy, including handcrafted maker spaces. With environmentally resilient blueprint. Denver has recommendations addressing climate change and how to mitigate environmentally responsible resource and efficient building practices. Another recommendation has recommendations related to the landscaping requirements being climate appropriate, recommendations on environmentally friendly and green infrastructure in development, and also managing stormwater as a holistic ecological system as well as in recommendations on improve air quality and water quality. And finally, with healthy and active, we never had recommendations, increasing opportunities for a healthy lifestyle, supporting greater health considerations and analysis for more city wide programs, and expanding tools and regulations to ensure high quality parks and open space throughout the city. So staff finds that blueprint is consistent with comprehensive plan 2040. And finally, a long term view. Does the plan demonstrate? A long term view? We remember establishes a vision for an inclusive city of complete neighborhoods and networks in 2040. Plan recommendations are based on that long term holistic vision and will take many years to achieve. So staff finding is that blueprint never has an appropriate long term perspective. And we are here tonight with our counsel hearing on April 22nd. So a staff recommendation based on the findings, I believe, from Denver, using an inclusive public process is consistent with a comprehensive plan 2040 and that the plan takes the long term view. Stack recommends adoption of Blueprint Denver. That concludes the staff presentation. Thank you very much. We do have 58 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if I can if you're sitting in this front bench, I'm going to ask you, unfortunately, to move somewhere else so that we can bring a remembering five people at a time up to the front so that we can get through people and get people right to the microphone. So if you wouldn't mind, could you clear a little bit of room in that front bench for five? So I'm going to call you up five at a time with 58 people. You may find that by the time your name gets called, someone has already said what you wanted to say. And so feel free to reference other people who have spoken. You don't need to use all 3 minutes if you don't need it, but they are yours to use. So with that, if I call your name, if you could please come up to the front bench Kimball Kringle, Joel Noble, Terrence Wear, Chris Pelkey and Abdur Ali. If you want to come up to the front right now. So you're ready. As soon as I call your name, the next time, then your time will start to lapse. So step, step right up to the microphone. First up, Kimball Kringle. Hi. Good evening. My name is Kimball Kringle, and I had the great honor and distinction of being one of two co-chairs for Blueprint Denver. Joel, you'll hear from next. I'm here tonight to voice my support and urge you to pass Blueprint Denver tonight. I do need to pay a great deal of thanks to the members of our task force, many of whom are here tonight. Our task force represented a diverse group of stakeholders that represented their various community groups and stakeholder groups. Our task force has been committed and dedicated. We've been total pains in the butt to staff over the last three years in the sense that we all pushed. We pulled. We asked. We were impassioned. We called out. We read. We edited. We asked more questions. We asked for subcommittee processes. And in the long run, we made Blueprint a very thorough and guided document from the various stakeholders that we all represent. This plan is what it is because of the stakeholders and the community input that guided this document. Blueprint Denver provides the foundation for policy related to land use, mobility, design and growth since the 22 blueprint Denver was passed. We've seen tremendous growth in the city, growth that's presented great opportunity, but also incredible challenges. We know that this growth is going to continue. By passing Blueprint Denver we get to account for what thousands of residents and stakeholders have asked for to guide growth through the lens of social equity. To be honest about institutional barriers based on race to improve urban design, to direct growth to centers and corridors tied to transit, and to emphasize neighborhood area planning. Equity is a term that you'll hear about a lot tonight. Equity is when everyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from, has the opportunity to thrive. This plan integrates equity into our planning policy without accounting for and adjusting for this equity. The forces of change will prevent our city from achieving the vision of an inclusive and complete city. We set the stage to advance equity through improving access to opportunity, reducing vulnerability to displacement, and expanding housing and jobs. Diversity in all of our neighborhoods by guiding implementation actions. We can have a more inclusive and equitable city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, John Noble. Good evening, Council. President Members of Council. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street. It's been my privilege to serve as co-chair of the Blueprint Denver Task Force for the past three years. As you heard from Kimball, we had a large and diverse task force ensuring that public engagement reached and continued to hear from communities that they're a part of. In all parts of the city. I believe that comprehensive plan 2014 meets all the requirements of the Denver Revised Municipal Code and Blueprint. Denver meets the requirements of Comprehensive Plan for adoption, namely, an inclusive community process was used to develop Blueprint. Denver And I'd like to point out the time frame for Blueprint. Denver was extended based on public requests for additional time to comment on the first public draft and an entirely new public draft that was not in the original plan. Blueprint Denver is consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of Comp Plan 2040, a very successful strategy to develop them together. Under the Denver Right family approach and blueprint, Denver demonstrates a long term view blueprint. Denver is a worthy evolution of the original blueprint. Denver for the next 20 years, whereas the original blueprint Denver set the intention of linking land use and transportation blueprint. Denver 2019 goes much further. Being co-developed with Denver moves, transit pads and trails and informed by Denver moves bikes. It sets modal priority for streets, identifies pedestrian priority areas, and deeply incorporates vision zero principles calling for complete streets policies and new street design guidelines. Whereas Blueprint Denver 2002 described a simplistic and often misunderstood concept of areas of change in areas of stability. Blueprint Denver 2019 evolves this concept into a growth strategy map more strongly emphasizing transit, transit rich corridors and centers as the key areas for sustainable growth, where Blueprint Denver 22 incorporated the concept land use map blueprint Denver 2019 goes further by providing direction for our context based zoning code and also including other recommendations. Blueprint Denver developed with extensive public input, incorporates goals, strategies and that are all summarized in an implementation matrix with specific timeframes and responsibilities, which includes the topics highest on the minds of the public today, including design, quality, accessory dwelling units and strong consistency with many matters identified in agencies point by point requests and direction in their transportation platform and zoning and planning platform that I also had the ability to participate in developing. It also captures existing practices that we have as a city but are not in any adopted plan yet. Vision Zero Neighborhood Planning Initiative and the Denver Multimodal Network Plans. This is the first time there will be an adopted plan. It's my hope and belief that in the years to come, as we do neighborhood plans, people will think first of Blueprint Denver as the plan that requires complete networks and complete neighborhoods. With that, I'd like to thank our task force and ask for your support in approving these plans. Adopting. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Tahrir. Where? Thank you. Terrence where? 2380 Albion St, Arizona, a member of the Denver Right Advisory Board. And I have to say I'm disappointed in the process and the product. The key thing that I think is missing from the plan are economics and the interplay of economic patterns, impacts and trends which are entirely missing from the discussion. The role of government is not just to provide high quality life, but to provide services and the regulatory framework to direct development where it provides the greatest public benefit. Those services are paid for primarily by property and sales taxes, but nowhere in the plan does it talk about or discuss whether or not there is enough commercially zoned land to generate sales taxes to support these services. Does the mix of residential densities create a drain or supplement the tax base? How do development economics impact the location, cost, construction, quality of new development, or the preservation of existing neighborhood character? How does zoning impact property values and does it act as an incentive for displacement of local businesses and long time residents, or as a disincentive to housing affordability and diversity? Job growth may depend upon the location and size and availability of land. Is that accessible? Does it have the capacity and the infrastructure? Does the city's infrastructure have the capacity to accommodate additional growth? If not, where will the cost be absorbed? The visual preference survey approach to developing this plan could have incorporated metrics to have given some depth and answers to these choices and decisions, but it didn't. Instead, implementation is primarily regulated or dependent upon the planning department, which is doing as best job as it can. But clearly, when you read through the plan, it talks about a multi-year and 20 year process for that to occur. I think the plan has some great components to it. It's a real format. It's easy to read, but I really think that there is additional work that needs to be done to make this plan worthwhile. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Chris Mulkey. Thank you, Chris Mulkey. 3835 North William Street number. Happy to come tonight, both as a resident of Denver as well as an avid supporter and put my my young career's work towards affordable housing development in Denver. And this plan is really exciting to see you come forth and really become the tool that we need to take forward . The wonderful efforts have already been done as part of the inclusive Denver five years, five year affordable housing plan. And and I think it really meshes well with allowing a lot of the tools that would be created to really create truly mixed income, mixed use development projects that are appropriate for each neighborhood will serve. And so then specifically around aligning with the goals of the five year housing plan, I think that one of the great suggestions in implementation follow up tools is creating informative data and mapping that allows for each council district and also each neighborhood to truly analyze where, you know, an affordable housing project and what type of affordable housing project makes sense, as well as obviously creating additional permanent supportive housing, homeless projects and where those need to be dispersed throughout Denver. And I think that another unique part of this that we do not have today that really allows the framework to be put in place for the small area of small area planning initiatives that are in a lot of the work that we're doing where existing zoning doesn't allow for the mix of uses and truly creating complete neighborhoods that we like to see specifically around transit and also larger neighborhood redevelopment efforts that by allowing and empowering residents of that specific neighborhood to come forward and really tell us what is the missing gaps of services that aren't here, that this plan would allow us to do that much more easily and and include not only affordable housing projects, but also a mix of uses that really, truly serves that neighborhood. And then as far as just a quick closing, trying to keep it quick, I mean, everyone knows land is very scarce and growth is inevitable. And we need to find a way to incorporate an appropriate level of density to really create a true inclusive Denver for the next 20 years. And I think this plan does that. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Abdul Ali. Left. All right. I'm going to call the next five up to the front. Gabriel. You. Me? Sorry about that. Christine O'Connor. Logan Meyer. The radical. Her and Ken Strobel. Gabriel is a first. Is. Good evening. My name is Gabriel, G.M. and the president, CEO of Live Oak, Colorado. We work on making sure that people in under-resourced communities and communities of color have access to healthy food and physical activity. I was honored to sit on the Task Force for Blueprint for the past three years. And I just want to also say that the the Planning, Community Development and Planning Department did a really an extraordinary job and should be commended for how well they managed such an inclusive process that really required an enormous amount of expertize, openness and tenacity. As an advocate for an expert in access to healthy food and physical activity, I can say that I am pleased with the attention paid to and creativity displayed in the policies and recommendations. Included in this blueprint. From the aspirational expectations that every Denver might be within a ten minute walk to a park and a full service grocery store to specific policy recommendations to. Maximize urban agriculture and access to locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables. To what I believe was one of the more central themes a blueprint to ensure excuse. Me, multi-modal transportation system, investing in walking, biking, rolling and public transit, and the potential of what new technology will bring us in the future. The blueprint has recommendations for and clear straight strategies as to how the health and wellness of Denver sites can be advanced through its infrastructure. I also know through my 15 years working in the health and wellness arena that the most important strategy lies in our collective ability to implement an. Inclusive and equitable vision. In my opinion, the Equity Subcommittee. Which I also had the honor of sitting on its most important contribution to the blueprint, lied in its recommendations in translating vision into implementation. Every single policy recommendation here is at risk of being implemented in a way that is not equitable or inclusive. If we are to accomplish a healthy city, a thriving city. And innovative city, we must have the wisdom and courage to engage in an inclusive process that measures success through an equity perspective. There will be many city council elections between now and the next time the blueprint will enter into this process again. Over that time period, over that time period, many conditions will change. But our commitment to inclusion in multiple cultures, to resident voice, to diverse economic growth, to multi-use infrastructure, to neighborhoods that tell us our history and inspire our future, should be, as the blueprint implies, centered around equitable opportunity. Approving this blueprint is about accepting that challenge and accepting it for our future leaders. I'm optimistic that what we've done will help accomplish that. And I appreciate your service and leadership on council. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Christine O'Connor. My name is Christine O'Connor. I'm going to make a brief personal comment and then put on my ANC hat. First of all, the narrative itself in all these plans is wonderful. It identifies everything that we've heard from people throughout the city, identifies the inequities, the displacement, the erratic gratification of affordable housing, stock congestion, loss of park acreage . It's perfect. It says it all. It's picked that up. The problem is it focuses on mitigating these impacts and spreading these impacts equitably. There's no discussion, as another gentleman already mentioned, analyzing whether what rate of growth we can tolerate, how much water we have, whether it's sustainable. Those are the things that I think are missing. So now I'm going to put my ANC hat on to make way for Loreto, who's going to read the ANC statement. And I'm just going I'm the chair co-chair of the Zoning and Planning Subcommittee, and I've been on air and sea for about ten years. And I'm going to read the list of the neighborhoods that make up ANC Alamo's policy to ask more. PARC Baker Stark. Bellevue Hale. Berkeley Bluebird. Bonnie Brae. Capitol Hill Chun. Chappie Park. Neighborhood Association. Cherry Creek. East Cherry Creek Neighborhood Association. Cherry Creek North Cherry Hills Vista Community Association City Park Fans City Park West Cole Neighborhood Association. Colfax Avenue Business Improvement District College View Concho TownHome Congress Park Neighbors Cooke Park Merrell Corey Merrell Country Club Historic Neighborhood Cross Community Coalition Krammer Park Hilltop Civic Cultural Arts Residential Organization Curtis Park Neighbors Driving Park East Colfax Neighborhood Organization Eastside R.A. O'Leary and Swansea Neighborhood Association. Fans of Washington Park Fans of Cheesman Park. Golden Triangle Creative District. Greater Park Hill Community. Harkness Heights Harvie Park Highland United Neighbors Historic Montclair Humboldt Street Hutcherson Hills Inspiration Point Jefferson Park Alma Lincoln Park Larimer Place Lower Downtown LoDo and a Lowry United Neighborhoods Mayfair Neighbors Montebello 2020 Old San Rafael Neighborhood Overland Park Platte Park People's Association Rosedale Harvard Gulch. Sloan's Lake Citizens Group. Sloan's Lake Neighborhood Association. South City Park Neighborhood Association South Hilltop South More Park East South More Park South Stokes Place Green Bowers Sun Valley Swallow Hill The Unthinkable United North North Metro Denver University Hills University Hills North University Neighbors Uptown on the Hill Virginia Village Washington Park Wilshaw East East 38th West Colfax West Highland West Washington Park and Woodson Downs and sorry. Good times. They made it okay. You made it just under the wire. Thank you. Next up, Logan Meyer. Hi there. My name's Logan Meyer, resident of Capitol Hill. Denver is at a critical point for addressing its housing crisis, its role in future environmental sustainability and economic opportunity for residents. And the Blueprint Denver plan is a step in the right direction. A 2018. Article in the Denver Post had Denver growing by. 100,000 people in the last seven years, or roughly 20% since 2010. This is despite Denver only adding 22,000 housing units, according to the U.S. Census Bureau over the same period. Even if all those housing units were generously two bedroom units, we have where of the other 55,000 new Denver sites without new units set up residents, simply stated . Whether or not Denver leadership addresses the housing crisis, people will continue to move here, and this change and diverse population will continue to be the result of people doing what they have always done in cities, which is simply making it work by living with more roommates, often moving in with family, often spare bedrooms are often an unpermitted accessory apartments. These are natural adaptations that have happened in cities since the beginning of time are only natural reactions to natural market forces. Only in Denver, the market forces have been compounded by inherited, onerous and restrictive housing policies, limiting the number of unrelated people in a single unit. Technically, the only two people and requiring a bureaucracy for building zoning and change of occupancy units that are quite simply too sophisticated and costly for the vast majority of Denver residents who could benefit from legal adaptations to the housing supply crisis. In addition to creating a windfall for large, legally sophisticated developers who are able to navigate the official processes, this has significantly contributed to the soaring housing costs affecting many long term residents. It is important to remember that making policies that limit the housing supply does not mean that people will stop moving here. It simply means that residents will get displaced and or will unnecessarily put tenants in illegal housing conditions. Today, you will hear from people claiming that Blueprint Denver plan is too fast and that they managed to sleep through the last three years of community input development in countless meetings. To those grappling with the effects of the housing crisis and economic inequality, it is a step in the right direction and long overdue, as current conditions will only continue to further stunt economic prosperity. As large rents continue to move from poor to wealthy, young to old and local residents to large out of city corporations. Ultimately, Denver is one of the lucky cities in America that is attracting new creative talent that is moving to the city. Whether the city's leadership decides to get out in front and lead from the front or not from the sick for the sake of Denver's residents, families and its future, I sincerely hope Denver's leadership will heed the call to lead from the front and make this city into an example of what a modern, complete city for all can be. Thank you. Next up, Loretta Koehler. Hi. I'm Loretta Kaylor. I'm vice president of ANC. And member of. Baker Historic Neighborhood Association. And you heard from Christine talk about. All of our neighborhoods that are part of ANC. ANC as a cooperation is in a neighborhood. Cooperation is an organization of active invested citizens who promote the integration and promotion of a healthy, strong Denver. So in understanding. That we had a resolution. On February 9th, that resolution passed from the majority of our our members present at that time and with some concurrence later on email. And so let me read that resolution. The resolution, although it says April 15th, the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Denver, right blueprint. Denver and the Denver Game Plan for Healthy City are scheduled to be voted on April 22nd. Now, the Denver Right plan documents are volume is detailed and complicated, whereas collectively the Denver Right plan documents, more than eight documents total more than 1000 pages and over 100 goals and 300 policies and recommendations in more than 450 strategies. The maps crafted for individual and neighborhoods and subdistricts of the city are complex and require layering. Of. One on top of another to evaluate the implications. Whereas there were multiple requests for staff to come and meet with neighborhoods throughout the city to explain very detailed information in the documents and proposed changes in local neighborhoods. Whereas such meetings with neighborhoods to explain impacts of these documents have not occurred throughout the city. The city's official website listing information received through citizens and neighborhood comments is missing many individual comments that were formally submitted, submitted information, identified changes made to the plan. Documents for the second draft are divorced from the materials, listing specific requests for changes and additions received from the public. Whereas these plan documents continue to be incomplete and vague in terms of addressing impacts on the city's budget and work program is especially with more than 450 proposed strategies, Denver citizens need more time, thoroughly and intelligently to review and provide meaningful input upon the Denver Ray plan documents and all city council members and the mayor up for reelection on May 7th. And the mayor. But two city council members have challengers. Basically, the Denver Ray plan documents will be Denver's guide. To be used. For the next 20 years, among other things, to guide decision making by city officials, staff, citizens, etc. And these comments basically just say that there's too much for one public meeting for somebody to sit down and go through 1000 documents. That can never happen. Thank you. Next up, make it through. It can support and I think I'm going to call it the next five before you get started. So the next five, if you could come up with front bench, Sara McCarthy, Fred Glick, Charlotte Winsberg, Perry BURNETT and Sherry Way, go ahead. Thanks. Good evening. Denver City Council. My name is Ken Trouble. I've been a Denver resident for 30 years and I currently live in the Highland neighborhood. I fully support the new comp plan and blueprint. Denver. I particularly like Blueprint Denver's conceptual framework of complete neighborhoods as opposed to the suburbs where land uses are usually so segregated and dispersed that everyone must drive everywhere. Urban areas offer a more fine grained mix of land uses housing options and compact building forms, which leads to increased walking, biking and transit usage. The foundation of any great city. Denver already. Denver already has a legacy of complete neighborhoods in many parts of the city. Through Blueprint Denver's new Complete Neighborhoods Framework, we can help ensure that every Denver neighborhood can welcome their fair share of new residents, whether they are renters or owners, or whether they want to live in a single family detached, home attached, or multi-family homes or an accessory dwelling units. And that all residents have some neighborhood retail offices and other uses nearby that they can get to without a car. Ad in blueprints. Vision for a multi-modal transportation network supported by the recently completed Denver moves, transit pad and trails and bike plans. And we have the smart and sustainable approach we need to allow Denver to continue to grow and accommodate new residents to live in the city. Finally, I'd mentioned that over the past several years I attended several Denver right public meetings and completed several. Online surveys to provide input into the playing process, which I found to be thorough and engaging. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight, and I urge you to support both the new comp plan and blueprint. Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Sara McCarthy. Good evening, city council. Thank you. I'm Sara McCarthy. Do you still tell us tell where you live? 300 block of South Clarkson Street. Blueprint was originally passed in 2002, but without changes to the zoning code, the fullness of blueprints implementation couldn't occur. That changed. The zoning code changed in 2010. Yet zoning variances and code changes continue unabated. I have questions for which I am waiting for a direct answer relative to blueprint the missing middle. Are we talking wages or are we talking housing? If housing, then why are our smaller, more affordable houses being demolished at an alarming rate? Other cities new plans mention this concept of missing middle. What are the research studies that were used as a basis for placing such an important on this concept? Transit. A recent book uses Denver as an example of cities with transit systems built where people were not. Have city planners analyzed this book and its thesis to determine if the results are accurate for Denver? Folks along federal are shared in West 38th Avenue or Martin Luther King are still hoping for their transit systems if Denver is a glaring example of transit in the wrong place. Why does this plan follow the current transit locations to build out our density? West Washington Park was redlined in the 1930s, like Lama Lincoln Park and Curtis Park with their many single family homes. People, though, couldn't get mortgages for a $25,000 home in the West Wash Park neighborhood along South Pearl Street in the mid 1970s. Yet this plan suggests that single family homes are segregationist. Based on what research results? Then in the late seventies, a group of residents banded together and got a federal grant to upgrade the houses. And they're building it up to building code standards. These efforts continued with one way street conversions the Mountain View Ordinance, Broadway marketplace, Gates redevelopment. Yet these efforts brought popularity, and the West Wash Park neighborhood is used as an example of the kind of neighborhood people want. We are characterized as not wanting any change when what we want is predictability and maintaining the quality of life that we've worked hard to generate and so many others find popular. I have become skeptical after participating in the first blueprint process. Let's settle on the comprehensive plan before codifying underlying plans like the new group blueprint. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Fred Glick. Good evening, Mr. President, members of city council. My name is Fred Glick, 3850 York Street. I'm here this evening to encourage you to approve, without any further delay, the group of plans before you collectively known as Denver. Right. You've read the reports, you've seen the presentations. You know how many staff hours have gone into this? How many thousands of Denver residents have participated in the process? It is unfortunate that this process into which so many have put so much time, energy and thought has become politicized and come to be seen by some as a way to further an anti-incumbency agenda. As a member of the Board of Clayton United R.A., I would like to make clear that the Clayton United R.A. has certainly not voted to oppose or delay the approval of the Denver Wright plans. When the draft came out last August as an R.A., we reached out to the Denver Rite Team with questions about how the plans might impact our neighborhood. One of the principal city planners leading the process arranged to come and speak with our members, as well as a few neighbors from just outside our boundaries. David came with his daughter in tow as to accommodate people with work obligations. The meeting was held in the evening, he explained. He answered questions. He listened. We submitted comments that were acknowledged, and as I read the subsequent draft, they appear to have been heard. Some have suggested that postponing the adoption of these plans, or even as some have advocated, scrapping the work that has been done and starting the process over should be done because there was not enough time for people to read the plans, that there was not enough opportunity for residents voices to be heard. Let's not kid ourselves. This is politics talking, and it is an insult to the thousands of residents who volunteered to be part of the process, showed up for public meetings, responded online, read the plans and took the time to give their input. It is an insult to the city staff who have led this process, who have done the research, who have read the tens of thousands of comments residents submitted. Staff who have worked nights to bring the process into Denver's neighborhoods. Staff who have listened and worked to make these plans reflect what they heard. I urge you to do the right thing and approve these plans tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Charlotte Winsberg. Can even you? Members of council. My name's Charlotte Winsberg. I live in the 500 block of South Sherman Street in West Washington Park. I sound like an echo of Sarah, but I'll try to be. I've worked on the blueprint for nearly three years since the first advisory committee was put together, and there's much to be admired in advocating for equity in neighborhoods and for complete neighborhoods hoods that serve the needs of residents. But there are some issues that give me concerns. The urban and general urban contexts are already quite dense. The lots are smaller than the exurban and suburban contexts, making them more densely populated. When I guesstimate it from the last census that we had probably around 9400 residences within our boundaries in the last ten years that our edges, which are Spear, Broadway, I-25 and Downey, we have seen built or permitted almost 5000 new units. That doesn't include the Gates and Broadway station properties on the west side of Broadway that have yet to started the redevelopment. We we've paid at the office with ink on our interior. There is no missing middle. The middle, the duplexes, the small apartments, the little row houses have been spread throughout for over a hundred years. We don't need accessory dwelling units to give lots of good and affordable spaces for people to live. We do suggest that we should now allow adus in all residential zones when we have worked to accommodate density in large redevelopments around us and co-operated with it. It wasn't an adversarial situation or will be incredibly detrimental to our quality of life. I moved to West Washington Park 35 years ago. Then much of the housing stock was often worn outdated, fair code and code violations because of the neglect from the city. The one way streets. Everybody in that neighborhood either lived on a one way street or was one block off. And then, as Sara said, many Larry areas were even redlined. But by the efforts of the people who live there, it's become a vibrant, livable, popular neighborhood. So I'm just speaking to ADAS at this point and saying that allowing them in all residential neighborhoods will slowly take them back to investor owned rentals that will slowly deteriorate as they began to do in the 1920s and thirties and had reached the state of near blight by the 1960s in our neighborhood. Think about that, please. Thank you. Next up, Perry BURNETT. Happy Earth Day of council members. Thank you, Councilman Cashman, for your your resolution. My name is Perry BURNETT. My husband, Dan Slattery, and I have lived in Platt Park in the same 1885 home, raised two adult children there. For 35 years, I've worked as an activist and in public service for sustainability, climate and for mobility. For the past three years, I've been very honored to serve on the Blueprint Advisory Board and no other collective endeavor and I've been involved in many have I experienced such depth of inquiry, sincerity of community engagement, professionalism and patience by our city staff, and such dedication of volunteers. You'll hear about equity, housing affordability, design and mobility, all issues that are explicitly addressed by the plan and blueprint. UPDATE You also heard some of the details in the Environment Mental Resilience Section. What I want to talk about tonight is that I think with this plan, Denver is setting a new standard for urban planning. That is, climate forward. Complete neighborhoods will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All neighborhoods in Denver deserve to be places like Platte Park, where more people can afford to live and meet most of our daily needs with an A walk, bike or transit ride. Complete networks will reduce greenhouse gas emissions networks and streets that are designed to prioritize the convenience and safety of walking, bicycling and transit will reduce vehicle miles traveled together. And this is really important. Complete neighborhoods and complete networks will increase social interaction between people. Our relationships with our neighbors will be closer. Our capacity to work together will be deeper, and our resilience to disruption will be stronger. The Denver Right plans envision our city in 2040, the same year envisioned by the recent report in October by the U.N. Scientific Panel on Climate Change. The report is urgent. They warn that in the next 21 years, lower temperature increases than previously predicted would produce more extreme weather responses. Rational scientist us that, quote, avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has no documented historic precedent. Back in 1989, I was working in the climate change arena, worked on a symposium in Sundance, Utah, called Greenhouse Glasnost. We knew enough at that time to take action. There is no more time for delay. The 2040 comprehensive plan and Blueprint were three years in the making, three years of research, analysis, outreach, discussion, mapping, listening, innovation and revision. The proposed plan charts a way forward, and there will be opportunities to improve it as plans. They mean nothing until we begin the hard work of budgeting tonight, even after three years, our work is only beginning. Let's keep let's keep moving. Please support both a comprehensive plan, the the Blueprint Initiative and Councilman Cashman's amendments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Sherri Weight. Oh, and I'm going to call the next five up to the frontbench Lindsay Fender, Charlie Bush, Tamir Goldstein, Jesse Paris and Pam Joyner. Come on up. Go ahead. Good evening, Council President Clark. My name is Sherry Way. I live at 1231 South Ogden Street, and I am the president of the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association. Sorry. For those of you who are familiar with our neighborhood association, you may know that we have spent significant volunteer hours both from our neighborhood association itself and getting input from our community and residents within our boundaries. As Charlotte Winsberg noted, we have approximately 9400 residential and business units and largely residential within our boundaries its very large district encompassing the Spears statistical neighborhood in West Washington Park. I feel like I spent the last 20 years working on plants, working, commencing with the T.Rex plan, the original blueprint . Denver The zoning maps. We have the Broadway station area plan, the Alameda Station Area Plan, and the Louisiana Parole Station plan all within our boundaries are on our perimeter. So we are no novice to planning. We have reviewed each and every iteration of this blueprint. Denver the plan. Denver moves game and game plan. And whoever said it's over 1000 pages. That's right. Multiply it by four. And that's the amount of work we put in our neighborhood. Association is not now, nor has it ever been anti-growth. Rather, we are smart growth. We are directed growth. You asked us where do we want to see growth in our community? And we've told you we don't want to see growth within the interiors of our boundaries. We have supported and will support it and will continue to support growth on our perimeters. We've supported extreme density at the Broadway station, Alameda Station, and we also have density at the Louisiana Pearl Station, which is a walk up station. So obviously that's lesser. We were accommodated and thank you very much, David Jaspers, Shira, Sara Showalter and your teams with a number of our comments. And I think they worked very hard to address them. There were some instances where we couldn't be accommodated and in those instances we sought assurances. I'll read those assurances to you now and ask that you confirm them. First, we were assured that future zoning decisions about increased density will respect our neighborhood plans small area and the small area plans we participated in. That's very important to us. As carte blanche density will destroy the character of our neighborhood. Secondly, we've been told that the appropriateness of proposed zoning and map amendments in our low density residential area will be based on our existing and future neighborhood plans. And not just on having a duplex. One or two blocks justifies putting a duplex on every blocks. We've been invited to create overlay districts. We've done that. We will ask for your support when they bring them forward. Lastly, we ask for future neighborhood plans that we, to the extent we have two or three neighborhoods, that our individual plans be accepted and not something that I'm sorry, one size fits all. Thank you very much. Next up, Lindsay Fender. Last chance, Lindsey Fender. All right, Charlie Bush. First of all, I want to say that I am a lifelong project manager and I have had to run many meetings and this one is just amazing. So I think for all of you that have to listen to us talk very quickly. One comment. I am ALS. My name is Charlie Bush. I live at 715 South Sherman. I live two blocks from I-25 and Broadway Light Rail Station and next to Lincoln. I am also part of West Wash Park. The the research that we did when somebody was talking about it to use, I heard people around me going are all issues are great. The research that we did in Portland showed that one neighborhood that went total 80 use actual home ownership with homeowners living there reduced from 80% to less than 50% because it became an investors neighborhood. And the quality of the homes actually over the ten year period went down because they were all renters and the quality of the neighborhood was destroyed. So my question is, when you're considering the complete neighborhoods, at what point is it kind of a tipping point for just investment and not for people who want to live there? We have a complete neighborhood. We have townhomes, apartment buildings. Our price points are between $200,000 and up to 1 million. I am here because I have been on a 20 year journey to try to get Denver to be a more walkable place. I lived in D.C. for ten years, very walkable, lots of transit. Here in Denver, we allow patios, sidewalks, patios to be drilled into sidewalks, which then become part of the buildings, and it becomes an impediment to people being able to go down the street. If you look at the pictures I just handed you, this is at the corner of Sixth and Grant. There's a patio there that just jumps out into the sidewalk. You can't get around the patio because when you go around the patio, you run right into an electrical box. If you try to get into the electrical box, there's only two places to step into the street or into the ramp that is there for 80 for the ADA purposes. I can stand and balance quite well, but I've been on crutches a number of times in my life and it is a just a dangerous corner for anybody that has balance problems. If you look at the next two pictures below, it is the corner of the Washington Park Grille. The part that you see that was cement 20 years ago was part of their exterior patio. They have grown and and gotten to the point where they have actually put up a brick exterior and now they have two additional patios on the exterior of those original patios. This is what we allow in Denver. My frustration with these plans and David Gasper just tried to tell me that the Pedersen Trails plan really is in part a blueprint. If you look at the second page, it's page 17 of the PEDs and Trails plan, and it gives the limits for sidewalks. Harry, let's do sidewalks. We had somebody here and I'm going to run out of time. We get to shorten sidewalks because of patios. We need to be able to have sidewalks. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Tamir Goldstein. Tamir. All right. Jesse Paris. Jesse Paris represented for Denver, home of Salau. Black starts a movement for self-defense, a positive outcome for social change. And I'm on top of the ballot for at large. Make sure you vote by May 7th. I want to read this resolution that was mentioned in the Westword a few months ago. So I'm going to read the passage from the Westword article about this Denver right comp plan 2040. In this resolution, Denver Ink declares the incoming mayor and city council members cannot be held. I got to go back. Sorry, wrong page. On February 9th, Denver Inner Neighborhood Cooperation Neighborhood Association, otherwise known as Denver IOC, passed a resolution urging the city to pump the brakes on its comprehensive plan 2040, which covers everything from areas of the city designated or not, for growth and development. That part of the plan is known as Blueprint Denver to how the city should build out roads, parks and transportation options for the coming years. The sheer volume of the Denver Wright planning documents have been daunting for the MO for most neighborhood associations and those insensitive citizens to respond to thoroughly and intelligently by city set deadlines. Denver IOC declares in a news bulletin released after the passage of the resolution, which was supported by 80% of its members. That documents total more than a thousand pages, with over 100 goals, nearly 300 policies, recommendations and more than 450 strategies addressing the neighborhood to 2040. As Denver population increases, the plan 2040 is scheduled to be held and voted on Denver City Council today being Earth Day, April 22nd, just in time for the new election. The election and its resolution, deborah IOC declares the incoming mayor and city council members cannot be held accountable accountable for the Denver Wright plan. Plans passed immediately prior to their election. This is something that will guide us for 20 years, and it's happening way too fast, says Drew, Dr., a architect, president of the area, and Suozzi, a neighborhood association and delegate at large for Denver, AC. Something of such impact, that long impact ought to be carefully considered. Not sure. Claims that drafts of the current plan 2040 only include cherry picks, feedback from community meetings with residents instead of some other common suggestions, like requiring stricter design rules for new buildings. As for development, Delta maintains that the current plan is too vague. I will say that the Denver right documents are aspirational and very lofty goals which are unimpeachable, sustainable health. All of the things I'm sorry, but we love about Denver. Vote on this. I urge you to vote no on this. You need to give it to the new council. Let us decide. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Pam Grier. Thank you, Pam. Designer one, two, two, one, one is 52nd place in Denver. 80239. I didn't know I was signing up to speak, but I'm glad you. Called my name. Look, I am very, very happy with the plan. Living in Bel-Air for 45 years, I'm just really, really pleased to see something coming our way. I would just hope that once they start actually doing the work and develop it, develop the plans that they really consider the voices that they heard, you know, like well. That they just really consider it. And that equity is number one on the list. Thank you. Thank you. Next, five of you could come up to the front. Kyle Lisi, Steven Sweat, David Nye, Dimitri Zorro, Tony and James Wardle and Steven Sherwood. You are a first. Oh, I'm sorry. It was Kyle lives here for. I'm sorry, Kyle. Lazy of first. Hello. I'm Kyle Lacy and I live in Capitol Hill. Sorry, mine's going to be really short, but I really support the this plan. And I really hope you all. Thank you very much, Steven Sweat. Yeah, I'll I'll keep it short as well. And I support strongly support Blueprint Denver and I hope the council will pass the resolution. Thank you very much, David, I. I'm David Nigh from 91/14 Street in Denver. I'm here to speak today. For those who are too afraid to cross Colfax, too afraid to cross fear or too afraid to cross Broadway to make it here to this meeting tonight to walk across, of course. And for those who couldn't make it here because of busses that only run every 30 minutes, sometimes on time, and we're prevented from coming here tonight because of those. I'm here to just say I strongly support this plan for obvious reasons, and I urge you to pass it today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Dimitri is Czar Von. I'll let you say your last name. It's Dimitri Zavala at me. I live in 1950. North Logan in Uptown. And I'm. I'm here today to urge council to please support Blueprint Denver. I think it's been we're approaching close to 20 years since the last blueprint. And since that time, Denver has grown from about 500,000 people to about six 7680. I think, you know, this process has been going on for about three years and a and delaying it is simply a tactic to, you know, to stop growth. And I think what we need to understand is that growth is not the enemy. It's the lack of housing that's the problem. As long as we have a robust economy, people are going to want to come here for the opportunity. They're going to come here for the for the sunlight and the mountains. And you're not going to stop that. What you're going to end up doing. And here's a quick anecdote. I immigrated to this country in 1998. I move to Boulder in about 93. My parents were looking for a house in Boulder. And Boulder, as you know, is very restrictive on housing. And they decided to deny building permits that year. As a result, they moved over ten miles away. And for the last 30 years, they've been commuting, adding to the to the carbon footprint and adding to the pollution of this area. If we go the direction of Boulder, we're going to see housing prices skyrocket. I believe their their average housing prices, 1.5 or above. That's that's absolutely insane. We need to build enough to to house everybody. And how's everybody equitably? I think it's very appropriate that today's Earth Day, I think cities are at the forefront of of combating greenhouse gas emissions and and pollution in general. I think by providing the opportunity to live close to where you work or close to transit so you can make it to work and not be forced to drive. I think it's it's very important. And I think the cities such as Denver need to be leading the way. Again, I urge you to please support this and pass it today and don't delay. Thank you very much. Thank you, James Waddell. And then I'm going to call the next five up, David Schultz, Shane Wright, Jill Loken, Tori, Sarah Center Hall and Darrell Watson. If you want to come up to the front, go ahead. All right. Thank you. My name is James Waddell. I live in Fine District nine and I'm the executive director of by Denver. We are also part of the Demonstrates Partnership Coalition. I also represent the voice of over 10,000 people who bike every day in our city, on our streets that are often dangerous emerging. You ought to adopt the updated version of Blueprint in Denver tonight. I've said publicly that Denver is the gold medalist in the planning Olympics and a sometimes finalist in the implementation Olympics. I think if we pass Blueprint Denver, all of the plans that lead up on the Blueprint Denver will have a better chance of implementation if we don't pass Blueprint Denver. I can see us just stagnating and a lot of these plans are just gathering dust and dust. You know, when the original version of Blueprint Denver was passed, it was 20 years ago. We're in a very, very different city. And to sit on that plan essentially for another two or three years doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This is a land use and transportation plan. So I've heard a lot about land use, but I want to make sure that we all recognize this is a transportation plan as well. And that, you know, if we do just leave this, our streets are going to become more congested and more dangerous. We need to do something. Okay. One of the plans that comes out of this is the Denver Moves Bicycle Plan. It calls for a complete buildout of the network. And I think a lot of the plans, if they're just left in isolation and not building up under one plan, we're going to continue to have this mishmash of of disconnected streets and unsafe streets. I would also say that the public process, from what I've seen, has been very, very strenuous and very in-depth. A three year process shouldn't be needs that. And I would just say that plays on all of the work that everybody's done creating this plan and adopt Blueprint Denver tonight. Thank you. Thank you, David Schultz. Thank you, Mr. President. And Council. My name is David Schulz. I live at 1376 Raleigh Street in the West Colfax neighborhood. And first, I just want to say that I'm in favor of not only the comp plan, but the Denver I plan as well. I believe that this has been a long and thoughtful process. And we, my wife and I and I've been to some of these events and believe that the three years is plenty of time to go through this. And is it perfect? Certainly nothing is perfect, but there's a lot of work to be done still with us. So I have a company that specializes in building accessory dwelling units. So we hear from people constantly about Adus and what they can do for a city. We've traveled to Portland and many other places that have more progressive views on how to use, and we continue to see that this could be a very integral part to the affordability and equity bit of what the city is trying to attain. And I would encourage anybody that does not think this I will come and show you the stuff that we've built and the stuff in the neighborhoods and how they fade into the background and fit with the neighborhood feel of the various neighborhoods. It's the 80 ups especially is I think can be a key component to the affordability aspect and especially with the proliferation of more. It's a simple supply and demand. We need additional small units. We've gone from household size of over 4 to 2. And so we don't have enough housing, small housing especially and 80 use can be a way to provide some of this affordability that we're sorely lacking in the city at the moment. So I'm asking my councilman, Espinosa, and all the council people to support these plants. Thank you. Thank you, Shane. Right. Shane. Great. All right, Joe, we'll continue. Sarah Sanders off. Hi. I'm Sarah. Under half. I live at 1378 Raleigh Street. And I'm also asking to that this plan be approved this evening. I personally live in an accessory dwelling unit, and I'd like to kind of focus on that tonight. There's been a lot of good comments that have been made that I also feel supportive of that it's not necessary for me to repeat with me being able to live in this. ADU At 1378 Raleigh It is an affordable housing opportunity for me to live in the city and not be pushed out into the suburbs or actually be a Denver resident. And I do feel like 80 years will continue to help more people stay within our cities. The Adus they do help preserve our neighborhood character. And you do have to really in order to even see these, you need to be driving up and down the alleys because it's hard to even see them from the streets. So they do really fade into the background. And I think that they do also allow us to have a more inclusive neighborhood where we see we're seeing a lot of people right now being pushed out of neighborhoods. Adus are an answer to that, to be able to allow more people to be there. And I hear a lot of comments and people being worried about parking with all of the ideas that are that my company has built. We've built over we built ten. We have five under construction right now. All of the garage spaces, all of the garages have that where we have built these adus people were using them for parking. It was basically a big storage shed. And by the 80 use that we're building, we're building garages with living quarters above and we're actually adding parking most of or more, seeing an additional 2 to 3 parking spots that were never used before. So I'm asking that this plan be approved this evening by all of you and my councilman. Espinosa. Thank you. Thank you, Darrell Watson. And of course, the next five up will cover Lubbock. Jeff hopping and back people and human. Naomi Gold, Gornik and Leslie Tori Gorski. Come on up. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Darryl Watson. Thank you so much, Councilman Clark and members of council for holding its public hearing. I live at 2625 Lafayette Street. I've been a 23 year resident of the Whittier neighborhood, and I stand here today in support of both the Comprehensive Plan 2040 as well as Blueprint Denver. I also wear a separate hat. I've had the honor for the last three years serving as the co-chair, along with the great amazing Florence Navarro for the game plan for a healthy city process. I'm here to speak really as to how these plans and this planning process intersected and how that actually evolved into my very strong support for both of these plans. First and foremost, a comprehensive plan, 2040. Not only did that the Blueprint Denver plan, but also the game plan for a healthy city to focus all the strategies for each of those plans really were derived from the comprehensive plan. I think this was a very unique structure that the city and county of Denver engaged in when they decided to focus on the the Denver right planning process. To say that equity was a priority would be to to under highlight the importance of equity, not just in the comprehensive plan or in Blueprint Denver, but also within the game plan, something as simple as within the Blueprint Denver to highlight the ten minute walk or roll to a park in prior iterations of blueprint or land use planning. Such discussions as such highlights were not included because the idea of having a continuous, seamless planning process in which all of our plans build on each other really, truly was not the crux of the process for land use and transportation planning. But the Blueprint Denver plan to Comprehensive Plan for 2040 included those thoughts because we knew that they knew that this process needs to build on each other in order for the city to continue to grow and to be healthy. I stand here tonight to say that each of the three factors that were highlighted by staff as to what City Council stated that they will use to identify whether Blueprint Denver, a comprehensive plan 2040 were successful have been met and those specifics were articulated by staff. So I won't repeat those points. I would like to speak just specifically to one point concerning the thousand pages of paper. We know that this process has been a three year process. Thousands of us have engaged in this process. We thank you for engaging with us tonight to listen to us. And we encourage your support for both plans and hopefully as Blueprint Game Plan comes down the pike that you also support us as well. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Will Karlovic. Yes. The name is Will Karlovic. I live at 2828 Zuni Street in North Denver. I'm here tonight to represent all in Denver, and I'm also here representing myself as a concerned citizen, as well as a person that has actually three master's degrees, two of which are in city planning and urban design. And I've spent 33 years doing real estate development, community development, economic development and urban planning. And last year, I actually started the Denver and Colorado's first social impact real estate development company to build more affordable housing and community serving development. So you might say I know a little bit about this subject tonight. I'd like to read a message from the all in all in Denver board. All in Denver is a nonprofit advocacy organization that believes Equitable C is where all people have the opportunity to prosper and thrive. In July of 19 of 2016, All in Denver offered the city of Denver a list of guiding principles as they were initiating this three year process to start updating. Blueprint Denver. The five guiding principles that we urge the city at that time were as follows one to incorporate a broad set of community values. Two To prepare, better prepare the city for growth. Three To shape a vision of the city beyond just the physical form. Four To provide more sophisticated version of land use and transportation planning beyond the old binary framework of either areas of change or areas of stability. And five, to emphasize innovations in housing, equity also was an important criteria of ours, and we actually applaud the city for using that as a lens for the entire process. We have reviewed the final draft of Blueprint Denver Document, as well as all the conclusions, values, policies and recommendations contained within it. And for all these reasons, we therefore actually support Blueprint Denver and urged the council to pass it tonight without any delay. One last thought. We actually find it a little ironic that the critical voices asking to delay the vote are the ones that who are also concerned about land use and development patterns that are alarming people. Without passing this new blueprint, Denver is merely going to perpetuate and continue to increase the bad, bad planning patterns we have. And we believe that tonight is the time to implement more progressive and equitable change and enlightened growth patterns. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jeff, Jeff hopping back. Hi. My name is Jeff Offenbach. I'm a resident of Congress Park. I live at 1350 Clayton Street, and I'm here to urge the council to pass this plan for two primary reasons. First, as a matter of principle, this plan is the result of three years of input hundreds of hours, if not thousands of hours of staff time , work of hundreds of volunteers and input of thousands of community members. It's a was an incredibly thoughtful process that I believe should be respected. And I object to the idea that more time will lead to a better outcome or that the plan should be politicized in the way that it has. Also, as a matter of policy, I believe that this plan is a step forward for a city. I represents a step towards equality, towards inclusion, towards sustainability and frankly, towards better design. And in particular, I'm encouraged by the push towards more missing middle housing strategies. I think that we have an affordability crisis in our city and this is a really thoughtful and low impact way to address those concerns and address those real problems that we have. I know this because I live in a neighborhood and on a block that epitomizes the missing middle. Our block has three low rise apartment buildings. We have two duplexes. We have 14 single family homes. We have eight Adu, and we have two for taxes. It is the missing middle and it's a lovely place to live. It's diverse. We have a million and a half dollar house and we have Section eight housing diverse, different people that live there, different income levels. And frankly, I think that more people in our city should have the opportunity to live in such a wonderful neighborhood and in a connected community like we have it at 13th and Clayton . I ask the council to support this plan and approve it today. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Benjamin. Good evening, Mr. President. Council members. My name is Peter van Leuven and policy director of Bicycle Colorado. I'm also chair of the Denver Streets Partnership. The partnership is a coalition of community organizations working together to advocate for people friendly streets and Denver streets where walking, biking and transit are the first choice of transportation for all people, no matter their age, income level or ability. We share the belief our city street designs directly support our community, health our streets, connect us to jobs, to school services, amenities, our neighbors and neighborhoods. Our coalition includes many nonprofits, among them all in Denver. Groundwork Denver. Bike Denver. Walk Denver. Bicycle Colorado. Colorado. Public Interest Research Group. Colorado Cross Disability Coalition. The AARP and the American Heart Association. We provided regular feedback to the Blueprint Denver Project Management Team to community planning and development, and also to Denver Public Works throughout the blueprint process, including multiple face to face meetings and at least two formal letters with a very long list of specific recommendations. We also promoted public engagement opportunities to our memberships, and our involvement dates back to 2016. We're very happy to tell you that the project team adopted the majority of our recommendations. And in particular, we're excited about these elements. Priority streets for walking, biking and transit. A priority order that focuses on the most efficient transportation modes with people walking at the top of the pyramid and personal vehicles at the bottom. Vision Zero and Improved Street Design Strategies. A framework for complete networks that recognizes our streets should be designed for vulnerable users like users like youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. And then finally, strategies to pursue more long term funding for mobility options. So as advocates for street safety, walking, biking and transit, we know Denver needs a land use and transportation plan that recognizes the importance of completing mobility networks and establishes walking, biking and transit as priorities. We ask you to vote yes tonight so planning can transition to action. Please give Denver the blueprint it needs to build our safe street networks. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Naomi and Maha call Nick. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Naomi Mahogany. When I grew up, I walked to elementary middle school most days. This is partially because my parents both worked full time jobs and weren't able to take me to and from school. This was also because I was fortunate to live in a neighborhood where the sidewalks were complete and connected and I could then get around to the places I enjoyed the most. Enjoying the scenery I love the most, caring the things that I love the most. Walking to school as a child helped me shape my perspective on mobility and transportation issues. I know from my personal experiences that complete streets, protected bike lanes, access to park and sidewalks that accommodate all users can surely help children grow up to be successful and healthy. That young girl with the dream of really trying to serve and help our community groups who serve as a committee advocacy director for the American Heart Association. So I'm here on behalf of my organization and also the Denver Streets Partnership urging you to adopt Blueprint Denver Plan. We ask that you adopt this plan because it helps really guide the next 20 years values specific to complete neighborhoods and complete transportation networks. Land use decisions through the lens of social equity. Sidewalks that connect the community to. Parks, public. Transportation and schools. Roads that include designated and protected bike lanes and streets that accommodate all people and can help us see safely and actively get around our community. When our children can play and either walk or bike to school parks or playgrounds, they're more likely to be healthy and do better in school. A study from the American Journal Preventative Medicine assessed 154 communities using what they called a community walkability index. And through that research, they found that youth were more likely to be healthy and less likely to be obese if they lived in walkable communities. Adopting Blueprint Denver will help ensure a framework for complete networks that recognizes that all streets are designed for the most vulnerable users, including our youth. Therefore, I ask that you all vote yes to adopt the plan, and we look forward to working with you in the city in. Adopting this plan. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Leslie Tore Gorski. Hi. Thank you, Leslie. Terry Gorski, 1754 Olive Street. I'm with the East Side Reno. We do not agree with the alliance's. Statement of. Postponing this vote. We're strongly in favor of the Blueprint Denver plan, and we strongly urge you to pass it tonight. On a personal note. I'm very excited for ideas. I think they absolutely belong. Well, I think we need to look at density additions in all neighborhoods, not just analysis district, not just in Rafael's district. But all across Denver. So I'll be back. Next week to talk on behalf of this small, tiny houses. Which also belong in our neighborhood of East Colfax. Thank you very much. We strongly hope that you. Pass this initiative tonight. Thank you. All right. The next five, if you could come up, John, Ricky, Teresa, Saint Peter Ryan, Keany, Andrea Byrnes and Adam Astrof. And John. You're up first. Hello. Good evening. My name is John Ricky. I live at 2650 West 13th Avenue in Sun Valley. I don't claim Sun Valley as my own. I've only lived there for about a year. Before that, I lived in Capitol Hill. Before that, I lived in Clayton Congress Park, Uptown, Virginia Village, Montclair. And when I was a child, I lived in university. I have not lived a static life. I have lived in houses. I've lived in apartments. I have lived in condos. I even lived in an 80. You. I have rented. I have owned. I have been a landlord over the course of my life. I have moved. I have grown. I have changed. Our city is moving. It is changing. It is growing. The city should do that. This plan is allows for growing and changing. And and it is not static. This plan should not be static. It should move and grow and change. This plan. We will find out things that don't work in the future and we will change those things. This is not the end of the line right here. This is the beginning of the journey. Cities compete for growth. More growth brings more resources to everyone, more talent, more opportunity. It allows us to provide more services. We need these things. We fight for these things. We've come to this point. We come to a point where we think that we can have economic growth, commercial growth, without allowing any residential growth. Those are ideas are at odds and we need to move past that. This plan acknowledges that that growth happens. It doesn't stop that growth. It doesn't change that growth, but it does guide that growth. And that's what we're looking for. We're looking for guidance. So what are the risks of not moving forward tonight? There's a risk that there has been a lack of input on this plan. I would say I would venture to say that of the 700,000 people who currently live in Denver, maybe 695,000 of them simply want a functioning, resilient city with economic and housing opportunity for everyone. How they get there, they are not really interested in the details. That's just the general direction that they want to go. And they will. They'll if there's a plan in place, they're happy. Over the three years that this plan has been created, which I'll remind you is 15% of the time that it's actually supposed to be in force. Everyone has had an opportunity. They might not have taken it, but there has been an opportunity through the 25,000 comments, through the dozens, scores of public meetings, different times, different places. It's all been there. In conclusion, I would like to warn that delaying this plan, or worse, allowing that delay to become a scrapping of the plan and starting over from scratch would be a waste of resources, a waste of time, and a waste of goodwill. I urge you, not allowed it to happen. Please vote in favor tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Teresa Saint Peter. Hi there, Teresa. Saint Peter. All of my points have been covered. Tonight, so I do want to say two. Things. I live at. 1235 East 12th Avenue. I am a. Responsible, caring community member and a renter. That is not a contradiction. As some other folks may. Have alluded to earlier today. And thank you so. Much for all of the years. Of. Extensive effort that council staff and the community have put into this very important plan. And I hope. That you pass these. Tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Ryan Kinney. Hey, I'm here to support the adoption of Blueprint Denver in the comprehensive plan. First, I'd like to state that I participated in many public meetings regarding this plan going back to early 2017, and that I participated or volunteered on the Denver Rite Street team to collect public input at the Colorado Black Arts Festival. I think the notion that the community has not been sufficiently engaged is preposterous in the face of all of these meetings and the thousands of public contributions. Second, I would like to state that I identify as someone who holds yes, in my backyard values. I believe that in order to be as inclusive as possible, Denver needs to allow for growth. If if we don't, I worry displacement will worsen. Blueprint Denver provides a vision to accommodate that growth in ways that are minimally disruptive to neighborhood character. It calls for allowing 80 use and duplexes in all neighborhoods and allows for focusing and calls for focusing the most intense growth in transit corridors and centers. This leads to my third point on this Earth Day. I support blueprint diverse call for sustainability. We put the inverse called for complete neighborhood makes it easier for people will make it easier for people to access goods and amenities on foot. And the plans focus on transit, pedestrian and bicycle prioritization will help us reduce the most share of car trips in our city. This is critical. If you want to stand a chance in the fight against climate change, land use and transportation must work together to help us change our unsustainable car dependent lifestyles. Personally, I think Bluford Denver could go further in allowing more diversity of housing types in our single family zone neighborhoods. And I know that I'm not alone in this. I think the plan, as is, is really quite modest and as a testament to being a good compromise of all the different perspectives of the residents of this city. Because of this, and because it calls for a sustainable, equitable and inclusive growth, I urge Council to adopt these plans . Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Andrea Burns. All right, Adam Nesteroff And I'll call the next five up Jeff Walker, Alison Turek, Gaucher, King, John Desmond and Brad Buchanan. Come on in. Go ahead. Hi. My name is Adam Astrof. I live at 1801 Chestnut Place in District nine, and I'm the president of Yimby Denver, where a group formed to promote Yes in my backyard values. Many of our members and supporters are here tonight and we are encouraging, both as a group and myself individually are encouraging the passage of Blueprint Denver and the comprehensive plan. This new plan is great because regardless of who wins the upcoming elections, it's a better plan than the old one. This is a plan that was built out of three years of compromise. As Ryan said, this doesn't go as far as I would like to see, but that's because it represents working really hard with members of a number of different neighborhoods, many of whom have shown up here tonight and a number of other meetings. This change that's going. On in Denver. It is pretty scary. Our homes are part of our identity. There are community. They mean a lot to us. And, you know, so people are fearless, fiercely protective of them. And I just really appreciate how much everyone really cares and loves this city. I believe that the changes called for in Blueprint Denver are going to spread. Development more. Equitably. Living where I do, I have seen the displacement that's occurred in the Highlands and in five points. We've seen new housing types occur in some parts of the city, whereas in other parts of the city we simply just see scraps as the underlying value of the land just vastly outpaces these small bungalows that were built on it a long time ago. This plan, by allowing a to use and duplexes is going to allow us to have a better utilization of that land. And, you know, maybe something other than an $800,000 single family home. I also do. Since it's Earth Day, I want to speak to, you know, the environmental goals here. And we haven't talked about it as a group, but as an individual, I strongly support Councilman Cashman's amendments. You can't be strong enough in talking about climate change, but really focusing on making sure that we're getting, you know, investment out of our transit dollars, which, you know, the plan will do by making sure that we're getting that payback around those transit areas. And then, of course, the complete neighborhood model itself. You know, if you're giving people things they can walk to, they don't need to make as many car trips. There's a grocery store across the street from my apartment and it's amazing. It's just one of the most wonderful amenities that you can possibly have. There's also a park a block away. You know, it's really it's it's not quite a complete neighborhood. I have a lot of thoughts, but it's a great place to live. I hope council will adopt the plans tonight. I look forward to coming back next week to talk about the tiny home village because I believe this will also these plans will also help us to meet our housing first goal. So thank you so much for all your time. Thank you. Next up, Jeff Walker. Good evening. Good evening. Jeff Walker, 2354 South Lincoln Street in Denver. I'm on our TD's board of directors and I represent some of you in that room. All right. So first, I was a member of the Blueprint Denver Task Force. I encourage your improve your approval and acceptance of this element of the comprehensive plan. This is an ambitious plan. I'm excited about the attention it pays to functionality of streets and their effects on residential and commercial uses. The attention it pays to equity. The attention it pays to opportunity, and its acknowledgment of the possibility of displacement. I'm excited about the partnership between RTD and Denver and how this sets the table for better regional land use and transportation planning. The city clearly sees transit as an important backbone for future mobility. We all know that funding for transportation is scarce, and I appreciate the prioritization of future investments in transit. I believe that partnerships between local jurisdictions are key to keeping transit at the forefront. Of mobility. In the region. I feel that the continued partnerships between RTD and the city and county of Denver is central to successful mobility in the region. Thank you for your work. Thank you to staff that. I think they did a phenomenal. Job. And I encourage you to accept. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Aliza Allison Tawfik. Hi. I'm Alison. Tawfiq. I live near East High School near Vine Street Pub near the Kala Madison Rec Center. That neighborhood. First of all, I wanted to point out. That a bunch of us who are in support of this are wearing blue today. So if you see a theme, that's our theme. I strongly. Support it. I am three years into this process and I'm going to be super disappointed if this also gets thrown out. I was three years into the process for the City Park playground and that got thrown out at the last minute. You've got thousands and thousands of thoughtful ideas that have come through. So let's listen to everybody. Some people are going to hate the ideas, but we need to have a vision for where we're going to go. Maybe we don't need to have each sidewalk issue debated tonight, but let's know if we're going to go to Chicago or if we're going to go to Los Angeles. You know, we need to have an idea where to be in the next 20 years. And that's really all I got to say. They said, oh, one more thing. Gosh, Kong, who's after me? Had to leave early. Her nine year old son had to get dinner and go to bed. But he said, we need more busses. Thank you very much. All right, John Desmond. Mr. President. Members of city. Council. I'm John Desmond. My address is 1515 Arapahoe Street. I've been very honored to serve as a member of the Blueprint Denver Task Force for the last three years. I'm also speaking tonight on behalf of the Downtown Denver Partnership, and I first want to commend the task force ably led by Kimball and Joel, the city of Denver staff. And I want to call out. Dave Jaspers here in particular for his leadership and the consultant team, which we often forget about, led by Big Man Mike for the incredible amount of thought and vision they have put in and for the thorough outreach effort they've made to an enormous. Number of stakeholders. I want to call out just a few points that we strongly support about this plan. We strongly support the overall growth strategy, which rightly focuses both residential and employment growth on regional centers such as downtown, while allowing other areas to evolve in smaller ways. It strikes a commonsense balance between fostering smart growth and stability across Denver. We're also very much in favor of the overarching goal goals of providing complete neighborhoods and networks, as well as the plan's focus on measuring social equity and then tailoring implementation of the plan recommendations to reflect the needs of different areas. The citywide recommendations portion of the plan is strong, especially regarding these recommendations increasing the development of affordable and mixed income housing, ensuring Denver has a vibrant retail and hospitality marketplace, creating exceptional design outcomes in key centers and corridors. Ensuring an active and pedestrian friendly environment. Prioritizing people walking and rolling over other modes of transportation. Improving safety on Denver's streets, especially regarding the. Implementation of. Vision Zero policies and ensuring high quality parks and open spaces to. Keep pace with Denver's. Growth and for downtown in particular. We applaud the plan's emphasis on these items the high density mix of uses, high quality of design, especially at the ground floor level, a focus on humane, well landscaped public realm, especially creating a robust urban tree canopy which we lack. And downtown right now, a mix of multi-modal options highlighted by pedestrian having priority, a complete network of safe, easy to use bicycle facilities and frequent, reliable and high capacity transit. So to reiterate, the Downtown Denver Partnership strongly supports Blueprint Denver and looks forward to working with the City Council and the administration in admitting and implementing this ambitious and visionary plan in the coming years. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak this evening. And also we urge you to pass this plan this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you, Brad Buchanan. And I'll call the next five up Stuart Lundy, Heather Noyes, Greg and Joe Fowler, Jesse Adkins and Caitlin Quander. Come on up. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Brad Buchanan. My address is 1705 17th Street. For most of the last. Five years, as. Denver's former executive director for community. Planning and Development, I have had the privilege of working with the most incredibly dedicated team of planners who work to facilitate this significant and important community driven plan that you're considering this evening. I've also had the privilege of sitting on the original Blueprint Denver Stakeholder Group before its adoption in 2002. Blueprint Denver anticipated the coming growth in our city and successfully guided it to areas of change to lessen impacts on areas of stability. Tonight, you consider the next generation of our city plan that once again represents the leading edge of citizen. Driven urban thinking. And planning or using the change in areas of stability where advanced in 2002 today and into the future. Investment in change must be informed by much more sophisticated, nuanced and critically important assessment tools focused focusing on equity and healthy development. You might be wondering and thinking, should our city planners control the pace of change? Controlling the pace of the market simply drives real estate prices higher. Experience has clearly shown us this. So how do we balance the success of our welcoming city while also protecting that which is most important to us? All our plans don't control the pace of change. Our plans can direct how and where change happens. The plans before you tonight do just that and in ways that are more relevant than ever. The last few years we've experienced some of the most significant investment our city has ever seen in our plans have guided that development. That is because our city has valued planning for 100 years and certainly 20 years ago. It has been these plans that helped to create the city we are today and why we once again following the discipline that our city was built on, started this citywide planning effort. Three years ago to inform and guide the next 20 years. At whatever pace it comes. Our plans choose to value all people in all cultures. They choose to value open space and art and opportunity. They choose to value equity and design. They choose to create livable, affordable neighborhoods that grow responsibly and thoughtfully. These values we hold require sophisticated planning tools to consider more than ever before to ensure we are considering all the contributors that create change in our city. The plans you consider tonight have been driven by the voices. Of our community. They represent thousands of staff hours in working with thousands of citizens hopes, fears, concerns and dreams for their block, neighborhood and city. Never has the community conversation been better informed with data and the impacts of their choices involved in the process of creating a city plan. I hope you will support this important next step in keeping Denver. Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Stuart Lundy. Stuart. All right, Heather Noyes, Greg. Sid Evening my name is Heather Noyes. Craig I live at 4492 Xavier in Northwest Denver. Many of my concerns and comments have already been addressed, so hopefully I can keep this short. I was honored to serve on the Blueprint Denver Task Force and also the Equity Subcommittee. I want to just say that staff was over the top, responsive throughout the process, super organized and very, very flexible. The consolidated list of public comments that I hope you have looked at and the responses and the corresponding notations in the draft, I believe, set a new precedent for both inventorying and. Tracking public comment and. City projects. This was no small feat. This was an an added task. It was a request by Blueprint Denver Task Force members, and it was greatly appreciated by all of the task force I know and also many members of the public. In northwest Denver. To the chairs, Joel and Kimball. The task force was comprised of diverse and expertize, people not only knowledgeable about issues and challenges, but incredibly passionate about the city and its future. Keeping discussions on track and focus was no small feat, and thank you both so much for your leadership. Blueprint Denver Process was thorough, inclusive and accessible. The document is visionary, progressive, action oriented and comprehensive and will provide guidance in the evolution of our city and most importantly to me. To the Public Realm City Council. I urge you to adopt Blueprint Denver tonight so that the hard work of implementation can start immediately. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. Next up, Angela Felder. Well, good evening. My name's Angela Foster, and I live at 4900 Troy Street in Denver. I am a resident in District 11, and so a lot has been said. I don't know if I'm 57 out of 58 and I think there's more to come, but I won't go down into the weeds with you. I would like to just talk about my feelings, talk about how I feel. And I had the privilege also to serve on the Blueprint Task Force for Blueprint Denver for three years. And I have to admit, when I first was appointed to the committee by Mayor Hancock, I was skeptical. I'm a resident, born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, where politics are kind of gritty. And, you know, it's it's a little hard to believe things until you see them. And so going into the process, I believed that things were going to be pretty prescribed and that perhaps our roles would be perfunctory. I would like to say that I have felt very proud to be part of this process. I have felt that the staff and the members of the task force have been very responsive. When we took a look at the next 15 to 20 years is it's very hard to know what to expect. And no doubt those that crafted a blueprint some 15, 20 years ago had this same dilemma. But what I feel is that we have been inclusive, we have been responsive, we have been creative, we have been adaptive. I feel proud that 25,000 individuals had input into this plan. I feel proud that we took hours upon hours to layer on an equity focus and really analyze how this plan would impact all communities and recognize that different communities need different things. I feel proud that as I did research of other communities throughout the country, while some had a comprehensive plan, I did not find one that had an integrated, comprehensive plan or blueprint that layered equity into it. And I feel proud that Denver has an opportunity to be the first, if not one of the first. The first to be the first. I feel proud that we are here today and we are considering this plan, and I want to feel proud that this council passes it and urge you to do so with my full support and affirmation of the process. Thank you. Thank you. Jesse Adkins. My name is Jesse Adkins. I'm an architect with Sures Adkins Rockmore Architects. And I was appointed to the board or the Committee for Blueprint through the EIA. So I in some way am representing the American Institute of Architects. I think we do have to congratulate staff. This was an immense undertaking and the consultant team that was assembled very, very talented. So I didn't see and even into the committee, our co-chairs really did do a great job of keeping us on task. And even to the committee members themselves, everyone in that room contributed and meshed extremely well. There wasn't a single time where we didn't have a challenge that we couldn't overcome. Most of the contribution from my seat at that table had a lot to do with how this plan was formed relative to our built environment and how people and vehicles and and our lives are maintained through what we're trying to update from the 2002 plan. And I do believe that this does a number of great things that are aspirational in nature. And to some of the previous folks that commented about it not going on off or needing more detail, I warn against that as an architect that deals with urban design or design guidelines and design standards all the time, sometimes those documents can be very, very prescriptive and that can be a challenge. So there's a balance here that this plan had to strike that I feel like we were able to accomplish. And so to establish its relationship relative to the neighborhood planning initiatives that will continue to to look at where our city grows and how it develops, we'll link directly to that. And I feel that this does a fine job of establishing and. Overarching trajectory for where we're headed as a city, because I think last last week I heard there were about 44,000 people that moved to Metro Denver last year, which is staggering. And they're coming. So how do we how do we accomplish that? How do we solve for that? And this is the plan that I think that does that. So I urge you to support it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Caitlin Quander. Caitlin. All right, I will call the next five up. Carson Roar ball. Rebecca. Rebecca. Alexis. Matthew Crick, Will Martin and David ROI Ball. And first up is Carson. Good evening, council members, and thank you for your time. Here to voice my support for Blueprint Denver, most specifically as it relates to the changes regarding its use. I know we've heard a lot about that tonight. Two things I want to point out that haven't been mentioned or so. Clarifications to use are as they're explained in Blueprint Denver. They're for primary residences, not investment properties. So you're not going to see people coming in buying five houses in Wash Park West, where I live. By the way, I left that out intentionally with how many people had comments from there earlier. You're not going to see people coming in, buying a bunch of houses, turning the garages into its use, and all of a sudden, you know, it's just a bunch of investors without any interest in the community. These are people like myself who have bought houses, are looking for ways to make them more affordable. About a year ago, I purchased my first home, a 125 year old Victorian style house in Logan Street in the Wash Park West neighborhood, despite higher offers from other parties. The sellers chose my offer for two reasons my commitment to keep the house intact and my sincere interest in restoring the beauty of the property. I was told that the other interested parties were developers with plans to scrape the lot, divide it, and build two modern houses where my current house stands. They can't be faulted for their objective of maximizing the use of the land by turning one residence into several. But the inevitable change to the neighborhood landscape and the loss of the innate beauty of one of those streets. Older houses are changes that can't be undone. Adding an 80 you to my lot is an alternative that accomplishes the same goals of the developers. Blueprint Denver. More efficient land use additional housing without disrupting the neighborhood or the landscape of the neighborhood or the integrity of my 125 year old house and the even older neighborhood. My current zoning restricts my ability to build near to you. That's why I'm here tonight. Please vote yes on Blueprint Denver and give homeowners like myself the opportunity to make our mortgages more affordable while helping to increase housing throughout the existing communities. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Rebecca Alexis. My name is Rebecca Alexis. I'm a Denver native practicing architecture living in the Platte Park neighborhood. I recommend approving Blueprint Denver and the Comprehensive Plan 2040 as it is written. I agree with many here that that there is no time for delay. The state of care, in particular the allowance of age to use into all neighborhoods is critical. Over two years ago, the state of California mandated aid use in every jurisdiction throughout the state. They did this because of safety here and there. People are building spaces in their homes and in their garages that are not safe for their family and the people moving to Denver. By allowing aid to use everywhere, we can support safe permitted housing that does not impact the curb appeal of established neighborhoods and. Literally cleans up our alleys. Thank you. Thank you. Matthew, quick. Thank you, city council, for hearing all of us tonight. And thank you to all the city planners who put all this all the work into this and to make this initiative something really great. I'm here in front of you. I'm from Lincoln Park neighborhood. And I think it's been it's been a long enough. It's been three years now that we've been working on this. I know I've been to a bunch of city meetings myself, and it's we've heard from a lot of people all around the city. And I think it's time to make this make this a reality. There's three main reasons I really like this one. It's ideas. I think those are awesome. They provide a lot of great flexibility for any homeowners. You can have your, you know, people rent in there. You have in-laws in there. You can have a you can just gives you a lot flexibility over the whole life of your property. And it's a great way to build density without demolition and it's a great way to also improve our alleys. And if anyone's ever walked in, or at least they're not always in the. Best shape, there's a lot of trash or. Rundown garages, so having it used back there gives eyes on the eyes on the alley and increases their security back there too. I really like the bike paths. I like the addition of the bike paths in Denver. Great Denver, Plan and Blueprint Denver. I think that's going to be a great addition to the city. And three, I there's a lot of people living here to Denver. We have to plan for it. We have to have a great plan that's in place. And if we don't have a plan, we're we're not going to grow well. We're not become a great city. So I urge city council to adopt this Denver plan. Thank you, Will. Martin. No. Will Martin David Rebel. Be left. Or right? The last three. I'll call up Margie Valdez, Jeff Baker, Steven Chester. Margie Valdez. You're up first. You just. Mr. President, members of council, good to see everyone. I echo what many of my colleagues on the Denver. Blueprint Task. Force have. Testified to today. It was a real pleasure and an honor to serve on the. Denver Blueprint. Task Force. They were we were a diverse group. But the. Thing is, we were all dedicated to making Denver. Better. We had a goal of helping Denver to grow intelligently. Fairly and equitably, equitably. The plan is very thoughtful and will serve Denver well in the next 20 years. Denver needs a good road map. This is the opportunity to go ahead in a responsible manner. I urge you to vote for to adopt this the plans. And lastly, I would be remiss. If I did not think Joel Noble. And Kimball and David and Sarah and all the community. Planning. Development staff for the many thousands of hours that they must have put into this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jeff Baker. All right, I'm starving. Let's just pass this and get on it. My name's Jeff Baker. I live at 2422 Chapel Street. I'm also president of Curtis Park Neighbors and which is a neighborhood registered neighborhood organization within five points. And we have had lots of interaction with our neighbors throughout reviewing drafts, community events and support the adoption of these two plans. We also do not support the agency position, which suggests that the last three years of work should be delayed. We were not part of that and we voted against that in response to the use. Curtis Park was a pilot neighborhood, has original ideas from the late 1800s and has a lot of ideas that have been built. We have not seen disruption in the neighborhood. And secondly, you're not going to see investors flipping these or people flipping these because this is a long term investment in their property to sustain and be able to have flexibility. Like they said, there's all sorts of flexibility that comes with having an EDU and the cost that's associated and the blood, sweat and tears that people put into building these things. They're not going to turn around and flip these units. So Curtis Park has been a good pilot as a proof that it works. And Curtis Park neighbors voted earlier in the year. To support both of. A comprehensive plan blueprint, Denver and the other three. Denver plans. So please adopt this tonight without delay. Thank you very much, Steven Chester. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, members of council. My name is Steven Chester. A little bit. 843 Steel Street. Took my wife and I three years to buy that house at 843 Steel Street. Partly because we're extremely picky, but also because we were unwilling to compromise in our desire to live in a walkable, bikeable, transit rich neighborhood . And it turns out many other people in Denver want the same thing. And also, as it turns out, there's not many neighborhoods that fit those categories of being walkable, bikeable and transit rich. Looking back on that process, I'm left feeling angered. Angered primarily because I'll be the first to admit my wife and I are privileged. We're privileged to live in this great city, but we're also privileged because we don't face the barriers that many other residents in Denver face when it comes to institutional racism, socioeconomic barriers. And, you know, let's just leave it at those two barriers. Those other residents of Denver also want to live in walkable, bikeable, transit rich neighborhoods as well. And this plan goes deeper than any plan has ever before in Denver to do those barriers and to create a truly more inclusive Denver. So I urge you to support this plan with a slight disclaimer that I previously worked with the city and county Denver with CPD for about eight years, and I had the privilege of working alongside David and Sarah for many of those years, and I just want to thank them for their unbelievable amount of time and effort and passion that they put into these plans. Denver is truly lucky to have two people working to create a more equitable and diverse future for Denver. So thank you, sir and David so much. And so working with the city. I had the great honor of being in the front lines when this plan was created in terms of really, truly creating a community plan. This is not the mayor's plan. This is not city council's plan. This is not CPD's plan. This is the communities plan. I saw with my own eyes the hours of deliberation that took place in small, hot conference rooms, going over every single comment that was submitted to Blueprint Denver. I witnessed the many, many events all over this great city and the chili fest in Westwood and in community meetings in Marbella and movies in the Park and Virginia Village, along with the equity training that this plan went through in order to make sure this plan creates an equitable future. So I urge Council to support this plan because it outlines an innovative, comprehensive and inclusive future for this great city. Thanks. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Thank you all so much for coming down, for spending, for sitting in those seats and for sticking around. We are now going to go to questions from members of council. Councilman Brooks, your first stop. Wow. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to start off a little different and just staff folks from CPD. Can you please just stand if you were a part of this deal for three years. Great. Thank. He shared it. Mr. President, I didn't ask them to clap. I was just going to recognize them. But thank you for the clap. I think a lot of blood, sweat and tears in there. So we gave Gasper and Showalter a little time. I just wanted to make sure we had extra time for the people who spent time on this. And so, Brad, we can call you up first. Hi, Brad. How you doing? Good to see you. Brad, you had 3 minutes. You've been you know, you kicked this thing off. And so I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't anything else you add to kind of the chorus of individuals kind of talking about this plan. I think I think a lot of it's been said I think a lot of it's been said very diplomatically this evening. But, you know, cities, successful cities grow. And that's why we've been growing the last 20 years. That's why we've seen such amazing investment in the city the last seven or eight years. And while that changes is a painful and hard thing. Just the pace of the change is hard to consume. The folks, the planners, the citizens, the the task force get that, but refuse to give up on the promise of of what is great about Denver. And and it's not perfect and things change. But this plan, I think, authentically addresses the the impacts to what that change in pace of change and the realities that if we continue to sprawl outside, if we continue to not allow density around transit and to increase even a transit oriented density, we, as it was spoken by one of the speakers tonight, will absolutely just increase the carbon footprint, spend more time in single occupant vehicles. And so we need to think very creatively about how how we handle both of those things, how we value open space in our city and green space and natural space in our city. And and I don't I don't think it's it's magic. And I think that blueprint and the Denver suite of plans get to the heart of it that looking around equity and and density and affordability and design quality because density can be a very livable place when it's when design is valued at the highest. Very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to call up our co-chairs, John Noble and Campbell Crandall. You all got paid $0. And so I wanted to ask a question, but I also wanted to give you as much time as you wanted to to to talk or excuse me as much time as the President will allow for you to share some of of your feedback. I guess the leading question that I'm going to give you all is I represent a district where there's a lot going on. There are a lot of people who are pro density, you know, a lot of urban is a lot of folks. But there are a lot of a lot of folks who don't want to see a tiny home in their neighborhood. They don't want to see an Adu in their neighborhood. How did you all balance this over the last three years of being progressive, having a vision and having a progressive vision for the future, but at the same time, recognizing that this growth is scaring a lot of folks. This growth is hard for a lot of people. How do you balance it? Sorry. We always have to talk to each other first. So I'm going to let Joel talk about the neighborhood plans and small area plans, because he's so eloquent about that. But what I'd like to talk about care about is the neighborhoods of Denver. I've had a great I love Denver. I moved to Denver in 2003. So I'm a transplant from Kansas. And when I moved to Denver, I moved into the Harvard Gulch neighborhood, and I found a city that was very welcoming to me. I didn't know many people. I actually didn't know anybody in Denver. And I had a choice about where I wanted to live. Even though I was making a pretty low wage at the time, I was able to find a community that I felt comfortable in and that I could take the bus to. I didn't have a car. I couldn't afford a car downtown to my job at 19th and Grant and I've moved a lot. I like to move. I like to experience new places. So I've had the privilege to live in La Alma Lincoln Park and Congress Park and West Wash Park and Harvard Gulch and my offices in the Golden Triangle I've office downtown. Most importantly, I do work in affordable housing, and I've worked for Denver Housing Authority for six years and led the Mariposa redevelopment in La alma Lincoln Park. I've worked in Lowry when I was the executive director of the Lowry Community Land Trust. I've built great projects in Westwood, in Globeville. We just are we just acquired the Colburn Hotel and preserved it from flipping to market rate in Cap Hill and. The work is big. It's overwhelming at times, especially when you see the families that have lived in general in Denver for generations and all of a sudden, you know, they've lived in Westwood in a home that meets their needs, had, you know, family members sharing their household with them and all of the sudden their property or their suite of properties gets purchased and they've got 30 or 60 days to move and find somewhere else to go. Well, where do they go? Where do you go for a family? And how do you uproot your children and your lives like that? This is big. And in Denver, this is what we're facing a lot. We have that extreme. We have seniors that want to downsize and can't. They can't age in place. We have parks that are in neighborhoods that aren't safe to walk around at night or even during the day. And people think, oh, well, there's green space right there. Well, you walk around that, see how you feel. We live in a in a great city, but we live in a city with a lot of challenges and a lot of inequity. And until we face that head on, which I think we're doing now in Blueprint Denver and we're acknowledging institutional barriers that have existed for a long time, and we're saying redlining might not exist the way it used to, but it still is prevalent in many of our neighborhoods. Until we face that head on, we're going to perpetuate the innate and equity that exists. So when I look at Blueprint and think about, well, this person doesn't want an ADU and this person doesn't want a tiny home. I think what we can say collectively is that we want to live in a safe place with amenities and walkability, where our kids are safe and where our parents are safe. And I want, you know, my family to be able to afford to move into town. And I want my neighbor next to me to be able to stay put and not feel like they're being forced out because of property tax increases. That was the Denver I moved to in 223. Not all of that, but some of that. And Denver's changed a lot. And Denver's worth fighting for. It's worth saying we're going to grow. We should keep our doors open. But there's a way that we can grow that's welcoming and safe and comfortable. And I think it's worth it. And I think our neighborhoods want many of the same things. It's how we accommodate and funnel growth in a way that's respectful, tolerable and sustainable. So that was way too much talking. Thank you, Councilman. I think I'll just have one point micro. One point macro at the micro level. There was a strong emphasis here on neighborhood plans because to take the the vision and the values and the goals and the strategies and blueprint Denver and make them hit the ground. These plans leave a gap. They aren't regulatory. So it will be up to the council, will be up to speed working with the communities to say, okay, we've agreed as a city these are the tools we have in the toolbox. Now how specifically does that meet the ground in your neighborhood? And those neighborhood plans should guide the regulations like zoning. I mentioned at the end of my comments that it's my hope and my belief that the thing people will have on their lips when they talk about Blueprint Denver for the next 20 years is complete net, complete neighborhoods and complete networks. And that's a deceptively powerful framing. Complete Neighborhoods is going to challenge people to have discussions among themselves as they're doing their neighborhood plans, to say, what do we have completeness in and what don't we? Does our neighborhood support a range of age levels? Does our neighborhood support a range of income levels? Does our neighborhood have things to walk to or only residences? Completeness on a lot of dimensions, and hopefully that will generate a lot of very good conversation that leads to neighborhood plans that lead to more complete neighborhoods and networks. And serving on the Denver Planning Board. I look forward to challenging staff as they bring us neighborhood plans. The first one will be the far northeast plan and say, all right, this plan is going to be adopted under the new blueprint. Denver If council acts tonight, how does this plan? Provide complete neighborhoods, show us that the conversations have occurred, and I very confident they will zooming out to the macro. I was reminded the other day about April 2017, the April 2017 public meeting here it was the growing a better Denver game for those of you who attended that session. And the question is, how much growth do you accommodate and where? For 20 years, we've had this idea that you put growth near transit, so much so that people who are not involved in planning and don't come to public hearings at night, you ask them, where should the growth go? They'll say, Well, near transit. Of course, we've got that in Denver. But where and exactly how? At the task force level, we talked abstractly about growth strategy. But it was at this April 2017 meeting in the in a high school cafeteria that people broke up into different tables you set where people you knew when you sat by , people you didn't know, but you had six or eight people there and you played with playing pieces and you worked out where should growth go? And staff went and blended those together as the as one way that the community was expressing itself that later got refined into the maps that people could comment on online. So at a macro level, how did we say decide where to grow? We asked people to very tactfully show us, leave aside abstractions, where should people go? And the centers and the corridors that are in the plan emerged. That's great. I think, Mr. President, that's another question that really helps me to understand each of your perspectives on some very tough questions that we're dealing with on city council. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Joe. Till I can ask you to stick around. Just sort of a follow up to your response there, because I've heard the term a lot about complete neighborhoods, particularly in your response. Is it fair to say that we're not doing a very good job right now of compelling, complete neighborhoods as an outcome? I think as we've heard testimony tonight, some neighborhoods are certainly more complete than others. We talk about walkable, bikeable places to live where you don't have to drive to do your normal trips of life. Certainly. Yeah. So the thing that I've been struggling for four years from this day is is sort of a massive amount of opportunities on Fox Island and the limited ingress and egress for that part of Globeville. And and so one of the things is, as I've said from here as well, that we should treat it as an island. Right. Because, you know, the doctor should be present there. That should be present there. Grocery should be present there. Sort of all the things that you would need to sort of live on an island should largely be present there. That I think those would those elements be consistent with this idea of a complete neighborhood. Or. I think that's the kind of conversation I hope happens in the neighborhood plans is as people talk about complete and let that very positive idea roll around in their minds and then meet each other and compare their ideas. A completeness. The vision for that neighborhood should emerge. Now there's market realities as well. A plan or city zoning can't compel a business to open there if if there's no market for it. If they don't if we've seen that with grocery stores, the community wants a grocery store, but it's not economically viable. So it also raises the opportunity to have two way dialog with the community and with with planners to say, if we agree, we want that. Then as a practical reality, a prerequisite of that is this, for instance, rooftops. For the grocery stores. So it's fair to say that the and are you going to be around for the blueprint Denver discussion? I will be here till we're done. Great. Because these are sort of more in that realm on the recommendation side of these things and trying to figure out how we would get in these recommendations to those outcomes. Because I don't disagree with the idea of complete neighborhoods, because those are the things we need to take to get to all six vision elements. But I'm I'm worried that the you at least you acknowledge the market element to this is how these documents will get used by the market. And the timetables associated with it, you know, will play out if the market continues in the way that it's been. Yeah, I'll certainly be around for any other questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Desmond, as this is our question session for both. This was a combined hearing. So once we move out of this, that will only be comments of your questions. I do then. Now would be the time would welcome. All right, Joel, then let's go into the into that. Right. So the final comment or Mr. Steven Chester made some very eloquent remarks about sort of the disadvantaged elements of our of our community. I think those align with vision element goal five very well. Reduce involuntary displacement of residents and businesses. But then in the strategies, it says advance a comprehensive approach. This is really to staff or to advance a comprehensive approach to mitigating involuntary displacement that includes expanding economic mobility, creating new affordable housing, and preserving existing affordable housing in the recommendations underneath item five on the implementation matrix. There are three items listed, but they only address major city projects and this potential. I'm going to disregard the fact that they reference OED, which is an agency that means an office that doesn't exist anymore. So I hope we're not sending them somewhere that doesn't exist. But, you know, how is it? That integration. How is it? I mean, how do we address the situations that might happen that are like Jefferson Park and the communities that I represent that didn't have major city investments or projects, but exhibited major involuntary displacement? Which tool, which recommendation are we putting forward in this plan to address that level of displacement? And I'm sorry, could you clarify which plan you're reading? Because there's very similar recommendations in both. Yeah. So I'm actually. Reading from both. Referencing goal five in the current plan, which then goes to Blueprint Denver recommendation five in the general and then has an actual implementation strategy in the matrix in the back. So actually talking about The Matrix because that's sort of the nuts and bolts of what's going on. So let me start with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan as an implementation matrix to. Do you have that in front of you? No, I didn't have that. So I think part of the challenges that you're jumping from one plan to the other is let's start with comprehensive plan, because goal five that you pointed out in the implementation matrix for the comprehensive plan has strategies there that go well beyond just major investments. So there's in addition to the one that you already read, advanced comprehensive approach to mitigating involuntary displacement. That includes expanding economic mobility, creating new affordable housing and preserving existing affordability. We also have stabilized residents and businesses at risk of displacement through programs and policies that help them stay in their existing community and evaluate city plans, projects, and major regulatory changes for potential to contribute to involuntary displacement. So I want to just start there. The comprehensive plan does have more because its scope is much broader. I think you might also have an outdated version because we did go through and change all references from OED to Dito because we agree with you. We want to move on the right direction. Although now we'll have even a new challenge ahead of us to update the Matrix and point people to a new Department of Housing and Homelessness that this will be created because we worked really closely with our partners in what's now DITO Economic Development and opportunity to focus on a really comprehensive approach to displacement blueprint. Denver was trying to take a little more of the lens of a land use and transportation plan, not the whole involuntary displacement picture, which is going to involve a lot of programs and policies that go well beyond zoning and land use and transportation investments. So the blueprint recommendations that they might feel a little more limited in scope to you, that was actually intentional. We were trying to really link where involuntary displacement comes together with land use and transportation decisions and the comprehensive plan. Our hope there was that it has broader policies that cover other things, which to your point, yes, there are a lot of neighborhoods that may not have those big investments, but we still want to stabilize residents there. And then also point you to housing inclusive Denver and some of our other plans that have much more detailed strategies on what some of those tools might look like. So where I'm struggling, which is how do these plans, especially if if and I apologize because my my Excel spreadsheet is cut off. So I didn't know the first half of the. Yeah sorry. Things. How, how these two things that are in conflict seemingly which is you know recommendations in certain places for increased density based on some transit notion that may or may not exist marries with with the economic market reality which is that somebody could go in there and justify that creating the opportunity for increased density in an area, even at a low scale increased density that would be sort of commensurate with the form of the surrounding neighborhood would still result in the displacement of people occupied housing. Do we would we look at is there anything in here that prescribes us going forward, looking at the existing property, its use and if it's occupied before moving forward with the rezoning to sort of address the the the displacement? Or are we still agnostic to who's there and what's there right now? Yeah, it's a great question. I would say that generally the approach that we've taken this is based on a lot of input from people working on this topic, you know, trying to prevent involuntary displacement in Denver, as well as a lot of research we did into other communities. Denver actually through through Dito is the lead is part of a policy link network across the city policy links a national nonprofit. That brought together ten cities. We had to apply. We were accepted into the network to be part of what they called an anti displacement network. And we've learned a lot from peer cities through that. And I would say through that research as well as people working here, generally the approach has been the best way to try and solve these problems are through policies and programs that aren't going to be side by side. So one small rezoning, we also don't always have the data to really understand what the displacement impacts might be from a small site. So we've seen in the language and Blueprint Denver, the focus is on how do we take the involuntary or the vulnerability to displacement map that's in the plan and integrate that at a minimum into our larger scale rezonings? I don't think we do have a good model for saying that every single kind of smaller parcel coming through would go through the kind of analysis that you're bringing up. But I think if you look more comprehensively at the plan recommendations, when we would do the analysis for plan consistency, that would be part of any rezoning we would certainly be considering if it's in it, particularly if it's an area that's vulnerable to displacement. Do we have tools or programs in place in this community to address those needs? So it may not be the burden of one particular rezoning, but we would certainly want to be thinking about that community as a whole. Does this plan, would you say, would it address existing conditions that we created? So I have a lot of some $500,000 homes that are that are that are being ground up for multi-unit. Well, north of a half a million dollars on resale. Again, will this plan are we basically saying what we've done in the past and what is existing? Is is is is. Or are we. Are there any recommendations that compel us to sort of revisit existing fabric and and put in new tools to address the involuntary displacement? In some cases? It's weird, right? It's not involuntary. Some people are actually choosing to to to leave that afford formerly affordable unit and make a slight windfall off of that transaction. But now we're creating a Denver that doesn't have those affordable units. So what? Which which recommendation addresses the century? The situation that I have in West Sloan's Lake or East Sloan's Lake or on Long Tennyson? Yeah. That's a great question. I would say there's several recommendations, but I guess a couple that I would highlight is that we have very strong language around the importance of missing mental housing. That's something we heard about a lot from the community, but we also heard a lot that the exact scenario described basically where you in the name of housing diversity or, you know, new units right in the neighborhood are actually losing. Affordability is a huge concern. And so we very specifically have the recommendation that where we're going to look to enable gentle density in our neighborhoods that we should seriously consider things like income restriction for the the added units that are kind of a bonus. So that's one tool we're looking at. We also have a strong recommendation to look at more incentives for affordable housing across the city in all of our transit rich areas. So doing something, at least for now, given state law, since we can't just do a lot of requirements, the model is, well, let's do more of what we've done at CBD Area and 30th. And Blake, it may not be that exact same model because we want to figure out how to apply it to some of our lowered on city areas as well. But the concept of saying because we had really strongly from the community that there was actually more acceptance and you might think around density or adding more to a neighborhood than what's there now, but only if in exchange for that it comes with affordability. And so we have recommendations saying let's look for more ways to incentivize that kind of have a base, but then an incentive that comes with doing more affordability. I think those those are the kind of strategies that would hopefully help prevent some of the situations that you mentioned. Do we have a timetable for that? Because we've spent three years developing this document. How fast can we get into that realm? Because because it might. These are when I talk about Tennyson, those are areas that are not in the NPI process. They're not going to a neighborhood planning process. This conversation may or may not happen for better part of six years. Right. You are interested in the design. All right. So, yes, great point. Honestly, on a lot of this run, we should have started it three years ago. Right. So I think I want to be clear, this implementation of those ideas, we actually really tried to set them up to be a citywide conversations. You don't have to wait for a neighborhood plan. And the incentive for affordable housing is one of the zoning code amendments we'd like to kick off this year as major implementation item. You know, we do a very robust community process around a major change like that. So the process would probably take a year and a half to two years, but we're hopeful to start it very soon if the plan is adopted. Okay. Yeah, I think. And then did. You I just wanted to add one quick policy to your question, Councilman. So Policy three in Blueprint Denver on housing Policy three on page 83 is incentivize the preservation and reuse of existing smaller and affordable homes and a strategy that talks about implementing zoning tools incentivize the preservation of those homes. So I think that's really to one of your points. Yeah. Councilman Espinosa, you good for now? No, I'm chuckling because this is this is this is one of those laments I've heard from the community, which is that that recommendation is three is in the housing recommendation, not the general recommendation. It's very it's a lot of recommendations, sort of the. Yeah, I would be happy to skip unless there's no one. Else out. There. A couple other people in the queue. All right, Councilman, you're next. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sarah. First, I want to thank you and Dave for the great work your leadership did and the co-chairs and all the volunteers. It's really good to see all the massive positive support that we heard from the public tonight. And that was, you know, I didn't know what was going to happen. And I was so glad to see that there was that overwhelming support. So congratulations on a great job done. Thank you. We're talking about a couple of issues strictly from a residents perspective. Issues we've been talking about each time. Now your responses to it. Let's talk about rezoning, you know, on page 66, 67 as the rezoning process. Yeah, the rezoning has probably been a concern or anxiety of a lot of residents and neighborhoods. And and what's going to happen, especially in the process we're going through. There's been some concern about in certain neighborhoods. But the in looking at the type of 67 it describes as the rezoning process, but it doesn't mention neighborhoods. It doesn't mention resident involvement in the rezoning process. Well, can you describe what the role is of neighborhoods and residents in the rezoning process so that people might have a clear understanding of what that is? Sure, yeah. So neighborhoods play a really important role of informing the analysis that staff and the Planning Board and City Council do to evaluate whether a rezoning, the first criterion that they would get reviewed against is is it consistent with our adopted plans? And as you can imagine, sometimes there's a bit of subjectivity or disagreement sometimes around whether it's consistent with the plan. And that, I would say, is one of the main roles that we see the public really informing and improving the process. So the neighborhoods have a lot of opportunity. We have a required notification of any registered neighborhood organization at the time that we receive an application and then again for the planning board and city council hearings. Thanks to Councilman Espinosa, we also now have a requirement for postcard mailing to go to all owners within 200 feet of the property for both of the hearings. So there's lots of advertisement. And and through that, we see a lot of neighborhoods get engaged sometimes to the extent that they even help change or influence what the proposed rezoning is, what the applicant goes for because of that neighborhood input. All right, Mr. Good, so been left out of this process. That doesn't mean they're being excluded. They still going to be a valuable component to the rezoning process, right? That's that's correct. Okay. Looking at the future places, you know, that map, you know, we talked about, you know, and even though, you know, maybe there is a change, the stability is simple that, you know, sometimes residents like very clarity. They like concise, simple things. You know, they don't have the knowledge about sophisticated tools to figure it out. But and that was the thing about areas of stability and change was really good. And this and this map here shows the future, shows the changes. And I like the color coded version. It shows it shows you what the the the zoning is going to be. Have you had is a resident know what's going to change? How do they know what area that is, how much change is occurring, and how do they go about that kind of discussion by looking at this document ? Yeah, great question. We're actually thinking about developing a companion piece that would really kind of be a flowchart almost of because the pieces, the steps you would go through is you could look at an existing zoning map, which we have online and see what the zoning is today. And you can also look at existing land use because sometimes the zoning doesn't match the land. She sits there, then you look at the plan map, the calls for the future, the aspiration, and to understand if there's a difference, you would go to the section of the plan that describes usually we have a whole paragraph describing what that future places. So if it's a community quarter corridor in the urban context or if it's a community corridor in the suburban context, then we have different scales of those corridors. And so it's kind of about going to the plan, finding what we say is appropriate for that type of place, and then comparing it to what's on the ground today. And I think you've had some good ideas about how we could make that a little clearer for people to understand. And we're going to explore how to do that in the Web version of the plan. Okay. They'll have somebody come to the they can actually see what a zoning change is going to is going to be recommended. Yeah, exactly. See if there's something that would support a change in zoning. Yeah. I love the implementation matrix. You know, we talked about that and I've been loving to see this come in, hoping we have that every one of our plans is great. And we talked about some things and I especially like the the priority section and the responsibility section. I mean, you know, I'm a purist when it comes to some of this. I mean, we're missing the action plans. And most important, the resources, the money is is not there. So that's the thing that I think, you know, I know that you're limited and just want to know, did you have a discussion with the finance department has been going through this 20 year plan about resource that can be applied because I see that we've done that in go bond in 2017 we had resources applied and I know we're working on like six year, you know, CFP plan. We've got resources apply. Somebody can estimate some of these. Can you have any discussion at all about the resources to make sure you can implement this plan? Yeah, that's a great question. We did what was actually really valuable about doing the Denver right process is that we aren't the only ones generating recommendations, right? So you throw in the transit plan and game plan and the head trails plan, there was actually a lot of discussion around, wow, this is a lot. It's the right things to be asking for. But we also want to talk about different ways we might implement. So yes, there were strong discussions on that and that included thinking about the existing tools we have, like the ones you mentioned, certainly Bonds and our CIP every year. But also there's some ideas in the plans about needing to explore other ways that we might be able to find the resources needed to fund a lot of the ideas. Okay, pull this out of the old Blueprint Denver Museum. This was the guy that everybody loves. I mean, is that executive summary document of 27 pages from several hundred pages, you know, is it's a great thing that the public can really sink their teeth into and look at and see the essence of what happened in Blueprint Denver . The thing that I would encourage you to is the the priorities. What are those key 10 to 20 priorities are going to make a difference for this city, you know, and I hope that you'll include that in there. So they can see that because you look at the implementation matrix and there's a lot of the strategies are just ongoing. It says ongoing. It's not new things that the public needs to be aware of, that they may not be aware of going to, but still. But the the new strategies are the ones I think they're going to make the difference. I would hope so. I just encourage you and hope you. Are you planning on having a sort of a document like that? Yeah, I think we have the starting point of our executive summary already, but I think you raise a good point that maybe there's a middle ground between the executive summary and the full plan, so we can definitely look at that. Yeah. And if you had top priorities, I'm sure you can do maybe four, ten years or so hard when you get it out to 20 years, you know. But yeah, at least it would give the public an idea of what the future is going to hold. So yeah, it's a great point and that's certainly part of what we want to do with the annual reporting. And our goal to keep this a living document is to do a better job, you know, of organizing that matrix and showing these are our priorities and how are we doing on actually implementing them? Well, thank you. Great job. Congratulations again. Thank you. Thank you. Kels minu, councilman flynn. Thank you, Mr. president. Maybe david or sara either one of you could handle this question, but i heard one of the witnesses state and I want to say maybe I didn't hear it correctly, but that addus would not be owned by they had to be owned by primary resident. And which implies that an aide to you could not be owned by an absentee owner of the primary residence. Is that true? Are we contemplating that? And if so, how do how would we enforce that? Or was or did I hear that incorrectly? I think it was. Mr. Rohrbach. Yeah. So the existing Denver zoning code has language speaking to how accessory dwelling units can be used today. And you either need to be the primary residence to be occupying either the house or the accessory dwelling unit. That's in the current zoning. As in the current occurrence. Okay. Because I know there was a concern in Westwood as as the Renaissance project, there developed more ideas that they could turn into investment properties and and whatnot. So that's we're not contemplating changing that. Correct. Okay. What is the status of existing neighborhood plans? Would they now be were this to pass, would they be considered automatically as supplements to these new plans? Or is there a cut off to them? Because we've dealt with plans that are 25 and 30 years old. And then if so, which I assume is true, what would be would there be a foreseeable occasion where a recommendation in the new blueprint would override guidance in an existing neighborhood plan during a rezoning hearing or application process? Sure. So I'll start the the ordinance for the Comprehensive Plan, which is what the neighborhood plans are supplement to, includes the list of all the supplements. So if it gets adopted tonight, it will include all the current small area plans that we have. Okay. So if there is a conflict in the guidance in Blueprint, what and the neighborhood plan, how would staffers? I would say there's not a straightforward answer to that. We actually have that challenge today sometimes already. Right. And so you've probably seen rezonings before you where we've the legally there isn't something that clearly says this plan always trumps this plan based on your it's adopted or its scope. So we we consider with the same amount of weight what both plans say. But we also acknowledge sometimes, particularly if one is 20 years old. Correct. You know. Oh, okay. Well, that things might have changed. We also sometimes acknowledge, well, this this this plan took the time to dove into a deeper level. And this area, in a way, a citywide plan can't. Right. So it really depends on the situation. We always have to consider both plans. They both legally need to be considered. But how we address it would would vary. Sarah, do you know standing here right now, do you know if any of the plans that are are adopted by reference? Do you know of any of them that have conflicting recommendations? Oh, I wish I knew group enough to know the recommendations of all these plans. No, you don't. Nobody does. I mean, the list here, I don't have the total count, but it's you know, it's it's well over 70 plans and some of them were adopted well over 20 years ago. Yeah. So I'm going to venture to guess that there might be some things in there that aren't consistent. I don't have. To worry about that in my district cause I've never had one, but I'm getting one now. And finally, is can. Shrapnel here still? He was sitting over here. Did he leave? Okay, David or Sara, maybe you could answer this. Something that can said kind of set off a little anxiety in the pit of my stomach, and maybe I misheard him, but I think he was talking about the suburbs of Denver as opposed to the suburban areas of the city and county of Denver. My council district is entirely suburban context right now. But he seemed to say that suburban areas are antithetical to complete neighborhoods as envisioned in Blueprint, and David and Sarah know well because of our many back and forth conversations and emails, and especially in the last few weeks that I have a great deal of anxiety over over the a one size fits all or homogenizing all of our neighborhoods to be complete. Maybe in the same way when the differing characters and contacts between urban, urban edge all the way down to suburban might call for different and more discrete approaches. How does CPD view those? Does CPD view suburban context areas as antithetical to complete neighborhoods? And if not, which I I'm hoping you'll say, no, you don't. How would suburban context be treated when trying to declare that this is now a complete neighborhood? Sure. I'll start and then let David chime into. Yeah, you are correct. We very much see suburban neighborhoods as part of what makes Denver great. And we have a lot of people that live in suburban neighborhoods, participate, coming to community meetings as well as some task force members. So you're very correct there, and I think it depends on the strategy. I'll hit a couple and maybe Dave in particular, I'm going to talk about about transportation, because that's a big component. But it's interesting because we don't want to this gets to the equity a little bit. We don't want any neighborhood to feel like it has a lower bar because of its context. Right. In terms of being complete. Right. But we also there are basic amenities that you think no matter what context you're in downtown to suburban everybody should have, including things like transit. But we also recognize what that's going to look like and what the kind of the standards are. For example, the expectations of how many services you should be able to walk to in your neighborhood or how close a lot of high frequency transit is is going to vary by context, and we're very much aware that in a suburban context we'll need a nuanced approach. Very happy to hear you say that. Because definitely we are not complete when it comes to mobility. Mobility looks different in any in all the different contexts. Yeah, I think the plan in its context based approach is very intentional about how suburban parts of the city need to be complete in their own way. And so just for example, in the equity concepts, the axis of opportunity, we looked at at different distances to access different types of centers and corridors. And it is different in, in a suburban setting to reach a regional center or a community center than in a urban neighborhoods. So we're very cognizant of that. And I think it's also important to note that we have a lot of recommendations on how to think about how our suburban context can evolve over time. And there's a lot of opportunities in some of our corridors that are very auto oriented today, and we'll still need to accommodate the auto in the future. But also it's a transit investment along some of those corridors, like federal, for example. How could we see infill at some of those large parking lots, etc.? That makes it more walkable and transit friendly community. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa, you back up. So I want to thank David for if anyone was watching Lou to you saw me sort of question the you know, the vulnerability that I just was mentioning, neighbors, neighborhoods without statistical neighborhoods that have never had plans and basically asking you guys to consider having language that in those areas that have never gotten any sort of major scrutiny from the city to have customized that that be the appropriate place where customized zoning be to be used and to to get these outcomes because we talk about transitions, right? But there's nothing in the zoning code that requires transitions other than, you know, the relationship to existing mean to protected districts. That said, where you directed me was page 73. I hope that page number hasn't changed. Again, in the record general recommendations, but I'm worried because it's the last line in item recommended recommendation be so David or Sarah, because that line is an afterthought in that second paragraph. And it's right next to this big blue box that talks about the challenges of custom zoning. And we have policy that is averse to custom zoning. And in the Denver zoning code, it talks about essentially a lack of wanting to use custom zoning. Are we still pointing everybody in the direction of base zone districts should because I the thing I was asking for then and I'm going to still ask for that now is rather than have it be a tag on sentence, it says custom zoning tools are the are most effective when a standard zone district does not exist to implement the adopted plans for an area. Why can't we just pull that out? Do another bullet point in, say, custom done zone districts and I'll say it. Shall. Be used when a zone when a standard zone district does not exist to implement the adopted plans in an area because this is the only adopted plan. This will talk about transitions. This will talk about equity. This will talk about all the elements, the vision element. We don't have a zone district that does that today. You do have the current page in the current language. So yeah, it's a great point. I would say that we're trying to strike a balance between acknowledging when it is completely appropriate to use custom zoning, which as you've seen, there's been a lot of custom zoning that have come through council recently and it's it's definitely not the policy to always steer people away from it. So the starting point is, is there a standard zoned district? That's the intent of having the form base code with the context based approach is to start with, we have this vast menu of districts. Is there something there that can get us, if not all the way there, than very close? But if there's not, then there's certainly an appetite to discuss custom zoning. And I don't think that the language here is trying to set us up to say that we we don't want to do that in the future. But haven't you seen developers basically be averse to approaching something when there's that many flight red flags telling them not to do something like that? Because I have I have had conversations, developers that don't want to approach that because CPD essentially advise them not to approach the customized zone district. Yeah, I would say that's not something we hear a lot about. I feel like a lot of a lot of advocates we work with are usually pretty open to wanting to just have a very successful process. So whatever is most likely to get them the to get through the zoning criteria and showing plan consistency as well as community support. And it is true. I mean, there's a reason why the language is in here. We are trying to recognize not just because of the development community, but also even neighborhood residents. You know, we have people in Cherry Creek East that we've heard from most recently saying, you know, we we really want to support as much as we can getting rid of old code zoning and having to do kind of site by site negotiation because they have a neighborhood full of feuds. So we're trying to balance the desire to have predictable straight forward zone districts that implement our plans, but also recognize sometimes the custom zoning is an appropriate tool. Are you is KPD aware of the hubbub right now, whether it's fact or fiction about the Home Depot on Fox Island at 41st and Fox Station? Of course. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the hubbub, but I'm aware that there is a proposal to build one there. Yes. So the hubbub that I'm referencing comes from the fact that, yes, repeatedly I talked about and staff acknowledged that there were no minimums. Right. So as a district that allows 30 allows one. Yeah. And if we look at the Globeville neighborhood plan, which is only now five years old, it doesn't contemplate big box retail. It contemplates something much, much more dense and much more mixed use. And so that's what I'm talking about is we could take an MCs 30 or 20 or whatever we have there and put the minimum there. And that's a custom zoning and basically have precluded a big box retail, single story, big plugs, retail project. I don't know that it's going to be that. And so that's how we can get plan objectives, whether they're this plan or NPI generated plans, but only if we tell people that know if we don't have a zoned district that compels the outcome that is envisioned, we will tweak the zoning so that we do. Why not state that very clearly that our objectives here is as an equity component, we want to mitigate displacement. Therefore, we're going to we're going to we're going to have a housing component within a requirement within this distance to the TOD. We need a neighborhood serving retail, so we're going to have a retail component. Why not put that in? Yeah. Well, I think overall, I would just say that we feel like the best way to address those kinds of issues, like doing the minimum density requirements next to transit, which I would point out land use vote form, general recommendation number two and Blueprint Denver. That's what it's all about. How are we going to address the equity that you mentioned? Those things are best addressed by a more comprehensive approach an amendment to the zoning code creating zone districts that accomplish what we need. If you start doing it, every site that comes in side by side by side, not only does it add a lot to the process, you don't necessarily end up with consistent results. So one landowner negotiates this outcome, the next lander owner negotiates this outcome, the next landowner negotiates this outcome. And now in an area where you want one kind of comprehensive outcome or playing field site by, say, you've negotiated something differently. I'm not saying we still have done this particularly for large rezonings. We have used customs earnings or other tools like a. Development agreements. To get to the outcomes that we want when we can't get it fully through standards or districts. But I guess my point would be we have other tools that we're trying to use to get those outcomes. It's not just through a custom zoning. I don't think that CPD should fear the uniqueness of our areas. Right. Town of Highland developed one way. Denver developed a different my area developed a different way. And they sort of came together and turned into something beautiful. And Lowery's standards are not the same as Stapleton standards, and they're not the same as downtowns. Well, I want to be clear. I'm sorry if that was unclear. Totally agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that has to be the same solution for the entire city or half of the city or whatever. But I mean, like you brought up Fox Station when I was saying a comprehensive approach, I mean, for an area . So it's not one landowner at this point compared to this land over landowner over here, but it's all within a half mile radius has completely different rules. But we have a that's what's frustrating about those rezonings, right, is we had an adopted plan and it envisioned a certain negotiated outcome that the community envisioned. But I the things that you heard me say time and time again was that this plan there's nothing about this rezoning that compels any of these outcomes that the neighborhood sort of envisioned that are the justification for those those rezonings. And somehow to the the idea of complete neighborhoods. We need to figure out how to make these tools deliver that. And until we have zoned districts that do, I'm saying it should be a requirement when you're going to map to these new places, a new zoned district that has no precedent in any existing plan because they don't exist. That should be a condition whereby we do have that neighborhood discussion and yeah, it is a one off, you know, and CPD seemed averse to doing that too, putting that in the language. And then with all three places stating that customized zoning is essentially a big taboo, don't do it because it's hard to implement is antithetical to getting the outcomes of complete neighborhoods in areas that don't have a complete neighborhood already. That's the real beauty of Northwest Denver. Would you not agree? And why it actually scores so low on our need for plan is because it actually was a complete neighborhood. It developed around fixed rail transit in. So the infrastructure was already there in the built environment and the walkability of it. I mean, that's why it scores better than Lowry and Stapleton on plan need. And that was done without that holistic one size fits all. And I think there's benefit to that and I wish we would codify it. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other questions, I have what I hope will be a quick one for you, David. Thank you for all your work with the Wasatch Park Neighborhood Association. Although I know you've met with them a lot of times there's a letter that they submitted. They read, you know, into the record just on some things where they're you know, I think they were saying we reinterpret this way. You're saying that's not what it means. This means the same. Can you just confirm that the issues that they had in the letter, I won't go through one at a time unless you want me to that the that that the assurances that they were looking for just in terms of what the language read and how it would be interpreted that you guys got that ironed out and that that was accurate. Absolutely. Yeah. So I was able to read their letter and the four different bullet points on the assurances. And I agree with how they've written that there was the dialog between us to make sure we were understanding the interpretation of how the plan was written on those points and is a fair way to assess how the plan is applied to West Washington Park. And we'll look forward to working with them in the future. Thank you very much. All right. See no other questions. The public hearing for council bills 302 and 303 are closed. Councilman Cashman, would you like to formally offer your amendment to Council Bill 302? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Microphone. Microphone. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 19, dash three zero to be amended in the following particulars on page one Line 24 Strike April ten, 2019 as 20190012 and replace with April 23rd 2019 has 2019001 to a. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of the Council. Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. So in 2019. As we prepared to consider the documents that will guide planning in our city over the next several decades, we must be clear on what the challenges are to our civic well-being that these documents must address. Some challenges affect some neighborhoods. Some affect our entire city. Some extend even further. As the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has elevated concern over continuing warming of our atmosphere to emergency levels. It's critical that whatever plans we implement hold the need to mitigate our civic impact on global warming and protection of our planet and its resources. As a Prime Directive, I fully support the six vision elements. Excuse me around which comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver have been organized, equitable, affordable and inclusive, economically diverse and vibrant, strong and authentic neighborhoods, well connected, safe and accessible places, healthy, inactive and environmentally, environmentally resilient. While sustainability directives are present in numerous places throughout both plans. It became clear as I examined the documents that climate change needed to be given more prominent placement as an area of primary concern. I would like to thank David Jaspers and Sara Showalter of Community Planning and Development for their partnership and willingness in finding the prominent placement we saw in Tom Herrod of the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment for his assistance in fine tuning the wording of the amendment. These plans are indeed aspirational in nature and do not include precise directives in most cases, but they will in fact provide grounds to inform future discussions by clearly stating the priorities by which the people of Denver felt future development should be guided, along with increased emphasis on pedestrian safety on our streets, the need for affordable housing for all Denver residents, and long overdue attention to equity. In the application of all our plans, Denver needs to come. We'll know that in 2019, the citizens of Denver in this Council, when stating priorities, declared our intention to preserve not just a livable city but a habitable planet for future generations. As stated before, the purpose of this amendment is to allow for inserting a sentence on page 51 of the comprehensive plan under the environmentally resilient introduction. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. I think this is critically important. I'm excited that you brought it forward and thrilled to support it. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. CASHMAN Hi. Black Hi. Brooke, i. Espinosa, I. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I can. Lopez. I knew Susman. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and know the results. 1212 US counts about 302 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, we need a motion to pass as amended. Certainly I move that council bills 19 dash 0303 be placed. Oh sorry we're on 0203. And. I move the council bill 034003 or to be passed as amended. Perfect. Thank you. All right. Comments on 302. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Are we going to do them individually or in a block individually? Because we we've just amended this one. Now we're going to vote on adoption of comp plan. And then we will Councilman Cashman put forward his amendment, a blueprint, and then will vote on blueprint. Okay. Thank you. I have remarks that were aimed at both. So should I do those now? Yes, go ahead. Okay. So this is for both comp plan and blueprint. And so I strongly support so much that is in these plans, particularly the intentionality with which they take on historic systemic inequities among different populations and different neighborhoods. I like the emphasis on developing design requirements, especially in my suburban context, with its emphasis on improving pedestrian access. When I walk to my King Soopers, I can walk on the sidewalk up to it. But there are no sidewalks from the driveway, no sidewalks lining a driveway into the shopping center. So we walk in the driveway. With the cars. I'm also extremely grateful to the planning staff and its responsiveness, particularly to my district in southwest Denver. A little more than two years ago when Colorado Heights University was forced to close and they put the historic Loreto Heights campus up for sale at my request. David and Sarah and the core staff from CPD organized Ad Hoc. One of the very first general public meetings to gather neighborhood input not only regarding the campus and vicinity, but especially in every southwest Denver statistical neighborhood, none of which had ever had a community driven, city council approved neighborhood plan. I was very concerned that this large redevelopment site coming on the market right at the beginning of blueprints rewrite without any neighborhood level plan. And I hope that this had some small part in shaping the characteristic, the characterization and recommendations for the suburban context areas of the city into which my entire district falls. My district, in my estimation, already reflects a lot of the values expressed in blueprint and in comp plan, at least as far as residential, if not in mobility. We have, as the draft blueprint concedes, the most varied types of all neighborhoods. Southwest Denver has greater diversity than many neighborhoods in terms of population incomes and access to opportunity. It has a higher percentage of households of color than are represented in the city as a whole. The maps and blueprint of the changes in nonwhite households since 1990 show clearly that my council district is one of the only areas of town where households of color have increased. While the overall percentage of households of color in the city as a whole and in our gentrifying neighborhoods has decreased. We are the part of Denver where people are moving to buy homes when they're gentrified out of other areas. My single family neighborhoods are where households of color increasingly found that they can own a home and build wealth and equity. So at least in my estimation. But the plan leaves me uncertain going forward. Whose estimation will matter when it comes to guiding density and change because of the highly aspirational and frequently unspecific nature of the plan ? I can't sit here today and be certain whether the character of Southwest Denver will be preserved or disrupted by these plans. While I can interpret the recommendations as supporting preservation of character, I also see that ten years down the line when none of us is here any longer. This plan is vague enough that it can be substantially disruptive when interpreted differently than what I and my neighborhood leaders and residents have in mind right now. For instance, one of the recommendations in comp plan is to ensure city policies and regulations and encourage every neighborhood to provide a complete range of housing options at the statistical neighborhood level. My district already meets this, but in discussions with staff, I have a concern about applying that recommendation at a micro level, which the plan might lead to. There's a huge area of apartments and rowhouses a few blocks east of my house. My constituents don't want single family houses scraped off to build multi-unit structures in their midst, as they have seen elsewhere in town. But this plan can support that. Their biggest fear was not Don't let happen to our part of town. What's happened in in Highland, in north Denver, in Jefferson Park and Sloan's Lake? I spent the past few weeks reaching out to discuss this with numerous neighborhood leaders and constituents. And to a person, I heard great anxiety that these new plans could lead to the kind of unpopular change that has disrupted some other parts of town, almost illogically. Many places where we've added density in an effort to preserve affordability are now some of the most unaffordable in gentrified parts of town. Meanwhile, in southwest Denver, a full 40% of dwelling units are in multi-family developments as expected. In the suburban context, though, they are found in their own spaces, not interwoven in the same blocks as as is common in the urban core that developed that way over decades. My own subdivision sits astride large multifamily developments of apartments, condos, row houses and townhouses, duplexes and a few for plex's blueprints. Guidance could be used, however, to justify the insertion of four plex into suburban blocks of single family homes. And my constituents have told me they don't want that. In fact, I believe in my Marston neighborhood, a majority of the dwelling units are in multifamily developments of all types. The recommendation to allow adus as a use by right in all residential districts also conflicts, in my opinion, with the guidance to preserve the character of suburban context neighborhoods. We had a person who lives on Raleigh Street testify about her Adu. The folks here who spoke in favor of ADA use everywhere have talked about how well they fit into urban contexts, but not suburban. The Raleigh Street Adu had an entrance off the alley. In fact, they're often referred to as alley homes. My district has one alley. As much as we've talked about respecting different neighborhood characters. I keep hearing echoes of one size fits all, so I have a great concern that as much as the plans express a commitment to preserving unique character, the recommendations and strategies inexorably may point to an outcome that will homogenize our unique and distinctive neighborhoods. Suburban context areas can absorb more growth and density, and my constituents, in fact, look forward to seeing, for instance, more commercial density. As the drafts acknowledge, suburban areas are characterized by these different types and uses having their distinct areas within the neighborhood. My concern is that these plans, with their lack of sufficient specificity, will open the door to disorderly change rather than in those areas where infrastructure is in place to handle it. So it is with an abundance of concern and caution that I will be voting no. My vote does not reflect disagreement with the plans overall, but is cast because of the very few areas with which I have an irreconcilable concern. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no other comments on this one before we vote on comp plan. I just want to say I'm really excited about comp plan and I know a lot of the talk gets on the blueprint very quickly. But comp plan is, I think, one of the most exciting planning documents that I've ever seen. I think it's really cool to see how we talk about climate, how we talk about equity, how we talk about our city in that document. And I think you just did a really amazing job with the comp plan part of it. So I'm speaking specifically to that because that's what we're about to vote on. So, you know, I want to say thank you to everybody who stuck around this long to finally see us vote on something here. But also to just say that in particular on the comp plan piece. Really excited about this document. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on the comp plan as amended. Black Eye. Brooks Eye. Espinosa Eye. Flynn. No. Gilmore Eye. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage Lopez. All right, new assessment. All right. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close voting and the results. 11 eyes, one may. 11 eyes, one nay council bill 302 has passed as amended. Councilwoman Sussman, now, will you please put Council Bill 303 on the floor?

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on the 2021 Independent Redistricting Commission for the City of Long Beach. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02082022_22-0148

Thank you. Next up will be item 20. Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on the 2021 Independent Redistricting Commission for the City of Long Beach Citywide. Okay. Mayor, just like to acknowledge that the work of the Independent Redistricting Commission is completed and their final report has been shared with the City Council, and it's been posted on the city's website. Bradley Bounds will provide an overview of the Commission's work, as well as a summary of their final report and the recommendations for the city's next redistricting effort. I want to take this time to acknowledge and thank the collaborative effort by multiple city departments to try to complete this effort. So thank you to the city clerk's office, to the city manager's office, as well as the city attorney's office. It was a challenging but it was a very a very positive experience. And we are at the conclusion and I will turn it over to Bradley to make a brief summary of the work of the Commission. Bradley. Thank you. So as a brief overview of the process, as everyone here knows that there was an outreach process that happened from August 2019 to 2020, that application period for the from for the commission selection was April 2020 to June 2020 and there was 400 applicants. And the Ethics Commission created that support of 20 to 30 qualified applicants, randomly selected the nine and the remaining four and two members were selected by those nine that were selected. Yeah. So this is the the I.R.S. These are the acting commissioners for the Independent Redistricting Commission, the chair of the Alejandro Gutierrez. And the vice chair is Sharon, Dick Jackson. So before we continue through this presentation, we have to take a break to talk about the communities of interest, because this was very integral to the work of the commission. So what a community of interest is, it's a connected population that shares common and socio economic interests that should be included within a single district for its fair and effective representation. Some examples. Some examples are cultural or historical bonds, shared economic interests, and shared racial. Ethnic or religious identities and neighborhoods. So the work of the commission, they held 17 training and business meetings. Those meetings were designed to train them into being a commissioner, also providing them information on redistricting fundamentals, the demographics of the city, some public mapping, tool training and a team building meeting. There were ten community of interest outreach meetings held as well. These ten meetings were comprised of nine district specific meetings intended to receive communities of interest, feedback from the public to inform them for the mapping hearings. And there was one citywide meeting to make sure we covered all of the bases. And the six mapping hearings occurred between October and November. So how we got the word out on this project, we had a three phase engagement plan education, motivation and activation. Through these phases, we kept equity in mind by promoting digital in print advertisements that were translated into Spanish, into Gaelic with the educate phase. It was to introduce the public to the commission, but also provide the basics of redistricting of motivate phase was the period but for the the communities of interest hearings that get information from the public regarding their community and also train about the public mapping tool workshops. And the activate phase was to encourage public the public to draft maps and that was from October to December. So with all the work that the Commission and staff put in regarding communities of interest testimony, there was 772 communities of interest forum submissions. 16 total hours of public comment heard. Over 1000 pages of emails submitted from the community in 90 C0 II mapping tool submissions and 110 partial and full district plan submissions by the public. Using all of the information that they received as a commission, they were able to create the new district plan map, and that was adopted on November 18th, 2021. And the map became effective on December 18th, 2021. So as a final act of the commission, they were they transmitted a report with recommendations for future commissions. The first recommendation was regarding application and recruitment. They wanted the project to be clear about the commitment adding to the and adding to it. And as. You see. They wanted to be clear at the beginning about the time commitment and the limitations on political participation during the term of appointment and the assessment of analytical, analytical skills of applicants. In addition, the Ethics Commission is also planning to form a separate report highlighting their recommendations regarding the Ethics Commission involvement in the recruitment and selection process for future independent redistricting commissions. The next recommendation was around training that future commissions should receive training assistance from the 2021 commissioners and city staff with direct experience with independent redistricting commissions. Regarding staffing, the commission involvement should be in the budget in spending. The Commission should also be able to select the demographer and also work directly with independent legal counsel and develop rules around commissioner outreach activities. Regarding public input. They wanted to make sure that meetings were held at schools and community centers. If mapping begins after the district specific meetings, then another round of district outreach should occur to avoid skewing towards a political outcome. Incumbents, their staff, consultants, candidates or city lobbyists should be discouraged from participating and provide the commission with a list of registered lobbyists. Regarding the chair and vice chair selection before the selection of the chair and vice chair, a commission should create opportunities to get to know each other and assess leadership skills and also consider the use of an interim chair and vice chair prior to the selection of permanent chairs. During the mapping stage. They should that the next commission should start with public drawn and cause in consultant drawn maps to avoid starting with a blank map and transition to a public live line drawing to increase transparency and allow the public and commissioners to understand the intent behind every line change. So in conclusion, the new map has been delivered to L.A. County, the L.A. County registrar. The map will be used for the 2022 upcoming election. And the Independent Redistricting Commission report has been posted to the redistricting website at Lone Star. Gov. Slash redistricting. Slash Resources. So just as a reminder, the this is a received following a presentation for the 2021 Independent Redistricting Commission for the City of Long Beach. Thank you. That concludes the staff report, just acknowledging that the commission came up with a variety of recommendations. And in the coming weeks and months, staff will be reviewing and assessing those recommendations. We will be holding on to those. And the whole idea behind those is to make sure that the next redistricting process is more efficient and a more positive process. And we will be forwarding those recommendations to the next commission. Thank you. We're staff is available for any questions or feedback. Thank you, Amy. First, I have a motion to approve the report by Councilmember Gringa. Let me start with customary ringa, and then I have some cues and I'll go through all the cues and then I will speak as well. Thank you, Mayor, for regulating me. Basically, I want to just thank the District Commissioner for all the work that they did. And, of course, to stay positive or to get ready to commission. I think that this report is a very thorough it provides a lot of good ideas for the future commission. We're only eight years away year. I mean, it is not that far. When the next census comes up and we're going to be doing this again. The the recommendation to have it future commission talk to those who already participated in this one. I think it's an excellent one. It's something that they can provide their knowledge and their expertize and experience and work in this commission. How that can work from this all around. And I think that this recommendation, this report basically is a is a matter for future commission as to how they want to participate and how they want to move forward with another redistricting effort. And kudos to the commission as a whole. They maintain their integrity, maintain their professionalism, their competence. They certainly show that in regards to the whole process. And they really maintain their their patience. I mean, they were there. I was looking at it and many times it ended at 1230, 1:00 in the morning. And it was very grueling, I'm sure, for not only the commissioners themselves, but for their families. So thank you, Mayor and I wholeheartedly with this report forward as we see the file. Thank you. I think I think there's a second to receive on file and also with some possible comments and questions. Councilman Nelson. Yes. I'd like to just, first of all, commend the commission staff who spent really long hours working on this this exhaustive process. This was mentally exhausting to watch. And so to be in the midst, in the seat to the decision makers, I know it was not an easy process. So those citizens who were selected for this inaugural independent districting commission should be commended for their their endurance, but also their their efforts to create what and listen to the community . Because I think there was many hours of public comment and input from the community. I think many lessons were learned in this process. And so I do appreciate the report. I'd love to see these maps once. We can. We can. They can be displayed on the. The County Registrar's office. Print them out. We kind of understand them. I think there's been some delays and some lags in terms of efficiencies with the process and obviously the challenges of getting the data which could have been made for a better process overall. And so, again, I wanted to lend my. Kudos and salute the commissioners for their their efforts, their work. Not everybody is happy with the outcomes. Well, no, but that I don't know that this council would have been able to. Draw maps that would have made everybody happy with the outcomes. It's always a very political and politically charged process that that is very difficult to to satisfy the the ideas that everybody has about what a community of interest should be overall. And so that I brought I was the guy that brought forth this concept became a ballot initiative, became reality. And no impacts were made as a result of this independent redistricting commission. I think one way or another, like it or not, the imprint and the commission have made a Long Beach change for for, for for the next two years. And so, again, I want to thank them for their service. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. I appreciate the work of the commission. I did have a question on one of the earlier slides. It talks about the amount of participation. And one of the things that has been brought. To my attention by some constituents was. That they felt as though to really participate. You couldn't just submit a map. You actually had to go to all. The meetings, stay. Till. Midnight, and really for your voice to be heard. You had to continue to raise your voice over and over again. So I guess I would just like to add that. I would love to find a way where are very vocal advocates who spend. Considerable hours submitting multiple. Options and comments, etc. could be balanced against those. That are senior citizens that worked. Hard and went to the library and and submitted one comment or one map. And I think that that's something that's interesting about becoming a council member. And we have our regulars that we listen to and we hear their input and their feedback. We also take a lot of time to spend on individuals who make a comment or a question or concern about just one agenda item or something that's just. Important to them. And maybe they're not a regular, but we learn their names and we learn the things that are important to them. I know that that's a process. That when you become a new council member, you're overwhelmed at first with the high, high touch constituents that call every day. But over time, you work with them to make sure that their issues are addressed, but that they're not more important than the constituent that calls just once. So I would love to know, based on your first slide, I'd love to get a follow. Up report on how many people was. That if there were 70. Maps submitted or 700 maps submitted? Did five people submit. 500 of them? I mean, there were people who submitted dozens and dozens of maps, and I'd be interested in knowing what the total person interaction was. And I also think that it would be interesting to see what that interaction was by district in the new maps, because I think that if you did it by district of the new or old maps, you would find. That individuals who were really. Invested in the way things. Were and didn't participate as much, and then they found. Out, oh my gosh, things are changing. And if you're things are. Changing mid process and maybe you galvanized in the middle of the process. Like happened in the third district, but if it changed on you. At the very last minute. I like the fifth district. A lot of people called me and said, Stacy, why didn't you tell us? And I said, You know, throughout the process, I provided feedback and update the maps regularly, but it's really up to the commission. And in supporting the initial agenda item I propose by Councilmember Austin. I felt as though council members shouldn't be. In attendance. And supporting and doing those things. In the in the volume and in reading the the pink that came from Charlie Park. And then I know that. We all followed the rules. And that those rules were supported by our city attorney. But it was just a very, very different process for different parts of the city. And so I'd like us to work on that next time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Supernormal. Thank you. I just have a question for you. I think I heard Bradley Brown say that there was a lot of attention paid to outreach. And I believe, Bradley, if you can correct me if I'm wrong, but you said it, my words, a very robust effort that included both digital and print media. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So and this is what is a major disconnect from me. Was there any discussion at the commission or by staff explaining to the commission that. If you take a district by district for. And you're only going to retain 20,000 of the residents. Are you going to have that district gain, 30,800 residents? Maybe we should have an equally robust system for alerting those residents of the change. And when you say print and digital. Yeah. Like a postcard program or something like that. So I began asking for this on November 18th. I saw this coming and I didn't wait for it to be finalized on December 18th. So I don't think I'm ever going to get quite that I've asked for. Can you give me the names of the people I can do? The outreach I've received that I did finally get the number, I think that was shared with everyone because I suspect that it was this staggering a number. So I know that's a very long question, but my question but I guess I'll make a very simple. Was the commission ever engaged in this problem that was created? Or was there any comment from staff to them that while you're doing this or did anyone suggest, hey, we better do something moving forward so this all works? Uh, Councilman. Super. Now, I, I think that the, the, the commission was really guided by looking more specifically at the communities of, of interest in redrawing the lines. I'm not sure that there was a lot of focus, our attention paid to the the the differences and the ultimate impacts of those lines in terms of the the numbers of of of residents that were leaving a district or coming into a new district. So that is a feedback that we can certainly capture and make a note of so that it can be considered in future redistricting efforts. But I will say that as a result of the new maps, staff has done a very extensive outreach to to publicize the new maps. And that is, in addition to the postcard mailings, there has been extensive social media. There has been neighborhood contacts for all of the Cities Neighborhood Association. So we are making it. I have to interrupt for 1/2, Linda. I'm not aware of any postcard mailings. That is in process. And those I think we communicated with your staff earlier today that we just got the date that that will go out next week. But that is in. Process so that they may go out next week. And that would be two months after this is finalized, three months after we knew the data. So that's my issue, is that this simply was not addressed. The report tonight, if I had this the final year that I'll have them, we're going to go guess what? Our issues are just starting. And I know for my district, we have another district that had gained 211 new residents. I gained 30,800. So I'm just asking that moving forward, that included in the plan, if we're going to put that much effort into outreach, let's get something together for after the fact and how we communicate to the residents of these massive changes. Because every day in our office is not just the 30,000 is the one we've retained because it was so huge in the fourth District. We get calls from people. Hey, am I still in your district? I'm not quite sure. And the idea of sending out a postcard that where you would have a QR code and that person has to look up the map, it's a generic postcard that goes to everyone. If you want to know what district you're in. Scan this QR code. That's the antithesis of a print medium, telling someone what district they're in. So that's all I have to say. And I hope that's considered next go round. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Councilman in Dallas, please. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to thank the commission for all the hard work that they did on the commission. I know that this was the first time that we as a city had an independent redistricting commission and that there were many lessons learned. And I hope that some of the comments that we share here today that those those lessons were actually learned. I do have to agree with my colleagues on there being more outreach. I know that it was it was a difficult time absolutely a difficult time to do the redistricting commission because of all the things that that were in place. Right. With with COVID. But one of the things that I think was very positive is that the community came out to see those that could. And I want to echo Councilmember Mungo's comment that we really, really have to do better when reaching out to those that may not be able to come and not be able to physically be in the spaces, including our seniors and people with disabilities, that that feel that they missed out on an opportunity to voice their to voice their voices, as we all witnessed. It was this had a significant impact on our communities and our city overall. For that reason, it's crucial that we learn as much as we can from this experience to ensure that next time around the city has all that. When I say city, I mean the residents have all the tools that they need that are necessary for this process to be to be able to have an efficient redistricting process. I also noted in the presentation today by Bradley that it said that the new commission would be trained by the old commissioners. One of the things that I would say and I would recommend is that that not happen only because it is supposed to be an independent redistricting commission and the commissions, the old commissioners, which did a wonderful job to the best of their ability, they might still have something pending where they might not come in with or they might come in already influenced and wanting a certain thing. So I think it's good to actually take all the recommendations from the commission right now that is fresh in their mind and and then pass those on to the next commissioners instead of having the commission itself come back and train them just so that it could be fair to them, to the new commissioners, and so that they that they are able to start from a fresh slate. If you may. Also, one of the things that I think is important is to be able to do outreach to the community. Earlier, I know that there had been a lot of outreach. I know that you know a lot of my constituents, because we live in the first district, we found out about the meetings that were happening and a lot of my residents missed it and were upset that they didn't have a chance to participate. But I know that it was a lot of factors that caused them. Also, one of the biggest things that that also hurt is that. That let me rephrase that that we can improve on is actually doing outreach, maybe, you know, door knocking, you know, house to house, making sure making a real effort to reach out, especially to those hardest to reach communities that don't have the ability to get online, that don't have the ability to do a math online. Maybe they don't have that capability because they don't know how to do it, or maybe it's because there's language barriers that prevent them from doing it. I think that that's important only because sometimes the redistricting process affects them, sometimes the most. So again, I just want to thank all the commissioners for all the hours that they put into this, all the late nights that they put into this. And I hope that we take all the good things that we that we gain from this process and really work through and to get through those that weren't as efficient going forward. Thank you. Last May, Richardson. Thank you. First, I want to just take a moment and just congratulate everyone on completing this process. We know that the goal was to ensure that resources to reach every part of our city, and that is fair representation and resources. We also know that we had a late census, and that puts some pressure on our ability to conduct our redistricting process. And that was outside of everyone's control. But I do want to congratulate, I think, all involved for making sure that we are able to finish that process. Kolb It was also a barrier to outreach through the census and through redistricting. Folks forget that. But this commission stepped up, stepped up because of up, and they conducted the process that made it happen. I also want to just take a moment and acknowledge the commissioners. I watched most of those meetings from home. And I'll tell you, those commissioners were thoughtful. I saw the process of how they built consensus. I saw how they resolved their disagreements amicably. You know, we learned about the whole city. We watched as they attempted to learn and understand that unique issues and communities all across our city. And they did they, I think, demonstrated grace and and real composure through that process. I also want to just thank the residents. I learned a lot just listening to the residents about their communities of interest. I'll tell you, you know, I've seen more than one redistricting process in the city. It always is always lively in one way or the other. But I also saw a lot of communities that we haven't heard in the past step up and talk about their communities. North Long Beach in particular, has come a long way. You know, the folks were unified and spoke with one voice about their interest, a little positive framing about our community. It wasn't all, hey, this is terrible. That's terrible. We heard some, you know, some real pride in the community and in the neighborhoods. And that made me really proud just to see how the neighborhoods stepped up and came together and spoke with one voice. You know, I also thought that the community meetings were really well done. The nine meetings that were out to or however many work that went out to the different communities. I thought that was really well done. I attended two of those personally, the ones in the community, and sat back and listened. And this was the first time we had had community meetings in a while because because of Coby, it was really inspirational about the conversation in the community. Meetings were really locally focused on those communities and I think that's important. I think as we move forward, you know, the next year, I would hope ten years from now, I would love to just see more of that neighborhood outreach. I think what we saw at City Hall, I think, was a very different tone. It really took a larger level, higher heightened level of organization to really break through. And I didn't see that in the neighborhood meetings and the neighborhood meetings. I really saw the commissioners taking time and listening to each individual community. And I think I think that that helped make the process better. So, you know, again, you did your job. You know, I think our city it was difficult, obviously, but our city reflects its community and our changes were made and the citizens stepped up. The residents stepped up and did the process. And I think our community's going to be stronger as a result of it, because I tell you, you know, local government, you know, we're great at building things, but it really takes residents to point out what we can do better and dismantle and tell us when we need to reform and do things better. And that's really ultimately what I see happen through this process. Again, congratulations to all involved and thank you. Thank you. I'm going to just make a couple a couple of comments to close your any other comment. So I want to make a couple of comments. I cued up, but I'm not sure if I. Think you did you didn't hear about it for some reason. I, I, I passed you and Vice Mayor Richardson, which you both cued up. So. Councilman Zoro. Yes, I have a queued up case. I don't know if Councilmember Price should go next. Ah. Okay. I, I'm having a little bit of a Q issues with my, my phone here. So I actually have in this order. You're right. I have Councilman Price and then Councilman Zero. Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I won't take too much time. I appreciate the report. I think it's a it's a really good report. And I did find this to be a fascinating process. It was great to hear about all the different communities and just, you know, what happens when a line moves, you know, just a few blocks in one direction or the other. And what kind of impact that has in terms of city assets and recreational facilities and things of that nature and and the familiarity or lack thereof with some of those neighborhoods and impact that was was a fascinating for me for me to watch and observe. I want to just take a moment to thank, obviously, everyone who was involved in the process for for going through the process and being methodical about it. I think it was very obvious that they were listening. And of course, not everyone is was in agreement that they were listening to what they were able to to listen to all everybody. And some of those meetings were very long. But I do want to think just for a moment, I want to just one person that really I thought helped a lot. This was the first time there was a lot of question. People who know me know that I ask a lot of questions. And I also like to understand the framework that we're operating in from a legal standpoint. And Taylor Anderson was just a phenomenal asset from the city attorney's office because there were a lot of questions about what does the charter say, what does the charter allow, what is allowed by public comment, what's allowed to be considered by the commission? And I just thought that she did a great job as long as well as Amy Webber. On trying to help maneuver all the questions since this was the first time and there were a lot of things that the commissioners had questions about, lot of things that the public had questions about, and of course, a lot of things that even officials in the city had questions about since this was our first time. So I want to thank Taylor Anderson for answering questions that me and my staff had every step of the way. I know that I tried to check with her at every step of the way to make sure that we understood the process and what the charter limitations were. And we had the first meeting in our Council district, and I have to say, I don't think anybody knew what the process was going to be at the time. We were very passive listeners at that meeting and did not understand since it happened, you know, nine months or so before the final, I think it was about nine months or so before the final decisions and so learned a lot in that process. But at that very first meeting, I kind of wish we had gone first because we really had no idea what what the process was about. When we met, when we had the meeting in our district and had had the opportunity to ask questions, we just didn't know what we didn't know. And as the process went further, it became clear what this was all about. For those of us who were not part of the city the last time this process happened, it was an eye opening experience because we were new to all of that. Me and a lot of community members. So I want to thank the the commission for the report and specifically again, just Taylor Anderson from the City Attorney's Office for answering the legal clarifying questions that came up throughout the process. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilwoman and Councilwoman Sara. Thank you. I just want to add to what's been said in terms of just my thanks to the commissioners. I've also watch almost every one of the meetings and agree that, you know what, they're really clear how the process was going to roll out because we've never had an independent redistricting commission before. I just remember just reassuring that they were doing the district wide orientation. And I think that what would have been helpful for us is to figure out what was going on so that we can help inform our constituents, you know, early on that, you know, in the best way possible that this was happening and this is what the process were. Because I think that it kind of went from zero one, two miles and then it went into like 50 really quick because of the timeline and waiting for the census and all of that. So I just want to add to that what was said around, you know, I did have concerns about the process and how input was taken because a lot of it was happening right then and there as a lot of the commissioners are trying to process the maps and the decisions they were made a week before and then they were getting input at that moment. And I just want to make sure that people who weren't able to make it, that submitted written input was somehow, you know, compiled for the commissioners to review so that they could look at everything rather than those who were the loudest. And that was there all the time that had the capacity to be there. Right. And I know we had some issues with language interpretation that was kind of made maybe a little challenging in the beginning, that I hope that we can take a lot of these lessons learned to smooth it out to ensure that there is inclusive engagement because it's already hard enough. I think that we wanted people to be there to share that their concern, but also making sure they're accessible in other languages. So I just want to add to that that, you know, I agree that it made it difficult for the community outreach engagement. There is a large digital staff, but I'm not quite sure if we did other avenues of outreach. I know that were attempts to be made an event that was impacted by COVID. But Charlie, just to speak, thank you to our staff for figuring out the process with our commissioner. And I think that there's a lot of lessons we can take and how to make the next one better and maybe provide more support and training to the commissioners early on before they actually go into that meeting. Thank you very much. Councilman Sara and I got over the council. Alright. I just want to make sure I didn't miss anyone on this cute thing. Okay, great. Let, let me, let me just add some comments. I want to just first just start by thanking the commission. Redistricting is a very difficult process. There are a lot of interests, of course, across across any large city in a community. I mean, I think the commission took their jobs seriously. I stand by the support that many of us worked on to get this commission actually across the finish line, not just at the county level, which Councilman Austin mentioned, but also in the campaign and in the community meetings that led up to a process that was put in front of voters, which we know voters passed by pretty substantial margins to put the commission on the ballot. The that the commissioners I found did not know. I think most of them I found them to be folks that cared about their city. I found them to be folks that cared about doing a process with integrity and doing and doing the best job that they could. And I and I was really impressed with the staff providing the support to the commission as well. Redistricting processes are very hard and they were they weren't just difficult and hard here at the city level, but they certainly were at the state and federal level as well. When you have independent commissions and at the county where you have independent commissions, now I'm doing this work in the country, the state. We are moving towards independent commissions are doing redistricting across the across the country. And that's something that I have long supported. I believe that commissions of people that try to divorce them selves from the the day to day politics of of of bodies are best equipped to make these decisions. And I know that we all don't always end up with with lines as we all would like. And certainly there's you know, there's things in the map that I think I should have been different. But I think that's kind of the point, right? That things that they are an independent groups that are going to creep into the lines the way they see is best for the community. And I just want to thank the commission, the staff and the community for engaging. I also am grateful for all the recommendations that are being put forward to make improvements. The truth is, is ten years ago, when the state first had their first independent commission, it was very messy and they learned a lot in those few years following. And the last commission where we had the second state commission. Ten years later was a vastly improved process from the first one that was held ten years ago. And so I think that for language having in its history the first redistricting commission process, there is a lot to be learned and there's a lot to be learned and not just on recommendations that the Commission has provided, but I think the community has provided that you're hearing from the council. There's a lot more focus that should be baked in in the future as it relates to outreach and reaching and reaching communities. And so I think all of that is is true. And there's a lot to learn, but also a lot to to be grateful for. I want to thank Mr. Monica, you and the entire redistricting team for really, really difficult work. And and I just want to echo what the council said is I do want to thank the individual commissioners for your service. You were selected through a process that was independent of any of us selecting selecting the commission and again, to the clerk and to the Ethics Commission, who both played vital roles in that process of selection . I just want to thank them for their work as well. Is there any public comment, Madam Clerk, on this item? If any members of the public would like to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or press star nine. Our first speaker is Dave Shukla. Hello? Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. We can hear you. Okay. Wow. A lot of good comments. Uh, but getting right to it. My name is Dave Shukla. I'm a third district resident, and I went to each and every mapping session as much out of interest for what my own district would look like. As for an interest in what the city's map overall would look like with regards to this little nonprofit that I wrote. In both regards, I think if you look at pages 5 to 6 of this report, you can see immediately a number of things. Point one, it's not clear based on the areas of change in the redistricting map. Especially with data and housing construction that was planned prior to 1921. Number two, maybe, maybe not. In fact, you could make an argument that what districts won through six on the map, the final adopted map slept for or for people who voted eight for Prop 13 and B supported can limit restrictions at the time. Number three, geographic continuity. You bypass an existing population in the form of seven Memorial Heights to shoehorn it into the six for the first time in its history where your demands are being reinvested. Number four, check the tape. There's a lot of questions, especially with data that was available after 930, 21. Number five, there are blatant disregard for and cherry picked cop testimony. Number six didn't do that a lot. I actually broke that a lot. Number seven didn't do that a lot. Number eight, no clear reason for the fifth District to cross over Signal Hill unless it's working for the interest or the space economy's interests or even interest. A lot of questions about that. What else? Number nine. Uh, yeah. The district really isn't compact in order to six by definition. But more generally, just, you know, there's other problems too with the maps. Haven't yet had the time to even compile a. Compile it all. But the idea, right, is that we can learn to do it better. We're most likely going to do that in five years. I think this market locally has a lot in common with Alabama's situation in that we had both voting rights and purple. You know, kind of discrimination going on. And don't you. Think that concludes your public comment? Our next speaker is Ryan given. All right. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and Council. My name is Ryan Giffen from District one and a member of the Independent Redistricting Commission. I briefly wanted to publicly thank the city staff for their unwavering and dedicated work to the city and commission itself throughout the process. JT, Brad Taylor, Amy and many others, thank you very much. Additionally, it must be noted that Mr. Paul Mitchell from Redistricting Partners was truly an integral asset to this team, and we want to thank him for his patience, his expertize and service, as well as Vice Mayor Rex Richardson mentioned in his comments earlier, the I.R.S. body was truly one that worked from a place of thoughtfulness, integrity and courage, a wonderful reflection of the make up of our city. It was truly an honor to serve our city and its people. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you, Madam Kirk. And with that, please call the roll call for the final report. District one, district two. All right. District three. High District for. I. District five. II District six. I. District seven. I it's an eight. By. District nine. Yeah. Motion is carried.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $500, offset by the Fourth Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a donation to Partners of Parks for AOC7’s Quarantine Food Project benefitting Fourth District residents; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $500 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_03022021_21-0166

I. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 15. Communication from Councilman Super Na recommendation to increase appropriations in the City Manager Department by $500 to provide a donation to Partners of Parks for AOC Sevens Quarantine Food Project benefiting Fourth District residents. Controversial or not. Thank you. I'd like to thank the AOC seven Neighborhood Association for organizing this effort. And this will bring enhanced food security to Fourth District residents within their neighborhood association said. Appreciate your support. Thank you. And can I get a second, please? Second. Okay. Just make sure you go to the Q system. Second by Councilwoman Allen. There's a motion in the second. There's no public comment. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. District one. It's my. District two. I. District three. I. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine. I motion carries.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to work with the Health Department to establish a Food Security Plan for communities impacted by the closures of grocery stores and make recommendations for inclusion in the inclusive economic recovery plan.

LongBeachCC_02162021_21-0146

Bush and Kerry. Thank you. Item number 16, please. Hi. Item 16 is communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilwoman Sunday and Councilwoman Allen. Recommendation. Recommendation to direct city managers to establish a food security plan for communities impacted by the closures of grocery stores. Q Vice Mayor Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I think it sounds like it's resolved the audio issue so quickly. The idea here is that food security is at an all time insecurities, an all time high right now, well, at the highest levels in generations, in fact, according to the Northwestern Institute of Policy Research. Nationwide, food insecurity has doubled overall and tripled among households with children as a result of this current economic crisis that we have on hand. A Long Beach has actually done a pretty good job since the pandemic. We began with our basic needs security work, and we were able to fund that with CARES Act, building significant capacity across town for delivering and expanding access to food, everything from pop up markets to pantries and even direct delivery of meals and direct delivery of groceries through nonprofits and local restaurants. We have, you know, most recently, we we went through the Heroes Act dilemma when Kroger announced that it may be closing two of its Long Beach grocery stores . This announcement comes at a time when our nation is again facing unprecedented levels of unemployment and food insecurity. And so we want to make sure that if this were to happen in April, we have a game plan on how we're going to provide food and enhance food security in the areas around food for us. I asked my my social work fellow to create this map because identifying where the, you know, access to food, the bodegas, the big box grocers, all of them exist around the food for less is true. Food for less is in my district, the one near South Street at the bottom. That's the one that's closing. Now around it, you see to the right the WinCo and food for left to the north, superior to the south. There's a number of big boxes surrounding it. It's had some issues. But if you go sort of north northwest, it's a big you know, it's a big gap in terms of access to food. And so what we need to do is make sure that we put we plan for it. We know that there may be a shock to the system if this grocery store closes. We can talk about long term plans and development, all those things. But I think our most immediate need is to ensure that the needs of the local residents are met. And so to offset the sudden economic shock that may be created, food shock by the closure of these grocery stores. We should prepare an equity informed food security recovery strategy, a food security plan, and this should be put in place to prevent further escalation of food insecurity in this fortunately impacted areas. Now, and my motion as written, I'm going to make that motion as written. But I will say I think there are many areas of uptown that could be areas that need additional attention with food security. Again, we built a lot of capacity care that I want to see what opportunity we have specifically around this area. But if there's other areas as well that may be impacted by closure of grocery stores or lack of grocery store, we need to be intentional about calling out what our food security plan is and making sure that that is as a part of our ongoing inclusive recovery plan that the city council directed staff to work on last December. And so that's the gist of this motion, and I'm happy to submit it to the Council and urge your support. Okay. There is a second by customers and they have concerns and they has. Thank you. I absolutely want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for bringing this item forward. Both of us represent neighborhoods that are severely impacted by a lack of access to fresh, affordable groceries and produce, which makes the COVID 19 crisis and store closures that much more painful in our communities. It's it's critical. It's critical that we have that we treat food security as a basic right of our residents and develop a plan to make sure that we are all actively working on ways to preserve and expand access. As a matter of policy, it's unfortunate the case that even before the pandemic, far too many of our residents were faced with hunger and food insecurity. Those numbers have only grown since COVID 19, and it has become harder and harder for a Long Beach residents just to keep food on the table. This plan is needed and it is my hope that we can use it to work together on actionable items that will close this gap for our food insecurities. So I really, really hope that not only focusing on late nights, Long Beach, I'd really welcome the the opportunity, thanking my mayor, the opportunity of implementing these and other districts as well with high food insecurities. So thank you. Cut some of your anger. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank my colleague device where Richardson cuts to the pencil analogy for bringing this forward. And I want to add my voice in regards to the food insecurity that exists in Long Beach. I certainly have my area in the West, long, weak that is food insecure and extremely disappointed, not only for the fact that during a time when they were making record profits of being close to stores and especially especially disappointed in the press telegram with their recent editorial regarding the heroes pay, especially when they're saying that Kroger has it's been affected by the fact that because of the Heroes Act or the heroes pay that they're losing or they're minimizing the profits, a profit is a profit, and therefore they're making a pay based over low tax profits. They can certainly afford it. So I'm very supportive of this item. Thank you for bringing this forward. And I think that this would be helpful a long way. This would go a long way in helping those communities that are food insecure. So thank you again. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I'm happy to support this motion. Certainly. Food insecurity. As a city council, we should be looking to provide as much comfort, and particularly in the area of food for for our residents. I think some of the challenges with insecurity have to have the have a lot to do with the market. You know, just a few years ago, a superstore was was developed in the ninth District in North Long Beach. A Wal-Mart superstore right down the street from a pooper less that is now on on the table to be closed. And I certainly hope that that that that's not a final decision. I hope that Kroger will come to their senses and realize that, you know, that this is a store that is meeting the need of community. And if they don't, I think someone else will. I certainly hope someone else will. And so what does this item does it actually. Direct staff to to look at other grocers, to come into the community to provide groceries or all these services. Maybe that's a question for the author. So I'm happy to answer. So this plan can include a whole host of things. But I think in terms of developing that site, that's a different conversation there. You know, in conversations with development and others, we identified this site as an opportunity, as a major opportunity when we went through the land use settlement process. And as you know, we're in Upland right now at about 12, 13 acres right in the heart of North Long Beach. Huge opportunity banks, housing, grocery. If that were to happen. But right now, the interest is how do we how do we do a needs assessment and analysis on what the food insecurity levels are and also build on the capacity that we have? I mean, we've you've got lobbies it. You've got organic harvest gardens, lobby, center for Economic Inclusion, a lot of food distribution giveaways. These things didn't we didn't have this year. And so there's significantly more capacity. I think this is about the strategy of what can we deliver? Is it. Is it pop up, farmers markets, arm stands? Is it additional food distribution? Is it conversations with grocers? All of that could be factored in. I think this is just about sort of bringing the mindset table. I'll figure that up. Thank you. And I would just say that that to add to that point, you know, there are resources that that should be considered like our our seven acre urban farm in the eighth district, the hard a district right by the Carmelita that is providing lots of organic vegetables for for for families. That's a resource that should be tapped into. I talked to many residents who live in Carson and Compton and other cities who come to Long Beach for their groceries. And so this is a this is not just a North Lawn Beach issue. 90805 issue. But this is a regional challenge because I know for a fact that a number of folks from other cities come into our city to shop. I've heard from that from so many people just recently. I'm fortunate. I live within walking distance to the four or five grocery stores, literally. And we have a hub here in the eight district of grocery food providers, which is, I think, an asset and resource here in our community. Look, people should be able to have resources close by. And so I support that 100%. But I do think, again, some of the market factors should be considered and some some of that we can't control, as the city council is the private private market that that that that is driving some of this this all this activity, in my opinion, outside of our certainly we all supported the Heroes Pay Act. We stand on that. It was the right thing to do. And and, you know, whatever PR move it was to to to to announce closure, you know, and blame it on that, that's fine. I don't necessarily believe that that is the case. I can I guess we can state that publicly now. I think it was more have had more to do with market factors than anything. Thank you. Councilman Allen. Yes, thank you, Mayor. And I, too, look forward to supporting this item because the pandemic has had a significant impact on our residents and especially on families. And that's why we have to look at ways to support food security for our communities. And I just want to say great word to Vice Mayor Richardson for bringing this item forward and also want to say thank you for inviting me to co-sponsor. Thank you. That concludes council comment. Is there any public comment on this item? Yes. Our first speaker is Joey King. Joey King. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor. Can you hear me? Yes. Please continue. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. My name is Joey King. I volunteer in District nine with Collins Neighborhood Association and collaborate with a network of pantries and community organizations that span across this amazing city we call Long Beach Item number 16, which is a recommendation to direct the city manager to work with the health department to establish a food security plan is a step in the right direction. But it does make me wonder why would we not already utilize all existing and possible resources to work together in fighting food insecurity? So let's not just do the research, write a report, and let it collect dust on a shelf somewhere. Let's use this momentum and start to take action. The food insecurities that already exist in District nine will be exacerbated with the closure of food for less on South Street. Local pantries and community organizations stand ready to help, as we always are. But making the decision to build food security into the fabric of who we are as a city would mean that we finally begin to address the problem at its root and stop very important fruit. I urge that in developing a plan to move forward, you include those local organizations that fight the battle of food insecurity on a daily basis. As we all look forward to rebuilding our city. I'll leave you with this. America is the richest country in the world. And yet tonight. Thousands of your neighbors will go to bed hungry. It may be your child's schoolmate who is undernourished and has difficulty learning on an empty stomach. Or it could be a coworker or a working parent whose low wage job doesn't make ends meet. Perhaps it's an elderly neighbor who has to make a decision whether to delay filling a prescription or buying groceries. The faces of hunger are as broad as the faces of America. That was David has be with General Mills. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Good night. Thank you. Your next speaker is Marcella de Rivera. Hello. This is Maricela. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Council members and staff. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak on this item. I'll be brief. I want to thank my council member, Vice Mayor Richardson. I am a proud resident of District nine, and I'd like to thank him for bringing this forward and council women and their husband, Allen, for co-sponsoring . As a resident of the ninth District, Food for Less on South Street is someplace we shop regularly or at least did. And so I just want to let you know that that the heroes pay that they purport is the reason that they are closing even though, again, they purport that it is why they're closing the store. I still support completely. This is absolutely going to impact my life. I look forward to Vice Mayor Richardson. I know that he's going to aggressively try to address this issue and the food desert in the ninth. I know that he has for years before he was even on council when he was serving on staff under Council member Stephen Neal. And I know that this is an issue that's not going to go away for us right away and it's going to be exacerbated for now. But I still think the city of Long Beach did the right thing. And so I'm very excited about what will come and what better grocery store we can get, hopefully to come to the ninth district and serve our residents. I think we're a diverse community that deserves better than Kroger if what they are giving us is not good, not being good employers, I just don't think that that's worth fighting for. I think we need to fight for good employers who are going to treat their customers well. And so I thank you for this and I thank you for the heroes pay also. The next speaker is Juanita Top. We need a deeper more. I need it. Okay. Please begin. Yes. Hello and good evening. Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor. With such members of city council and staff. Good evening. My name is. We need a couple more. And I'm a resident here in the ninth district. I'm also the founder and president of the Colors Neighborhood Association. During this pandemic and moving forward this year, the Collins Neighborhood Association has hosted food distributions at Jordan High School and in the North Long Beach community. In addition, we partnered with North Long Beach Pantry Collaborative, sponsored by the Long Beach Center for Economic Inclusion. During the pandemic, these distributions represent approximately £200,000 of food. And speaking of this, to bring awareness to this need, the closure of the food for left on south and north Long Beach will put families at greater risk. This also puts the residents of Long Beach closer to being a food desert. We have more marijuana dispensaries in the ninth District than we have places to shop and get fresh fruits and vegetables. The residents in North One Beach experienced greater rates of poverty. One in four children living in North Long Beach. Residents with their families live below the poverty level. Children attending public school are dependent on milk for breakfast and lunch. With school closures during this pandemic. Those students are going without daily meals. How can they focus on school on an empty stomach? These are issues being brought to life as a result of this pandemic. I'm asking for the city manager and many a members of city council to take a closer look at the number of food distributions that are being held in North Long Beach and develop a plan to address the food insecurity that our residents in Long Beach , throughout Long Beach are facing. Please be proactive and develop an effective plan, not just putting a Band-Aid on food insecurity, but to come up with a plan to address the issues of food insecurity and the lack of funding taking place in North Long Beach. Thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to speak with you tonight. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for the center. Thank you. Please go through a roll call. Vote, please, on item 16. Councilwoman Sun has. Right. Councilwoman Ellen? Hi. Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman Pryce. Councilman Sabrina. All right. Councilwoman mango. Councilwoman Sara, I council member oranga. Hi. Councilman Alston. My Vice Mayor, Richardson. All right. Bush and. Kerry. Thank you. Next item, which I think is 17.

AN ORDINANCE clarifying Title 1, Title 2, Title 3, Title 4 and Title 4A of the King County Code, establishing a gender neutral code and making technical corrections; and amending Ordinance 1371, Section 1, and K.C.C. 1.02.010, Ordinance 11348, Section 2, and K.C.C. 1.05.020, Ordinance 11348, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.05.040, Ordinance 13320, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.020, Ordinance 13320, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.030, Ordinance 13320, Section 4, and K.C.C. 1.07.040, Ordinance 13320, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.050, Ordinance 13320, Section 7, and K.C.C. 1.07.070, Ordinance 13320, Section 8, and K.C.C. 1.07.080, Ordinance 13320, Section 10, and K.C.C. 1.07.100, Ordinance 13320, Section 12, and K.C.C. 1.07.120, Ordinance 13320, Section 14, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.140, Ordinance 13320, Section 15, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.150, Ordinance 159, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.16.020, Ordinance 159, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.16.080, Ordinance 159, Section 9, and K.C.C. 1.16.090, Ordinance 11683, Section 9, as amended, and

KingCountyCC_11292017_2017-0489

The next thing on the item anyway, we'll go to number five and hold off on roll call and approval of the minutes until we have a few more folks. Thanks. Welcome. So number five, I recall that in 2016, the council put a charter amendment on the ballot to make our charter gender neutral, and it passed by 65% , which was very nice. That was motivated by the, I believe in part by the election of two new female council members who found ourselves surprised that our orientation day to be referred to as council man. I'm sorry, Heidi, we didn't go far as your item. And I'm just kind of juggling the balls here this morning after that charter amendment passed with our staff to review and update the county's code to make a general gender neutral. This is a much larger body of work, a significant body of work, and we're going to take it in stages. Today's ordinance is the first of what will be several ordinances to eliminate gender specific terms from the county code. And we are lucky to have Sam Porter and Aaron Osnes here to brief us today. Thank you for your work on this. Thank you. Please go ahead. Sam Porter, Council Central Staff. The materials for this item begin on page seven of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2017 0489 is the first in a series of four ordinances that would make changes to the King County Code to remove gendered pronouns and historically gendered terms wherever possible. This ordinance pertains, as the chair mentioned, to titles one through four of King County Code. No substantive legal or policy changes are proposed to be made in this ordinance, but other drafting corrections are proposed by the Code Advisor. This proposed ordinance is consistent with Washington state law and county code bars to be written in gender neutral terms. In the proposed ordinance, gendered pronouns such as he, him, she or her are replaced with the title of the actor and impacted sentences, for example, in sections that refer to the director as he or she. The revision changes the gendered pronoun to the director, naming the title of the actor and disregarding gender. Table A on page two contains a sample of other proposed changes to historically gendered terms. A comprehensive list of the gendered terms addressed in the ordinance is available in attachment two of the staff report on page 213. In your packet, executive staff and the King County Ombud have been consulted regarding the proposed changes. Their feedback has been addressed and incorporated into the proposed ordinance in attachment three. On page to 21 of your packet is the timeline for future ordinances, and the plan is for three additional ordinances to be presented to this committee completing the review of remaining titles of the King County Code. This work should be completed by May of 2018. This concludes my report. I would like to recognize Russell Patel from the clerk's office and the Council Coder Advisor Bruce Bruce Ritson for their extensive work during this process. Aaron and I can answer any questions at this time. ABRAMS Thank you very much. So I hope that, colleagues, you've had a chance to take a look at this. It seems fairly non substantive and non-controversial. I think the only thing that stood out to me certainly was the change from ombudsman to ombudsman. A quick search through the Internet suggests that that is a movement that is happening. Lots of other places have changed. Their ombudsman office to ombudsman is going to take a little getting used to. But are there any questions, concerns? Councilmember Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on that issue, on ombudsman, as compared the ombudsman, we wrestled with that at the state legislature as well, and the code revised its office and it was changed to ombudsman there. But I expect we may run into some more issues that will come up as we go along, because some are terms of art, some are terms that are recognized by the federal government in terms of occupation. So there's a lot more in to involved with this than I initially thought. It took the legislature six years to complete this project and I had thought it was going to be pretty straightforward at the onset. So thank you for your work rustles and as well. Thank you. Is there any other discussion or questions? Are we prepared to move this out today and take this first bite and let the staff move on to the next one? I'd entertain a motion I can't remember. Lambert Thank you. The Post Ordinance 2017 0489 with a do pass recommendation. Okay, it is. The motion is before us. Any comments? All those. There's no amendments, so I suppose we're prepared for. A roll call. Marcus Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Hi. Councilmember Dunn All right. Councilmember Gossett Council Councilmember Commonwealth. I. Council Member Lambert I'm Councilmember McDermott. Right, Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember One right there. Madam Chair, I Madam Chair, the vote is 18 is no nos. Councilmember of the Grove excuse. Okay, by your vote you have passed this ordinance number 2017 zero 49 of the do pass recommendation. I'm going to suggest we send it. We're going that we expedited just because December 11th is starting to get to be a very packed meeting. And I understand the chair has asked that we take up as many things December 4th as possible. Okay. That's what says here on my notes. Anyway, somebody wrote that for some reason it's on and I would suggest that we put it on consent. It doesn't seem like it needs to be. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. Can we go back and do the roll call at this time?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or his designee, to execute all necessary to amend Contract No. 32995 with C.S. Legacy Construction, Inc., for the Chittick Field project, to increase the contract by an additional amount of $1,111,934 for a revised not-to-exceed contract total of $8,009,960. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_04222014_14-0299

Councilwoman Lipski. I'm sorry, that's seven votes. Yes. Item ten is a recommendation to authorize city manager to executed an amendment to a contract we see as a legacy construction project for your project. Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mayor. Second, I knew that was going to be so. I thought I would take time to go through this. You know, I'm speaking for the community. Once I expressed much, much need for all of this, for the city of Long Beach and everybody, you know, whether I am or in the sixth District seven or the third District, I am getting stops on every street by telling people how grateful I am that the city of Long Beach and for the parks it being renovated. I want to thank the supervisor town Navy and the Los Angeles County staff for their works in the project as well as the City of Signal Hill. I want to thank Pat West for making this project a priority for the city. My Conway for caring the bond 50 yard line and Mr. Ayres Mr. Air era for completing the touchdown and George Champion will be in the left wing blocker. Most important is our head coach our fine nearby Foster, who was a joint effort that took years of dedication. I truly appreciate. Every second I'm excited to see all the kids playing and being activated in this field of tomorrow and well in the future. And in that said, I would like to move to approve second and I'm just glad no one fumbled. No, actually, I hit me hard enough on the 50 yard line. He fumbled. But then again, you guys, everyone, I wish you'd come out tomorrow. 11:00. This would be the grand opening Vucevic field used to be known as Hamilton Bowl. It's going to be a great facility and a great addition to the city. We have a motion in the second and remember the public was just council on this item. Any council discussion if not members cast your votes on item ten. Councilman Chipping motion carry symbol 60. Left. Mr. Gordon Thank you. Item 11.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of The Bungalow Long Beach, LLC, dba The Bungalow Long Beach, at 6420 East Pacific Coast Highway #200, for Entertainment with Dancing. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_06232020_20-0589

Okay. Thank you. Next is hearing 13. And Madam Crook, I'll be going right into public comment after this hearing, just so you know. So hearing item 13. Report from financial management. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record. Conclude the public hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of the bungalow. Long Beach at 6420 East Pacific Coast Highway number 200 for entertainment with Dancing District three. There is an oath required for this, and there are appellants on the line to give testimony. Staff. Getting Mayor in council. We will have staff from the financial management department to present this this public hearing. Monique? I don't know. Did you want to administer the oath now? Before I did my staff report? Yes. The applicants on the line. Yes. Yes. Do you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do? Yes. Thank you. Yes. I mean, good evening. I ran for mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have a for you an application for entertainment with the theme for the Bungalow Long Beach, LLC. Doing business at Bungalow Long Beach located at 5428 Pacific Coast Highway Number 200. Operating as a restaurant with alcohol inclusive disagree. There is one change that I need to make two additional condition. Number one, there was a typo at the end of that condition that reads in the interior of the establishment, and I need to change that to say, dancing is only permitted in the interior of the establishment the way it currently reads without this change. So the confusion and this will make it clear that dancing is only allowed in the interior of the business. With that correction. All of the necessary departments have reviewed the application and have provided the recommended conditions as contained in the hearing packet. I, as well as the police department, stand ready to answer any questions Council may have, and that concludes that report. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any public comment, please? Do you want to have the appellant speak? Madam Clerk. They're on the line. Do you have any comments? Yes. This is Mike. I mean, the representative for the bungalow, Mr. Brant Millhouse, is also the principal of the bungalow is on the line. We first wanted to thank staff for the incredible work they did to get us to this hearing, as well as the police department, which we met with and spoke with quite regularly, as well as the Building and Safety and Fire. We're here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Brett, for the correction to that condition. Otherwise, we've read, understand the conditions, stand ready to be a part of the community in Long Beach, and I look forward to answer any questions that you may have also. Mr. Brett Malthouse is on the line and he's ready to answer questions and if he has anything to add, he's certainly. No, I'm just here to the councils. Any questions on, you know, what the bungalow is? We have two other locations, one in the city of Santa monica, one in the city of Huntington Beach. And this will be our third location in the city of Long Beach. And we're super excited to be part of the community. Okay. Councilman Price. Very much so. I want to thank staff on their work on this project. I know that second PCH has presented a lot of opportunities for staff to work and to think about all the different uses that we have in that space. I want to welcome the bungalow to Long Beach, and we we look forward to having a great partnership with you. I will note that it's unusual for us to issue and approve and recommend and advocate for entertainment permits. Usually that's a very long outreach process that involves a lot of feedback from the community. But given the location of this restaurant and given the potential for this site to be used in many different ways, I think this is going to be an excellent fit for this specific use. So, gentlemen, welcome to Long Beach. We look forward to working with you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can I get a second on the motion, please? There's a second account from your Ranga bloke over. District one. I district to. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. High District six. I'm District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.102 to temporarily prohibit the termination of lawful residential tenancies by demolition and/or “substantial remodel” no-fault notices through December 31, 2021; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopt as read. (Citywide) (Emergency Ordinance No. ORD-21-0022)

LongBeachCC_07132021_21-0670

Thank you. We're going to hear item 30, please, which is the substantial remodel. Report. From city attorney recommendation to declared ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to termination of tenancies due to substantial remodel and declaring the urgency thereof. Read the first time and lead over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. I need a motion, please. I need a second. Thank you. We're going to do public comment first, please. Kathryn DOMA. Abraham Zavala. Tamara Romero. Karen Oakey. Nathan. Can you please line up at the podium? My name is. My name is Kate, the OMA. I appreciate all the hard work you've done on this ordinance, but it does not protect those of us most immediately at risk. I have communicated to you all my arguments countering the vested rights issue upon which any liability concerns are based. I am convinced by current law and precedent that the Council has the right to revoke permits already issued to remodel occupied units. But I'm not asking you to revoke the permits. I do request that you strikethrough the words quote on or after July six, 2021, and quote on page three ly 19 of the proposed ordinance, and allow all tenants at current risk of eviction for substantial remodel to be protected through December 31st. Removing the restriction and extending protections to all tenants is no more of a liability risk than the current temporary moratoriums in effect. This ordinance does not include the permanent prohibition proposed to replace it after a renovation administration program can be created. So the date restriction only affects the temporary moratorium. Removing it would give council staff and stakeholders five months to research and negotiate what terms may or may not be legally applied to existing permit holders under a new renovation administration. You have the ability to make that edit and proceed with passing the remaining ordinance today without creating an irrevocable situation that will put Long Beach families in the streets on December 1st, right in time for the holidays. Thank you. Good evening, council members. So for my time, I'm going to read Jesse Alcala, a tenant that is with Libra who who's in District six. I want to read his statement. He had to leave to feed his daughters. Also had a issue with the baby sitter. But I read it nonetheless. So says, good evening. My name is Jesse Alcala. I am a tenant in District six. I am a single parent raising daughters. I work in the food service industry. I've been on the front line during the pandemic to the present. Tonight, I want to urge councilmembers to adopt item 30 tenants like myself. Thank you for voting on this item last week. However. Council must think about their decision to exclude tenants with existing sub remodel notices. Many families will be evicted if you do not take action in some way. I implore you to make the choice tonight to protect all tenants, especially the ones with existing notices. Thank you. Hi. Long Beach City Council and Long Beach City Attorney. My name is Tamara Romero and I am a District two resident and organizer with Long Beach Tenants Union. I'm here today to demand that a retroactive eviction moratorium for tenants who received evictions are unlawful. Detainers through the substantial remodel loophole be amended to be included in the emergency ordinance that will be voted on today with an amendment to create the establishment of a renovation administration program. Thank you. Yeah. 10 million miles. Paisley or Velasco? Aurelia Ortega. Can you please line up? Hi, I'm Karen. I am a 40 year resident of Long Beach. I've lived in nine different neighborhoods. I've been a renter for these 40 years. I'm so happy that Mr. Mayor and his team, council members, that you are considering passing this ordinance. But the only question that I have, the only concern that I have is line in my notes is, uh, page three. Line nine. Um, regarding the, the beginning of. Well, let me refer to Kate. She said that she's look, she's concerned about July 6th through the December 20, December 31st. I'm sorry. I'm very nervous. That would that would really put people who have already been given eviction notices in a very bad situation. You've done a lot to continue to maintain and and hold forth low income housing. I know five other residents, all of which are are targeted for eviction as well, and they're all disabled. I think that you really need to pull that line from the ordinance. But the audience is fabulous. It's really terrific. It's going to help a lot of people. But I think you need to give temporary protection to people who are presently under eviction for this kind of some this kind of remodel. Thank you for your time. Hello. I'm here to read for Aurelio Ortega, who just left to care for her children. Hello. My name is Aurelia Ortega of District six with the Orange Resistance. I am a mother of four, and I'm here to ask you all to support a retroactive moratorium for substantial remodel evictions. We know that the city attorney's legal opinion has all the power to really protect us. And we hope that you all go against that legal opinion that you were told at the last. Council meeting and go with the legal. Opinions that many of your council officers have heard through other attorneys who really emphasize their work in protecting tenants. My son, my son's birthday was today and. We are here fighting to give him. Adequate housing and to show him to fight for his rights. So that he lives a dignified. Life. With respect. Thank you for. Supporting this item. When I started this atlas, you know, but I sold our last call. So de la résistance. Here they launch. What do you mean? My name is Ora Velasco and I am from the. Orange Resistance. Institute. Keep up with Alias confusing Nonis. Hello, Connor. My. May or may not want a moratorium. Raised to the rated R era. There's a long haul by your grandmother like consistency in the reformer. I am here to. Ask you, please. And to help us to stop these evictions due to these and remodel the remodeling situation. That is happening right now. And regarding the moratorium. And either they let you that they they didn't bother it for their part. But they were able to harness their necesitamos game status. The unfair emails or Armageddon scare or near ongoing concerns of seniors. The city attorney. It has a lot of power, all the whole power to protect us. But we need you. We need your. Faith in order to protect us from your officers. Not nonsense opinions. Legally, there, you're not protecting the larger than our guy, though they must feel that. And then you had to have faith in the attorneys that are united working for us because their opinions, their legal opinions are the ones that are protecting. Us from the attorneys, from the city. Instead of democracy and importantly, pornography. We're doing this for our own rights and for our own children. Francis. Thank you. Miles Hensley. Alias Sheik. Jesse. Alcala. Marlene Alvarado. Please line up the podium. Good evening. I'm speaking today in solidarity with tenants of Long Beach, California, who are facing violent eviction because of the substantial remodel loophole in the city's just cause eviction ordinance. As drafted, the emergency ordinance for substantial remodel reform does not include a retroactive eviction moratorium. The exclusion of a retroactive moratorium leaves many families who have received eviction notices and unlawful detainers vulnerable to the violence of eviction. The Council should motion to amend the ordinance to extend the moratorium back to the initial passage of the Just Cause Eviction ordinance. The city possesses vastly greater resources than the tenants in receipt of eviction notices and unlawful detainers and should expend these resources in defense of working families. The recommendation to not include a retroactive moratorium in this emergency ordinance comes from the office of Charles Parkin, who, in the one opposed ran for office in 2014, received thousands of dollars from developers and real estate management companies due to this. I perceive that we need to question the city attorney's capacity to provide an impartial recommendation regarding a retroactive moratorium. You need a marshall City resources to protect hundreds of families from eviction. So motion to amend the ordinance to include a retroactive moratorium. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Aliya Sheikh, and I'm a community organizer with L.A. Voice. We are a multiracial, multi-faith organization spanning dozens of congregations throughout Los Angeles County, including several here in Long Beach. People of faith in our community are calling on you to close the substantial remodel loophole that landlords have exploited to begin eviction proceedings upon tenants exacerbating the housing crisis. We need a retroactive moratorium so that no families are pushed out of their homes. We hope that you all make the right decision and stand on the side of renters. Thank you. Jose Alcala, Marlon Alvarado and Karen Harper. My name is really Novato. I'm with Democratic Socialists of America. And let me show you a piece that worked. And I used to be an ESL teacher and I remember once I thought we were studying and if you teach, it's called survival English and we were coming upon a renters. So I told them, I told my spouse they had a certain amount of rights, legal rights. So I this one woman said, well, my house is infested with cockroaches and it is a lot of repairs. I said, Well, you have the legal right to do this. So she went and she told her landlord that she could that she had the right to do this. Well, he fixed it all up and increased her rent and she couldn't afford it. And granted, this is not exactly what is happened with the new law. They can't get people out, but it's still the same kind of human tragedy that's happening with this restriction. I really highly recommend that you extend the more the moratorium and look at the human beings that are suffering, who are hard working people because I taught them, thank you. My name is Karen Harper. Greetings to the mayor and the council people. I'm with the Long Beach Area Peace Network, a coalition of groups working on social, economic, environmental justice. And we also are advocating for figuring out a way to prevent evictions of those folks that had the remodel permits. But the work has not begun. Please figure out a way to protect them, too. Thank you so much for your work. We're really impressed with this ordinance and what it will do to protect people. Thank you. That concludes public comment. Thank you. There's a motion in a second. Councilman Allen, any comments? I yes. Just real quickly, I just want to say thank you to all the folks and for all your comments and your support with this item. I also want to thank the staff and the city attorney for their work on this and for everyone's engagement throughout this process. I know we have we're concerned throughout the process about the residents who have received eviction notices under previously issued permits. And last week, I know that we all ask in the motion for the city staff to report back on what the city can do to support these residents. So, Mr. Modica, I do have a question for you. Do you know when we can expect to have that report back? I will answer that. Good evening. Councilmember Allen, members of the council. So that initial report back will be within 30 days of your first hearing, which was a week ago. And then I just want you and the members of the public to know, you know, we were sending out several million dollars of rental assistance. So that is one program. But we also participate in the county's stay housed L.A. program, which provides eviction defense services to tenants. And that program is available to anyone who received an eviction notice. And there is a website stay housed, L-A, which is where you sign up for that program. So we'll be putting that and some other information in the report back. But that is a service that's available immediately to those that may have received a notice. Additionally, if it's other landlord tenant issues, repairs not being made, a harassment, other issues. And we have a contract with the Long Beach Fair Housing Foundation. And those services are available today and always to any tenants that may be in in those situations. And we'll be putting that and more in that report back, which will be in the next 20 days or so. Thank you very much. I do appreciate that. Appreciate all the efforts. I know that that's really important. I also really quickly want to recognize Councilwoman Sorrow for her partnership and for all the Cosigners and colleagues that supported this last week. The ordinance we see today is the first step in addressing the systematic issue. And I'm really proud of the unanimous support that was received on this item. And I look forward to the results of stakeholder meetings and to seeing the recommendations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Compliments are. Yeah. I just want to add on to the thanks to the organizers, advocates and tenants for sharing your stories and I think working so hard to ensure that tenant rights are protected. And also the city attorney, as well as development services for all your help, and especially so Councilmember Allen's leadership, steadfast leadership and hard work on the item as well as the cosigners for supporting. Thank you. Thank you. There is a motion or a second. Please cast your vote. This item requires two votes. Yes, this. Is the first one. The first vote will be on the urgency and the second vote will be on the ordinance. Thank you. Come on, Mango. Motion carries eight zero. Thank you. And the second. Your motion in a second, please. Also for the second vote. Kevin Rushing the second for that vote. And please cast your vote on that one. Motion carries eight zero. Great. Thank you very much. That concludes item 30. We are now going to go back to the regular agenda and we will do item 35 next.

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_07072020_2020-7976

All right. Thank you. More. Good work, everyone. So with that, we we will adjourn on item six B and we will move quickly to item six C. It's yeah, it's it's 1032. Yeah. 1030 it's 1031. So we're going to just keep a good pace. You're right. Okay. So madam quick, would you introduce item six C please. Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending master P Resolution 12191 to add and revise fees. Thank you. And, well, my temperamental iPad is around. Who is presenting this? We're putting in. Two people are the interim finance director and finance manager. I think it's Kerry's. Oh, okay. Maybe, Nancy. Okay. Miss Francine, are you. Are you presenting? Hello? You know, you're muted for some reason. Um. See? Try again. No. It's still not hearing her. Madam Clerk. Can we give our H.R. directors this interim finance director? Her voice. Well. We're showing that she's unmuted as well. Is the volume up? How does your volume. Uh oh. I could jump in. Uh, if that's helpful on this item. I don't know. All right. Sorry, Miss Bronson. I don't know what to tell you. Well, so tonight we for you, we have a recommendation, essentially updating our master fee schedule. Back in 1991, the City Council modified the municipal code to ensure that the fees would be set by City Council resolution. We do this every year, and essentially we're we're not suggesting any increases this year. We are making clarifications and making sure that our master fee schedule is up to date with all of our impact fees. And those are the changes that you would see this time around. And with that, I'll conclude a very brief staff recommendation. Thank you and thanks for jumping in. Madam, quick, do we have any public speakers on this item? We do not. Okay, Counsel. And I see Ms.. Brownstein's name appearing again. Are you are you going to try to? I'm not sure if you can. I can hear you, yes. Okay. You don't need to see me so that we got to see you. I know what you look like. All right, so, um, anything to add? No. I appreciate Mr. Bowen stepping in for me. Thank you. You too. It's teamwork around here. Okay, counsel, do we have any questions? Discussion. Vice Mayor, I am just. A real quick question. I don't think that I would want to hold up this report at all, but it does include our appeal fees. And I know at one point in time there was, you know, many years ago after the theater project, the decision was made to cap appeals fees when the appellants were served $27,000 appeals because of all the time and money that went into the appeal, which seemed a little undemocratic. However, I worry a little bit that maybe our appeals fees for certain projects that are priorities for this council and for the city, like homeless homeless services and affordable housing that we might want to look at whether or not we have a separate fee for appealing of those types. And I would just like to ask the Council to consider not necessarily adopting something tonight, but directing staff to come back at some point in the future at their own timeline that would address that issue. Thank you for raising that. Actually, I had thought of something similar and run it by the city attorney. Um, do you want to the issue of separate fees for, separate for certain types of appeals? I know the city of Berkeley has one, etc.. Yes. I'm happy to answer the question, though. I think there's somewhat two different questions. I think come to the vice mayors question having to do with these are somewhat of them, which which is what we discussed. So let me answer both with respect to field fees or essentially user fees for use of public property. The city has more latitude to set user fees because it's almost like entrance into a city zoo or city exam. State law gives the city more latitude to increase or decrease them with respect to permit fees. State law is very clear that we have to set fees that are cost recovery only. The city's not authorized to essentially make money off of permit fees and additional issue with respect to permit fees that are very important as governed by Prop 26 and Prop 18 is that we cannot court one group of payers to subsidize another group of payers permits. So in essence, we could not say group A, you pay a lesser fee and then everyone else in the city will have to subsidize and that is similarly not authorized. I hope that answers the question. Well, and was it was appeals fees you were referring to, was it not vice mayor. So so when it. Appeals. When when a project is appealed. Okay. I thought I missed hurt. I thought the vice chair said field fees as independent PR appeals trying to project appeals fees are not capped. They are they are capped. They do not collect all of the costs related to the appeal. And so I'm wondering if there's a way for us to have a different cap on the priority projects. So if you are cap so that so it's a nuanced answer. If you would like to cap a healthy generally, you could if you would like to cap fees differently based on different project types. For example, solar projects are an important project to the council and therefore the city would just like to charge less fees. And to be clear, it has to be less than full cost recovery on a particular project basis. That is fine. What what becomes problematic is if the city wishes to choose to not to charge a different set of fees based on the appellants or the applicants. That is legally problematic. But if you want to say, you know, solar is an important priority for the city and we want to do less and cost recovery for solar projects overall that is authorized by law and eventually the rest of the office and solar is an important thing. So we want the fee, the appeal fee to actually have a higher standard fee. But as long as as long as it's within cost recovery, we can what I'm hearing you say is you're going to have a different cap for fees as long as it's not more than the cost of the actual work involved. You know, I'm thinking. Unless. You do. Yeah, I think I see. There's just I wasn't as simple and straightforward as I thought. I think that this is something we can give. We can we can vote if we move to approve this, if we can come ask staff to consider that. But in fairness to staff, we should probably give a lot more detailed direction before we close this one out. But so you know what? I've lost track because we have a motion already. No, not yet. Okay. So, Councilmember Vela. So I'm going to move approval of this item as written. I think if we want to give separate direction to staff, I'm inclined to simply want to. Put some. Language forward. I'm happy to add it to my motion. Oh, okay. To do that together with the motion. Okay. That's vice foreign. I will second by motion and also recommend language to direct staff to identify how we could increase the cap on affordable housing and homeless service projects for people. Yeah. Yes. So so just to clarify the vice mayor's suggestion, it would be to look at ways to. Cover. The costs of appeals. Correct. Right. Okay. I will cover more of the actual staff costs in appeals. Right. Understood. I'm amenable to that. Okay. And affordable housing. What was the second one again? Homeless services. Yeah. All right. City manager. Levitt, did you want to add anything else to this discussion? All right. So then it was moved by Councilmember Velez, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. Any discussion of the motion on the table, Councilmember Desai. Is a quick point. I'll support the motion, but. But in terms of the ad on my support of the motion doesn't necessarily mean it's the support of the ADD. So we'll deal with it when it's up to the substantively comes back. That's all we're asking is for further information to come back. So thank you for that clarification. Any further discussions seeing and may we have a roll call vote with. Councilmember de sag. I. Next. Why i d i. I may as the cut. Hi. That carries by five eyes. All right. Thanks, everyone. So that ends item 60. Moving on to 60. Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution establishing integrated waste collection, ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period 19th July 2020 2nd June 2021. All right. And I see. Or I saw a car. There you are. Hello. Hello. Good evening. I'm here in memory of this evening. I am with the Court of Public Works Coordinator. To be very brief of items. Counsel to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution to set integrated waste rates for the coming fiscal year or

Adoption of Resolutions Approving and Adopting the City of Alameda Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 and Approving and Adopting the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Budget for FY 2019-20 and 2020-21; [City Council AND SACIC] Adoption of Resolution Amending the Salary Schedule and Approving Workforce Changes for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21; [City Council] and Adoption of Resolution Amending the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Salary Schedule. [City Council] (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC_06182019_2019-6979

Amending the salary schedule and approving workforce changes for the fiscal year and adoption of resolution. Amending the International Association of Firefighters Salary Schedule. Thank you. And who's present is that, Miss Adair? Yes. Come on up and introduce yourself, please. Thank you. All right. Good evening, Madam Mere, members of the council. I'm Melina Dyer. I'm finance director for the city. And today, where you actually get to see me several times. So hopefully. You never get enough of. That for. Thank you. I appreciate that. To start with, this is our biannual cycle, which means we have undertaken a bigger load than normally when we do it as a mid-cycle budget. And I would like to with that thank all of the department finance department staff as well as all the department heads and their staff in assisting to complete this budget, in assisting with the budget process. With that, as you remember, we have had two budget sessions in May. And with that, to kind of reiterate, the budget was put together in keeping in mind the city council key priorities that are listed on this slide. So first of all, preparing the city of Alameda for the future, protecting our core services. And as you remember, when we did go over each individual department, that's what we did keep in mind, supporting enhanced livability and quality of life. As we know, all of our citizens are very happy and proud to be in Alameda for exactly those reasons encouraging economic development across the island and of course, ensuring effective and efficient operations. We will go over some budget overview items and quick just a summary. As I mentioned earlier, we did have two budget workshops in May, May 15th and May 16th. It was open to the public city manager incorporated all of the suggestions that were made of most of the suggestions that were made by council and members of the public into the budget. And with that, we had to make some revisions. If you remember, we had to we'll let you know upfront that we had some doubling up on some of the expenses related to capital. We didn't fix that. With that, the grand total citywide expenditures are $332.5 million in year one and $267.3 million in year two. Again, primarily the decrease between year one and year two attributed to capital projects. And just as an example, we had about $20 million that we appropriated the 20 plus for base reuse operations from the sales proceeds. The biggest fund, the most discretionary money that comes to the city is from the general fund. The expenditures in year one in general fund are a little over $100 million, and it grows to about $103 million in year two. One of the things to mention is that by the end of the two year budget cycle, our available fund balance within the general fund stays at 25%, which is currently the policy that council has in place just as a heads up. But I'm going to repeat that and remind you later the individual slides that we present with the additional dollar amounts are on top of what the baseline budget is already. And once we get to those slides, I will point out what that actually means. Okay. Thank you. In looking at to start with citywide, obviously we always look at the general fund budget. However, we are approving the budget for the entire city. And as we do that, I wanted to make sure that the council members as well as members of the public, could see what exactly it's going to look like for us in terms of a trend on the revenues by department citywide as well as the expenditures by departments citywide. It will kind of give you an idea as to where we have been, where we're going. Again, a lot of the times, large fluctuations in expenditures are related to capital. And you will see that even though within the general fund, the largest departments, as everyone usually points out, is fire and police. But other departments actually do have funding sources outside of general fund. And when you look at them, public works in this case has the biggest component. To zero out now into the general fund budget. This provides you with a tabular presentation of what our two year budget will look like, but it also gives you a comparative with what we have projected for 1819 at and this was presented to you at midyear as well as actual expenditures and revenues for the General Fund for fiscal year 1718. Now those numbers are audited. So that's usually is our start. And to remind 1819 is not over yet and therefore those numbers are still a projection. They will change as we go through close the books. And once usually once we close the books, we do a presentation for you and you will be able to see the audited numbers. As you can see is ending from balance. We expect it to be a $26.2 million, 25% by the year or two of the budget. Just as a reminder, we do calculate the fund balance based on ongoing expenditures as well as transfers out. In many cases, when we do one time expenditures such as contributions to our OPEB and pension reserves, we do exclude those just because otherwise it's going to be a spike on what we need. And those are onetime costs that we exclude intentionally. General fund revenues. This actually provides you with a little bit longer trend. We go back to 1617, but it kind of gives you an idea as to where our general fund revenues are going in. Generally, we expect them to stay somewhat flat, to continue to grow, but not at a high pace as we did in 0809 or right after the recession. Our general fund expenditure again graphical presentation here again trend over a seven year period. This gives you a quick summary in graphical way to see where we've been and where we going in terms of our five year forecast for the general fund. As you can see, we project that 1920 and 2021. These are the years under budget, a currently a breaking even. And as a matter of fact, we do add very small amount to the fund balance. However, we do project a deficit going forward after that. And as we have always said, we do not allow to adopt a budget with a deficit. And every year at mid-cycle and again when we do put together biannual budget, we make sure we balance the budget and we'll look at revenues, we'll look at expenditures, all the available resources for us to make sure that the budget is balanced by the time it's presented to you. Okay. So this is going to be a little bit more detail and hopefully a little more familiar than what you have seen during the budget presentation. Again, as a reminder, the numbers you will see are in addition to the baseline budget. So just remember if we increasing by a certain amount, the department may already have certain dollars allocated and this would be on top. We'll start with the police department. And just to let you know, I will be able to present it to you, answer some of the questions. But if you have anything in greater detail and more information that you'd like, we do have the department heads present here and their staff, so they'll be able to answer them. There are three items that were allocated for the police department. One of them is their catering service program. This is their dispatch program and they're currently using one. However, it's not providing sufficient resources for them to retrieve information and provide information to a report out there for general fund is contributing half a million dollars to what? Towards the replacement of the system. We also assume, as you know, some salary savings within the police department, and that does not necessarily mean that we are eliminating the positions. This is strictly that in talking to the department, their expectation, how quickly can they fill the positions and what they are able to do? So the projection in this case is that they will probably with attrition, people retiring, trying to hire new people, they will probably have about five positions open and about $1.2 million in year one equates to. We also are renewing our friends of Alameda animal shelter contract that increases in year one and then it drops a little bit in year two because we have some onetime costs that we're adding in year one. That's with police department. Do you have any questions? Okay. Moving on to fire with the fire department, the allocation and request was for six additional firefighters as a means to assist with general fund paying for this additional personnel department applied for a grant , a safer grant to assist with paying for them. Now, this would also be for an additional ambulance unit. With that, in actually a next slide, you will see in addition to our fleet, a new ambulance unit to be purchased because this particular save for grant is going to require a match. We are including in our two year budget, an estimated match amount. Even though the grant is over a three year period. But we're doing a contribution over to two years and it's approximately $1.3 million in total, which equates about half and half in each year, 650,000 additional personnel cost to assist with administrative duties of the training division . As I mentioned, the addition of a new ambulance to the fleet expected to cost about $400,000. There's also conversations were about recruiting new personnel, including women, into the fire department. And for that, there's additional costs proposed for fire station. Improvements. And a feasibility study for a new fire station. A sorry, looking at fire station number five. Previously, we expected General Fund would be paying for it. However, there was a question and it was addressed. We did look into it and base. We use fund because it's really close to that area is covering the cost of the feasibility study. Question. So I was recently in Sacramento actually with Councilmember O.D. we attended the Governor's Summit on Emergency Preparedness Management. And one of the pieces of information we came away with is that some cities, notably San Francisco, are using their emergency operations center for what they consider a crisis of their time. And they actually do. They provide homeless services out of the EOC. But the point was made to all 400, some of us from who were there from all over the state that you really want to look at using your facilities for more than just one use. So my question would be if this feasibility study could also look at not just a new fire station, but how we know what other services a fire station, especially out at Alameda Point, might provide. I believe this feasibility study is actually for an existing fire station five that's out there and ability to, I'm assuming, bring it back to life because it was closed at one point. But I could probably defer to the fire team to see what exactly they were going to look into. When I think that it was, I think that it was to look at that, but also the possibility of other locations and moving a station. And it's not that I need approval from the fire chief. What I'm asking for and actually it would be staff direction, is that I think we just want to maximize our dollars. For instance, our current EOC cost a lot of money. And I just want to make sure that the city has lots of needs, just like every city does. And so the more that our facilities can do, you know, multi-tasking, the better. So I'm just asking if that's something that can be explored. And I'm sure it can be. And of course, the power to us here to speak to that, but also is a reminder original dollar amount that was put in for a feasibility study was 78,000. So because there were some additional requests to look into other items such as relocation of what it could be used for, additional 20,000 was added and it was increased to 98. But I understand that. And if we had to juggle dollars around, my suggestion would be under the $60,000 a year for the next two fiscal years for recruitment of fire personnel. I might go with 60,000 for the first year and see what sort of results that yields if we needed to find more money. I think there's always ways to find some flexibility in a budget, but I'm just just asking for a little more flexibility looking at this. So, Chief. Mayor, if I could answer your first question. So as our finance director stated, the amount for the feasibility study was increased after further conversations with the manager to not only look at what would it take to reopen Fire Station five to make it a. Resize building, but also if we relocated it what would those Cosby to somewhere else and I mean a point we are working. With our community volunteer partner right now. We had a former building that was an adjunct training center out there. And we're looking to bring homeless services out there in that building. So I think what you're requesting will probably come to fruition way outside the parameters of this study here. So that's not to say that the facility that we currently have could have sections of it used for those purposes. But we're working hand-in-hand with community development on another option, another. Site out there for those services for the homeless. It's great. I hadn't heard about that yet, but nonetheless, I think there's a lot of different ways to look at facilities and I think I see my colleague Councilmember A Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to just put another finer point on that. I think the call of action that that we received there was that we should use our EOC, which is the mayor pointed out, was a very expensive building for collective action and not treated just as a bunker that's used during emergencies and that we can use it for smaller, long term crises. And homeless was one of the ones that came up in San Francisco. So, you know, we have a city assets I think we should use to serve the city and not sure if it's something in this budget discussion. But I do think it's something that I know I'm interested in seeing us do and hopefully I know there'll be a consensus at some point with my colleagues. Yeah, I just think a budget is a good budget. Time is a good time to look at these things. And the point that was being made in Sacramento and don't worry, San Francisco was in the minority when they asked for a show of hands of how many people are doing other things with their EOC is very few hands went up. But the point they were making is we need to look at these emergencies. I don't need to tell the fire chief, but fire season is now year round storms, floods, what have you. And so cities have to be prepared and yet we have a finite amount of resources. So we've got to make what we have do double and sometimes triple duty. But will. Well, let's stay in communication about that. Great. Thanks, any of you. Sorry, but to your. Point, you know, last week we had somewhat of an emergency. And I know we we had the library open. I mean, the EOC would have. Yeah, yeah. So yeah. That would have been a perfect opportunity to use the EOC as. We and we had a discussion about in November, there was there were the campfires and the air quality down here was so bad that we were distributing breathing masks. With 2020 hindsight, that would have been a great time to activate the EOC. We certainly had Deputy Chief Assistant Chief Zon back in the basement of City Hall helping organize, but we weren't at the umpteen million dollar EOC. But going forward, that's the sort of thing I'd like to look at. Thank you for that. No. Okay. Anyone else? Any comments? Councilmember Vela okay, good. Thank you chief. And mrsdurff please continue. I just wanted to also give a shout out to our city clerk because I can hear myself very well. So. So thank you. Okay. Moving on to the library. We're adding to personnel over two year period, one per one position in year one for the school reserve services and also library technician for computer lab in year two. It's important, I think, for our library to be open and also work with schools. So a handsome position was very important and had a priority for our library director. In addition, there are some capital expenditures installing led energy efficient lighting in the library. Those costs were approved and added in year one. I do understand. I apologize. I wasn't actually here for the rest of the budget hearings in May for personal reasons, but I do understand there was a request to increase the library collection and add some dollars to that. And so with that comment, we are adding some dollars to the budget that is presented to you tonight. Are there any questions on the library? Just a quick comment. I just think this is money so well spent. I know I'm not an objective observer because I co-chair the campaign to build the library, but it just does my heart good to see all the uses of the library, including last night I stopped in at a clinic for renters. That center like aisle came over and did in the library conference room. So keep up the good work. Anyone else? Questions? That wasn't really a question. I could frame it as a question, but go ahead. Don't you agree? Okay. All right. Next, we will talk about information technology department. A couple of big items over a two period, two year period. The largest one is enterprise resource planning system. Again, just as a reminder, the city council did approve in the prior two year budget funding. However, what was requested two years ago was actually a greater amount and at the time their approval only happened for a portion of it. So this particular cycle includes the additional amount. And as we know, more information costs did go up and warehouse. Asked for an additional amount here. With that, also, our I.T. Department is asking for an analyst, a programmer, analyst. This person is definitely going to be a big help with implementation of the new ERP. However, it's going to share its time with other projects within the city and one of them is a gas contract. That's all for information technology. Do you have any questions on that? Any questions? Anyone. Okay. Hearing that. Please proceed. Okay. The next department is human resources and there is a small change. All we're doing is an upgrade. Upgrading an existing position to a little higher position to really recognize the complexity of work. The deputy position is doing and the need within the city for a complexity of work required. So all it is is an upgrade from in the Lisbon position to a senior creature that is and I'm not sure if you have questions, but I will move forward. So yeah, they're not sure if they had questions. But Councilmember Vela, do let us know if there's anything you'd like to ask, Mr. Leiter. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. All right. Moving on to finance department. We are asking you specifically speaking for myself here for an additional position of management analyst. If you remember back in April, we presented to you our financial statements and other reports from the auditors. One of the bigger issues was issues with our procurement policy as well as how we do procurement in the city. So this position, even though it may not be 100% focus on that, but it would be probably a primary focus to make sure that our procurement policies up to date process is up to date and making sure we're actually following the policies either that are currently in place or the ones we're going to put in place. Okay. Moving on to Non-Departmental. There was a request for funding 4th of July parade and our police department has contributed previously certain time of the year to support the 4th of July parade. This year, we actually adding dollars in that support for you in the security staffing. And it's for the next two years, $50,000 each. In addition, hearing what the public was saying, as well as council's sentiment about climate action plan, we've increased the year one contingency was, I believe, $145,000 originally, and it was increased to 305. In addition, we've added a contingency related to the same item in year two. Previously there was none, so that was in response to the public and the council. Okay. Are there any questions on finance and on department? Sorry. I will go back if need be. Here? None. I'm going to move on to recreation and parks. There are several items that are being added in the recreation department. In first case, it's the personnel. We adding a gardener position in year two and our position would be 100% general fund funded. As you know, we've added a number of acres of parkland and we do need staff to actually maintain it. In year one, we do add a position, but that position will be funded half and half with the general fund money as well as Marina Village. So there's parklands that are outside of our regular general fund park areas that need maintenance as well because we increasing minimum minimum wage within the city and the department requested to provide additional funding. As you know, we do support recreation fund and in this case they do have a lot of part time personnel. And since minimum wage is going up, that's going to affect them. Some contractual services increases as well as small tools. Again, with the Climate Action Plan, we are trying to go green and with that we are changing the gas powered tools into being more electric. So again, in support. Some capital improvements that are being done with the department by the department would do in park maintenance and improvements. We have reduced the park maintenance improvement in year one in actually allocated funding, that same funding to the playground replacements and then added on the playground replacement $250,000 in year two. Previously there was no allocation for that. So I have a question here about the that first item, the reduction of the year one, park maintenance and improvements to 175,000 in that would result in deferred maintenance, greening, drainage, irrigation, field lighting and improvements, fencing, building. Those all seem like important things. I thought to ask was when we heard the budget presented at the workshops that we wanted to make sure that right. This is the second item that the the playgrounds were complied with current ADA and all safety standards. And then there is a possibility of a playground at Jackson Park that was being studied. But I certainly didn't mean that we would take away from maintaining and improving our parks. So does someone want to help me understand? Yes. City Manager. Mr. Lovett, I can. So and this is something that you can consider further tonight. So the initial recommendation in the budget back in May was 250 in park maintenance improvements. That's to 50 above what we've done in the past. So the 250 and both year one and year two were requests by by the rec and parks and that were in my recommended budget because of the Jackson Park. Well, for them, no playground equipment was in year. No. So based on the the discussion at the May meeting, we did. So what I had recommended was 75,000 come from the park and maintenance to the playground equipment for year one, but that an additional 250,000 go in year two. So the two there was 250,000 in year two, but there was just a transfer, meaning year one. You can reconsider that for a year one. Well, and I would probably ask Ms. Wooldridge, the Recreation Parks Director, because I don't want a multi I mean micromanage your work, but I always worry when I hear the term deferred maintenance because sometimes the maintenance we defer ends up costing us more. So was there any thought to taking the 175 and the 250 and splitting that amount equally? Or tell us if you you know, how you feel about these numbers. Right? So in terms of splitting them equally, it actually goes into a capital improvement fund. And so we expend as much as we can within the first year and our strategic about how we do that. So we can certainly equalize it out into what the I can't do the math that for graphs on of my head but equalize them. But it would essentially ultimately result in relatively the same level of of amount of projects that are completed. Okay. So you're not concerned that you would be deferring? I mean, when I say grading drainage, irrigation, I mean. I would say I'm I'm happy that we're going above and beyond where we're at now. As the city manager mentioned, both the 175 and the 250 is above what we're currently doing and so will bring us to a better level than we're currently at. Yes. I just want to clarify the details are as I remember, it's to talk about things that we're trying to correct that were deferred maintenance. Yes. So this is to improve on past deferred maintenance. Okay. So I want to make sure less deferred. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So I just want to make sure that it's. Not creating deferred maintenance. Yes. Addressing deferred maintenance is to try to create improvements to pass deferred. Okay. And I wanted to make sure everyone was clear. All right. And you feel that you've got sufficient? Well, you. Know, there's always more projects to do. So it's it's the council's prerogative if you choose to bring that back to 250 in the first year, it really was an effort to address the community interest that came for Jackson Park. Understood. Anybody else want to weigh in on this councilmember decided. Previously recently I went on our website is check for the minutes from the meeting and at this point the I believe the minutes for the budget workshops are not available. So in looking at the tapes which are available, I do. You believe that what is written here when it comes to park maintenance and the playground is exactly what if we all remember? Our city manager gave an incredible summary of the way in which funds would be allocated based upon the input from the community and council members. So so I recognize the fact that, you know, when you originally the park maintenance for year one was $250,000. That was the original request. But by the same token, the background that they gave was that compared to what was done before, it was completely whole new, completely new money. So. So in an effort to address the need for Jackson Park, then I recognize that. Okay, well, you know, the money has to come from somewhere. So that was a compromise that the city manager made in reacting to the concerns. What I really was excited about, though, was the year to $250,000 for the playground replacement, because that was to me, that was, you know, what we were really. Well, what was interesting was what interested me the most. On a final note, yes, indeed. In the last budget workshops, there was one exhibit that that identified all the deferred maintenance at every park. So that was a valuable insight as to why we are making headway in terms of allocating money that was not allocated before. We have a lot more work to be done. But I think in order to address that systematically, there's there's other kind of budget related issues that we're at some point in time we'll have to tackle. So if I could just ask for your consideration, would it make sense to flip the two allocations and spend the most money in year one rather than let the deferred maintenance get another year older? But again, you I mean, it's the same amounts, but rather than sort of ease into it. You so you're requesting that your one park minutes be to 15 year to 175. Flip it just that you know we're addressing deferred maintenance and sometimes you save money by catching it earlier rather than later. But counsel, what is what do you all think? And I just kind of also wanted to let you know. Is that you. Can well know you can make a decision now if you want to change it up. But just remember, you always have an opportunity to look at it at midyear and again at mid-cycle if you want to either give directions to make sure, maybe include potentially additional items that relate to either park maintenance or playground replacement. But you can do it now. But just remember, you do have other opportunities as well. So I just want to make sure you remember that. Yeah, I appreciate that. But then I would also argue that deferred maintenance is going to be that much older or older, more deferred by by mid-year. Councilmember Odie. Yeah, real quick. Yeah, I think my colleagues recap of, of the last meeting was correct because I pulled up the old slide and of these four items I think the city manager proposed 965 and that's what this one has in year one. And then he proposed to 50 in year two and then we bumped that up to 500. But I thought I read maybe it was this morning that we had a big sale in Alameda, a big real estate sale, marina village. Right. So I wonder, I mean, that'll come in a kind of a miniature true upright. So if I have heard about that, we do not have the money yet. For that in this year, or is it going to be in next year? So the cash will not come in now, but we will recognize the revenue in this year, 18, 19. I mean, that might be an option where we we can take a look at that since it's one time money that we didn't budget for. It might be something this could be a priority when we when we review that or we could do today. I mean, it doesn't really matter to me, but. I'd like to at least prioritize. I don't see any concern if the council wants to flip the 215 to 175. I think that would be the I don't see any financial concerns for the city in doing that in a. Two year budget. Right. So over the course of two years, it's the same same amount. It's just that we would be spending more sooner to address deferred maintenance. Correct. That. So reasonable. Okay. I think. Malia, any thoughts? I'm Estella. Sorry. I think that that sounds reasonable. Flipping the numbers. Flipping the numbers. Okay, so if we could do that. Okay. So where were we? Mastic Senior Center. Yes. Yes. Another large improvement we're doing to a master senior center, h HVAC system, variety of sources that are being allocated to do that work and total, it's going to cost a little over half a million dollars. And we have domestic senior center itself making contribution as well as general fund and as well as within CAP funds, we had some dollars that haven't been spent within other projects that closed. And so we're using some funding sources from that. And original money came from the general fund for those particular projects. Another one that you've heard more information earlier about is Aquatic Facility, where allocating $150,000 to do a concept, design and more for staff to start funding a fundraising campaign. Any items or notes otherwise? And we'll move on to the next department. Go ahead. K public works a similar situation. The department is requiring some more complex work that needs to be done. As a matter of fact. Just to point out on some of them is to we did have a single audit finding in terms of how quickly we ask for reimbursement requests. And in this particular case, there are some positions here that will assist with that to make sure that we file reimbursements on time and get the money timely into the city. So with that, there are some upgrades that are requested by the department, a little more complex work and therefore need a different position to make it appropriate for classification. In addition, in the Fleet Fund, we're asking for some equipment. This is a lift column lift to service vehicles within the city, and that's $75,000 moving on additional capital projects that are being funded. Again, as a reminder, this is in addition to what will already have a baseline budget. We're allocating funds to urban forest lagoon maintenance that comes from general fund alone. So urban forest is actually been increased to 250,000 out of general fund and some other funds are contributing some additional funding to for that purpose. Streetlights we at the baseline contribute 300,000. This is an additional 300,000 in year one and 560,000 additional in year two. Add some additional money into this traffic calming project as well as in a second year addressing the sea level rise and claiming it was part of the Climate Action Plan. If you wish for the Veterans Court Project and Central Avenue Large Project General Fund is making a $748,000 contribution for that. Any question to. Just quickly. Say during the budget workshop, we had incredible discussion about the urban forest. And I and I appreciate that, you know, the amount the incremental amount that we're looking at is above what we originally looking at in the May workshop. Again, reflecting the fact that, you know, this was a concern of residents as well as council members. And after all, we are Alameda which is I believe Spanish for grove a popular trees. So so it's nice to see, you know, more new incremental dollars directed towards that urban forest. And as the city manager had indicated last time that, you know, for the first time this is coming out also from the general fund budget, kind of as an indication of, you know, how serious this we are taking the trees. Thank you. Thank you. And you know. That was a question. That was a question. Yeah. You're learning. Would that be a yes? Yeah. Yes. Moving on to community development. We adding a position in year two that's been approved. Again, this is to assist departments with more accounting and analysis type of items. We're upgrading a position to a development manager from management analyst. And I do understand this was a discussion point for the Alameda Point or Base Reuse Fund where we're setting aside about $2 million for the big whites. I do understand that there was a request once the contract is done in specific work, that will come back to council to make sure that you agree with what the staff is proposing to do with those buildings. Okay. Are there any questions on community development before I move on? Okay. Planning, building and transportation. This is our newly created department. A couple of personnel changes, upgrades to the positions. I do want to make sure that a public and city council is aware that these particular positions are funded with permit fees. So they are outside of general fund completely and the funding is provided from the fees that they generate. In this case, counseling technician to Administrative Services Coordinator. We are creating, since this is a new department, the re titled department head title, which is director of planning, building and transportation as well as we reallocated i.t system as analyst a position previously resided in i.t. It has been 100% moved over into the planning, building and transportation. With the new department. In talking to our new department head, the building official position is being eliminated and actually combined potentially with an assistant director position. We're also doing some upgrades to planning manager to a city planner. And we are we've added a position at MIT Psych midyear. And so with that and changes in the positions as we have here. The department also requested a new vehicle. So a question here. You know, my mantra about replacing vehicles is this new vehicle and electric vehicle. I would expect for the type of work that it's done in talking between fleet manager and also the department, it should be okay to have it as an electric vehicle. I don't want to speak for the department head in this particular case, but it would be evaluated for themselves. Since we're going to be looking at the climate action from. Our department's point of view. Electric Works is really about whether the fleet manager and the city's vehicle. Purchasing policy maintenance. Fuel, you know, being able to keep it running. One of the issues from a planning a building perspective, it absolutely works for the daily inspections, no question. Our issue is just something that we've been talking to the fleet managers about is in the event of a major emergency, our inspectors are going to be out as part of the recovery response. We want to make sure. That vehicle. Is usable. So as a driver of an EVA, I just say keep him charge to the maximum at all. And thank you for that advice. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. That was Andrew Thomas. On that note, I just wanted to also say that during the budget presentation, during the study sessions, fleet was addressed as well in the list of vehicles for replacement was provided. One of the things that came out of that is that I believe it was city managers request to public works and fleets specifically to evaluate the fleet for the entire city, for all the replacements that we need to do and determine what are the appropriate vehicle use as well as a right size the vehicles for the city. So I'm pretty certain that that would be included as part of that discussion. The question from Vice Mayor Knox, we. I'm going to save this for the end. But might my recommendation or my recollection of that conversation is that there would actually be a fleet policy that would be coming back to the council based on that. Is that right? A part of that. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead, Ms.. Mr. Duke. And so moving on to our last department in this case is Housing Department. We have some what I would call a projects there, not necessarily capital projects for the city. We do utilize contract contractual services in this case because we do work with the Alameda Housing Authority and outside parties as well. So but in terms of type of project, it is it is a capital project. And so in this case, we are requesting a department requested to set aside a money, 900,000 in year one in 700,000 year to related to housing, affordable housing units, projects. Okay with that. That's the end of specific department presentations, unless you have questions. And if not, the next steps for us either provide hear from you. We do have one change. I do understand that. But there are several resolutions for you to approve in order to for us to move on with the budget and have it available on July 1st. Thank you. All right. So council and we do have well, we have some public speakers. So does anyone have any further clarifying questions before we go to public speakers? Vice Mayor and Oxley. I'm not. I may have missed something, but the fleet replacement, which was a big part of and $7 million in the first year, wasn't a part of this presentation that I saw, the $7 million. So what we did on the fleet is we have given discretion to the fleet management to look at the two years of the fleet and to try to manage those as best as possible. We also reduce for future fleet by 10% and ask them to come back in the fleet policy and address that and then we could address that at mid-cycle. Okay. So currently we're not. Moving forward with an additional cost. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Is that? I just wanted to make sure I understood what you meant by not moving with additional costs. So the Council is being asked to appropriate the funding for it. However, for the new vehicles, for the replacement of the vehicles. However, as you mentioned before, that replacement happens unless it's an emergency and we need something as soon as possible. The policy will be looked at first and then the evaluation of the fleet will happen, but at least it will have sufficient time when it does happen that it goes back to our fleet manager in order to purchase those vehicles. He will already have the appropriations for the budget in terms of budget. So my question for the city manager is when do you anticipate bringing the fleet policy back to us? And we haven't fully discussed it out, but I'm hoping to have it this fall. So not before this summer, but not before later. We don't have much. And the council goes on. We go dark in the month of August. So we were planning on having some of the vehicles probably start to be purchased, but they would only be the critical vehicles which have already have funding in the vehicle fund because if you I don't know if you remember or not, but there is a little over 5 million already in the vehicle fund. And we added, I want to say 1.6, which has been reduced by that 10%, if I remember. The charges out of general fund have been. So what we've done is we've created rates for the full fleet. We determined here's the listing of the vehicles when they were purchased, when they were supposed to be due for replacement based on the current policy, of course. But with that, the charges were allocated for all of those vehicles to all the programs in the city, specifically for General Fund. We reduced the contributions by 10% to further evaluate the fleet and come back if need be. And I understand that. I appreciate the explanation, but my point is simply that I do not want the city moving forward purchasing vehicles unless it is a, you know, a critical situation until we've had a chance to look at this policy, because I just want us to be consistent across all avenues. We're about to look at the Climate Action Resiliency Plan. So we shouldn't, because when we buy a vehicle, it's not just for a year or two, it has a life. So does that sound doable? Mr. City Manager I believe that's doable. The only other exception is as long as it's compliant with the climate action like electric vehicles, that would be compliant, I would think would also fit into that. I would think so. Any council members want to weigh in. I have a question. Okay. Okay. So then we have a question from a vice mayor. Not quite. So the during the workshop we did, we spent a good chunk of time talking about the internal service funds, but it's not in the. It was not in your budget presentation tonight is things we were. But to prove. It. That's true. Asking us to prove it? Yes. You will be approving as part of our overall budget. So I guess I'm having a hard time finding that in the budget. Can you direct me to where those funds are since they weren't called out in the presentation as additional? Well, if you want to look at them specifically, then. They? On the attachment, the exhibit that was provided, which I believe titled Budget Summary. It's budget summary. There's an attachment called citywide budget, all fund summary. So that provides a full summary of the funds. And if you want to look at internal service funds specifically, it's on the second page and it's fund numbers that start with seven or seven hundreds webpage numbers. Ambassador, do they have pages? Hmm. Well, maybe not. Including the first cover. But it would be page. It'd be page 11 of 70, I. Believe it says exhibit two Budget Summary. And you see page 11. I think it's on page 11 of seven. 1111. Is 70. Online. But yes, that's a revenue sense. So 11 of 70 if you're scrolling through 20. I look on page 12, Councilmember Brody says in your hard copy. Maybe on the hard copy, I believe it's number 12 if you actually do count on pages. Okay. So. I'll look I'll look forward to it. Okay. I have a question. Question from Councilmember De Soto. In your budget presentation, which is this item right here. Okay. Thank you. I'm sure she can multitask, but we will let her get back to the microphone. In your budget presentation, this item right here, what kind of struck me was on the slide that general fund budget 20 1920 2020 dash 2021. If we just look at the expenditures on the operations and forget about the pension OPEB reserve line, is this the first. Time. That that we will be adopting a general fund expenditure budget that crosses the $100 million threshold? I yes, I believe you're right. Well, yes and no. Original budget. Yes. However, in 1718, with some additional appropriations that happened during the year, including the large contribution to pension and OPEB, it did surpass the $100 million. But in terms of operations, though, where we. Correct. So I mean that's that's a pretty significant threshold that that that that we're crossing. So I just want to quickly say also to the finance department and all the department heads who put together in the residence ought to take the time to take a look at it, because there are there's really very handsome charts and discussions regarding the assets that are the city of Alameda manages and owns. And it's all in in here. And it's fun to read colorful graphics, nice snappy summaries of how many roads we manage, how many trees we have, the different zones that where trees are going to be trimmed. And when you look at the capital improvement summary, there's also a capital improvement fund by capital improvement fund, discrete disc discussions, but also fortunately kind of a who the responsible staff member is. I really like that that that was really nice. So residents I hope if you're watching this, if you get a chance to go online and check out both the CIP budget summary and the general fund or the operation fund, it's really nice. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Finance Chairman, and our new city manager, Eric Levitt, who really hit the ground running. He's been here not quite three months, two months. And. And he and finance produced this amazing budget. So good work, team Alameda. Okay. If there's no further clarifying questions we have. How many? Just two. Okay. Let's hear our public speakers. Thank you. The first one is Misha Tom, and the second is JJ Navarro. And you each have 3 minutes to speak. Perfect. I will not use. Well, maybe I will. Maybe I'm just like the echo of my voice. I thank you for having me. And thank you for all doing the civic and public work you do. And I have just come to advocate for the Jackson Park playground. It sounds like it's made. Smooth sailing through the waters. But as a parent of a three year old, an eight month old who lives in the Jackson Park neighborhood, it's very exciting the prospect of having another playground and using that space more with a broader civic purpose. And I think that that's really all I wanted to say. So thank you so much. Thank you. And our next speaker is J.J. Navarro. Hello. Great to be here. And thank you for your service to the city of Alameda. I'm here with my neighbor, Misha, and we were very excited to see Jackson Park up on the slides today. I was here with you a month ago to voice my support, and I listened online to the discussion that followed and was really encouraged to hear that you echoed a lot of the same sentiments of why we're trying to get this done. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I really look forward to continue to be a part of this process. Thank you for your remarks. Thank you both. Okay. So that's all of our public speakers. So I'm going to close public comment. So council our task tonight is to, um. We've got some resolutions to approve. There is. Not a good time for the iPad to freeze. You should put something in the budget. No, just kidding. Okay, so we have resolutions, too. Well, we need to adopt the operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2019 and 2020 19 to 2020 and 2022, 2021. And we also have the board. To approve an adopt the successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission budget for fiscal year 20 1920 and 20 2021. Adopt a resolution approving workforce changes and adopt a resolution amending the International Association of Firefighters Salary Schedule, all of which was encompassed in the the report. The presentation that we had. But I believe we need to take our resolution separately. Correct. Really? Together. Together? No. Yes. Separately. Separately. Yeah. We the the when there's a tie, the city attorney prevails. Okay. So for the resolution approving in adopting the operating and capital budget for fiscal years 2019 to 2020 and 2022 2021, do I have a motion, a question? We make sure comments are. Well, can we get a motion in motion? Okay, I have a motion. I have a second from Councilmember Vela. They will have discussion. Councilmember O.D. I'll be brief because I know we had three, two or three days worth of this back in May. So I also want to echo my colleague's comments. Appreciate the hard work of the city manager. It was like the first couple of weeks. That was one of the first things he did and it really was an amazing budget. It reflects our priorities and I think. ILLEANA You went over them, so I'm not going to repeat them. And I appreciate the work of you and your team as well as all of the department heads and putting this together. It's a budget I think we can be proud of. I'll be proud to support it. And I just want to appreciate everything you guys did to to get us to this point. Any other decision based on the next wave. So I plan to support this, and I just want to make that clarifying comment that this includes the flipping of the since. I believe this is the the when that that our motion includes the flip of to 50 and 175 for the parks. So I want to I just want to thank the city staff. I know that a lot of work went into this, especially since we had an interim city manager for a lot of this. And our staff, finance staff is short staffed, so there's no way to undersell or oversell the huge lift that was done in creating this . And I very much appreciate the document. I think it's something that we can all be proud of. Thank you. And I'll just slip in an extra thank to our finance director, Lena Adair. Some Mrs. Dear actually grew up in Siberia. And during this process, when she was just immersed in all this, her grandparent died in Siberia and she had to leave and go. She chose to leave and go back for the services. And that was a lot of personal stress on her. And somehow and she's a mother of two young children, but a beautiful job, Ms.. Adair, your usual stellar work product. So anything further or shall we take a vote? That's what. Rock Hall. Council members decide. Yes. Not quite. Yes. Yes. Yes, mayor. Yes. That carries my life. All right. Thank you. So that resolution passes unanimously, and then we move on to. A move approving the in adopting a budget for the fiscal year 1920 and 2021 for the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Perfect. Do I have a second? Okay. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing, then roll call. Vote. Councilman or commissioner stateside? Yes. Not quite. Yes. Yes. Yes. As the Ashcraft? Yes. That also carries by five votes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Next, we have a resolution amending the salary schedule and approving workforce changes in fiscal year 2019 to 2020 and 2022 2021. To have a motion. So moved. By the vice mayor, seconded by. Second. By Councilmember Odie. A voice vote. Roll call vote, please. Councilmember say. Says yes. Next fight. Yes. Odie. Yes. Yeah. Mayor as he Ashcraft. Yes. That carries unanimously by far. Right. All right, let's see if we can make it for for our last resolution is amending the International Association of Firefighters Salaries Schedule. I do have a motion. So moved. It's been moved by the vice mayor, who's been seconded by Councilmember Vela, all of our rockhopper councilors. They said yes. Not quite. Yes. Yes. Yes. There is the Ashcroft. Yes. That carries unanimously by five eyes. Perfect. Good work, everybody. Okay, so then we. Are during this. James, we adjourn this meeting and I am going to give us a ten minute break and then we will come back. And here I am, six C. That's exactly right. Okay, everyone, 10 minutes. We will be back at eight. Okay. 855. Don't be late. Right. If you seats, please, we are going to drive you. Oh, okay. Our recess is over and we are going to move on to item six. See this public hearing to establish the proposition for appropriations limit for fiscal year 20 1920 and to consider adoption of resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 1920.

Authorizes a Park Use Agreement expiring on 12-31-14 with The German American Chamber of Commerce – Colorado Chapter in the amount of $13,461.25 for the use of Skyline Park as the venue for the annual Christkindle market multi-day event (201417104).

DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0684

Special events and permit. And I want to know if this is one of the events that sort of came through that process, because I remember sitting through a couple of meetings and was told that we weren't going to be permitting new things or new events because that sort of overtax our various city resources, whether it was police service or, you know, the one guy in the city that works with all the special events. And so I was just trying to understand if this came through that process. Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Councilman, I think I think I want to chime in. We're going to chime in. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega, this is not part of the process. This is an ongoing event that's been going on in Skyline Park for years. It's the Chris Kimball market, and it's strictly a parks permitting issue. It's not related to special events that are or more broadly discussed in that forum. So as we are doing what some neighborhoods might consider special events that are new, are are they still being permitted in the parks? The cap was on runs and races for the course of 2014, so no new runs and races for 2014. So that didn't apply. So events is is a slightly different conversation. Okay. All right. Thanks for the clarification. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Councilwoman. Or take any other questions on 64 CNN. Madam Secretary, can you tee up next, one 698 called out by Councilwoman Monteiro. What would you like to do with this? I have. A question. Go right ahead, president. So Council Bill 698 approves an increase in certain admission and fees at the Denver Zoo. So if a representative from the Denver.

Recommendation to receive and file the report, “Downtown Long Beach Parking Improvement Update.” (Districts 1,2)

LongBeachCC_10202015_15-1089

Thank you. And if we can go back to Mr. Million's item. 25. Okay. We're on page three. Third slide. Today's presentation is based on the memorandum to you on October 2nd, which provided an update to the progress to the many improvements. This memorandum followed a request on August 18 by the City Council to return to October with an update. This presentation follows the first presentation on August 18th. One of the first most urgent steps we took was to assess the security situation and take action. Since August 18, we have increased the security at City Place structures. These structures include Lot A, which is located between fifth and sixth streets by Madina offices, Lot B, which is located between fourth and fifth streets and Lot C located between third and fourth streets, and will be the parking structure for Studio 111. Security now in place is 24 seven, which includes weekends and nights. Previously, security made rounds only during business hours on Monday through Friday. These patrols will also follow the instituted procedures in March, requiring the security guard to use their mobile devices to check into designated areas and provide a report. Additionally, employees of nearby businesses can request a security escort in the late evenings to get to their vehicle. Standard Parking. Plus, the city's contractor, who manages the city place garages, have also hired a customer ambassador. This ambassador adds another set of eyes and ears on the garage and attends to customers throughout the day. The ambassador assists customers with any problems they might encounter with the garage, earning frequent contact with Klotz Security, which patrols the garages . Additionally, the ambassador strategically returns to lot A during key times, including in the middle of the day as American career college students transition from day to evening classes. And at the end of the day. When Molina employees depart from their offices. Standard parking has been fully cooperative in their partnership with the city to address these issues. In addition to increasing security at the garages, standard parking has also increased the cleaning of the garage. Garages will undergo a high pressure power wash treatment on a monthly basis and twice weekly street bangs compared to the previous quarterly washings and once weekly sweeping. This increased cleaning schedule is in line with cleaning practices at the aquarium parking structure also managed by standard parking. Additional maintenance staff have been added in the evening shift to address any issues of maintenance, including graffiti abatement and emptying overfilled trash bins. This is in addition to the morning shift that also empties trash. In addition to the security and maintenance improvements, we have centralized parking information on the city's website. Visitors can go to w w w thought Long Beach dot gov slash parking and find direct links to purchase a monthly parking permit for parking structures and lots managed by standard parking on behalf of the city. Annual beach lock permits and other parking related requests. Easy to locate numbers have been added for convenience. Previously, only the citation office number was included. Here is the front page of the parking services web page. You'll note in the red circle are links related to downtown parking and monthly parking permits, which were added after the August 18 meeting. The critical phone numbers can be found in the blue bar on the right hand side. This is in addition to other parking related items. If you click the monthly parking permit site, you will be directed to an easy to complete enrollment form. Standard parking reports that we receive about 2 to 3 inquiries per week. In addition to streamlining the website, we continue to make progress on the parking mobile application, which will display live data on mobile applications. The parking app will draw on live occupancy data collected by the new sensors. The is in the first to deploy this cutting edge technology of non street embedded sensors. This slide here summarizes the general improvements to the parking structures. We're well on our way to completing this list and taking additional projects. It has been updated since the October 2nd to reflect completions and progress made in addition to security, maintenance and marketing. Standard parking has worked with nearby stores to reconfigure, reconfigure cart corrals, removed damaged cart corrals, and implemented a system that remove carts from nearby stores. The removal of the cards have been completed and the removal of the cart crews have been completed and the cuts will be and removal of the costs will be an ongoing progress. Standard parking monitors, the garage for stray carts. We have received a quote on the fencing off of a certain area in the structure, and we're in the process of moving that forward. Likewise, the elevator window washing has been initiated. Finally, the city added lights to the walkway in Lot A in May of this year. Recently the wall was repainted and the walkways cleaned up to remove stains. We're also adding even more lighting to the walkway. These additional projects are included in this list, which shows the work that public works and standard parking has done and will continue to do so. As mentioned, city staff is adding more lights to the walkway and lot A after adding lights in May to further improve the customer service experience. Standard Parking is looking to relocate to a storefront so that customers can easily meet with standard parking representatives and an easy to find location. The city will remain diligent in evaluating current security operations and maintenance. At this time, I would like to share with you some before and after photos. Standard Parking Plus has undertaken these improvements on city's behalf. Here you can see the old signs are replaced with bright new signs. The new updated ticket dispenser has indications about video recording and is covered with information about where to ask for help. The parking islands have been repainted. Here's another view of the parking islands with the refreshed ticket dispensers. Extended parking also added new landscaping to the front with drought tolerant shrubs. The walkway and Lot A has been considerable attention. Standard parking has painted the wall one solid color as a blank canvas for future mural opportunities. The walkway also have been refreshed and you can see the stairs have been eliminated in the after photo. As I mentioned, corrals have been removed or replaced with new smaller corrals, and standard parking has identified daily collections. If the nearby stores do not take the responsibility to remove carts in a timely manner. Finally, the firehose box mission on August 18 has been repainted and plexiglass replaced. While we made major improvements, Public Works has identified additional opportunities to further enhance the parking experience. These enhancements include interior repair of the structures, which include repairing surface cracks. Additional computer service to support the added security cameras and painting. The estimated cost of these improvements are approximately $430,000 per garage in labor and material costs based on quotes we received. The structures have undergone an energy audit, which the city will have results on this audit at the end of this year. This audit will provide a more firm cost estimate of energy savings, potential rebates and incentives and other financing options for LED conversions. This future improvements also align with the renaissance that City Place will undergo with the addition of Studio 111 as an anchor tenant. I had the pleasure of meeting with Studio 111 recently to discuss their fantastic creative vision for Los C, which is located between third and fourth streets. This speaks to the department's continued belief that community partnership are key to the thriving and successful parking experience. And we invite our partners to work with us to ensure the safety and success of parking in downtown and citywide. The funding for these improvements have and will come from three important sources. Parking garage revenues from city plates will offset the maintenance and security enhancements previously discussed. This $125,000 costs will not have structural budget impacts to the general fund. Downtown parking meters will also support parking improvements in this area, including Cityplace in working with financial management. We estimate approximately $70,000 every two months in net meter access revenue. Finally, any additional funding identified by City Council could also fund these improvements. We've also focused these presentations on the city place garages thus far. I do want to briefly cover the following as these issues were raised at the previous council meeting. Specifically, we have a new city traffic engineer and we will begin the review of parking surrounding the courthouse, focusing on alleviating the parking impacts in the adjacent residential areas. Secondly, staff will reach out to private vendors to encourage them to adopt new technology. While the city has made significant upgrades on city owned parking structures and city lots. Not all of the individual private non city owned structures have taken those steps. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Malloy and Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you, Ira. Thank you, Ciaran, for the wonderful presentation. I know it has been some time for us to get to this point, but I really do want to give you a lot of gratitude for this presentation and the way it looks and it's organization. I know it's been a lot of us working collaboratively to be able to to bring us to where we're at now. And as everyone knows, downtown parking is a big topic, especially in the first district, just in in the city in general. So I have a few questions, but I again want to just thank you for pointing out all of these important topics for us, because I think it makes. It a lot easier for us as a council office, but also just as a city to be able to point to where our parking is in the downtown. And then also some of our core areas like city place that has often not looked so good. Now it's looking a lot better and we can really point to it and say this is something that is evolving every single day. But it's it's it's getting there and it's looking a lot better. So a few questions I know you had in the report. It mentioned a customer ambassador. And this is this is someone employed with our contractor. Correct. And this is how many hours with this person work? Is it a normal 40 hour workweek or what does that look like? Honorable Gonzales. Yes, this is the ambassador is an employee of essential parking, and they're employed, I think, 9 to 6 Monday through Friday. Perfect. And as far as security practices, I'm glad to see that that was a emphasized. I know we've also talked and I'll just reiterate this as well as reiterate this again, as far as security is to make sure that there's more efficient security practices. And I know you've had discussions with our contractor in terms of, yes, it's great to have security there, but to ensure that they're actually doing their job when they're there, which I know we you know, we've we've addressed. So I just wanted to point that out. Also, with power washing, we've talked in the past about better notification. So how will tenants be notified? I know Molina health care has quite a few employees there. I know there's been issues with notification and power washing. So how will employees how will residents be notified? Great question. I know that we had one instance that there was some confusion with some of the employees coming from one entrance versus the other entrance. That situation has been rectified. Central parking does the notifications. They provide notifications 48 hours before the power washing. It's scheduled already, so all the tenants know which days the power washing is going to occur. And we will also use Twitter and Facebook to inform any constituent that this this is occurring. Okay. Thank you. So there will be a notification there. And then ice. I know we talked about a better parking office situation where it currently stands now. It's it's not very customer friendly. You have to kind of find your way to be able to even pay for monthly parking, which could be a hindrance for a lot of people. So what is the timeline on Central Parking's reorganization of of a better parking? We're working with the with with the property owner. Unfortunately, central parking doesn't have any control where they can go. So it's we're working with the property owner to make sure they can provide a space for central parking to relocate. So that's in progress. And we'll get back to you when that occurs. But it's an effort that we started. We recognized as the location that central parking was given. It's not too obvious. So we want to as as in the report indicates we want to find a storefront that they can relocate to and they'll have direct access to the street. Okay. Great. Um, and one sort of last question is how are we working with our businesses? So I know we have been in contact with Walmart who had in previous days had know sometimes left shopping carts. There's been trash, I mean, around the property. So how are you working with the city place property owners specifically about city place and some of the local areas I'm sorry, the local businesses about the maintenance. We we're having at least that I know of monthly meetings with our business ambassadors I would called central parking's involved my staff is involved we've had a lot of good luck with Walmart. They've been really stepping up to the removal of the carts. They are the ones that removed the broken carts and the corrals. So we basically we're going to enforce what we said we're going to do if if we have a cart that it's not removed within a certain time period, we're going to remove it for them. So that's that's our approach. And fortunately, they're doing a great job at this point. They're at the table discussing with us and we're in continuous communication with them. We have a lot of email discussions with them also, so that's moving forward with the local businesses that are around there. We also have to partner with with Mr. Shoshone to make sure that his clients are also being responsible for some of the stuff that goes on around there. So I have a meeting with Mr. Shoshone to discuss that issues also. Great. Thank you. And and then I will say that our website looks great. I think it's a it's a wonderful evolution from where it was before. It is one stop shop you are able to find. I mean, right there, it quantifies the amount of parking spaces we have, which is 9000. It also states that the lowest monthly rate is $35, which I think is very enticing for some people because I mean, as a council member of the first and just working in the district for six years, people will say there is no parking in downtown. And I keep telling people there is parking in downtown, you just have to pay for it in some cases. And then in other cases it's 2 hours for free. But we didn't in the past have that all in one place for us. For me as a representative to go to a website to pointed out to our residents and our business owners, and now we do. And thankfully and I know it will continue to evolve as we bring more property owners if they are interested, but it will continue to evolve. So I want to thank you for that. Um, I'll, I'll, I'll just ask that we continue looking at different marketing approaches as well. One last thing that I don't think I mentioned before, but um, maybe I mentioned it to Tom is electric car parking. And I believe we have Zipcar locations as well in downtown. I'm not sure if that's the case. Maybe not. Okay. Our saying no, but I know we do have electric plug in locations and so that would be great to advertise some way somehow through signage in the downtown. So what are we doing about that? Um, that's an excellent question. Part of our mobile app, it will have a function in it that shows recharging stations. So we have some, for example, on Broadway parking structure, we have electric, electric charging stations for the public that will show on the on the app. So if you go to I mean, we if Park MI finishes their their app, you will find that information. So it's it's part of that application. And also we can show it on our website if that needed to be. And it's currently available on their website. I also forgot to mention that our biggest partner is the LBA and we're working with them. We have we will have biweekly bi monthly meetings with them to discuss all the issues in downtown. But specifically parking is as part of one of our first initiatives. So I neglected to mention that this is going to occur and we're going to participate with the LBA in future marketing and partner with them in any way possible to enhance the parking experience in downtown. Well, great. Well, thank you. I was actually going to close with that saying that we should make sure that we're meeting more often, my office included. I know I just spoke with Craig not too long ago and Sean and I really want to thank them as well for their efforts in overall in the downtown parking, especially because they've been a large part of this as well. And it just really adds to the vitality of our economic development. We're changing a lot in downtown, I mean, from where it was before to where we are now in downtown, it's it's really it's a it's a big deal. So I just want to close and say thank you again for this. I look forward to the changes and look forward to. Meeting with you on this. So congratulations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Richardson. Just want to chime in and just say congratulations to both the downtown council members. This is a big win. And when you work so hard and have a moment to be able to celebrate all the work that's been done and come to this point, I think it is important to take this time out. City Council. So again, congratulations. When I visit a different city, I always check to see what apps the city has. I was in Washington, D.C., and I checked out the bike share app and it got navigated me to the right place to check out a bike. And I did my whole tour there. So, I mean, the more we can think about getting online, having an app, figuring out how to tie it into the our bike stations or whatever, I don't remember what our bike infrastructure thing is going to be called. Bike share. That would be cool too. So thanks and congratulations. Thank you. And I wanted to thank Mr. Malloy and as well for your hard work and the staff in putting the presentation together, but really also improving the infrastructure that we have to make parking as not so much as easy as possible, definitely make it as easy as possible, but also the availability as easily known as possible . And I think that when people come into our downtown, if they can just know. With methods outside of just wayfinding signs. It really does liberate folks. And it makes the point clear that there is plenty of parking, as Councilwoman Gonzalez said. But it's just not knowing perhaps where it is or having the clarity as to which are the ones that you pay for and which of the ones you don't. And it's part of a strategy. And the overall strategy is demand management through pricing. And we want to be sure that we strike a balance between what's charged, what's available and where where the parking assets are and where the other businesses are and where people want to go. So thank you. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 25? Mr. Cogen. Good to see you. You got it. Good evening. I am Francis. Emily Dawson. Harrison and I reside in District one, and I think this is just absolutely awesome, the progress that you've made on this matter regarding the parking and I'm out and about quite a bit and my concern is because I didn't hear anything mentioned, although you may already have covered as there's quite a number of people that are out and about that are disabled. And I want to find out what the availability of the parking is for persons that are disabled. And the other thing, too, of concern is Walmart is going to be adding well, they're in the process of bringing in the grocery store. And I'm told in here we're talking about a city place. And I'm hearing more and more people are all excited about coming down to Walmart. And I don't know if you have the capacity of looking at the potential impact that that may have on the parking in that area, because it might be kind of a little less parking. So I just thought I would come forward on this matter. And also the concern to us when they're the parking some is occupied and the lots are you finding that there's problems where people are parking into areas where people reside because there's such a thing as having preferred parking, you know, in some more suburban type of areas where I students were going and parking in front of houses and the house owners didn't have enough parking for their family and their guests. So and I just to add a whole lot to you, but I just thought I'd share that with you. Thank you, Max. Thank you, Francis. Next speaker. Good evening, Madam Vice Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Craig Cogen with the downtown Long Beach Associates. I want to thank counsel more Gonzales for bringing this up almost a year ago. It was November that you brought this up. And certainly there's been May there's been a lot of progress made on this. And certainly there's a lot more work to do. But I'm pleased to hear the progress that has been made to date. And Vice Mayor, you would remember that we've kind of moved this conversation of downtown parking from a lack of inventory ten years ago to now. It's more about the customer experience and it's about marketing the asset that we have. And it's part of the first and last experience that customer may have coming in to our downtown center. And that is to us, it's very, very important. We can't lose sight of really what is attracting these customers, these visitors, what asset we provide them and what experience we give them when they first arrive and when they last leave. And that's really what this is all about. It's no longer inventory. It is about what is experienced on a regular and daily basis. So I'm pleased to hear that the maintenance and security has improved. But those are perceptions. And I think we have to change perception into reality. And I think there is economies of scale of what we could do based on the types of services that are provided on the public realm within the downtown, as well as the private spaces that the city owns relative to parking lots and parking garages and the assets that we're talking about as far as City Place is concerned . And we're very excited about what Mr. Shushan is doing with city plates and what the vendors and the tenants are doing with City of Place. 2 hours free parking in the center of our downtown that at that we have approximately 2500 spaces is an it is an extraordinary asset to our downtown. Not many downtowns will be able to offer to our free parking without validation in the center of our downtown. That one could walk 2 to 3 blocks to get to their destination. And I'd like to elevate the conversation. In a more strategic fashion. If I could recommend to city staff that we look at not only the structures, the maintenance, the security and the marketing of these structures, but also the on on street parking experience. City and DARPA invested almost $2 million this past year for smart meter parking in our downtown. And I think we now need to consolidate this conversation into one strategic plan, one definite idea of how we want to create this experience. So I applaud Councilmember Gonzalez's initiative to bring this to staff's attention. I commend staff for presenting some very positive results. We look forward to working together in the future and creating more positive results. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you both for the comments. Thank you, Francis. And I will ask because I know it has been brought up before and I failed to mention the disabled parking. I know the opportunities for that. I don't I don't know if we've reviewed that a little bit in length, but to see what the you know, if we're on track with the amount of disabled parking spots we have. But I do know that the access in to City Place is also a little bit difficult, even for someone who does not use a wheelchair. So I would think someone who does use a wheelchair would be even even worse. So if we can look into that as well. But thank you both for your comments. Thank you. And there is no further request to speak. Members, cast your vote. Motion carries. And we have one last hearing before we get to public comment. Hearing item two.

A RESOLUTION relating to the Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for The City of Seattle on the Final Assessment Roll for the Waterfront Local Improvement District (LID #6751); remanding certain properties to the City Appraiser for further analysis concerning the valuation of the properties consistent with recommendations of the Initial Report; returning jurisdiction to the Hearing Examiner for final recommendations on the remanded properties; directing the Hearing Examiner to file final findings, recommendations, or decisions on the Final Assessment Roll for the Waterfront LID (“Final Report”) with the City Clerk; providing for appeal from the Final Report; and postponing hearings on appeals from the Initial Report previously scheduled via Resolutions 31969, 31972, 31973, and 31974.

SeattleCityCouncil_11092020_Res 31979

Agenda Item eight Resolution 319 79 relating to the findings and recommendations of the hearing seminar for the City of Seattle on the final assessment role for the Waterfront Local Improvement District. Thank you so much. I move to adopt resolution 31979. Is there a second? Second? Thank you. It's been. We've been seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Juarez, you are the prime sponsor of this resolution and an are recognized in order to address the item. Thank you. As I shared this morning here, an examiner filed his initial report of findings and recommendations on the waterfront land with the city clerk on September 8th, 2020. An initial report, the hearing examiner recommended the remand of 17 properties to the city appraiser for further analysis of their valuation before making a final recommendation on the final assessment of the remanded properties. The law department and city staff have recommended council reschedule the December and January dates to streamline the appeals process. So in adopting Resolution 31979 includes a few of these a following expectations. Number one, direct the city appraiser to submit further analysis of the 17 recommended properties to the hearing examiner no later than November 30th, 2020. Number two direct the hearing examiner to consolidate any findings, recommendations and decisions on the Remanded Properties with the findings and recommendations of the September eight initial report into a final report. Number three Request the hearing examiner to file a final report with the city clerk no later than February 1st, 2021, and before, I think , provide for appeals for the final report and finally reschedule the hearings of multiple appeals from the initial report, the December 1st, 2020 hearings to March 2nd, 2021, and the January 5th 2021 hearing to April six, 2021, adopting Resolution 31979 would not make any decisions regarding the final assessment of any property in the waterfront LYD Nor regarding the approval of the waterfront final assessment role. As Chair of the Public Assets and Native Communities Committee, I recommend Council adopted a resolution. Thank you. Council President Thank you so much, Councilmember Juarez, for that for those comments. Are there any additional comments on the resolution? Okay. Well, I just want to thank you customers for continuing to shepherd through this process. I know it's been a lot of moving pieces in. Oh, yeah. Three years. Girl. I finally appreciate you staying on top of it and helping us work through the procedural steps that are still still on our plate. So thank thanks so much for that. Thank you. Of course. Okay. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution? Suarez. I. Lewis. I. Morales. I was scared. I. Peterson. I. So what? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbal. Yes. President Gonzalez. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Other business. Is there any other further business to come before the Council? Hearing none. Colleagues, this does conclude the items of business on today's agenda. Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is on Monday, November 16th, 2020 at 2:00 PM. I want to thank you all for your attention and I hope that you all have a really wonderful afternoon. We are adjourned. Thank you for reading.

Recommendation to approve the use of Sixth Council District Fiscal Year 2015 one-time infrastructure funds in the amount of $10,000 to fund community improvement, healthy eating, and community engagement activities in the Sixth Council District for a two-year period.

LongBeachCC_09222015_15-0975

Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. And that concludes public comment on items not on the agenda. We've done consent items for three, 11 and 16. Madam Clerk, next item. Is 12. Item 12 Communication from Councilman Andrew's Recommendation to approve the use of Sixth Council District Fiscal Year 2015. One time infrastructure funds in the amount of $10,000 to fund community improvement, healthy eating and community engagement activities for a two year period. There's been a motion and a second. Is there a staff report? Or Councilmember Andrews. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, the sixth District is part of the home of approximately 50,000 residents. As the host of many outstanding institutions and public facilities. Districts are also rich in culture, due in large part it is rich in ethnic diversity. While there is much to celebrate their continued challenge, such as healthy eating choices, access to healthy food and healthy activities. We also like food services, grocery stores and farmers markets where residents can buy a variety of fruits, vegetables and whole grain. A low fat diet produce instead. Residents, especially those without reliable transportation, may be limited to shopping at a small, neighborhood, convenient and corner store, where fresh produce and low fat items are limited, if available at all. For this reason, I would like to use a portion of my. District wide 15 one times. Infrastructure funds to transfer to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine to provide much needed community farmers markets that provide healthy choices as well as healthy activities and encourage residents to exercise. This I would like to move, you know, if I can get okay from the council. So there's been a motion and a second. Councilmember Your Honor, did you want to address the motion as well? Okay. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 12? Seeing None members. Cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to declare City-owned property at 652 ½ Alamitos Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 7266-006-900 (Subject Property), as surplus; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Purchase and Sale Agreement, with the Robert Gumbiner Foundation, a California nonprofit corporation, for the sale of the Subject Property, in the amount of $27,500; and Accept Categorical Exemption CE-19-221. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_09172019_19-0928

Motion carries. Item 19. Well. Report from Economic Development Recommendation to. Declare city owned property at six, five. Two and a half Alamitos Avenue as surplus. Execute a purchase and sale agreement with the Robert Gunn Byner Foundation in the amount of. 27,500 District two. As Mr. Goodhue or Ms. Control here? I don't think so. For public comment of our peers comments. I just wanted to thank staff for their hard work on this and it was a small parcel, but it's an important key. So thank you, Councilman Austin. Second, the motion, I think this is a great opportunity to to really add character to this area of the city. And I just want to thank staff on this. Mr. Crusher, you and I have been working on this for a long time with my team and a few other folks. And this is an important opportunity for for a parcel. I'm really proud of the partnership and proud of the work here. So I'm excited about the future for for this corner. Please cast your votes. Councilman Richardson. Ocean carries. Next Item 20 Report from Financial Management Recommendation to approve the fiscal year 2019 second Departmental and Fund Budget Appropriation Adjustments in accordance with existing City Council policy citywide tendency.

Proclamation Declaring October 7, 2015 as Walk and Roll to School Day. (Public Works 310)

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2032

Proclamation declaring October 7th as walk and roll to school day. And the recipients of this are Dr. Clam. Nina Clam. Okay. On behalf of Otis, I want to thank you, Madam Mayor, and members of City Council. Yes, I'm Dr. Clem, principal of Otis Elementary School. And I brought with me a student who's an avid biker. She loves her bike as well as my walk and roll to school day volunteer coordinator Erin Crites Shirey. So we are very excited that tomorrow is Walk In, Roll International, Walk and Roll Day. And in Alameda we'll have 14 elementary and middle schools participating in this very exciting activity and events. I'm going to let Aaron describe to you what our day is going to be like. When we start. School. Thank you. Hello. So Otis has got a very, very. Active and vibrant walk in school walk enrolled in school, a program of which. Mayor Spencer has been a participant. Of. Tomorrow morning it starts out, everyone comes to school, they walk, they roll, they ride their bikes. You hop, skip, jump any which way to get to school and are high fived and given a big sticker upon getting to school. And then there's a dance party. The dance party has everybody dancing on is having a dance off. Dr. Clem and I are known for doing Running Man dance offs and it gets everyone rallied and celebrating. Fitness is fun. Then from. There, we come on over. With all of the grades in their class colors, this rainbow of colors of kids. And we are going to be doing an entire school with. A name, a dance. Celebration tomorrow, where the entire school is practicing the whip. And the focus of walking to school is to celebrate just the physical activity, active commuting, the community itself, the camaraderie among among the celebration of healthy fitness fun and Otis is program has been so much joy to enrich throughout the last few. Years of. Taking it. On. So is there anything else I need to add? You think. All week long and use. The microphone. So everybody. Sorry. All week long we have been celebrating healthy habits because walk and roll teaches our kids not only to be healthy and fit, but also to keep our environment healthy. And so we started out on Monday with assemblies from safe routes to school, about with rock study, juggling, about reducing, reusing, recycling and being and walking and rolling to school. And then actually on Friday we even have a BMX freestyle bike assembly on our yard to teach kids about how much fun it is to bike. So lots of activities all week long. Now I'll read the proclamation. Whereas the city of Alameda joins with the Alameda Unified School District, Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools Program and Bike Walk ALAMEDA In Promoting Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 as walking World School Day. Whereas Walk and Roll to School Day is celebrated as the day to encourage students to walk, bicycle, skate or scooter to school. And. Whereas, this day is an opportunity to promote physical activity, educate students about traffic safety, help parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors to spend more time with children, reduce automobile use and traffic hazards, and create a safer, healthier and more environmentally sustainable community. And. Whereas, Walking World to School Day gives everyone the chance to take an active part in an international event and walk with children from around the world. And. Whereas, by using the school maps and traffic safety tips provided by the Public Works Department, students will become smarter and healthier. Non-Motorized Travelers. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Treasurer Spencer, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, October 7th as walk and roll to School Day 2015 and invite all Alameda residents, businesses, civic groups and other organizations to participate. Thank you. Thank you. Can. I wanted to add I want to emphasize the part about it being an international day. We do join communities around the world in celebrating this day. Thank you, member. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was invited to participate in Bay Farm Elementary or Bay Farm School's Walk and Roll Day tomorrow, so I'll be there. My kids have long gone from Bay Farm School, but it's an honor to participate in that and I hope my colleagues will participate in it as well. It's going to be an exciting day. As far as standing for pretty much all our and other leaders throughout the community. Member Echo. So I just want to say thank you all for being here. And it's a special treat to see Aaron Shirey because once upon a time she used to babysit for my twins there, too. They're 24 years old now, Erin, and now she's 23 little girls of her own. Now, you stayed young, but I just came back. Actually, a number of us in the council attended the League of California Cities annual conference in San Jose last week. And on Friday I attended a session on cities, building community, healthy communities all over the state. And I want to know that what you're doing is practically award winning and it's hopefully replicated all over the city. And and I would love to see it not just be a day. And I know I mean, if you've seen Erin, even when she was pushing a baby stroller, she was jogging behind it. I never did that. But but we really we will be a healthier community, will have less traffic impact if we could get more parents to let their kids walk role and ride to school. And yes, I will be out starting at lamb and then I'm racing across the yard to Wood Middle School after that. So I've got a24. But thank you so much for coming in presenting tonight. Thank you. Actually want to thank everybody because I know many of you are participating. There are a lot of VIPs coming to all of our schools. It is truly a community wide effort. And I just want to assure you, it's a yearlong effort all the time at our schools to keep keep healthy habits alive. Okay. Just a moment, please. Remember Daisy. Yes. Thank you very much for coming out tonight and passing along the word about tomorrow's important event. I take special pleasure all the time in taking part in the Payton schools walk and roll data school, the elementary school that I went to many years ago. And it's great to see so many kids taking that day to walk and ride their bikes. Thank you. I'll be at Mylan this year, so. Good luck with your dancing. Make sure you all wear your tennis shoes. Yes. We'll get. You going. Thank you. Thank you. Very much. Oh, wait. Oh, yeah. Should I come back on this project? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Hmm. A. All right, next presentation.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance; clarifying that a tenant relocation license is required before the removal of a rent or income restriction; and amending Sections 22.210.020, 22.210.030, 22.210.040, 22.210.050, 22.210.070, 22.210.080, 22.210.090, 22.210.100, 22.210.110, 22.210.120, 22.210.130, 22.210.136, 22.210.140, and 22.210.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_10042021_CB 120182

Agenda Item one Council Vote 120 182 Relating to the Tenant Relocation Assistant Ordinance clarified that I cannot give the patient license required for the removal of a rent or increase restriction. Thank you so much. I move to pass Council Bill 120182. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Customers want you are the sponsor of this item, so I'm going to go in hand it over to you to walk us through the report. Thank you. One minute the bill has been moved and seconded. I believe I should. Do I have to? Yep. Already. Already done. We have to develop the procedure. So now you can go ahead and just talk about the bill. Thank you. This bill is a legislation from the city of Seattle, Department of Construction and Inspections, clarifying that the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance applies to buildings that exist, the multi-family tax exemption affordable housing program. The ordinance, which is known as TRAIL, which is its acronym for short, requires building owners to pay relocation assistance when they displace renters through no fault eviction in order to demolish or remodel the building or a similar change of use. This bill is for clarifying purposes and is pretty straightforward, making it clear that exiting the MFP program, the multifamily tax exemption program, counts as that sort of change of use. There are a couple of buildings in Seattle that are expected to exit the MFT program this year. The department walked through one such building and estimated that approximately 10% of the tenants there would be eligible for relocation assistance because the ordinance has extremely restrictive means testing that even count the income of your roommate against you. While this clarifying language will only help a small minority of renters, residents of some affordable homes are expected to be eligible for it this year. So I appreciate Dan Gonzalez's willingness to send this bill directly to full council with the city council today. And I urge members to vote. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Silent for that report. Are there any additional comments or questions on the bill? Not seeing any hands raise. I do want to note for the record that we have been joined by Councilmember Miles. Well, a quick piece called The Roll on the Passage of the Bill Herbold. S Juarez i the less. Yes. Morales Yes. Mesquita All right. Peterson I so want this. Strauss Yes. President Gonzalez. Nine in favor, nine opposed, the motion carries, the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the parties affix my signature on the legislation to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read item two into the record.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract, and any necessary amendments, with GovConnection, Inc., dba Connection, of Merrimack, NH, for furnishing, delivering, and installing data center systems equipment, telecommunications equipment, and user devices, on the same terms and conditions afforded to Region 4 Education Service Center (ESC), of Texas, through the National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance-The Cooperative Purchasing Network (National IPA-TCPN), in an amount not to exceed $11,222,500 for the first year; thereafter, an annual amount not to exceed $2,866,000, for ongoing lifecycle replacement of equipment and new incremental technology growth, until the current contract expires on July 31, 2019, with the option to renew for as long as that contract is in effect, as needed;

LongBeachCC_06192018_18-0534

All right. Thank you. Take care. That concludes public comment. So let's go back to the agenda. Let's take up the technology item. What number is that? Madam Clerk, 39. Let's take up 39 next. Technology and innovation and financial management. Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the city manager to execute contracts with four contractors for furnishing, delivering and installing data center systems, equipment, telecommunications equipment and user devices and execute multiple lease purchase agreements in an aggregate amount not to exceed 21,411,000 citywide west. Mr. West by senior councilmembers, this is part of our. Critical technology upgrades. I'm going to turn this over to our interim technology and innovation director Lia Erickson, along with bureau manager, occasionally. Honorable mayor and members of council before you as a recommendation to authorize the manager to enter into cooperative agreements with Companies Connection INC, EMC Corporation and Office Depot, Inc for the acquisition of technology related equipment and software and with Computer Aid Inc to provide highly skilled and specialized project management and installation support that can be deployed rapidly to meet the city's critical project timeline needs. The action also includes financing over terms not to exceed 15 years and an appropriation increase in technology and innovation. Department of 19,254,000, offset by the proceeds of the lease purchase, financing and charges to user departments and funds and potential short term internal loans between funds. So as presented on December 5th, 2017, the critical technology infrastructure needs proposed purchasing and financing items for encompassing three categories of unfunded critical technology infrastructure needs, including installing a fiber system to interconnect city buildings, replacing outdated technology that is becoming unreliable and will not support new systems at the new civic center and furnishing needed systems to meet key critical city needs. This City Council approval is requested to procure a substantial portion of the technology and associated installation services identified above. This includes equipment for the city's data center, wired and wireless networks, security cameras, council chambers, conference rooms, radio and microwave document management and cybersecurity. City Charter Section 1802 provides an option for the city to leverage a cooperative purchasing agreement when authorized by resolution of council. Cooperative purchasing agreements are managed relationships where a lead agency has already bid and awarded contracts that can be used by other government or nonprofit agencies. Cooperative purchasing agreements combine the requirements of two or more public procurement entities to achieve higher volume, purchase discounts, delivery and supply chain advantages, best practices in a reduced administrative time and expenses. So, as discussed, staff is proposing to enter into four cooperative agreements. These agreements are proposed because each agreement provides a different inventory of items available for purchase, while some that are the same, others may be exclusive to a particular contract. Were the case that there are multiple providers offering the same equipment, the city will have the opportunity to choose a lower price or deeper discounted items and or select the vendor based on their ability to deliver the specific equipment within construction timelines and or logistical constraints that will pressure cost for the equipment and procurement installation will not exceed 30.5 million. This made up is made up. This amount is made up of 19.25 million for equipment identified in the Equipment and Technology Council or technology categories. A critical technology infrastructure needs. In addition, 7.8 million of the annual purchasing authority is on an are needed as needed basis for technology, systems, equipment and contingency, and then will also allow staff to move purchasing authority between contracts and provide flexibility to meet product availability and timelines. And the remaining 3.5 million is for one time technology systems and equipment already included in the existing operating budget. With that, I conclude my report. I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Yes. I'd like to move that to develop a plan to leverage the cloud for the city's data and systems and report back on the progress in 120 days. Years ago, we started talking about the cloud, and I know that the data center was a part of the new civic center, and I know that that's important. And I recognize that some of our systems are still so old and antiquated that they cannot be in the cloud. But we should be looking more aggressively at turning those systems off more quickly. San Diego just did an assessment where they took three weeks to assess what could go into the cloud and how quickly. And then they rented space in other government servers to allow them to transition those. Over without having to build some of those other things. So I recognize we have 600 servers, but we really need to be moving to the cloud. It is a fraction of the cost of managing our own data on site. So that's part of it. And then I also move that I conduct an assessment of smart phones. When I was elected four years ago, two I.T. directors ago, we discussed the BYOD program that has been alive and well in the county of Los Angeles for six years. And there are entire departments in the county of Los Angeles which have eliminated. Two thirds of their desk phones to allow every person to have a cell phone provided for free by the cell phone carrier at a fraction of the cost of what their VoIP costs are, cutting annual contracts from $400,000 down to $80,000 a year by eliminating some of these. I recognize there's a lot to be done with biodiesel. There are lots of meat and converters in the such that need to happen. But. The employees in many categories are eager to do this. And we've now gone through a negotiation cycle where it wasn't even brought up, even though this council discussed it four years ago, and that's not okay. So we have to draw a line. We can't just hope and wish and keep pushing and hoping and giving a general direction without a line in the sand. So I would like to also move that to conduct an assessment on cell phones and bring your own device programs and other methodologies that minimize the number of heads that phones we will be purchasing for the new civic center. We are a mobile. Future. And we need less devices on our desks. We should be using whether you want to use the Cisco go to meeting connect system or the. At my office we use the Skype for business connectivity where I can make phone calls on my computer. I can transfer them to my cell phone. I can answer them on my cell phone. We shouldn't need a desk phone. I don't think I've touched the desk phone on my desk for months. And most people don't. There's green lights and yellow lights and red lights for you to know who's sitting at their desk, who's available when they're in a meeting, when you can reach out to someone, it's fully integrated. And. And by the way, we're already paying for it. When my current department finally decided to adopt it about eight months ago, it's because I came to the department and I said, Hey, every other department I'm working, have worked in the last 11 years , has used the system. Why aren't we using it? And they're like, Oh, well, it would cost all this money. And I'm like, No, we already pay for Microsoft 365. It's free. All we have to do is turn it on. And so I'm looking forward to seeing those technologies turned on here. Even today, I logged in to outlook from a new system, and I'm getting a notice that I am I'm quarantined. I mean, we are just so slow. This device has my mail on it for years and I just update an app and I'm quarantined all over again. We really need to be looking at all of our security measures and where we're spending our time. So I know there's a lot of work to be done. I have an extreme amount of trust in Leah, and my only concern is that we can't keep turning over department heads. This next one has to be a good choice and they have to stay and we have to be making a good, strong strategic direction and moving there quickly. With that, I handed off to Councilwoman Gonzalez to add anything that we've discussed. Because I'm a consultant. Yes. And I know these are very critical needs. We need them ASAP. We needed them yesterday. And I understand the sensitivity and time for this. But I, too, want to emphasize the cloud strategy, whether it's, you know, not at one point in the staff report did we even mention cloud. And I think moving into a 21st century, you know, innovative, we have an 18 we're sort of like that. We are that city that's moving in that direction that we didn't even address that in the staff report at all. I think absolutely. We do need to have a strategy for that at some point, whether it's, you know, not all, because I know that's difficult for us coming from from where we're at now, but at least some sort of momentum towards that. It will absolutely help with capital costs and lowering those and providing more efficiencies, I think, on the back end, as well as security. And then secondly, electronic document management system is included in that. And I think that's just kind of I feel like a broken record. But we have talked over and over again. I know Councilmember Mongeau and myself about local businesses being included, especially with these large projects. And I understand the cooperative purchasing agreement process. But just an example, companies like laser fish who absolutely have the ability to have to do the or conduct the idms are not even included in this this whole plan. And that's a lot of businesses. It's a huge business. I know they could have done it and they actually have they are within a cooperative, cooperative purchasing alliance, which is called the National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance. So it's not as though we couldn't get those same prices with a local vendor. So I just need to to see that because it's a value of this council. And I think we've we've said that multiple times. If there's a way down the line to include them or if they do hit all the qualifications or to include any local businesses, I would just emphasize that we do that as much as possible. And then just to reiterate as well with Councilmember Mongo said, you know, just looking at sort of new technologies, moving ahead. And then lastly, I guess my question is about the cybersecurity features. What would that look like? And I know we've had two emails that have been suspicious in the last couple of weeks, I believe. And so what are our thoughts around the cybersecurity strategy? I guess I can take? Councilwoman Gonzalez. I was one point of clarification. The doc, the document management that's listed in this is for the hardware equipment, not for the actual systems. So. So just a clarification on that. Okay, good. And then in terms of our cybersecurity, we have a multifaceted approach, including the purchase and procurement of a variety of tools. That includes things like endpoint tools, penetration testing, intrusion detection, data loss prevention, access control tools, firewall and CRM, which is like a information incident, event management, security and information event management type tool. So so we do are we are actively working on our cybersecurity, and this would take us a big step forward. Okay, great. And going alongside with what Councilmember Mungo said, the 100, did you mention 120 days to come back for a strategy? Okay. I would just like to say that that would be a great opportunity for us to see dig a little bit deeper in those those two issues. Right. And just to clarify, these motions would be on top of the recommendations in the council. I'll clarify that and. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. So most interesting. And that's why I want to actually clarify. I think the city attorney is looking for the same thing. So there there there was a stat there was one staff report for actually four separate motions and four separate items that are actually five items. Mayor, I'm. Sorry, I misspoke, but yes. And so they're all and they're all five. Obviously, different tech technology needs. And so I just want to make sure that we're clarifying and then depending on the answer, I want to I want to also make some comments so I can clarify the this in addition to these five was sir. Okay. So it's the five items and in addition the the item that is in front of us, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Perfect. So we'll we'll we'll do that. So we have six items to vote on. Or actually, we can just wrap that into the to the first item. So go member council member Pearce. Thank you. I just wanted to go on record for also supporting what my colleagues have mentioned here today. I think that we need to push ourselves to think outside the box, to be as wireless as possible, to work with the cloud. And then I wanted to just clarify again that this wasn't the laser fish RFP stuff that we've been talking about, that that's a separate item. Great. Thank you. Got to go. And then I just had one additional question. Is there any way that any it looks like from the motion that anyone that's in the national IPA, TCP and could be selected. So if another one of your vendors so say for instance we talked a little bit about the negotiated pricing that you had on all of these desk devices. Should the decision be made that we don't need 30,000 head of phones on people's desks, that we can get down to 1500 and the price goes up considerably because of the negotiated deal, you would be able to use any other of the if whatever. I know, Leon, it takes in CPA vendors or do I need to add that back in as long as it comes to an individual cost less than what we are approving at this time? Councilwoman. Correct. Any of these piggyback cooperative agreements, we could go back with a different amount of phones and get different pricing because what I don't want is the particular quote that we have at this time to decide to try to lock you in because we're going to use significantly less. So I just want to give you that flexibility. And if you need another vendor off that list, I'm completely comfortable with it. I know that there's plenty others that we use in L.A. County that I think are also more local than Texas. So. Okay. Thank you. There's a motion and a second signal. Public comment. Please cast your votes. Mayor, if, as you indicated, the first vote would be on the authorization to execute a contract with govt connection. It just read an order. Yes. So please cast your votes.

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Deleting Section 30-4.17C “G Special Government Combining District,” and Amending the Zoning Map to Ensure Consistency Between the City of Alameda Municipal Code, Zoning Map and the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the North Housing Property Located on Singleton Avenue on the Former Naval Air Station in Alameda in Order to Convey the Property to CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC, Habitat for Humanity, and the Alameda Housing Authority. [The Proposed Zoning Amendments, which Remove the 435-Unit Housing Limit, Would Not Result in Any New Environmental Impacts or More Severe Environmental Impacts Than Those Previously Identified with the Adoption of the Community Reuse Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2009 Addendum, and the Housing Element 2012 EIR Addendum]. (Community Development 209)

AlamedaCC_01162018_2018-5079

in order to convey the property to c, p b i Admiral's Cove, LLC, Habitat for Humanity and the Alameda Housing Authority. We do have space. Thank you. So, Kelso, I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers. Austin Tam, Dorothy Freeman and then Joseph Witter. Oh. Good evening, members of City Council. You know who I am? My name is Austin. Tim. I voted for some of you in in in the past. I am speaking on behalf of the p. The for seniors and disabilities committee. And as as a registered voter and as someone who lives with a disability, I am a I stand and I stand in full support of north housing, especially because seniors and disabilities, among many other people, need a roof over their head and affordable housing. And this is one way you can this is one way you can advocate if you support seniors and people with disabilities as well as everyone belongs. As as as as two of you were present yesterday for the MLK event. I think we should just not walk the talk. Walk the walk, the talk, the talk. And. Thank you for your time. And I again, I stand in support of north housing. And I am. I hope that you do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you. Dorothy Freeman. And then Joseph Whitaker. Good evening. I'm Dorothy Freeman. The planning board and staff recommended against removing the. 435 unit cap on north housing. Those who say it was illegal to do so are incorrect. A group of units can be removed from the housing element as long as the unit numbers and acreage can be assigned to another parcel of land. That was not. Part of the 2012 housing element. Side promoted provided such units and acreage. There was nothing illegal about imposing the cap. Some of the council members. Stated the cap needed to be removed because of the housing crisis. Removing the cap actually makes the housing problem worse and not better. Presently, the offer to rehab 146 units into a much needed three and four bedroom units that would be available within approximately one year will do more to help the housing crisis than waiting 3 to 7 years. On another. Construction project. Not a very. Smart choice, a council member. Said, and I quote, I don't want by voting. For the cap to put roadblocks in front of someone that's. Coming in who's willing to rehab and have housing in a year. End quote. How can retaining the cap put a roadblock in front of Carmel's plans to retain the 146 units? It doesn't, but removing the cap can. Carmel Properties bought the federal property, assuming the combined. Developments would be 435 units. And that property is not and that company is not interested. In removing the cap. Carmel has. Agreed to install infrastructure for only 435. Units. Carmel has already. Stated that the city mandated. Infrastructure. Cost has placed a financial burden on them. But not to the point of making. Them pull out of the deal. Why would they reconsider then sense you have increased the value of their acreage well well. Beyond what. They paid the feds for it. Removing the cap can. Definitely put a roadblock. In Carmel's plans by offering them a windfall that will be hard for the board to ignore. The land will be more. Profitable to sell than to rehab the existing units for. Rental. The Housing Authority. Has nine acres for development at 15 acres per unit per acre. Their land has their plan has been to build 90 low income houses without the cap and allowing market rate. Homes at 30 units per acre and. 20% low and moderate. Unit density bonus. The number of low income. Units would actually be. Lower than the nine plan. Today, plus several years of delay. Staff recommended retaining the cap and holding the unit numbers above 435. To use when. The next. Housing element is issued in 2022. A smart. Plan for banking. For the future. By removing the. Cap now, you have removed the possibility. For negotiating a better plan in the future. When you have, what you have now is uncertainty. For all involved. The desire for possible high density market rate housing will take years to bring to fruition and has possibly put roadblocks in front of Carmel's willingness to rehab the 146 houses, housing units and all the. 90 low income units. Thank you. Thank you. Joseph Woodard. And then Katie. Derek. And Tony Grim. Good evening. Paul Foreman, a member of the Alameda Citizens Task Force, has written you a letter, and he has also written a summary of that letter, which I'm going to read. At the City Council meeting of January 2nd, 2018, the three city council, three city council members who voted against retaining the cap on north housing and all of the community speakers who supported the same raised the point that we have a critical need for affordable housing. A.C.T. fully supports the need for this housing, but submits that the retention of the CAP would actually increase the chances of developing additional affordable housing. Our reasoning for this conclusion follows our inclusionary housing ordinance, when combined with the density bonus law, gives the city only 12 and a half percent of affordable housing, leaving 87 and a half percent to be eaten up by market rate housing. Thus, we would need to construct nearly 8000 new living units to meet our current housing element goal of 975 affordable units. This is a goal we will never come close to meeting in our current housing element. The new anti NIMBY laws preclude any negotiation for a higher percentage of affordable housing than required by our inclusionary housing ordinance . The suggested north housing cap of 15 units per acre by setting a very restrictive objective density standard, creates negotiating room for the planning department to push developers to offer a much higher inclusionary rate in order to achieve a waiver of the cap, perhaps as high as the 25% rate applicable to the adjacent Alameda point parcels. While North Housing is only 130 acre plot, it would have the potential to significantly increase the affordable housing potential of the same. In summary, notwithstanding all of the Council's stated concern about the critical need for affordable housing, the current path will leave us consistently far short of our affordable housing goals while crowding out affordable housing. With market rate housing, there are no easy solutions, but the North Housing cap presents a strategy that may at least make a dent in the problem. Okay. Next speaker, Katie Derek and then Tony Graham. And then there's Varella. Good evening. My name is Katie Derek. I'm the. Development manager at Operation. Dignity. I'm here to thank the Council for its support of affordable housing development at the North Housing site under item five. Kay. This housing stock is urgently. Needed in Alameda. For more than a. Year now, Operation Dignity has partnered. With the city to provide. Street outreach to people who are homeless. In this outreach program, we currently work with more than 60 individuals in Alameda who are without shelter. Many of them are long term Alameda residents. Who can no longer afford. Housing here in their community. As the housing crisis in the Bay Area continues, it is. More important than ever for local jurisdictions to build affordable. Housing now so that Alameda and all its residents can continue. To thrive in the years to come. So thank. You for your attention and your leadership in making affordable housing. A reality for all. Alamitos. Thank you, Tony Graham. And then this really. And then Irene Deeter and then Doug that I am. I'm speaking on behalf of the Alameda Renters Coalition Steering Committee. We endorse the position taken by renewed hope at the last meeting. Namely that the 435 unit cap. On this proposal is against the city's housing element. We urge you to. Support this proposal as an important step toward alleviating the housing crisis. A vote against the cap is a vote. Against affordable housing. Liz Rella and then Irene Dieter. For the. Yeah. Mm hmm. Hi, I'm Lazaro. I'm executive director of Building a Future for Women and Children. And I'm here to thank you for removing the CAP last meeting and supporting affordable housing. We are one of the partners with the Housing. Authority and this. Project will not only alleviate. Much of the house of a do our part in alleviating the homeless crisis. We can only do what we can do. We can't fix the state of California and the affordable housing crisis, but we can we can go one parcel at a time and make a difference. And this is our chance to make a difference. Thank you. Thank you, Irene. And then Doug Biggs and then Gabby. And if you want to speak on slide and please submit your set. Hello, Mayor and council members. I'm Irene Dieter, and I'm a member of the Open Government Commission. I'm here tonight to talk about the public notice that was in our newspapers. It was incorrect, and I think it should be corrected. I realize that the purpose of the notice was letting people. Know about the final passage tonight. And that the. Zoning ordinance change removes the cap. However, the notice went on further to say that Carmel Partners requested that the cap be removed. That is not true. Carmel Partners. Did not. They made that clear at the last meeting and so did city staff. So I'm not sure why that was in the public notice. I'm not sure how to remedy the situation. The only thing I can think. Of is, is to republish it. But I don't. Think that any of you would want a historical record that is incorrect. So I decided to bring this up tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Doug Briggs and then Gabby Dolphin. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Doug Briggs and the executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative and one of the partners along with the Alameda Housing Authority, to create 90 critically needed units of housing, or at least 90 critically needed units of housing for homeless here in Alameda. I want to thank you for the initial passage of the ordinance to remove the government overlay for the North housing property. I also want to make clear, I know there's been a lot of interpretations of this particular from speakers earlier. In the evening. You were not and you are not tonight talking about retaining a cap. There is no cap in existence once the true overlay went off. Some of you on the council I know have indicated an interest in imposing a new cap on affordable housing. I'd ask that you not do that. Not having a cap on, you know, releases the shackles on us that would prevent us from designing both a financially effective project and a strong community project. I had the opportunity to spend the afternoon here in the council chambers with a number of members from a variety of congregations, the faith community here in Alameda to talk about ways to help end homelessness in our city. Overall among every single congregation representative here. I know some of them are representing churches that some of you go to talk about the moral obligation that they have to treat the homeless like their brethren and provide housing for them. And so I would ask you tonight to do the morally right thing. And when you vote to approve the second reading of this ordinance, you make it a unanimous vote in favor. Thank you very much. Thank you. And our last speaker on this item, Gabby Dolphin. Hi, Madam Mayor. City Council. Good to see you guys again. Hope you're all well. Happy New Year. I too. I want to thank you so much. I know how much work this whole housing issue is for you guys. And you really you really pulled it a long, long ways. And to me, it's just a sense of sometimes you just have that jump and last meeting. It's like you made that commitment. I do hope you stick to it. I attended that same meeting that Doug Biggs just referred to, and it's nice to know that Alameda is discussing having what amounts to like a oh, just like a little drop off point to catch the human beings who are being pushed out of our system. It's called a warming station. I don't know if you've heard about this, but there's talk about creating one here in Alameda on the coldest, wettest nights. Alameda does. And I learned, too, that most of the homeless come from Alameda. They are our community can go there when it's really, really tough and get warm, get dry, possibly get a change of clothes and then they will be out and and they've got a great organization that way. So I, I really hope that we don't need to make they don't want to make that a permanent feature of Alameda . I really hope we don't have to be a catch bay basin for the the situation we have rent wise and affordable housing wise. The last thing I wanted to say was I'll just kind of cut through all the details and the facts because I don't know all the details and I don't know all the facts. But I heard and I spoke this past Martin Luther King weekend about something I had seen on Facebook. And it said, and I do believe we are in a serious housing crisis. And the seriousness of it is when you see human beings under our freeways and sleeping on the streets that I know, I ask myself, Gee, what would I do during, say, slavery or the Holocaust or the civil rights movement? What would I do? What I would do is what I'm doing now. It's in our action. It's not our words. And I think the project is well enough defined and nicely managed and ready to go. And we'll be able to provide some housing for some people and start to really start to relieve the pressure. But the momentum will have started. That's an important thing too. Thank you all for the work you do. Thank you. She's our last speaker. If you'd like to go first, remember. Mayor. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you to all the speakers. Everyone coming out a second time. I was reflecting as I was listening to the speakers that. There are a lot of ways to oppose a project or a decision. And in this particular case, I think we do need to consider very carefully, because it is true that among the Mercury units we would be providing, we're also providing through the Housing Authority and Habitat for Humanity, very well needed units for formerly homeless individuals, for people in low income categories. And I am certainly heartened to know that AC key supports increasing the number of affordable housing units in our city because they have not always supported increasing the number of housing units. But if I had to decide whose remarks I would adopt and in follow, it would be the women from Operation Dignity, the development manager, Katie Derrick. We will hear more about Operation Dignity when we get to our regular agenda item six A where we are going to, I hope, approve the needs statement for housing and community development for the CDBG grant every year. And you will see when we get to that item that at the top of the list is providing housing for the homeless, for people who are on the edge of homelessness because they fall into such a low income category. So we've heard the argument that removing the cap, which came off automatically when we removed the government overlay as we had to do by law, is somehow going to reduce the number of affordable housing units that will ultimately be provided. I, I don't agree with that reasoning. And again, I'm, I am more attuned to the people who are, if you will, working in the trenches, Operation Dignity, Building Futures. And we need more, not less, of the kinds of housing we're hoping to provide. So I am ready to move forward on this. We we can't you know, you can personalize. It's like this every time with my microphone. You can't even personalize an issue by talking about statistics and numbers in this category, in that category. But when it comes down to it, it is, as I think most often said, the person sleeping under the freeway or not even under the freeway when the city manager and I it's been about a year ago now, partnered to help with the countywide homeless count. But in Alameda we learned to recognize where people were sleeping in cars. And there the homeless are hiding in plain view if you know where to look and what to look for. So I think that whatever we do is in some ways a drop in the bucket, but it's something. And as Ms.. Varella said, we can't solve the whole state of California's housing problems. But the five of us are responsible for making policy in Alameda, and I'm fully prepared to do what I believe is the right thing and approve the second reading final passage of this ordinance. Thank you. Number matter SB. I think it's unfortunate that that. When the G overlay was taken off that automatically the council voted to have 30 units per acre replace 15 units per acre. I think it was completely strategically and urgently needed that that 15 unit per acre restriction on the part that's going to be developed by the Housing Authority. And up and the Habitat for Humanity, those are the actual affordable units in this in this equation as it stands now. That that needs to come off and needs to be at 30 units per acre. It's unfortunate because when people talk about when a private property owner gets this property, we just took away the one thing that we had to bargain with and think about it for a minute. That site, a 800 units. 25% affordable. Was the trade off for this? It wouldn't have been. 25% of those units weren't traded to from north housing because there's going to be something less here. And developers provide more affordable units when they want something that when the city has something that they want, we can trade with. And we gave it away without a commitment for affordable units. So when someone says that we have to take care of people, people who are have disabilities, who are aged, who are low income, we need leverage to do that. And I submit that we need that leverage. When the plan comes, it is going to require something more than 15 units per acre and we say, okay, you want 30 units, staff is going to work with them and say, this is what you need to do to get the council to get us to give a recommendation to the Council on the Planning Board to change 15 to 30. So I would say I would like to see the resolution and the ordinance replaced. Remove the g over the g overlays remove replace it with 15 units in the parcel that is going to be privately owned and g and make it 30 units or they want the parcel that we know from the housing authority and from Habitat from humanity is going to deliver us affordable units. Then we can start negotiating on how to get affordable units out of the other half of the parcel. Staff couldn't even speak to these comments. We've had the suggestion that using, you know, from the council member matters in regards to what staff does to try to get a higher percentage of affordable housing. Could could one of you speak to that? Well, I think what that council member, Matarese, was talking about was. Using, not taking off the cap on the private property. And when a project comes in with the new development. So right now, it's a remodel. But if a if the castle is sold in the future, a new developer comes in and it's still at 15 dwelling units per acre, that new developer would come to the council first the planning board, and say, I would like additional units up to 30 dwelling units per acre at that time. Staff with the planning board and the planning staff would say, if you do that, then that is an increased value. And out of that increased value, we need additional community benefits. And depending on what the Council's direction is right now, it's affordable. Housing is the number one value that the council has been asked for, has been asking for. And so staff would say we want an additional higher percentage of affordable housing. It might also be additional transportation benefits for the community and might be better public access. It could be a whole bunch of different items that the community benefits from. Imagine a member. Addressing. Just one thing. Just. And we all know how much it costs to build affordable units. And if anybody doesn't know, look at Sherman and Buena Vista. 31 units, right? $18 million. That's almost $600,000 a unit. And this is being built by the housing authority. So we know it's expensive. But when you add 15 units to 15 units and get 30 units, the value of that land just increased without giving one thing. Vice mayor. It's interesting because I kind of raised that point the first time we heard this and we heard from Andrew and Enrico, and they said that it was possible but very difficult to do because they would have to figure out the subdivision. I did specifically ask about that the first time around. So I appreciate Councilmember MODERATOR bringing that up tonight, but I also spoke with staff about it and it seems like a lot of hoops that we would have to jump through and a lot of time delays. And, you know, you also mentioned the costs of building affordable housing. So much of that cost is time. Time is a resource coming before council, coming before planning board, negotiating with staff as we see that time progress. We don't see things get built. City's a prime example of that. Yeah, we got a number of affordable housing units and tonight we voted to match the funds in case we get to the point where we can actually break ground. But we don't have those units. At the last meeting when we spoke about this issue. I said I wanted to remove administrative roadblocks to getting affordable housing. And I mean it. And I think we do it parcel by parcel. I think we have an opportunity here to do it. I, I understand the ability to negotiate. We've negotiated the max out on a number of projects and we don't really have anything to show for it. The Domani project we got the affordable housing. Thankfully, it's been a number of years since we've heard that project. We don't have the other units online. You know, I think when it comes down to it. I want to listen to our affordable housing providers. And they've spoken and they've spoken in unison on this and made a point collaborative Operation Dignity, the Housing Authority. And I want to respect that. I also think that there is a huge delay in terms of what happens and the amount of acrobatics that would have to be done in order to accomplish that verification, in order to negotiate just a few, you know, a few more things which may in the end, completely stall the project. We could love the project to death. I think we've seen that time and again. I don't want to do it. I'm in support of moving forward in terms of where we we were at the last council meeting and what we voted on. And I also think it's disingenuous, frankly, to say that Carmel Partners was bidding on the property, knowing that it was going to be capped. They knew that the government overlay was going to be removed. They didn't know whether or not council was going to then reinstitute a new cap on the property. Anybody bidding on it knew it was going to become private property and the government overlay was going to disappear. So I think in that regards, it's a little bit again, it's a little bit different from site, it's a little bit different from some of these other projects. I think we need to learn from the mistakes that we've seen. So I'm ready to move forward on this. We're already thinking as well as the city manager, so the clarification of the hypothetical was that Carmel could do this renovation and then in some undetermined years out in the future, they could decide to sell it to somebody else who would want to tear all that down and then build something else. I mean, is that the hype on that? Yes. I mean, that's how I understood it. On the private property, not on the housing authority. Castle. I mean. That's. Okay. I'm not quite sure how. I'm not sure how realistic that is. But I always appreciate my colleague, Mr. Matt Orestes thoughtfulness in his comments and his approach to these issues. I'm going to respectfully disagree on this. The one thing I was surprised since we voted on this, that how many people came up to me and said, thank you for that vote and. That kind of blew me away because I maybe I do the wrong thing and never hear that enough. But, I mean, people were just genuinely appreciative that we took that step to take a stand and and support more housing in Alameda. So, I mean, that that's something that that stuck with me over the past couple of weeks. So I plan on supporting as well. And I've actually like to motion or make a motion that we approve the item. Second, before. I'd like to, because I haven't been able to speak. To, I just was grabbing the chair. A follow up on something, the city manager member Ashcraft. I'd appreciate if I could do that if you could do that after I have the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Because okay. So I wanted to follow up in regards to these questions. Is it possible that Carmel Partners could decide to sell the property and not rehab the units at this time? Is there anything that actually requires them to build a rehab? I don't believe there's a restriction. It's private property. Once it's conveyed from the Navy to Carmel. And as a private property owner, they could sell it or remodel it or both. Okay. So. So they could in fact, not be given that the cap appears to be removed, will be removed, then they can reassess where they get the value of this property and decide then of if in fact they want to proceed with rehabbing units that would be online sooner rather than later. Or because the value the number of units is would go up from the 15 units per acre to 30 units per acre and greatly increase the value. If that were if the item, if the property were to be sold and that is within their purview, then to make that decision to. So because it's 30 units per acre, they have a right to build 30 units per acre instead of the restriction of 15. So, yes. Okay. So rather than rehab the units, they could actually decide a different business plan moving forward because they would and they would end up owning the property as opposed to the Navy. Yes. But it would start with a new it would be a new project. So I'd go through the normal process of going to the planning board, having community input and review, and potentially coming back to council for a call for a review or appeal. Right. But there's nothing that would legally bind them to have the units as opposed to selling the property or they themselves deciding to go forward with a different business plan. Right. Nothing. All right. And if, in fact, they ended up with a business plan that maximized the number of units without in fact, they have more significantly more retail value to them as a private developer. You mean is there more value in higher density? Correct. Generally that's the expectation from developers. Okay. And can you explain I know when we had them up the last council meeting, there were multiple community benefits that staff worked with on this project to obtain for the benefit of our community. And could you outline what those community benefits were? There. The two primary benefits are connection Singleton and Moseley that connects an area. No one basically adds access to Estuary Park, which was just completed. It also upgrades or cleans out the storm. Water puts in a lot, so high tide doesn't back into the system and upgrades the storm drain. There's a lift station for sewer that it would have to look at. We are also talking even today about having mostly be a straight street that goes through rather than trying to have it go around the existing sewer lift station. And so that is another component in the terms that we're still talking to them about. But from a planning point of view, I think it's critical to have a a straight street and also has street lights that they're putting in there, undergrounding the utilities and others. Providing infrastructure for the housing authority. And providing, yeah. The streets that go through and and utilities for the housing authority as well. Okay. So if they decided not to go forward with the rehab of the units, would the community receive all those benefits? Yes, they would. If you're assuming that they would build new that would. Receive at some point the property gets sold to a different developer to go forward or to them to come forward with a different project with the community receive. The community would probably receive more benefits than if it was a remodel. Right now what we're looking at is what the invitation for bid and what was required for the obligations. And that's what we've been looking at. If a new project came in and we had a higher density, we would look at it just like we look at any other North Waterfront housing project where we ask for additional transportation and asked for additional affordable housing. We could ask for a number of different community benefits if there was a bigger profit margin with the developer, and you get that from having the higher density. But would they have to agree to it since they already have? It's a. Negotiation. Yes. So it's a negotiation back and forth with the ultimate approval being either the planning board or the city council. Okay. And we're on Jane Sweeney Park. My recollection is there was money provided from Tim Lewis developers. And Lewis developers as part of dole money donated, I think, $2 million into Jane Sweeney Park. And there has been other contributions. Okay, thank you. Member Ashcraft. I wanted to go back and thank you, Mayor, and came back when you were talking about what would happen if the. You. Know, it's okay and. Every new developer brought back the Carmel Partners property. So. I mean, the city council still would have some say over what happens and what we would want to ask for, even if it did go to another another buyer. Isn't that correct? Well. It depends if. With the 30 dwelling units per acre. And the developer came in and did everything along the lines of what the zoning allowed and was permitted. Then it would just go to the planning board and design review. Of course, the council could call it up for a review or it could be appealed, and that's when the council would see it, unless there was a zoning change, general plan amendment or something else that would trigger having to come to council. So it could still come back to us, I think. But then the advantage of advantages of new construction is that when we do have requirements, when you're building new to go in and we do all the infrastructure and. Right. But the advantage to the remodel and the current project is that we get housing units that are not ultra luxury units and we get them at. Very soon there's a proposal and we get them sooner. And I think we can get a little hung up about who's making what profit off of land sales. But using the city example, I mean, I think it's something that should concern all of us because we're now midway into January, we have an April deadline for the developers to come back. And they've been pretty quiet. And I, I think we do need to keep an eye on the situation at hand and what we have within our within our grasp now. So and also the 25% affordable housing requirement at site, and I'm fully supportive of that. But wasn't that like this was before your time? But I think that was a requirement of the Navy. As I recall, last year. And that is the settlement. Right. Settlement, yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Vice Mayor. I have one question and then I would like to call the question, since there's a motion in a second, has criminal partners indicated to you that they plan on building on completely redoing their plan and building 30 units? No, their plan is to remodel. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to call the question. We have a motion. I made a second. Okay. So all those in favor of calling the question I, I, I'm going to oppose because I didn't get to speak to it. So all those in favor. I, I. In favor of the motion. Correct? Correct. Yes. Yes, I. Pose. To pose. I propose. Thank you. So it passes 3 to 2, correct? Correct. Motion carries 3 to 2. Bathroom. And I will now call for a recess. You finished the confession? I see all council members here. I don't know. I'm only vice minister. Far as I know, everyone is here. All right, so let's go ahead and resume the meeting. They need a bathroom break. No, she's just going to raise it. So what are the rest of the. If everyone could take your seat. You wouldn't admit it. So we just had a couple of council members walk out. So we have to wait at this time for them to come back in, have some staff with one of you all could make sure they're aware that I have asked to resume the meeting. And they were here a moment ago. Oh. The unintended consequence. Well, I've always. Really? It was. Some things we can't control. But when something lose, thank. We're learning that every. All right. So just so you all know, we're going to go back to five H. I have had a request from counsel, our city attorney, to go back to five h. Yeah, our city attorney. To return to item five h, which is the adoption of the resolution approving parcel map number 10275. And I'm going to ask the clerk at this time what, you know, where either council members are. They were in the room when I called for the meeting to resume. They said that they're coming right back. They're using the restroom in the hall and coming right back as soon as they're done. They said, So can we continue this part of us? Madam Chair, I'd like to wait till they get back. Any three at the dias. Does anyone know what happened to member Odie? That where we've. As far as I know, they're in the in the hallway. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we just had a member of the community go out into the hallway to ask them to return to the chambers. Work.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and Seattle Public Utilities; transferring partial jurisdiction of portions of park land and park boulevards within Discovery Park from the Department of Parks and Recreation to Seattle Public Utilities for maintenance, repair, replacement, and operation of public water and sanitary sewer infrastructure, associated underground pipes, hydrants, and limited surface ancillary facilities; and finding that transfer of partial jurisdiction meets the requirements of Ordinance 118477, which adopted Initiative 42.

SeattleCityCouncil_01282019_CB 119446

The Report on the Civic Development of Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item two Constable 119446 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and see public utilities transferring partial jurisdiction of portions of park, land and park boulevards within Discovery Park. The committee recommends the bill passed. Councilmember Suarez. Thank you. Thank you. Council President so this is the discovery park. This bill transfers partial jurisdiction of portions of park, land and park boulevards in discovery park from Department of Parks and Rec to Seattle Public Utilities for maintenance and repair work. The bill also means requirements of Ordinance 118477, which adopted Initiative 42. The Committee on Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities made a unanimous recommendation on January 24th that the City Council passed the Council bill. Thank you very much. Any comments on this bill? It's called the rule on the passage of the bill. Her Bolton II Johnson. Whereas I must get to O'Brien. All right. So what I think shire president Harold Hayden favor opposed. The bill passes and the chair of the Senate please read items three, four and five. You can read the short title and then I'll say a few words before Councilmember Words speaks to the items.

Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Ben Finkenbinder as a Member of the Golf Commission; Reappointing/Appointing Bachir Hadid, Elizabeth Kuwada, Sandra Kay, Kenji Tamaoki, and Vadim Sidelnikov as Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners; and Appointing Xiomara Cisneros and Reappointing Ron Curtis as Members of the Planning Board.

AlamedaCC_10062020_2020-8343

Okay, perfect. With that, we move on to our regular agenda item. And this next one is a very fun one. This is where we are going to adopt resolutions, and I hope we can just do it as one vote on all the resolutions because we are going to approve appointments to the Golf Commission, the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board this evening. And Council Riviera has your hand up. You want to and. I just wanted to go ahead and make a motion for approval and to thank the mayor for her hard work in in terms of I know you went out and interviewed a number of key and it took time to interview the candidates and also thank all of the applicants who put in and who are going to be serving in this volunteer position. So with that, I move approval. Thank you. Do we have a second question? Every second. And I just and I've said it before, I have just been overwhelmed by the amazing and very generous and community oriented members of our community who have wanted to serve. And so let me introduce them to you now as they as they appear on the screen. We have been thinking Binder, who is and you appointed to the golf commission. And we have I see Elizabeth Calata and Basheer Hadi and Kenji Tamaki are all appointees to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. And there is four dame sit down the court he's appearing and what about okay there's Sandra kay figured that there's the housing authority board of Commissioners right there. And then coming up on screen for the the planning board are Ron Curtis, who is our incumbent, who's returning for another term. And Seema Cisneros is also an appointee. Is Ms.. Cisneros in the house? We we don't see her name on the list of attendees. If you are here, if you could raise your hand, perhaps hear something under some other name or university. Yeah. So tomorrow, if you're out there, raise your hand against your hand either. That's okay. We will make arrangements to administer the oath. But first, I believe we need to. So we can. Just can take the vote, and then I can administer the oath. Yeah. So we've we've we've had the motion to approve this ordinance or the resolution appointing all these fabulous people to their positions. And maybe we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Yes. We're there already. Thank you and welcome. Yes. Odie. Congratulations, I. I may. Or as the Ashcroft. I think, five eyes. All right. Perfect. And now I believe these folk will administer the oath of office. Is that correct? Correct. If you don't mind standing and raising your right hand. Sorry. I know it's a bit to juggle with the Zoom situation, but if you're able and then if you raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that you'll well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which you're about to enter? Yes. Yes, yes. Thank you. Congratulations. All right. Well, thank you all so much for your for starting your new terms. And we are grateful the community is grateful for you, for the hard work you're going to do on behalf of all of our residents. So many thanks to all of you. Take care and stay safe. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And then we will move right along to item six B, which is a recommendation to appoint as our new Alameda Poet Laureate Kimi Ciccio OC. And I want to tell you a little bit about this.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to submit an application for the Airport Improvement Program Grant for Fiscal Year 2017 to the Federal Aviation Administration for funding for capital improvements to Runway 7R-25L and to accept such grant, execute grant documents and amend grant documents and grant amounts with the Federal Aviation Administration for entitlement and discretionary funds in the amount of $12,881,879. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_12062016_16-1076

As you mentioned a second, any public comment scene and please cast your votes. Motion carries 26. Report from Long Beach Airport. Recommendation to submit an application for the Airport Improvement Program Grant for fiscal year 2017 to the FAA for funding for capital improvements to runway seven R 25 L District five. Can I get a motion in a second? Any public comment? Please cast your votes. Oh. Councilman Austin had a question, please. So I'm noting a $12 million improvement to runway two five. L just wanted to get a staff report from the airport director to find out exactly how the that airport runway will be utilized. Jess Romo. Good evening, honorable mayor. Honorable Council members just remove from Long Beach Airport. This runway, which is actually our shortest on the field, supports a good number of our general aviation operations. So it is still actively used but used really to support the smaller aircraft of your airport. So during the construction, well, with the general aviation aircraft, you what air, what runway and how will they be able to come to and from Long Beach Airport? Well, as they're accommodated now, all the aircraft, including general general aviation, can use any of the three. So while this runway is being reconstructed, they will either move to either runway one, two, three, zero or on to seven left to five right. And what are those general aviation aircraft subject to noise ordinance? They are subject to the noise ordinance. Keep in mind that relative to the noise budgets, only runway 1230 is the runway which actually measures and captures the noise for purposes of accumulating the noise limits. The other runways, the two five runways are used for a single event for violations. Okay. So if we are running regular aircraft on two, five and two five. Right, and we're only using one way dirty to measure noise for purposes of our noise ordinance. Is that does that. That doesn't add up. It means that there's noise that we're not capturing. Is that correct? For purposes of the noise budget? That is correct. That is the way that the noise ordinances has been has always been crafted as far as as far as I know. Okay. Look forward to talking more about that later. Great. Next item. We need to finish the vote. Okay. Please cast your votes if you have not logged in. Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman Mongo. Emotion carries.

Order Regarding a Text Amendment to the Boston Zoning Code to Establish Formula Retail Uses.

BostonCC_02022022_2022-0247

Lucky member 0247 and counsel on media offer the following order regarding a text amendment to the Boston Zoning Code to establish formula retail uses. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The chair recognizes. The Chair recognizes. Counsel me here. Counsel me here. You have the floor at this time. Thank you, Mr. President. Politicians love to use the phrase Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. It's a phrase we hear so often. It's literally lost its meaning. Those words need to be backed up by action. And this is what we're doing here today. As many of you know, total wine and spirits. A major commercial retailer was recently awarded a liquor license to operate one of their major chain locations right here in Boston, despite opposition from local elected officials, community groups, abutters and neighboring small businesses. How is it that something so universally unwanted can pass through? Without question, especially when you know how deep the inequities are in our liquor license system. To begin with, this is why we're filing a tax amendment to establish a retail formula use in our zoning code. The purpose of this tax amendment is to define what major commercial chains look like. It is also to ban them from being allowed to set up shop in residential zones. And we would and would make their development commercial zones conditional. This is a tax amendment which was originally filed by my sister and service councilor Edward Janey and then Councilor Wu. It was ultimately vetoed by the Walsh administration. But given that one of the original co-sponsors is now across the hall in the Eagle Room, I think our chances of passing this have improved. We look forward to this conversation and doing more to stand up for small businesses in our city. Thank you, Councilman. Here. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? I see. Councilor Edwards, the chair, recognizes Councilor Edwards. Thank you very much. And it's true. At the time, we were dealing with Starbucks in the North End, specifically focusing on the concerns of big box stores, being able to out do move faster then and locate and small in our neighborhoods and therefore hurt our small business owners. I want to be very clear that that there was no passage of this ordinance, there was no veto by whilst the issue was legal and case law that demonstrated that zoning codes actually cannot favor small businesses over big box stores. So we tried the zoning amendment, but we were met with case law. And I can send that case law to the drafter of this ordinance. So what we will need is either a favorable case decision coming out of land court demonstrating that we can do this in our zoning courts and our zoning code, or we will need to draft this in such a way that it cuts. It helps small businesses, but doesn't look like we are unfortunately favoring them over big box stores. And that's I just want to add that historical context. We were met with legal opposition. There was case law. So. Thank you. Councilor Edwards, would anyone else like to speak on this matter? The chair recognizes Councilor Bach. Thanks so much, President Flynn. And I just want to say, please do add my name. And I'm grateful to councilman here for bringing this forward. I agree with councilor is that we've got some legal challenges there. But I very much agree that, you know, trying to figure out some way to solve for this, that we're not prevented by is important because we hear it all the time on our local main streets about the need to really keep these giant chains out and help our local businesses thrive. As councilman here said, and I think it's really important to underscore the fact that so many small businesses have gone under in the pandemic and that it's sort of tilted the playing field even more towards folks with deep capital holdings. And those are the chains. And so I just you know, it's it's an issue that I know that councilman he and I both feel strongly about and definitely thinking through ways to block formula retail. Something has come up in my district and, you know, acknowledging those legal hurdles that the council has encountered before. Definitely. I look forward to trying to think through what we could do on this because it you know, none of us want a Boston where we blink in ten years and more and more of our main streets have been taken over by chains to the detriment of our local owners. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President, please. That my name. Is that council box name. The chair recognizes council rating because of rating of the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to the consumer here for proposing this zoning amendment. I believe our city needs to conduct a thorough review of our outdated zoning code, in particular. Allston. Brighton has never had a comprehensive master plan and we're pushing for a community needs assessment to guide zoning reform. Outdated zoning has resulted in a case by case approvals of commercial businesses in areas zoned for residential use. And I'm particularly interested in the proposed amendments impact on food access and neighborhoods experiencing food apartheid, formerly referred to as food deserts. While we would like to see like two prioritized non non chain grocery establishments that focuses on groceries, grocery stores may be the only option able to afford increasing commercial rents and in neighborhoods deprived of access to grocery stores. It is a balancing act between supporting the sustainability of our small, culturally diverse food retailers and recognizing areas of critical need for larger regional retailers. Might be able to slow food access gaps further as we anticipate increased development and population growth. We have to take into consideration whether the city is adequately planning for all essential services that people need. I'm interested in further exploring this proposal's impact on current uses and and how best to classify grocery stores and other such food retailers under the city's zoning code and hearing and hearing input from city agencies like the Office of Food Access. I thank you. I really welcome the opportunity to dove deeper into this issue, and I look forward to hearing I look forward to the hearing on this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Brighton with every other council vote to speak on this matter and or an addendum. To. Please that council. We're all pleased that Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Please. The chair. I see Counselor Louis vision, and I also see Counselor Arroyo just making sure you see those. Yeah. Thank you. Please. That console royal, please. That console illusion. Lorraine. Console brain. Thank you. DAWKINS 020247 will be referred to the Committee on Planning, Development, Transportation. Mr. Clerk, please read Code 0248.

Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of Senior Transportation Coordinator, Allocating Two Senior Transportation Coordinator Positions, and Eliminating One Transportation Coordinator Position Effective October 3, 2017 and One Part-time Staff for a Total Increase in Staffing of 0.5 Positions. (Human Resources 2510)

AlamedaCC_10032017_2017-4679

Adoption of resolution amending the Alameda Management and Confidential Employees Association salary schedule, establishing the classification of Senior Transportation Coordinator, allocating to Senior Transportation Coordinator positions and eliminating one Transportation Coordinator position effective October 3rd, 2017, and also one part time staff for a total increase of point five OC. And the Vice Mayor had requested this before. Did you want to? We could get some clarification for staff. I know that we've looked at a number of the different positions and we were approving our budget and this is an amendment to what we're doing. Or what we had planned to do. Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers Nancy Brownstein, H.R. director. We actually were still in the process of reviewing this. And so we thought we were going to be making a recommendation, but we just hadn't finalized it. So the reason we're not asking for any funding here is we actually budgeted money knowing we were going to be doing something different with these positions. We just hadn't finalized what that was going to be. So that's why we're bringing the amendment today. Okay. Thank you. And we do have a public speaker on the side and worth adding. I f this item, right? Yes. Good evening. I'm Ruth Abby with Community Action for Sustainable alameda and we wrote to express our support for this agenda item. We think it's very important to have the fully funded positions because transportation is our number one greenhouse gas emission source. And we think that you have a large number of transportation projects that are in the docket and will be coming before you. And we would really think we need that extra staffing to make sure that we can fulfill our commitment to climate sustainability. Thank you. We have a motion. So move. Second. All those in favor. My motion carries unanimously. Five k. I had asked that this be pulled. This is actually in regards to the straws trying to eliminate plastic straws, single use plastic items such as straws and compostable food service requirements. And this I had brought the referral that was heard after I left the last council meeting early to support our sister cities. And I know it was passed, but I want to put actually to thank council in my absence moving forward on this. I appreciate you joining me in this important effort. You don't really have to add anything unless you want to know you have a speaker. Oh, okay. And we do have a speaker with Abby. But but Mayor Spencer, you did miss that. I believe Mr. Garland at the meeting brought a big glass canister full of straws that were collected on the beach. Clean up day as an exhibit, as a show until. So that's what's missing. And I had received a piece of art from Pat Lamborn, also from her husband, picking up straws. And, you know, there's someone that makes art from what they pick up. Ruth Good evening, Ruth. Abby from Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. We really support the passage of this agenda item. We wrote to you about the importance of Alameda leadership on this issue. Because we are an island and we are very impacted by litter in the marine environment and we can do something very concrete, you know, working with our very supportive business community to make Alameda a real sustainable place. We kicked off this week the reuse of, we think, disposable campaign. The mayor and I have both been trained to be rethink disposable ambassadors. And we will be volunteering our time to work with our restaurant community to help them transition from disposable packaging to reusable. And then if they are using take out packaging, that should be also compostable or reusable. And so we really think this is a part of that. We very much appreciate the council's support of this issue, and we really think that Alameda will be a leader in sustainability. And this is a good step on the road. Thank you. Thank you. And I also want to thank Ruth, Abby as well as CASA for their efforts on this, as well as, you know, every green effort in this community for years. And then we had received letters of support, I believe, from Edison School students. So we also appreciate students voices weighing in on these important issues. And. Brody Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I'm glad you called. You pulled this because I was going to pull it anyway so I could give you thanks for bringing the referral forward and making sure that we we got this done and we expanded it to our campus tables. In just a quick note, I think it's Thursday at 630 that there will be a CASA workshop regarding the next steps for updating the city's local action plan for climate protection. And I think that was a referral by Councilmember Matariki that pushed that and make sure that we prioritized that. So I'm glad that that process is moving forward and just thank you for doing that. I'm glad you have an opportunity to speak on the item. And then I also want to thank staff because I know it's a heavy lift and it was, you know, us kind of pushing and pushing it faster and making it bigger. So thank you also for stepping up and joining us. But this is really, really important. So it's one of those good things that we're doing as a community. That being said, do you like the motion? Do you want to move? Chair I move. Final passage of the ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code Section four dash for disposable food service where to prohibit certain single use plastics such as straws and clarifying compostable for foodservice wear requirements. And I'll second that all those in favor. Right? My motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Six Regular Agenda Item six A. Presentation of certificates of appreciation to the Mayor's 4th of July Parade Committee, followed by presentation of a check to the USS Hornet. Do we have Barbara Price here to help us out on the side of. The Tell US Year. So Miss Price is the chair of this committee. He's been doing it forever. So actually, before you speak, I want to give a round of applause to her. Thank you. I was going to tell you that tonight is my last night on the program. Okay. Well, let's take that now because. You know, one of the problems is. What you're saying. That was a joke, right? Yeah. It's kind of one of those things that it gets into your blood. I think you end up staying forever. But we do have some of our committee members here and our executive board. We are a501c3 foundation now. And we're very proud that we've added the Coast Guard festival this year to the 4th of July festivities. We had over 4000 in attendance this year, which was amazing for a. First year event. And thank you so much to the city and the staff and you guys for supporting that because we couldn't have done it without you. And it was a major push. So we're looking forward to next year. The Coast Guard is already committed to this being a multi-year event, and we're looking forward to being. Bigger and better next year, kind of being. Our own little Fleet Week. So let me call up. Our group that is here. I thought I saw there is. Okay. So we have I am actually a chair of the foundation. Our vice chair is Jim Franz, and I think you might know him. He's been seen around here on occasion. Oh, thank you. That's nice. Great. Thank you. And we also have Mark Sorenson, who is our treasurer in charge of all things, money. Blake Brighton. We referred to him as Judge Blake because he is the guy you can bribe if you would like to get a trophy. And Betty Dittmar, we could not do this parade without. She is in charge, of all things, horse cleanup oriented. And managing the ending of the parade. We have Troy Hosmer, who you. Almost think because he's the one that got you your vehicles to write in. And made sure that the VIP area actually worked. And got you on your cars on time. That was great. And then we have Carrie Thompson, who is our bridge between us and the race. And she does all things. That regard to that and keep. That going. Mm. The rest of our group. We have several other people that weren't able to be here tonight. But our committee all together is about. 20 people who put in their time starting in January. Our first meeting. Will be in January this year. So thank you. Again for. Recognizing us. Yes. Okay. So there we go. Unfortunately, our representative from the Hornet was not able to be here. They got waylaid. They have power, but they just couldn't get here. And in recognition of them being our partner this year, this is the first year we actually partnered with the Hornet and specifically not only with the parade, but with the. Event at the. Base for our Coast Guard festival. And the run. And the run. Yes. And the run. The Hornet was fantastic. So we now have a partner with them. So in order to kind of help them through and appreciate from what they went through the day of when there was a little mishap, we actually are donating $1,000 from our fundraising to them to help cover some of the expenses. So thank you for that. Support you. That was. We? If you're. Net 60 a proclamation declaring October 1st through seventh as public we.

Recommendation to direct City Attorney to draft an ordinance temporarily banning the sale of flavored vapor products in the City of Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_10012019_19-0969

Ocean carries. Thank you. Now we're doing item 30. Item 30 Communications from Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman Mango Vice Mayor Andrew's recommendation to direct city attorney to draft an ordinance temporary banning the sale of flavor vapor products in the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I want to thank those who have signed on to this item with me, and I want to share my thoughts with you about why I brought this item. Tonight's discussion is about safety and health. Across the country, we are seeing truly concerning health impacts related to e-cigarettes and vaping. The CDC is reporting over 800 cases of lung injuries directly connected to vaping and e-cigarettes. And there have also tragically been 12 deaths. No one picks up an e-cigarette for the first time, expecting that it will rapidly injure their lungs and land them in the emergency room. And even more, no one expects to be killed by using these products either. For adults, these products are often marketed as a safer way of consuming tobacco, nicotine and and can help stop smoking. That is true, however, with serious and pressing pulmonary injuries being experienced across the country due to the mechanisms of vaping, we need to look more closely at these products to ensure that we are protecting consumers. Additionally, we have seen teen nicotine addiction increasing rapidly and connected with vaping e-cigarettes. This is heavily connected with the marketing of vape products to teens throughout, mimicking candies and sugary fruit flavors. So in light of the urgent health issues being seen nationwide and right here in the city of Long Beach, where we had two reported incidents involving pulmonary injuries, as well as the need to do more to reduce youth nicotine addiction. Enacting a temporary ban narrowly tailored to target flavored nicotine vaping products would allow the city to play a role in safeguarding our youth and protecting the general public. What is being proposed tonight is the sale of flavored vaping products. I know that there are many who feel the city should do more. I know that there are those who have asked us to to institute a permanent ban tonight. And I know that there are those who have asked us to institute a full ban on all vaping products. And I understand that. But I think at this juncture, it's important for us to study the impacts and find out what safeguards are happening at the state and national level that can help protect consumers. Anyone using e-cigarettes to quit smoking and break themselves of a nicotine addiction under our temporary ban would still be able to access the products. It would just not be the flavor of cotton candy. With this policy, we both take a prudent step to address a health concern that is nationwide, while also seeking to make a bigger impact on reducing teen access to vaping based nicotine. Cities, counties and states all across the country are making major strides to confront this issue. And it is time that the city of Long Beach did the same to protect our residents until we have more information regarding the health impacts. Tonight we found we received word that the county of L.A. instituted a ban on flavored vape products. We know that the state of Michigan has banned it. The state of New York, the state of Massachusetts, the city of L.A. has not yet instituted their ban, but their city attorney has indicated very publicly that banned a ban should be in place for flavored tobacco products. And I know that's something that's on their radar. San Mateo County has instituted a ban on flavored tobacco. San Jose has instituted a ban on flavored, flavored tobacco products. And I believe it's time for the city of Long Beach to do the same. I know that our health department has also been involved and engaged in this conversation. They are here this evening. I know that Kelly Collopy, our director of our health department, is here, and I'd like to invite her up at some point to talk about some of the impacts and concerns that the city health department has observed and . Share with us a little bit some of their concerns in regards to how we can protect our our city residents and consumers. It's comfy. Good evening, council members and Honorable Mayor. Thank you for the opportunity to provide some information around this topic. So we do know that generally that flavored tobacco products are the gateway to further smoking and other sort of other sort of tobacco usage. It is one of the things that we've been focusing on. When you look at the injury cases that we that have happened nationally, 40% of them or I'm sorry, 22% of them have occurred among those who are 18 to 21 and 16% are occurring for those under the age of 18. In Long Beach, we do have a restriction for anyone under the age of 21 for any tobacco product. Vaping is included in that process. So when we're looking nationally at the under 18 to the 21 year old, we would want to be making sure that we're paying close attention to that population as we're looking forward. Again, the flavored tobacco products, including vaping and non vaping, are the key entranceway. And as we're looking at the L.A. County that was just passed, they are looking at all flavored tobacco and vaping products, not just the vaping piece in terms of in terms of the vape technology of your e-cigarettes. It is not yet been determined what is causing. So they have not yet found a single agent. They're looking at vitamin E, but they're looking at so many other ways they are finding it, those coming from the streets, but also coming from the places that they're being sold in in different in different agencies. The city of Long Beach has 13 vape only stores within the city. That is that. And then on top of that, there's another 490 that sell that are licensed to sell tobacco and vape products across the city. So I just wanted to give you a feel for that for those numbers. We support as the health department this this ban. And I'm free to answer any questions after that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. And anything else to add? Nothing further from. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I appreciate those who have reached out to our office on this very important item. I appreciate our health directors thorough report related to the cases that have come forward. I think it's important for us to look into whether or not those that are being impacted are utilizing the FDA approved vape cartridges. I think that one of the things that this allows us to do is it allows us to take a pause for us to take a moment and a step back to ensure that we're being prudent in the way in which we establish parameters to protect youth health. We don't want to drive individuals to the online or illicit market. We want to be careful and appropriate in our action to ensure the greatest health impact. I think that one of the other things that I would like to see is an education component. We have a very strong green education component to our marijuana program. I think it would be appropriate for us to explore how to do that. I'd also be very interested in the recommendations that come back to this council restricting the places that you can get certified vape products from. Over 500 locations to maybe a more controlled environment similar to just the vape shops where we would be able to do greater education and control. And so for those reasons, I'm very supportive of moving in that direction, and I'm open to listening to the community who has already started a great conversation around the protections we need for our youth and health and my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilwoman Price, for bringing this forward. I followed the the conversation on tobacco free Long Beach for a number of years of an ongoing discussion for over ten years in the city. And as new technology like vape pens come online. The conversation. The education outreach typically is delayed. You might. And during that gap from when a new thing comes online and when the foundations and the health world respond to it, a lot of mistruths come out during that time. A lot of people in the community truly feel that vaping is healthier than smoking. Direct cigaret. It's not true. It's not true whatsoever. Whatsoever. In fact, it could be more dangerous because you can't regulate the amount of the dose. Difficult to regulate the amount of dose. And all vaping pens are not created equally. So in that regard, I completely support this. And I would say what L.A. County did today. I just read the article. They banned all flavored tobacco, including Vape. I don't see a scenario where I'm going to say if is market cotton candy, like you said, is marketed at youth. I don't care if it's vape or if it's tobacco. Cotton candy, tobacco is a bad thing. I remember we were kids. We got an ice cream truck. They would have candy shaped like cigarets. Right? You blow it and little powder comes out. It's the same thing. So I'm okay if we want to go a bit further and say, Hey, when we instituted this moratorium, staff evaluate getting rid of these things completely because frankly, it's just the right thing to do. So that. Are you down for that? This is for flavored vape products, but I think absolutely we should be following the research and hopefully the Health Department can weigh in with a recommendation. I think that's very, very good. So I'll submit that to you as a friendly. But this is a great item. Thank you so much. Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman Mongo. Actually, she just went. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I. To support this this item wholeheartedly. I think as e-cigarettes are very commonly used, particularly among high school high school students and middle school students. So we have a responsibility as a city council to to look into this. And I'm very fortunate to have had a young intern working with me who's been keeping me up to speed and and and kind of drilling the importance of of educating parents, but also young people on the importance of understanding of e-cigarettes and the oils that are unregulated at this point. And we often don't know what's right, what's inside of these vaping products we need to catch up with. And I think that the public health needs to catch up with what's going on. And this is one of those situations or scenarios where the technology is kind of gotten ahead of government in a lot of ways. And so I applaud the other cities and states that are that are looking into this. If you haven't had an opportunity to check out Dr. Sanjay Gupta's special, I saw that this this past weekend. It was very eye opening on the the the real uncertainties, particularly surrounding vaping. I did have one question. We we're talking about a temporary ban. What would it include? We understand that it includes unflavored tobacco as well as vaping products. But would that include also menthol as well? Well, I'd. Be open to that amendment. I could throw that in there as well. As a as a friendly. Because it is a flavored tobacco. Mm hmm. And and and it is a also. And I'll just say that this is a very personal issue to me. My mother passed away four years ago from lung cancer. She was a chronic smoker all of her life. She tried to quit on many occasions and was addicted to nicotine. And so if we can avoid people from that outcome, we have a responsibility to do it. And I'm happy to to the moral support to this this item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilmember Pierce. Thank you. I want to thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I'd like to to understand a little bit from our health department, also your education program around cannabis. Really, I feel like if we're going to even if it's a temporary ban, I mean, I think from hearing our council colleagues, that would eventually lead to a permanent ban and understanding the education program we've done with cannabis, are there opportunities for us to include this in that education program as well? Absolutely. They've been operating the green light bulb cannabis education program and we will continue to do that and also highlight the impacts from vaping. As part of that, we can also, through our tobacco education program, continue the conversations around vaping and other tobacco products that were not be flavored. Now I know that from my family member that quit smoking, he smoked for 20 years and there was a one 800 number on a bus by our house. And he kept driving by, driving by it. And one day he called the one 800 number and he got help. He called the number and he had a counselor on the line that he could call 24 hours a day any time you wanted to pick up a cigaret. And he quit after 20 years cold turkey after trying patches and everything else. And so I think that those education programs as outreach opportunities are really key. I know that our youth often. You know, whether it's cigarets, whether it's vaping. I'm from Texas. It was dip cherry flavored, you know, so any flavored products? I'm very supportive of taking those out because that is the way that that folks come into this. I'd like to hear from the city attorney just you know, I know the county just did this. How that. I'd like to hear a report on the county ban and to see if that goes as far as Long Beach would like or if we want to extend it to even more tobacco products. So. I'm not prepared tonight to give you. That maybe. To will get that and do a memo to you and the mayor and the council on the county ban. And if this passes this evening on the proposed ordinance for Long Beach and how that would be similar to the county ban. Thank you. That's what I'd like. Again, I appreciate this. It's the right step. Thank you, Councilman Ringa. I want to thank Councilmember Price for bringing this forward. Yes. We want to get a little bit of a clarification. This is the recommendation is to draft an ordinance temporarily banning the sale of flavored reaper products. That correct. Temporarily. I just want to get the the clear. I have not heard what temporary is yet, but yes, but it does include flavored tobacco, including vape products and also including menthol are my notes so far. Thank my customers that up as well because I was going to bring up about tobacco and menthol as well. And I'm glad that that part of this is going to be during the temporary ban. Is there going to be a study presented or researched or you're going to be doing a coming back with an ordinance that we . Evaluate and approve. I'm just trying to get a handle on what? What is it we're doing here tonight? That's a great question. The the the ordinance, as I understand it, we're being asked to create would be a temporary ban, whether that's one year, 18 months, whatever that the council decides that would be, at which point it would sunset, unless there's further action by the council, if that's the desire of the council, or it could do a permanent ban. Total ban forever. But you know that. That's also an option. And you could come back at a later date and always rescind that if you have additional information and wish to change that. So those are options are on the table. See my copy. If I recall correctly, we had a tackle, a tobacco prevention and education program at one time at the health department. Is that still there or has the funding sunsetted on that? No, we have a we have significant funding around tobacco education. And we have a team of people who is who was working on that. And we have a number of different efforts. We're currently working to fill all the positions for that program, but we have the capacity to run a very strong education, tobacco education program around these issues. I'm also thinking about it, tobacco enforcement. I mean, we're looking at a ban of a vaping and tobacco product, the flavored tobacco products. I think that would be important that we also have a strong enforcement component to this as well. The environmental health. They do enforcement, at least in terms of underage sales when it comes to that piece. So we are out there consistently doing enforcement around that and we know how many people we state organizations who sell to underage under age 21 for all tobacco products. All tobacco that including of the. E-Cigarettes and vapes. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. I strongly support this. Thank you, Councilmember. Super now. Thank you. I'd like to yield my position to Councilman Price, and then if you can come back to me. And so. Woman Price. Thank you. So I'm hearing a lot of support for this item, which I love. And to me, this is the kind of debate and engagement I love to have on council, because as we're hearing one another talk or we're talking about policies and where we all stand on it, and I love it. It's very authentic and organic. I want to put it out there to hear from my colleagues. I actually would like to go a step further and make this a permanent ban on flavored products. And I don't know what my my colleagues think about that. I want to hear from you about that. But. I won't amend the motion. I won't amend the motion at this point because I want to hear from everyone. But I think at the very least, in regards to how long will this temporary ban last, I will say until further notice. And the city would have to bring the item back in order to provide the research and lift the ban. The other thing that we didn't talk about is how long would we give the businesses to be able to comply with this policy and take these items off their shelves and have an opportunity to redo their marketing so that their cotton candy products are not the top selling products in their store. So maybe we can give them 30 days, which is what I know some of the other local jurisdictions have done. So as part of this motion, we would give them 30 days to be able to adapt to it. But I also want to hear my colleagues thoughts on making it permanent now. The motion on the floor is for the temporary ban until further notice, at which time we would come back and end the ban if we wanted to do that or modify it at that point. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Mongo. Actually, we want to go back to Councilmember Super now. Okay. Thank you. I have to apologize. I just received a report like 13 pages, and it's a little late to the party, so I haven't had a chance to study it. But what strikes me is that the news on this is late breaking, to say the least. Here's a report from the CDC as of yesterday that they admit that bootlegged THC products are likely to blame. So that type of stuff for Kelly Collopy. I didn't bring these folks with me. So for Kelly, I really sympathize with your position that you're getting this information. You know, as we speak. And so it's so tough to sort this out. And then I wanted to follow up on Councilwoman Mango's point about I guess I would call it unintended consequences that if you put in a ban of this type, are you going to drive folks to the black market where there is zero regulation? And to that, I think maybe if we could proactively come up with a formula here that might work, and that is if we have. Those numbers were staggering, by the way. 13 vape shops versus nearly 500 outlets. So if you banned that everywhere but the vape shops where you could regulate everything, keep an eye on it. Is that a possible term? I want to put that out there. That would that would give people an outlet other than the black market. I think. I think if if if they are I assume we have the regulation in place already for these shops. Also, Kelly had mentioned that the oils and vitamin E and I know very little about this topic, but if they shops were restricted to water soluble only, would that be an improvement over the oils that seem to be causing a problem? So I have more questions and answers here, but I'm just throwing it all out there. Thank you. Thank you. Did you miss coffee? Did you want to answer some of those questions? So vitamin E is one of the things that they think may be part of it, but they haven't. It's not the core of every of of every time someone has shown up. So, like, I wouldn't I wouldn't look so much at whether it's water or oils or what it is because there's a really a mix. So I think those are one that's one of the things we are seeing impacts both well, predominantly they're seeing them on the streets. They are also, you know, they're seeing at least 25% of the cases coming from those that are coming from vape shops. And so, you know, are through sort of standard mechanisms to access. So it's making sure that, well, you know, it's it's still not clear. There's not well, there may be more of some and not of others. That's still not completely clear what it is and where it's coming through. There are also, you know, in terms of the FDA and approved, there's many things that are not approved about vape, even though they're being sold in different stores. So there's not a lot of regulation. So it's hard to know exactly what we're looking at there. Can I follow up to that real quickly? And so if I can summarize what you're saying, is that in the interest of caution, you're supporting the ban at this time. Yes. Councilmember Mongo. Thank you. So what I would like to do is I am open to expanding to a more permanent ban. One of my thoughts would be if we could funnel tobacco users to just the 13 vape shops. So doing a permanent ban citywide on the for 90 those for nine. Do you have also other sources of revenues? Those are gas stations, liquor stores, other things like that where they would not go out of business. Then we work on a aggressive campaign for the vape shops to help us pull people away from tobacco. Because I will tell you, I still have three members of my family to smoke and one shoes. And so there are still actually four members. I forgot I have an in-law as well who are also choose. So I have four members of my family who still are addicted to tobacco. And so we do want to find places in Long Beach for those people to see the one 800 No Butts campaign and other things. And if we could all hone them into a funnel of perhaps those 13, I'm not sure. Again, I wasn't prepared on what direction to go, but to at least get them those resources because what we don't want to do is just have them step over the border. And I know that not every council member here is a border district, but in the fifth district I'm a border district, so I border Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens , Cypress, Los Alamitos, Rossmore. I could go on and on. And there are all these other places that those resources are available just over the line in a 7-Eleven. And so what I would love to do is find a resource here, a search here, since every councilmember has gotten to speak. Before we really get into the details on the item, would you be open to going to public comment and then coming back to the real. I'm going to allow Councilmember Pearce to speak next. We will have two councilmembers cued up. We have Councilmember Pearce and Richardson, and then we can go to public comment. Great. So those would be my comments. I would like to see an aggressive campaign like the No Butts campaign of the past, because I think there are just still too many people that are addicted to tobacco. Thank you. I wanted to queue up to say that I support a full ban upon hearing your comments. Councilmember among its I hear we always we want to be supportive of small businesses, but when it's something like lung cancer and our kids getting their hands on things, we have to put the lives of our constituents and their children first. Well, I mean, that's I understood that you said you wanted to ban the hundreds of them that sell the product, but keep open the actual vape shops that. I think that I care about the health of our community, so much so that I also don't want us to lose the opportunity to provide a public outreach campaign right here in our own city. So so people do not get help getting off of a vape or cigarets at a vape shop. They get that help through our health department. They get that help whether it's in a grocery store at or a bus stop ad. And so I support a full ban. I'd like to see us get get there. And I know, Charlie, this is the first day that we've had this. I would like to ask if if our health department before our city attorney's office comes back with an ordinance but that our city health department do a small presentation. So we really have some of those numbers in front of us. I hope that the city attorney's office will continue to draft that item, but that we at least have some context that we know how far we want that item to go whenever that comes back in front of us. That's something that our health department could do. What sort of numbers we would be looking for. I guess I want to better understand the number of of users that that have been impacted and have an understanding about some of these claims, whether it's oils, whether it's water. Does it really matter? Just I mean, we're all kind of working without that information, without shared information on that. We can do that. One other number I want to share that 61% of our high school e-cigarette users are buying in that big shops. 61% are buying at baby shops. 61%. Wow. Wow. And high school users are buying or buying them in vape shops. So just as we're thinking about the youth portion of this. Well, we know that that sometimes we have laws on the books and those laws are not adhered to. I mean, I was buying Cigarets when I was 12, going into a store buying Cigarets when I was 12. We have to make sure that they're not there for kids to walk in and buy. And so I fully support a full ban. I support being as aggressive is as this council is willing to go. But I do think that we need a little bit more information from our health department and some clear direction if it's a full ban, if that's the direction that the maker of the motion would like to go . Thank you. All right, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Councilmember. So, Councilwoman Price, I want to address you wanted some feedback. Here's what I see here. So we've attempted bans in the past. Plastic bag bans, Styrofoam bans. And we should probably stick to the process to folks. Now we start with an immediate minute order, you know, a moratorium. And give staff time to shape a policy that works, that requires outreach. That should be a part of it. But the man goes into effect today. This conversation about a full ban or a temporary ban, any given Tuesday, anything could be temporary. There is no full ban versus temporary. The other thing I'll say is if we just slam this on. You know, Councilwoman Mongo mentioned the border districts. We border Lakewood, Bellflower, Paramount, Compton. Our markets still don't comply with the plastic bag ban. Restaurants probably aren't ever going to comply with the Styrofoam ban. Reality is the reality is if we want this to work, I think we should put forward we should ask staff how long it takes to shape a policy. Put the minute order in place now which the ban goes into effect immediately or as soon as the audience comes back. And then we take time and shape it, because there's opportunities also that we may not may not be represented here. For example, opportunities to codify education, to put noticing on businesses and other things and through their different audiences. So the conversation on and so youth flavored flavor tobacco targets, youth, right, menthol. There's the conversation that targets African-American communities. Those are very different, distinct conversations that have come up in other areas that have brought this up. And what we don't want to do while we're excited about this motion is go out and shape the policy without doing the work. And so I support the direction we're heading. But I would just say let's give those put the burden on staff to go figure this thing out and bring us a quality policy. That's what I would recommend. All right. I'm going to ask for public comment. And as you coming up, I'll just give my quick comments on that as well. I do think this is like many other policies that that we have embarked upon. I think we'll be getting a lot of direction from Sacramento, which what might render a lot of the time that we're putting forward. But I'd like to come forward Kim Kirkman, Carlos Jeffrey Luciano and Corliss Lee to start. You have 90 seconds. Yes, I'm good. Hi. My name is Kim Markman. I have three kids, a college student, high school student. And a middle aged student. I am actively. Involved with the Wilson PTSA and the Long Beach PTA and other foundations. I am here to support the proposal at hand. However, you guys all want to do it. I'm. I support it. I don't care how you word it. I support it. Today I am wearing my parent hat. I can't wear my PTA hat today because, you know, once again, we're a body that has to vote on on supporting it. I have concerns and I have had concerns for probably since they started selling the e-cigarettes and the flavoring. I've read many articles. My husband keeps sending me articles. Articles and concerns that are coming to light. The first 2 to 6 are alarming to me. The National Youth Tobacco Survey. Quoted on the Wall Street Journal. And the safe to say B Corp, I saw the exact same quote today. It's 1.7 million high school students used e-cigarettes in the last 30 days. 90% of adults addicted to a. Substance started. Before age 18. And I know that goes substances abroad because I, I often talk to my kids about this. One pack of cigarets is equivalent to one joule. And I know I saw on the Internet today. That Governor Newsom. Signed an executive order to. Confront the youth vaping. Epidemic. The Wilson PTSA. Board, which I am the president of and many of my peers. Have high. Schoolers are concerned enough that we. Are hiring a professional company, this cyber safety cop, to come in and him. Am I done? Thank you. Yes, I'm sorry. You can. Darn it. I was. So close in. School. Oh, you did great. Oh, good. Thank you, Carlos. After. Carlos is Jeffrey Luciano. How are you doing? Thanks. Thanks for listening to us. Actually, I'm here representing the shops and every shop owner and I understand this is an issue that we have to address and everything have started with, you know, the youth trying to get all these baked cigarets and different stores. And we understand that what they do, they always try to get it anywhere, but no other beach shops. Usually our beach shops are run by the owners. We have all these licenses that we have to obtain in order to sell these devices and to sell these e-liquids. No, we not allowed any people under age to walk into our vape shops because we will lose our business now if there is a ban. I will say that you will can the 13 shops that there is in Long Beach so you can update some data about what's going on because otherwise futures will be followers on these and just follow where other cities are doing. And we don't we can do something with this. We can actually get a device or age verification that we already have talk about. So the every to everybody that comes through our stores will be verified. So we won't even take fake IDs because, you know, that's something that sometimes people can control. And then if you ban this, you will creating a black market. That's what's going to happen. People is going to go out of the city. You will close the shops. And then I think it's better if we allow only certain shops so you can obtain the data. Thank you, sir. You guys appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. Luciano. Geoffrey Luciano. Good evening, councilman. Thank you very much for your time. And, you know, speaking on this agenda and hearing me out, you know, I've been using electronic cigarets for ten years. I used to be a smoker prior to that for many years. And I quit using flavored nicotine. And all my customers, all my customers, which are 21 and over adults, they use flavored nicotine to quit smoking. And they're very concerned. Uh, you know, we all know that flavored nicotine has been in existence for about a decade. And this recent epidemic is a recent occurrence. And based on Kdka's report, 7770 7% of the of the epidemic involve THC or else 16% involve nicotine products. The recent occurrence has raised many eyebrows in Long Beach and action needs to be taken. I believe in preventable measures. Yet I urge the city council, the city attorney, to work with electronic cigaret retailers in forming alternatives to the prohibition of flavored products with the highest regard to prevention of use, access and curve, any potential harm and misuse of e-cigs. Speaking to many constituents in Long Beach, the underlying fear that this total restriction on flavors. Of flavored e-cigs will perpetuate parasitic. Thank you, sir. Bootleggers releasing harmful products into this market in turn, resulting in risking unimaginable consequences. Let's work together and reach an outcome of providing a harm reduction for all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Carelessly after careless, we have Neil. Neil Hanson. I totally support what you're doing here today. And and I thought the discussion was really good. And I don't have a particular answer in this because I think when you ban something, in some ways you make it more desirable, especially for kids. You know, I think they'll probably go after it one way or another if they want to. But I do believe that the education part of it is probably the most important. So whatever we can do to get out to the schools and make sure that everyone understands the dangers that go with it. I love those old commercials where they had that woman with the cigaret in her neck. I mean, when you see the end game of of tobacco, it's not pretty. But I would say that I would favor raising the price. You know, if you're trying to get it away from kids, make it so that it's not economically feasible for them. Thank you. Mr. Neil Hanson and then John Seaburg. Hello. And thank you. My name is Nils Hands. And. And I own an electric bike store and a vape store, both in Long Beach. For over six years, I've helped thousands. Quit smoking to lead a healthier life. And I got to tell you, it feels pretty amazing. I, too, was a long time smoker who stumbled upon vaping in its earlier stages. Prior to my discovery, I suffered at least four times a year with bronchitis, believing I was allergic to. Everything since I was always congested. Before quitting, Cigarets realized that those were the source of my illnesses. However, we're not here to listen to. Me talk about how vaping saved my life. We're talking about how to keep it away from kids. As a father of three, one of them a teenager. I'll be the first to tell you. I educate and with my wife, educate our kids to not smoke. To not vape, ever. They don't need it. Keeping kids healthy is a concern for all of us. And as someone who sells the products, I feel I have an. Even greater responsibility. Therefore, I would like to present to the Council a list of. Responsible and I believe, ultimately effective regulations that would have even a stronger, more positive impact than an outright ban. A ban would only send kids and people back to cigarets. Black market type products. First, we must limit and license the locations where these products can be found. To my findings, there's over about 600 tobacco. Licenses in the city of Long Beach and only eight vape shops. I believe that only vape shops should sell vape products. Next, we need to limit the amount of nicotine. Nicotine is a huge driver for these kids. They're looking for a buzz. We don't carry Jewel at my store. My store, we see over 70 to 120 people a day. We don't carry JUUL. We don't sell it. We don't believe in that high nicotine stuff. That's what kids are going after. They're going after the bus. Thank you, sir. Flavors for everybody. Please submit your list to the to the clerk, and we will. I gave you guys all folders today. So thank you. Take a look. John Seaburg. After John Shane Simpson. Podium for short people. My name's Shaun Seaborg. I have been a vapor for 11 years. 11 years? I have zero nicotine. I have never been a nicotine vapor in any shape or form of way, never smoked cigarets never gave up care about tobacco products in general. I however I have I have however, been using a great product and zero nicotine flavor to basically nebulizer albuterol sulfate. Now albuterol sulfate comes in a nebulizer for people with asthma or breathing problems and you can mix it. And basically it's activations which are the same as the active agents that are in Egypt's with the exception of nicotine. But I do believe that there is a serious issue here with your products in general. You're talking about a nicotine product that is within 50% or I'm sorry, 50 milligrams in nicotine when most vapes in general and most nicotine products are between zero and six milligrams at 50 milligrams, you're talking about a high, not a pleasant one. And it's never fun. I mean, it's what the kids are chasing after and it's not something that we need to really take a look at. Now, as far as kids getting it, most shops that I visit, there's never any kids in there. Rarely do kids ever even come in. But you will see advertising for Jewel on the front door of an AMPM, front door of a Chevron, front door of a 7-Eleven. And, you know, in my experience, it's those places where kids are also getting their vapes from that and online retailers. And both of those need to be seriously checked by not only the parents who are kind of being lazy and not proactive, but also by the council yourselves. Thank you so much. Thank you. Through Simpson and then after Mr. Simpson and Travis Anthony. Hi, my name is Shane Simpson. I'm with I'm a vape shop owner myself real quick we do it that vape shops this is this month alone fake IDs that were confiscated over the course of 38. There's 42 IDs here. The teenagers are to walk in and purchase nicotine products illegally. We use a third party age verification. These are purchased on a website called ID Guard. You can shop teens can buy five ads for $100. PayPal only. Stand by. But we we've caught them. And I'd like to submit this to staff to review them. You can scan and police department can also scan them. They all fall foul of the bar code authentication. We checked the barcode to verify that it's a real I.D. or not, not the magnetic strip. Many experts are very easy to forge. I recommend a 2% or 2.5% nicotine cap. We did independent research survey with 2500 youth in the Southern California area, and they're all looking for 50 to 70% milligram. They are not interested in 36 adult smokers, 86% use that. The CDC, DC data from the NTSB report of 2018, less than 7% of teens use flavors. Fruit. Less than 5% use meant I actually have the NYS 2018 report I can show you guys. Break it down. I want to work with the city to craft responsible progressive legislation. I think Long Beach could be the model for eliminating youth use and protecting adult access. Thank you. Thank you. Then Travis Anthony and then Nick and McGwire. Hello. My name is Travis Anthony. I own vapor land in Long Beach on the east side of Long Beach. Do you guys have a hard. Decision to make and duty to do. We get it. We've been paying attention for the last six years. There is 23 shops in 2013 or 14. I think there's down to eight. Pretty much spread over 52 miles of Long Beach. So it's not like we're all in one spot. We just want to give it give us an opportunity, because I know that nobody wants kids to smoke. I smoked at 1112. I didn't have a choice, but I found it either way. So last year I started a tobacco retail education team. I met with education. City enforcement, presented a bunch of restrictions. I didn't really get far with it. I didn't know how to how to go about getting any further. So the eight shops have come together and we presented you guys very restrictive, very regulated forms like you've been hearing lowering nicotine. Lowering consumption, doing the Peel System's roots, age verification. It can't be sold without it. And that's pretty much all we're asking for is don't make everybody go to Lakewood, to these other vape shops. They're going to get rich overnight. We're going to go out of business. And there's there's other ways than just making everybody go black market. What we want to communicate with you, I don't think a lot of you guys know about the products. That's why I started last year trying to educate somewhere. We. Thank you. Thank you very much. Big. And then after Nick, we have Bill blow it. Hello. My name is Nicholas Almaguer and I run a local bait shop. I have worked there for about. Five or six years. I have personally helped. Over a thousand people quit smoking. I have cried. With people on a regular basis when they quit smoking 3 to 4 packs of cigarets a day. I have had. People come in who smoke 3 to 4 packs. Of cigarets a day and we got them to quit on the spot and never touch another cigaret again. That is why I do this. Yes, I am looking at losing my job. Yes, my boss is looking at losing his business. My friends are looking into going bankrupt because of this. And the thing that I care about the most is my customers. They are not just our customers. They are friends and family. I have been known personally to have my customers come over and have barbecues for them. Support them, turn into a community type event where we are supporting each other, quitting smoking. That is the thing that I think a lot of people don't understand about this industry. I think that is what makes it a truly special community. These people encompass ex-smokers. They hate big tobacco innately. And I think there's a common misconception that we. Are big tobacco. We go out of our way to avoid big tobacco, and it is really the main thing that we're against. So I helped. Prepare those folders that you received earlier and those folders contain. Responsible regulations that we believe you guys should put into effect in order to prevent this without hurting other constituents. Thank you. Thank you so much. Bill. Then after bill, we have lance brooks. Good afternoon. This bill baldinger coalition for smoke free long beach. I want i'm not here to. Convince you tonight. I'm here to congratulate you. Taking up this strong measure that you're considering today on. It's a bold move and. You have a lot of support in the community. You've received that support. You've seen this coming into your offices today. And we congratulate you for for. Thinking of the health of the residents of Long Beach. Just want to say a few words about some of the comments we heard. There is no safe smoking. There's no safe vaping. There's no safe secondhand smoke. These things are just not true. Al. Mr. Austin, when you spoke about your family, it struck me. I lost my father and all my uncles, frontline servicemen in World War Two who never saw. Their grandchildren because of tobacco. And I don't want another generation to go through. What? My family went through and years went through and we need to put a stop to it. This is a great first step. There is a lot more to do, but we need to keep children safe, number one. The other considerations are important, but not as important as that. Thank you. Did ice caps keep Travis Anthony? Nick Almaguer. I apologize. I think the last time I was similar. Last name? Bill Blow. It's okay. Okay. Who was that? Bill Ball. Vega. Sorry about that. Hi. My name is Bill Bloat, and I, uh, I own a home in the fourth district, and I own Smuggler's Success, which is also in the fourth district. It's a. Vape shop we started in 2012. And, you know, I did it to try to help save lives. And there seems to be a lot of. Misconception about is vaping healthy, is it healthier? And it depends on who you ask, I guess these days, because. You get mixed signals from everyone you know. In the UK. Doctors are recommending it and. Here they're not. So it's something that obviously needs more. Education, more research. And hopefully you guys. Look at what we've sent you guys for regulating. We would like to be able to self. Regulate and really make sure. That they're not getting in the hands of children and that we're not selling, you know, 35. To 60 milligram nicotine in things like jewels. And small devices that can be hidden very well. I have two kids that go to high school in Long Beach and. You know, they see the jewels, too, and they tell me about it. Meanwhile, my two children. I've never tried vaping, so thank you. Thank you so much. What a color romance books. And after the dance we have tonight complete. Her name's Lance Brooks, and I work at Smuggler Success, a vape shop in Long Beach. I've heard a lot of interesting things here tonight, but one of the things that I've heard is the amount of products are purchased from vape shops. I just think it's inaccurate. I think it's information here that's not true. Accurate of smoke, vaping. Different than smoking. And I think we've heard some good ideas on how to help our citizens be more responsible and use it as a tool except for enjoyment. Rather than for the kids to get hold of it. I think there are easier ways to for the children not to get a hold of it. I don't think vape shops in what they call C stores where they're getting it. We just don't have 16 year olds that walk through our store and buy jewels. That just doesn't happen. We had a couple. Incidents when we've had the health department come and do stings and we just didn't sell to them just because to them we always heard we we know our customers very, very well. 90% of customers we know by name. And we know we're selling, too. So I think if we. Can look at some of these ideas and be drafting together, I think it would be effective to help our citizens, help the youth, help the adults. I think education is a. Huge, huge, huge part of helping this and. Stopping this. And I hope that we can kind of come to something that would. Work best for everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sunak MP. He's not here. Ashley Salazar in my notorious. Hello. Good evening. I work for Brian L.A., which. Is a organization that focuses on air. Quality and lung health issues. And I'm a health educator focusing. On educating. Parents and teachers and students about vaping and e-cigarette. Use. So for the last year, I've been doing parent workshops all over Los. Angeles County, and teachers and administrators. And parents are overwhelmed by what they see. These presentations just really give an insight to the problem. Students tell me that they go to the restrooms and it is so common for them to see their classmates vape and smoke. And young people choose to vape for many reasons, including peer pressure, availability of flavors. And the youth and vape culture surrounding it. Even though flavors are just one part of this big issue, it is a concerning one. There are thousands of flavors available, and these flavors. Are often targeted as at. Youth. Frito-Lay supports the city of Long Beach and. Tackling the teenage vaping epidemic to protect our youth. However, we do not believe a flavor ban will solve this problem if it is not supplemented by an educational component for parents, teachers, students and the community as a whole. Flavors is just one part of this problem. We think Long Beach for. Understanding that this. Vaping issue is a big problem and taking steps to study this issue in order to come up with a solution. Thank you. Thank you so much, Lionel Trias and then Matt Morton. Council members. For the time. Allowed me to speak today. My name is Lionel Triest. I'm 35 years old and I no longer smoke. I beat the vapor for six and a half years and I have a daughter. My daughter means everything to me. My daughter means absolutely everything to me. And I am doing everything that I can to provide for her, which means working in this industry. I used to work in the medical field, hurt my back. I wanted to use my mind. Baby mama was pregnant. My grandma was dying of cancer. And I had to make a decision. I told her on her deathbed that I am going to change lives to get people to stop smoking. She said, I know you can do it. I wanted you to be in the medical field, but I know this is what your heart is telling you. My family didn't approve that at first, but they soon later to realize that I had changed. I have grown up. I became a man being in this industry. Please don't take this away. I know that we're adults here that can make good decisions and better decisions for our kids. I believe that flavors help adults such as myself to make things better, a better life for the rest of us in the future. I'm not going to go any further and more than what I need to say, but please reconsider what some of my colleagues here have been talking about, about better. Let's do a better legislative for a better Long Beach for baby. Thank you. Sir. Thank you. Matt Morton. After that, we have Chris Sherwin. Hi. Resident of Long Beach. Don't really have a skin and either side of the game. I don't own a shop and whatever. I haven't had a real cigaret in over a year thanks to e-cigarettes. National Institute of Health in the United Kingdom has proven that e-cigarette vape only has 5% of the toxicity of a regular cigaret. And my own doctor says my lungs are better. I can taste food. It's fantastic. Unfortunately, right after this meeting started, CNN reported that two more deaths have happened because of vaping related issues. However, they also both of them were not nicotine products. They were under ground, counterfeit THC and CBD cartridges. The Institute of Health in the state of Virginia found that all of their products that they tested from legal legal shops. Came back with none of these contaminants. Sacramento just published a thing. They grabbed 13 legitimate products, 13 counterfeit black market products. Ten of the 13 had the vitamin E acetate. That is a cutting agent that goes into the counterfeit products that when heated, becomes cybernetic. That's our problem. I have apple watermelon in my pocket right now. I love it. Flavors are for everyone. Banning flavors on a kneejerk reaction like this for something else. Is a problem when you have a fantastic community that's willing to help. Listen to the community, please. Thank you. Chris Sherwin. And I have to correct Christine Simpson. Good evening, members of council. My name is Chris Sherwin. I'm with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. I want to congratulate you for your attention to this very important issue. What we've seen is a growing momentum in California and across the country of communities doing just what you're considering tonight. And that is a full and permanent ban on the sale of all flavored tobacco products. E-cigarettes and all other flavored tobacco products. Flavors and tobacco have no place together. We are very concerned about the the recent epidemic of respiratory illnesses. But let's take it back, step back and look at the bigger picture. We have seen a 135% increase in youth e-cigarette use in the last two years. This is recent federal data. This is the tide that we are most concerned about. And the FDA is the agency that oversees whether a device is approved or not as a cessation product. No e-cigarette has been even submitted to the FDA or as a cessation product and therefore has not been approved as a cessation product. What we are now seeing are thousands and we're up to 5 million youth nationally have used an e-cigarette product. We're hearing about it from parents. We're hearing about it from teachers. In addition, over 50% of youth smokers use menthol cigarets. There are over 250 flavors of cigar flavors now, and cigars are now more popular among high school boys than Cigarets. So I encourage you to do a full, comprehensive prohibition on all flavored tobacco products across the city. Thank you very much. Shane Simpson. All right. Thank you. Okay. Kevin Price. After cave in is Taylor Thompson. Hello, Mayor. And council members. My name is Karen. Price and I'm in sixth grade. I'm here in support of. Item 32 temporarily banned vaping. Products. Being in sixth grade means I'm one step closer to becoming a teenager. With Vape kids are. Tricked into buying it because they think it is like. Candy. As scary as this is, here is a rush to become cool with vape as an option. This is kids number one choice. It is. This is not just for middle schoolers. But for kids and teens and all because it is. Bad for our kids health and kids may get addicted. It is your job to protect it. Because the. Vaping companies care more about their money than your health. I know. I know. If you vote yes, some will not be happy. But sometimes. Sometimes the right decision is the hardest to make. So I'm asking. You for for you to help. Me and my community and make. The right choice tonight. Vote yes. Thank you. Next is Taylor Thompson. Yes. Then we have Jessica Quintana. Hello. My name is Taylor Thompson. I have been working in the vaping industry for over six years now. I work in an open system type of product. I'll give you an example. I work for a company called Save Your Vape. We manufacture this product. It's a blueberry lime flavor. There's been a lot of studies proving that flavors do help people unflavored products that you guys are proposing. None of us want to. That's not appealing to us. It's not something we enjoy. And a tobacco flavored product would taste like a cigaret what we're trying to avoid. Right? So that's kind of the problem there. But I want to kind of show you an example of a dual really easily edible, right? I put this in my pocket, vape it. This is what I make. These are my two devices. They're over $200 for these. I don't think any kid's going to walk into a shop and be able to afford that. If I could show it to you, too, you would see there's a lot of cloud production with this. There's barely any. The milligram on this is 50 milligram, the milligram on this is six milligram. My mom quit smoking cigarets because of vaping. It changed and saved her life. She breathes easier. I was. I was raised with asthma because of her. I don't have it any longer, so I get a little emotional because this ban is just unfortunately so wrong. You guys are making the right call with this one. Unfortunately, we don't want our kids to vape, but this will drive tobacco back in power. This is this is the future here. This is we are not big tobacco. We don't want to be big tobacco. And we definitely, certainly don't want our children vaping. But this is not the way and we want to work with you guys. Just tell us how, you know on a real level, but I appreciate it. Thank you for your comments. After jessica, we have Lauren Labar. Good evening. Council members. Thank you so much. Councilman Austin. Jessica Quintana, executive director of Center Cha. We probably see over 10,000 youth each year. It's interesting that folks came up here and said that youth don't get access or can't buy these products, but they get them very easily. And so I've worked in tobacco control prior to working with Central Cha for over seven years. And so, you know, folks were afraid of the ban back then. Oh, if we ban Cigarets in the bars, the bars are going to shut down. Well, they're thriving. If we ban smoking in the parks, you know, nobody's going to be, you know, hanging out at the parks or, you know, smoking in the park areas. We no longer have smoking in the parks. We got rid of the the the nice billboards in tobacco that was, you know, advertising to youth and communities of color. They're no longer in magazines. The magazine company said they were going to go out of business if you took the advertisements away from the tobacco industry. They're still in business. What I can tell you is these kind of flavored and all these gimmicks that come from the tobacco industry are, number one, trying to target our youth . And so how they use their vehicles through, you know, vapes and vape shops and other stores, whether that be the markets, the supermarkets, the 7-Eleven. Long Beach has always been a Ford city, working in tobacco control for many years, and especially reducing youth access. Everybody remembers when you can get the pack of Cigarets off the self-service display. That's no longer the liquor store said they were going to go out of business if that happened. Well, guess what? They did it. Thank you. So folks have a responsibility to our children and the public health and the safety of our youth. The ban is the correct thing to do. Thank you so much. Next up is lowering the bar. Name. William Bowe digga. O. Hello. Tonight. My name's Lauren Lavoie. I'm 27 years old. I'm a former smoker. I've been working in the E-Liquid industry for eight years now. I started smoking Cigarets when I was 12 and was not able to get off them until I found vape. I tried everything. I tried lozenges, patches. I heard you say the health department is helping people get out of smoking and if that was the case, vaping would have taken off the way that it did. That's just the reality of it. In regard to the recent illnesses and deaths, I've heard it said before, but the CDC has come out officially and said that 84% of those were admitted to using THC products illegal as illicit drugs off the black market. And they assume. That is actually a. Higher amount and less amount of a vapers because they don't trust that people are actually being elusive to what they're using. I think a more effective way of cracking down on that would be to go after the illegal cannabis market. If that seems like too big of a task, I don't know what would happen. If there was a black market. E-Cigarette market. We are a passionate industry. We want to stay alive and like we're not selling to kids. Looks like I'm. Running out of time. We do have a lot of options. Only selling 21 over establishments like bars. Same thing with vaping. Require a scanner for any e-cigarette. Purchase. Including delivery of online. Purchases. And a lot of the kids are getting them online and and everything like that. So nicotine nicotine restrictions on levels licensing and pull our license if we if we fail. At any of your tests. Thank you so much. Thank you. That stuff is Gina Payne, you know. Good evening. My name is Dr. Gina Peony. I'm a retired professor from Cal State, Long Beach and Public Health. I've been an advocate of public health for decades. I'd like to address the fallacy that vaping is harm reduction. We're finding that it is not. The current epidemic is indicating that vaping has an acute toxicity. You cannot compare this to the chronic toxicity of tobacco. So don't fall into that fallacy. The second thing is that in public health, we have a history of moving forward for prevention before we know the actual cause. We have a history of doing that. John Snow took the handle off the pump and stopped the epidemic before we could see cholera in the microscope. We could prevent AIDS before we knew the cause was HIV. This is another opportunity of prevention. You don't have to wait to find out the exact cause. So I also am a mother of two daughters that graduated from Milliken. My youngest daughter told me she graduated in 2014 and she said it was easier to get vapes than Cigarets. She was offered them all the time. Thank you. Thank you so much. That concludes our public comment. We're going to take it back behind the rail for the council. Next up is council member Mungo. Thank you. I really want to appreciate the amount of public comment. I know that this was a US Council agenda item created by council members. So you didn't get included in an outreach process yet? I agree with Councilmember Richardson that we really need to move down that pathway. I would like to. Propose that we make the ban effective January one. That would give us three months, 90 days for people to sell what's on their shelves and so on and so forth. I think that it should be limited to non-veg shops, but citywide we should ban the sale of all flavored vape and jewel and any violations of any sales of these products could result in in loss of your licenses. And I don't know what licenses we have control over in those because I don't know everyone that sells them. 490 is a very high number, and so I'd like to learn more about that at the vape shops. I'd like to require 21 and over signage, tobacco use warnings, limit of nicotine for sale to the 2.5%. Require an ID check. I don't know if it's legal. If they catch someone with a false ID, if they could be required to hand over the stack of false IDs collected to the city. I don't know if we'd want to get involved in that or not. I'd be looking for a recommendation from our health director on that because I think that. If there is no process where kids get stopped. From this and their parents don't know. What then? It just continues to go on. They go to alternative sources. And then I'd like to work on a collaborative with the vape shops where they provide us data. What are the zip codes of individuals buying vape? What vape products are sold to? What zip codes? I think that goes to Councilmember Richardson's point. And then I'm completely open to an a full ban if we find any violation. And the way that that would happen is if there's only currently eight vape shops. The moment one of you sells to an under 21, you're gone. That's it. So eight violations and we have a citywide ban. I appreciate that many other cities and counties have come forward with ideas. And one of the things I love about being on the Long Beach City Council is we're not all of those other cities. I think that this is a huge opportunity for us to stand apart from the rest. For us to implement a very aggressive campaign, moving people towards and away from tobacco. I mentioned to Councilmember Richardson, I surveyed my four family members that smoke. Two of them are nicotine and one of them is wintergreen. Flavor. The wintergreen is chew. And so these are adults that I would like to see move towards vape and then eventually towards nothing. But right now, I don't see them quitting any time soon. And I know they've one person's tried it multiple times, multiple, multiple times. And the failure is is very trying. Two of them have young children and have both tried to quit when their children were around because they didn't want to have spittoons around their house. I see people vaping and driving. I will tell you, I met Trevor when he brought his vape shop to the fifth District. And I will tell you, I met with the landlord. I was afraid. I didn't think that it was a good location. I definitely put up a lot of barriers because I had serious concerns about the youth. What he has demonstrated is to be a successful art conscious, environmentally conscious, and really an advocate for adult use only and getting off of nicotine. Because when I was in high school, everyone went to this one individual who, by the way, still lives in the fifth District and everyone would buy Cigarets from him. Everyone, he wore a trench coat. He'd open it up. You could buy a pack of cigarets you could buy. I'm not joking. He lives in Lakewood Village to this day and he you could buy a cigaret for $10. And so I don't want to be there. I really feel we need to get rid of the jewels. And then I also searched Amazon for 1999. I can have mango flavored vape delivered to my house tomorrow. If I order within 3 hours, it'll be there tomorrow. And so I really hope that the council and my colleague, Councilman Price, will consider the fact that there's only eight vape shops. And if we work with them over the next 60 days to come up with a plan that we really could come up with something better than any of the other bands we've ever seen, with the goal of reporting numbers of how many individuals you've pulled off of cigarets and tobacco, because I think that there's a future in finding a solution. So with that, I'm open to continuing to hear the items of my colleagues. Thank you, Councilmember Super. Thank you. I have a statement to read from Vice Mayor Andrews, if you'll bear with me here. This is from Dee Andrews. I believe that it's important that the city council act to protect the health of Long Beach citizens in light of the nationwide health impacts of e-cigs and other flavored vapor products that have recently been in the news media. As a part time educator at the high school level. I have to say that any proactive measures we can take to protect youth are very much worth it. Teenagers already think they know it all without the added pressure of industry tactics that use flavor and other attractive methods to make a profit. As adults, we make a choice on what we purchase and consume. Teenagers who may not have access to products do not need an extra layer of unhealthy products. I hope this matter is taken seriously as deaths are increasing, and we must work proactively with businesses getting the word out that these products are not safe and not a safe alternative to cigarets. We are doing this for a healthy Long Beach. Sincerely, Dee Andrews. I thank you, Councilmember. Councilwoman Price. Okay. So just a couple of thoughts. First of all, I want to thank Vice Mayor Andrews. He did sign on to this item and I want to thank him for his support and for those comments. I know he's not here tonight, but he's been very engaged in this discussion. I don't accept the I guess there are friendly amendments. I don't accept, expect, accept them and I'll say why, at least not in their entirety. We're talking about a public health issue where people are dying. People are actually dying. I understand we want to be business friendly, trust me. Let me repeat. Let me. Let me just make sure Councilman Price has the floor. Thank you. When pressed. Continue. So while I want to support our businesses and do everything we can to work with them, let me just say we are the only city that's offering a mitigated temporary ban while we figure out some policies that will be long term implemented. Every other city and county and state has proposed a full, permanent ban. We are trying to approach this from a mitigated standpoint by saying let's get these products off the shelves as soon as possible because they are killing people. They are actually killing people. And we have a duty as we have a fiduciary duty, we have a duty in every way to protect our consumers and our youth. And I cannot say that we are going to wait three months and keep these items on the shelf while we continue to see negative impacts to the youth. We've already had two incidents of pulmonary injuries in the city of Long Beach. What if one of those was a death? One of the one of those was the death of a of a young child. So we're talking about a temporary ban that gives us an opportunity to work with the businesses. Absolutely. We want to work with the businesses. And Jessica, I love your points. When we talk to every time we talk about a ban, people say, oh, this is going to cause everyone to go to the black market. We had that conversation with marijuana. And you know what? The number one complaint we're getting with marijuana now is that there's too much competition from the illegal dispensaries. The whole reason we enacted legislation and to legitimize it in the city of Long Beach is so that we wouldn't have a black market. And yet the number one complaint we're getting now from the legitimate business owners is that there is a thriving black market. And so I don't think a ban is going to cause any of these businesses to go out. I really don't. We're talking about a temporary ban. Look, I own a small business. If there was a national data tomorrow that said the product that my store offers is killing people. I would stop and pause and I would think, okay, maybe I need to think about the future of my industry because fighting a temporary ban today is not going to change the fact that there is a mechanism associated with vaping that is causing pulmonary injuries. That mechanism needs to be studied. This is not a traditional class one or Class two medical device that gets FDA clinical trials. So we're just starting to learn more and more about this industry as a result of deaths. And I don't want those deaths to be Long Beach deaths. So I'm asking my colleagues, I submitted this item. We've been working on it for four months. Up until tonight. I did not expect or know for many of my colleagues that they wanted to somehow exempt vape shops from this 60% of the sales according to our data. Of Youth comes from products sold in vape shops. So while I appreciate our eight businesses are checking IDs and I think that's wonderful. 60% of the youth are purchasing their products in vape shops. That could be completely bogus information. I don't know. But we work with our health department and we rely on them regularly to form opinions and conclusions and policies on behalf of the city . That's our job to do. So with all due respect to Councilwoman Mongeau and I have tremendous respect for her. If this was any other industry where the product was killing people, we would say, let's stop, let's pause and let's take a look at it. And you know what? We have worked very closely with our businesses in Long Beach to shape policy so that it's well-intentioned and thorough. And I'm open to doing that with the vape shops. I'm not saying that we should have a permanent ban tonight, although I would support that. But the item that I drafted is let's take an immediate pause because people are dying. People are literally dying. We have a duty to take a pause and mitigate that. Will people still get. I can't control what people buy on Amazon. Absolutely. But we can control what people buy in Long Beach. I'm not here to control what people buy on Amazon. That's that's not within the purview of our jurisdiction. This item is meant to address what people buy in Long Beach. So I'm asking for my colleagues support on this item. I think some of the item some of the suggestions tonight by my colleagues were amazing in terms of working with the companies, trying to develop comprehensive policies. Education and outreach is huge. I'm the one that brought the education and outreach item to council for cannabis, and I think we could do a similar thing. But this item is not about getting people to stop. Smoking or not be addicted to nicotine. This item is because. The. Products are being ingested through a mechanism. That is deficient on research right now. And the products are causing pulmonary injuries to people. It is a public health emergency. This item isn't about let's work with people and help them not be addicted to tobacco. That's a great conversation. It's a wonderful conversation. Someone should bring an item to talk about that if they want. But my item tonight is about the public health issue of people dying as a result of the mechanism of vapes which are sold in vape shops and they're sold in convenience stores. So thank you. Next up, we have councilmember pearce. I i support the statements made by councilmember price. I hope that we can get the report from our health department to kind of open up our eyes to the facts about this so that we we have those before us. I support a ban as soon as we can while we explore that and understand more the impacts. But absolutely, people are dying. We have to act fast. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Supernormal. I'm going to speak for myself now. I've completed my duties to the vice mayor. And first, I want to thank Kim Kirkman from Wilson PTA for speaking here tonight. Kim, I'm sorry we didn't get you through your entire conversation there, but I also have a pipeline in to Wilson High School for information. And that just made me think that as far as some type of ordnance is crafted, any way we can reach out to the school district and get them involved in this, in crafting this, I just think we have to have a larger conversation there because I think everyone in this room wants to protect the youth. The only question is how we get there. And then I think for the comments that Council Member Richardson made, I think maybe Councilman Price and you are on the same page. It just wasn't really articulated that way that this is a temporary ban, then get it sorted out. Okay. So, yeah, we're on. Okay. So I think that's where we are now. I just want to thank everyone for spending some time with us here tonight. I'm the biggest proponent of streamline council meetings, but sometimes it takes this type of process and this is the beginning of conversation. So I think it's going to be very fruitful in the long run. So thank you. Thank you. And I'd like to also just remind the council we have five minute limits under our new rules. And I know are some some of our constituents are paying attention and clocking us. Councilmember Mongo. Thank you. I just don't want to be misquoted. And I know council member Price doesn't want to be misquoted either. I'm not here trying to stick up for any small business over any other small business. What I'm saying is, and I think maybe some of our council officers and I can identify a person calls our office and says X is happening. And it's it caused this accident, which then means you need to change the stop sign. But when you go back and look at the data, perhaps it wasn't what we perceived. And so, again, when I signed on to the item, because I am supportive of a ban, I did that with the caveat from my chief to yours that I want to craft something more comprehensive, because I don't know a lot about Vape. I don't know a lot about the industry. And I'd read conflicting reports that the CDC doesn't necessarily think that it's from FDA approved cartridges. And so what I don't want to do is punish and ban an industry that has not actually caused any deaths. And I think it's very inappropriate across the state for us to continue to blame people without the information. Specifically, do we believe there's correlation, perhaps? I don't know. But 80% related to THC? I think that there's a bigger issue at play that we need to address as well. And I'm not trying to bring my own item or step on your item. That's not my intent at all. I just also don't want at least a partner that's been in my district as a good vape shop. Not to mention there's a not so great vape shop on the border of my district in Lakewood that does sell to youth. I don't want to funnel kids there because that particular vape shop, which is going to be next to the new marijuana dispensary, is not a great partner and is not a part of the plan. And so for the hope that we could all work together to find a solution. I was hoping for that to be the case. So what I will state is I will be supportive today, but I hope that the Health Department can come back very quickly and find a way that we can also utilize this as a public health campaign. And I think that I see the news media here today, and I hope that you'll report this as a city who's really working hard to know the facts behind the deaths, to ensure that we are making the right bands so that we can protect our youth. Because every single person up here, including myself, is first and foremost looking at the health of our youth and ensuring that we're not pushing them from one thing to another. I'm not going to get into a whole nother conversation today, but like soda and then juices that have too much sugar. And it's a it's a it's a bigger item overall that we as a policy body get to discuss. And I was being very genuine to your request to have a genuine conversation. And when I heard from individuals who are much more knowledgeable about Vape than I am, I really feel like they were being genuine. When you bring forward a stack of ideas like that, I think to myself, being a police officer, what mechanisms do I have to get at youth to stop breaking the law? And I will tell you time and time again, it's their parents. It is getting their parents involved and collecting those IDs. You're not currently getting to the parents. How do we do that? What does that look like? How do we bring them in? Is there any kind of. Appropriate level of peer pressure that we can provide and how do we encourage that? I don't know what those answers are. We've only had ten days to discuss this item. It has been on a bigger level. I have watched the county supervisor meeting and other meetings throughout the region, but I just don't know that we can say that we aren't. We are still not banning non flavored THC. And so I'd like to amend the item to include banning dual and non flavored THC vape cartridges. If you'd like that friendly. No, I don't accept the friendly. Okay. So Councilmember Turanga. Okay. So we've gone. We'll circle what appears to be here. And just and this I had and we went from a temporary to a permanent. And I think we're back to temporary territory where we. Well, where I think we are is we have a motion on the floor to ban all flavored tobacco products and vape products, including the menthol flavor. 30 days to the audience would give 30 days to come into compliance with the ban. The ban would be temporary until further action by the City Council. And prior to bringing back the ordinance for Council's consideration, the Health Department would have a presentation to the City Council. Remember prices that you're understanding of the motion. Like. Before we go to a vote, I'd like to just a point of clarification as well. How long is this ban going to be in place? Until further action by the city council. Okay. So do we have any idea when. When we'll be able to? Because I want to. Yeah. I'd like to be able to understand that we're going to be forming a policy and that we will have a process where we're outreaching with the public. Um. Sure. So why don't we stakeholders? Why don't we include, as part of this motion that our health department can reach out to the vape? Yeah. Businesses in the city and start working on some education and outreach options similar to what we did with our cannabis industries. And then also, I know that many council members here are involved in researching what's going on around the country. But certainly if our health department could take the lead and if there's anything new that's discovered regarding health impacts or if there's any specific danger zones that were made aware of as a result of some of the research , I know that for the deaths are conducting a lot of autopsies and it's actually a big issue is the mechanism of the vape and how the product breaks down into the lungs. And so hopefully we can follow that research so that when the item comes back and perhaps health department can issue ATF to all of us, that talks about those outreach efforts and the updates in policy and health impacts that they're watching. This is a trend that I imagine our health department will be following closely. So I think I would defer to them to bring it back when they feel they have enough for us to move forward on something. Think that clarifies things a little bit better for me personally. Are you okay, Mr. City Attorney? Okay. Hearing that this collopy is okay. We didn't ask her. I don't know if that's feasible. Yes, of course. It will be. I mean, we have been tracking on it. We'll be able to provide the data and we'll we'll issue a two from four on the outreach plan with our folks at Timeline. Thank you. Thank you. And I'd also like to just encourage us to work with some of the community organizations that do education around this issue. I think all of us as council members can can really help reach our school age children and help our parents as well. With that members, please cast your vote. Ocean carry.

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XVII (Tobacco Retailers) to Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industries) to Require Licensure of Tobacco Retailers and Prohibit the Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products. (City Attorney 2310)

AlamedaCC_11272018_2018-6198

And so based upon this, we have 37 speakers. I have had concerns expressed that people that oppose it are not very many and that they received only one minute last time. And so I don't know if there's a that would consider at this time how I would like to proceed. Remember, Audie. I say. Oh, I said 38, but. Okay. So it may be a lot a little bit too little, but, you know, maybe 90 seconds would be better. I don't know. Are you? Are you all at all. So. Are you all agreeable? If I ask how many are here opposing and how many are here? And they were. You don't want to know that. Madam Mayor. Yes. There are regulations and rules don't specify between supporter oppose. It's really about limiting the number of speakers. This is the second time we've heard this specific item. It's on consent. So we're, we're just, um, I'm inclined to just follow what our rules are, which is to shorten the time. So I can share with you. When we tried to do the rent issue, we did have like 20 minutes each side or something where we did something like that. Instead of having everyone speak. We looked at it just. So that you're aware. Um. So, um. Would people be interested in having? The Council be interested. And so if I have 37, 38 speakers, if they get one minute, then that's half an hour and it's just over half an hour. Is that what you all want to do? One minute. I'm not feeling that. I'm fine with that. Is a second reading. Second reading. And we have a robust agenda. And so I'm hearing one minute per speaker. And a vote is required to suspend your rules. The rules are actually 2 minutes for the first 2 minutes, so. It drops to 2 minutes of their sentence. Right. So after seven or so, the rules are 2 minutes per speaker. Currently, if council wants to suspend the 2 minutes, then we need you to have a motion with at least four in favor to reduce it from 2 minutes to one minute. All right. So a member Ashcraft, did you want to sit? No, I was going to clarify that you need a 4 to 1 vote. The only thing, if you wanted to organize it, if it's even possible, and let the tobacco. Store. Proponents speak first. But I don't know how you do that. And the one thing I would say is that, well, I'm not going to tell people what to do, but, you know, you've got one minute. So so I'm hearing you. I mean, is there a motion I. Make a motion that we limit to because this is the second reading and there have been no changes. We limit it to one minute. Well, you. Don't even need to make the motion. That's what are. No, we have to have a vote of at least four. Yes, we have to have that. I'm happy to repeat it. So what normally happens is if you have at least seven or more speakers, that we normally get 3 minutes per speaker. However, if we have seven or more people turn in slips on an items and the rules reduce the 3 minutes per speaker to 2 minutes per speaker. However, what I'm hearing from council is they'd like to reduce it from the 2 minutes to one, in which case it does require a motion with an affirmative vote of at least four council members supporting the reduction from 2 minutes to one minute. So there is a motion made to reduce it from the 2 minutes to one minute. The second there is a second. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion carries 4 to 1. All right. And so each speaker gets one minute. You will see the clock on here, please. No applause so that we can get through this and and help make everyone feel comfortable while they're speaking. And so I will call out five names and then I'll ask you to line up on the right side of this wall. Everyone on the I'm sorry. We can't have anyone on the right side of the wall here and go to the left other than the speakers. Then you can come up to go to the right side. And we actually need to make sure that the people in the hallway and in the overflow do they know that this item is being called so that they are here? We can make sure that the people that are here for the tobacco issue are here. And then we may have to do some rotation. Give me just a minute to make sure that everyone that's turning this up is here as opposed to out there somewhere. Because they have they get to hear the the speakers, the other speakers on this item. So right now we're going to we're going to be hearing the item on tobacco, 5G. And I'm going to call the first five and then you all can line up to my right. I'm a Amy. Linda. Astbury. Samir's sailor. Alec Cora. Karate Foster. Paul second. Five. And my apologies if I don't pronounce your name correctly. All right. So. Do you think we're ready? Yes. All right. All right. So Hymie versus. Good evening, Mayor. City Council. We're here today again to fully support the city tobacco retail license program, but not as the ordinance is proposed. Naito and its retail members have submitted many letters opposing the ordinance as written but not has not been included in the agenda packet. Where is the transparency of this policy process? As retailer workshop staff has promised to create a map and listing showing the retail stores impacted by the ordinance, which included the use sensitive areas and distance between retailers. This was not provided as of yet and not knowing the number of retailers. But yet the city has provided a cap. We ask the following to save the unintended consequences of Alameda of losing Alameda businesses. One Increase the number of retailers capped to about 45 from 1 to 100 per person. Retail motion changed the measurement between current retailers to be measured from door to door, and lastly, to keep the original ordinance language, which allows retail owners to sell their businesses within three years. Thank you for consideration. Thank you. Linda Astbury. They know this because. And Asbury, executive director of the West Alameda Business Association. I'm here tonight speaking differently than I did a couple of weeks ago because we hadn't really gotten into the comments. So our retailers have accepted the fact that the jewels, the menthol that's gone, they've accepted that. And I suspect there's some people wanting to talk and still on that. We need to go deeper into it. And it's about the ratio of number of residents per tobacco. We're suggesting instead of 2500, we're suggesting it's 12 1250, and we're suggesting that there's a cap of 55 tobacco licenses total. We're also suggesting that the buffer zone, instead of being 500 feet parcel to parcel, it's 300 feet door to door. This is absolutely devastating to these people that instead of a401k, they've invested their lives. And if this passes the way it's presented, 18 will lose their life savings and that we just have to prevent that. Thank you. Thank you, Samir Sala. S.M., I are. Hello. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I am here to talk about we, except for the ban of menthols, the jewels, all of that, but the zoning and having to take away licenses from a like a basically like robbing Peter to give Paul. If I'm not able to transfer a license, it's a problem because after 20 years of running the business, I have it taken away because I can't sell it. So, you know, he wanted to look into the zoning and as far as the 300 feet and as far as the cap. Thank you. Thank you. Alec Crotty Foster Alec C really? It's great, great. Thank you. Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. It's a pleasure to speak with you tonight. I am speaking to you as a Alameda resident, lifelong. I was born here and I also went to the schools here. And when I left Alameda for four years, I was I joined an organization called Students for Sensible Drug Policy because I am very much against youth and teen drug use and tobacco use. However, the resolution that has been proposed will not actually make a difference. Because how I am. I know because I talk to 18 year olds and like my cousins over it, over Thanksgiving, they can all buy it online without an I.D.. Anything that you do to regulate the businesses here will do nothing to keep tobacco out of the hands of youth. What is keeping tobacco out of the hands of youth is the raise of the minimum age, which still doesn't affect interstate commerce. So you should be taking your time and investing it into encouraging the state to better regulate interstate commerce and protecting the youth. And also these Alameda businesses that have been here for ages that also like any other things beyond tobacco. So thank you. Thank you. I'll second. Sorry. I just have homework. Mr. Scone, or. Put them up. Oh, okay. I see, I see. He has an exhibit and I. Yeah. But and if you could screwed up, so then we can hear you. Because I don't want to use my time waiting. Okay. We're waiting for the exhibit. But I did it for you, Mayor. I was the one who drove around and everybody had a Thanksgiving. That was amazing. And mine was really sickening. It's really sickening. Okay. So if you look, I dotted every yellow mark and they're all mostly in the downtown area. These are all tobacco retailers. I was able to find that's about 50, 49 to 50. If you notice, they're all really in the residential area. Most of them are closed down because they won't be able to sell because in the downtown area, we're we're too close to each other. So if we tried to sell, there's that there's basically this ordinance has unintended consequences. I've talked to staff, the assistant attorney, multiple people, and everyone agrees that there is a lot of harm that wasn't intended for us to be able to sell our business. I don't care about this flavored tobacco. I'm asking for three changes. These three changes are about small businesses. I'm hoping that you guys are leaders, Jim. I hope you're a leader. Frank, I believe in compromise. Marilyn, please. While I wasn't able to talk to you, I tried my best. But I'm asking for three changes in six. There are 63 currently. There's over. It's over. I put it in the packet. There's over 24 businesses. It's actually now 30. When I did Google Maps that will not be able to sell their business, they put in three 500 free parcel parts of the parcel. Please change it door to door. Thank you. Go anywhere. Thank you. It started in January. At least give us a chance to sell our business. That's all I'm asking. Seven. Thank you very much. The next five people, Kimberly McGowan, if you could line up along the windows. Kimberly and Brandi Long and Denise Zachariah. Then Malia Zakaria and Seamus McGuinness sit. Karen. When? Charlie Kleinman. Sydney Williams is ten. Matt Hussein. All right, Kimberly. Hi. Thank you for having me again. I'm here on. Behalf of the Lincoln Middle School, PTA, our community of parents. Educators and the kids. Thank you for your recent. And strong support. When we last met. On the subject. I just wanted to say that we as parents and educators are absolutely teaching our. Kids. At home and in the classroom all. About the dangers of. Tobacco. And tobacco related. Products. Guess what? Some of the kids aren't going to get it. Some people aren't going to get it or they're. Just going to ignore it. And will. I? You got to take your. Responsibility for those sort of things. Let's not make it any easier. So as as. The community of Lincoln Middle School, we're just imploring you as our city leaders to. Support the teachings that we're doing at home and in the classroom with government action. Let's put help before profits. Randy and then Dennis. Good evening. I'm Randy Wang and I'm with with California Golden Gate Public Health Partnership. And we breathe California do a lot of work helping in schools to provide tobacco related education. And for that reason, one of the things that really stands out in my mind is the large number of youth using tobacco products because of these flavors. We know that in 2017, the percentage of. 11th graders. In Alameda Unified Schools. Who had already used a vaping product was about 22%. So we think that legislation that you're considering. Today would do a lot of good to protect youth health. Thank you. Thank you, Denise. ZAKARIA And then Malia. It evening, Madame Mayor. And City Council members. As a parent of two middle school students and resident of Alameda, I just want to thank you for being very proactive in putting forth this policy of banning flavored tobacco that you're putting through tonight. I'm heartened to see so many young people who have rallied and worked so hard over the last month to educate the community about the epidemic of vaping by our youth. I notice the voice of tobacco retailers may be more vocal than the last meeting, but I urge. You. Stay strong in keeping this ordinance worded exactly as it is. Your leadership on this issue is the best way to protect Alameda youth. Thank you, Malia. Hello. City council members, my fellow Girl Scout, Alexis and I would like to thank you for the common sense tobacco retailer policy you voted for in the last meeting, which creates a strong ordinance intended to intended to protect all Alameda residents from harmful tobacco products by prohibiting the sale of candy flavored tobacco and menthol products. You are confirming how important it is to breathe clean air. We believe this. We believe this ordinance will reduce the chances of any of our friends. We'll try vaping and kids my age. Avoid the temptation of flavored tobacco. Thank you. Thank you, Seamus. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Seamus McGinnis. I'm a senior and small high school. I just want to say thank you so much for going ahead and banning or banning the sale of flavored tobacco products in Alameda. It really is an epidemic. I'll meet a high school has told now lock their bathroom doors open so that staff members can see inside the bathrooms so that they can see any kids that are using these vaping products. And I'd say while I have friends, Alameda High and they say about 2 to 3 kids are taken every day to the office because of this problem. My friend here, Mason Legg, his grandfather died from smoking CIGARETS. And smoking isn't just Cigarets anymore. It's now these vaping products. It's getting to kids and it's hooking them in their youth. And so these tobacco companies can sell them their entire lives and profit off them. These kids their entire lives. Thank you. And we appreciate this very much. Thank you, Karen. And then Charlie. Hello. My name is Karen Nguyen and I am a senior at Arsenal High School. And I just want to state that I have a lot of family and friends that are a bit older than mine, that have experienced the negative effects of long term tobacco use. And I don't want the friends I have right now in high school to start using them because companies like the ones we're talking about are targeting my friends. I don't want to see them in pain or any type of negative effects that I've seen in the past. And I know that these companies are using, as we said, candy and special flavors to make it seem like they're safe or to make it seem like it's safer than smoking. CIGARETS But it's actually not. And it's giving students false hope. So I wanted to thank you for all the work you put towards this ordinance. Thank you, Charlie. My name is Charlie Clement. I'm a senior and still high school. I want to start off by thanking all of you city council members for taking this action to help prevent. Specifically teen. And youth nicotine addiction. I've seen the effects of this in my peers and also in family members. Who or older. Family members who have had nicotine addictions with cigarets and now with my friends. Seeing the signs of that in them as well, using the vape. Products and the flavored products as well. So I want to thank you for. Helping to take this step to prevent that. I would hope that everyone. Supports this as well because we would like to make sure that our friends and our family don't suffer these. Consequences that can end up being deadly in the end. Thank you. Thank you, Sidney. Hello. My name is. Sydney Williams and I am a senior. And in our high school the tobacco industry. Targets children like myself. And my peers. Why else would there be such a problem with the youth buying these products if they were not marketed towards us? Candy flavored products catch the eye of toad and it make it seem like they're less dangerous. Nearly one in four high schoolers in Alameda have vaped and use these candy flavored products, and I truly believe that this number is probably higher. But kids do not want to admit it. Many of my friends have been afflicted by this dangerous gateway drug. I have seen members, family members suffer from lung cancer, and I do not want my friends to fall victim to the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry is trying to make lifelong customers out of us. And in the sale of candy flavored tobacco in Alameda is a crucial step to saving kids and preventing the youth from a lifelong addiction to tobacco. So thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Our next ten speakers again. And I want to thank all of you for being respectful of all the speakers. Matt Hussein. Debbie George. Antonio Newman. Sir. Sir, in surrender. Sing Cinder Doll. CARR I'm sorry, maybe. KLR I'm not positive in Inderjit Singh Sidhu. Timothy Langford. Narinder Massoud. Ha. The Shins are. Ali Shah's. Bob Secon. Lee That's approximately ten and. Matt. Good evening, Mayor and Council Member. I've been a local merchant for the last 30 years and I'm not opposed to this ordinance because I want to sell the product to the youth. The reason I'm opposed to this ordinance is because. It doesn't make sense. We are already working ethically and working hard to keep the tobacco product out of the children and tobacco product away from the youth. And we we are already know the the our responsibility. But your new ordinance is not just going to shut down all the businesses, but also is going to take away our retirement. So we have worked for the last 30 years to build our businesses, worked ethically, and now we are getting this results that because of the other reasons that the youth can find their tobacco from their way and you are punishing the store owners. So this is absolutely not right. I hope everybody reconsider that. Thank you. Thank you, Debbie George. I am Debbie. George and I hold a state tobacco license here in Alameda. Run a business here for almost 45 years. And what I see is some some deep flaws in this. It's not that we're these people out here that have the stores are in not in favor of of getting rid of the tobacco for children marketed to children. It's the fact of how there's this ordinance here in there was a flaw in it where if you want to sell your business, the next buyer cannot get a retail tobacco license because you've limited from 50 retailers down to 32. How, how, who who's going to go? Who are you going to get rid of? How are these people going to sell the business when they can't get a tobacco license if that's part of their business? It makes no sense to us. And it's it's not fair to the public as well, because the convenience store is just that. A convenience store. Eventually they'll all be gone. So please hold off on this tonight. Antonio. You name it, Madam Mayor and Consul. I own the Valero, the Alameda Valero gas station, and I can assure you we do not sell Cigarets or tobacco for youth. We have strict rules. We have been very careful in our India and I have a feeling that in a way we're being naive because. Now all these cigarets menthols and jewels and all that will be sold in High Street by the dealers that used to sell marijuana, but now are out of a business because they can sell it in shops. So you take it from the shops and you put it on the street and it's a knife of two cuts both ways. And at least we don't sell to use, but over there by dealers and people who will go to Vallejo to buy them and bring here to sell. There won't be any control. Thank you. Surrender. Good evening, everybody. And my name, surrender. And I am in the business class. 21 year old graduated from school. And if we lose a license and we lose all kind of a business because cigaret and beer is the best of all and we have in the store. So if the people. I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt. We cannot have any talking in the audience. If you're not able to sit quietly, I'm going to ask you to leave. We he has the right to be heard, just like all the other students that have been speaking. Thank you. He gets additional time. Thank you. We are the five people working in the store and we if we lose their license, we lose all business because all of them depend on cigarets and beer. And this is convenience store. We lose everything. If we lose the cigaret license. You're going to have to think about that. From last year, we didn't have even one thing that we never sell to any minor anything other than any problem. Even you check our record. Thank you. Thank you. Cinder. S I ndr and then it looks like a new word DHL. A new word k. A u. R. In in inderjit i. N d e. R. J i. T. Hello, everyone. I've been in this business last 20 years and having like four or five employees working for me, generating all tax revenue from the city and then 20 years in one business, that's all my. 401k and that's all I have it after 58 years old, I don't know what to do when I'm selling to that business . So we'd not sell to any minors. And we want to be having less crime in the city. We don't want to be anyone sell on the streets. Also these kind of products. And if we pass this bill today, make sure we pass the online so no one can buy online. Also, people are buying online here and there are they are cousins for their sisters, brothers. So we make sure we will do that one also. So I will say no to that one. Thank you. Thank you, Timothy. And I thank you for hearing me out. I'm a business consultant. I work with several small businesses here in the East Bay, including several here in your community. I've worked with these people for over the last 15 years that own small businesses. And what they really have is a lot of sweat equity in their business. Many came with not much came from other countries that immigrants inside of them really have built up a life this way. We saw a nice rendition in Nice tonight of Janet having an opportunity to retire and go on to a new life. Their retirement and their ability to go off and enjoy that type of thing is wrapped up in their business, and this ordinance really threatens their ability to do that. So while we sit here and celebrate some people, even though it's well earned and deserved, we are threatening others for that same opportunity. Of taking that away. And what we're not asking is for it to be repealed. I think the best thing would be working with the business community to find a user, a way to extend it, or give a larger. Window of time to allow them either to change their business and what they sell and their mix of products and get out of tobacco or sell their business and move on. And so an opportunity to just. Change that and give them the opportunity that we give ourselves. Thank you. Thank you. Narinder and Air India are. Good evening. So I'm not in favor of. To this kind of readiness because the problem is. The people they can get from here and there. Everybody's seeing that. But the as a business community, when you are losing your business, you are going to think about that, your business. So you are going to try to sell and get away from this city so they can open there somewhere. It's a it's a both way. If we lose, you guys are going to lose. So the things that. Thank you. 0vhino S.A.. Thank you. Hello. My name is Paul Denson, and I've been I've been in the convenience store business for over 13 years. And this ordinance law, a lot of the business owners have invested thousands of dollars, millions of dollars into this business and taking away tobacco license. They actually lose their goodwill. This product will always be available one way or the other. I have three kids, 11, eight and four. I'm also concerned about my kids, but taking it out of the stores doesn't keep it out of their hands. It starts at home. We got to educate our kids. We got to spend more time with them. Bye bye. Banning tobacco license for some businesses that will lose their goodwill or lose their retirement. It does not make sense. If you want to keep it out of the hands of the children, it starts at home. It does not start by banning anything. It's available everywhere. 91. I've been available everywhere too, for a long time. Thank you. Thank you, Ali. Al, I. Hello, everyone. I think if Alameda banned the menthol and all the flavor and we're going to lose the business and the second think alameda city. I think they said the cigarets the regular cigaret. They sell more and menthol and flavor in a city in alameda and the menthol we be listen, we pay taxes. We buy everything for we sell them. We have the license later on. If they if we get bent is going to be in the street with no license and it's going to be more crime, more problem, more fighting like the other city. They sort of like back in cigaret $20 now in the street, $2 $3 for one cigaret cigar. They sell more like the other city and the second think when they you can solve your business transfer if you had if any have been to you, you have to sell something. How are you going to do? Because you have to lose your business and you lose your life with it, if anything going on. And right now we see in Alameda more businesses come in, big businesses and they do more really good. We lose a lot of businesses, small businesses and the big businesses. Thank you, Bob. My name is Bob Seger. I have a 7-Eleven across the street from here. We go street to street, the whole town. We find 49 stores out of 49. Six pharmacy degree. Six pharmacy. We have 43 left. Then six are school near to school. So we left 37. But this time through distance, we are losing 24 stores. They cannot sell it. So only 30 stores they can they can get they can sell their store. All the others, all our goodwill and everything goes said goodbye. It's not right. What did you should do? Make that I ratio 15 under and distance store to store should be instead of 500 to 300. And it should be door to door like a school to store. So please do that. Otherwise we are losing 24 or 30 short will go right on the. Thank you. All right. I'm going to call another ten speakers, approximately. Line up on long the right side, my right to windows here. And in fact, if there's any of you that would like to leave at this time, this is a good time. A pause. Thank you. Thank you for coming out and make sure you pick up all your trash before you leave. Unfortunately. Last meeting, there was a lot of trash left here, so I really appreciate you taking it with you this time. Thank you. That I'm going to call for a short recess. We're going to take a five minute break so that we can let other people come in and fill those seats. So thank you. That's. Without recording. No recording right now. I just need to be able to speak to the audience. If there's an empty seat near you, please raise your hand so we can. All right. Let people know. And you are that are looking for a seat. Anyone that has an empty seat near them, there's a hand up. Please take a seat. Thank you. And I do want to remind everyone, as you leave, please take any of your trash. And for our last council meeting, we had a lot of trash left here. That usually does not happen, including opened bottles and cans with had liquid in them. Very sad. Let's see how many more. Be. I'm just in the back channel. When they get rolling. Yeah. Some. Well. He's looking for David. Oh. But in. Now. Well. That's. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Yeah. You know, so some of this. Oh. Yes. No. I'm already I'm already. Sure I'm. Not going to call another. Band. There. And no, I'm not feeling well. Okay. Now I'm dizzy. Oh. The air finally going. Here. Already. We are ready. All right. Thank you. We're going to continue the meeting at this time. I'm going to go ahead and call another ten names. And if you could line up to my right and everyone needs to find a seat. Thank you, sir. And if you if you don't see a seat, then you may stand to the left. Otherwise, we greatly prefer if you take an empty seat on the armed. Ahmed. I believe that's the name. Dada Boulevard did air the h u LHR. The first one I called was Ahmed H. Medhi, and the last name is Ahmed. The next one is Shay Overstreet. If I call your name, please line up here to my right. I want to make sure that if we have Ahmed, please come to my right over here. We have a d r d d idr. Please go to my right. Shay Overstreet. We have Shea Turner. Sure. For bronze. The first name is Turner Michael McDonagh. John Sykes. A Neal Pandey and I l Lizzy Veltman. Philip Gardner. All right, first Speaker Ahmed, if we find three. No. I we don't. Okay. So I'm going to ask I'm going to keep the names of the people that aren't responding will call again at the end the da de idr. Good evening, Gregory. I'm also a student, like many of the students before spoke before me, but I'm a student in college. And what I want you guys all to know is that when you take away a tobacco license, you're basically killing a business. And if you look around many of the people that went before me, you'll see that they're all first generation parents working for their children. And these same parents are the ones that put their kids in college. My dad my dad was able to afford for me to go to college to become an engineer. My brother, he's going to college to become a doctor. So what I want you guys all to know is that. That you're hurting the families themselves, too. When you when you remove the tobacco licenses. So it's affecting the future, the students. So how are how are we supposed to be able to afford to go to college when the business that my family is running goes away? Thank you. Thank you. Shay Overstreet. Good evening. I'm here to urge you to support. Health over profit and support this initiative. The people that I know that. Use these products currently, they newly use them. My brother's in college. Am and him and his friends that use them. They're addicted. They treat their e-cigarette products as being as. Important to them as their cell phones. They lose them. They're going to find them. And they're newly using these in. The last couple of years. Your support will protect not only the health of our community, but the buffer zones will protect. Youth from getting them into their hands, like the people I know that have them right now. Thank you. Thank you. Turner Blaze. Turner. Michael McDonough. Good evening, mayor council. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. We in no way condone the use of tobacco by children. So the ban on the flavored tobacco is fine. But what we do support is small business. And I think you've heard tonight the effect of this on small business. And of course, we're concerned about the children. But what about the lives of these business people who have put 30 years in to their retirement? And just this was great for the child to go to college. This is real life and it affects these businesses. A lot of times legislation has unintended consequences, and I think this is one of those cases. So the ban on flavored tobacco isn't the issue with the chamber in many of these businesses. It's the time frame in which you do it. So we would request that you start this January one, 2020 to give them time to sell out of their inventory. We would suggest that you do not limit the amount of licenses so that these people do not go out of business and lose their own retirement. Thank you very much. Thank you. John Sykes. Evening. The name is John Sex and I'm a smoker and I've recently gone from smoking a lot of cigarets to vaping saying that that's my choice. And just like it's any other choice to grab a drink or to grab a smoke or whatever it is, you know, we all have vices and I don't. Also, it comes down to money and that's what this world is. This is money, money, money, money. And I just. It's not right. So anyway, I am. I'm for it. So thank you. Thank you, Aneel. And I'll. Well. Good evening, honorable mayor and experienced. City council member. My name is Anil Pandey. I am also M.I.T. student and I do work for a small nonprofit and I'm here to support that. Taking away the license of tobacco are not going to solve the problem because you start from the home and school and school job, a school teacher, all everyone's supposed to teach that what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is not good. So by taking away all those license, I believe that a lot of people are going to be losing their job and they cannot afford it. And I will humbly request you to give time. If you decided already they should sell the business and until them you should keep them continue the business because they all have to sell the business. It takes time. So whatever time it takes, you should give it give it the time to sell the business. So that's why I would like to request keep the license until they sell the business, not because of the one year or two year. Whatever time they can sell it, they will. We all have to help you. We help them to sell it. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. This is Elton. Good evening. I just want to I'm with the American Heart Association, Roosevelt. And I just wanted to say thank you so much for your leadership on this topic. Let's remember, this is about social justice and protecting our youth. Two quick points. One is that nobody's going to lose their current license to sell these tobacco products. And what we're talking about is whether the next person who buys that store should continue to sell tobacco products. And I think that whoever buys the store will buy it with the knowledge that they are not allowed to sell tobacco products. And so I'm sorry. The second piece that I want to say is that sorry, just a little thrown off by the comments behind me. You know, kids are vaping at a higher rate. They're getting addicted to nicotine. They're getting it closer to schools. There's good evidence that that reducing the access around schools and child sensitive areas reduces the amount of smoking there's. And on the federal level, we are working very hard with the federal government to push them to remove online sales. These are products that are dangerous and deadly. We're working on many levels to try to reduce access, and I encourage you to vote yes. Thank you, Dr. Philip Gardner. Maybe I speak on the side and please submit your slip. Thank you for having me back. Alameda County is on the right. Side of history. San Francisco passed citywide restrictions in June. Richmond in. July. Beverly Hills in August. Marin County in October. Today. Today, Santa Cruz passed a citywide ordinance. Berkeley is taking it up for city move their buffer zone to citywide on the 11. Last week, Los Angeles city council. Introduced the same measure that you have here. Let me just say we have too much data that shows the greater concentration of tobacco outlets leads to greater use by youth. The FDA finally figured it out that it needed to ban menthol, but let me say it'll take them years, if not longer, to get this done. It still resides here at the local level. We need to take flavors out of poison. I want to applaud the. City council for what they've done. And thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm going to go back a couple of steps here to make sure if you're here are not Cinder S.T.A.R.. Amid a dramedy Turner plays. All right. I'm going to call new speakers now Serena Chen. Louis Schneider. Alexis K You see, h i, I believe. Bride Abdullah, Robert Todd, Irene Nika, Mike Choe and Sasha Shaw for XYZ Eye. Theresa Dames. Paul Cummings. And if you want to see if you wanted to speak on this item, please submit your slip. Good evening, Mr. Spencer. Members of the Council. I just wanted to again thank you for having the courage to take a stand here and follow the lead of San Francisco and Oakland, San Leandro and all the other cities that Dr. Gardner mentioned. Because basically everyone is realizing that this is. It takes a village to help people turn away addictive substances. And part of the village is city government and city government. So the reason why the smoking bans have taken effect and have actually worked here in this state and working all over the country to reduce tobacco use. I'd also like to say that I really feel for the merchants here in my generation. Many of my friend's parents had convenience stores. That's how they started out. That's how they sent their kids to college. But now we know that some of the products that are being sold are killing the same children and their children's friends. So please, let's look at different profit centers for people and help the businesses thrive and be a healthy for a healthy city. Thank you. Thank you. This might actually be Holly Schneider. Sorry. That's okay. It's my handwriting. Good evening. My name is Holly Snider, and I work for the Alameda County Public Health Department for the Tobacco Program. And thank you for tonight for giving me the opportunity to share some information to help inform this discussion. There has been a lot of discussion about density, and I wanted to share with you that the State Department of Public Health, a tobacco program, has pulled together research which shows that children are more likely to both experiment with and then become addicted and use tobacco products when tobacco retailers are located near homes as well as schools . And the same goes with density. You may know that tobacco retailers, tobacco companies are not allowed to advertise their products. That's a nationwide trend. I mean, law. But there still is a lot of marketing that happens in stores. That's the one place that marketing is still happening, and that's part of why density is a concern. So thank you. Thank you, Alexis. Alexis. And it looks like the last name Casey. I am the first name. Alexis. Alexis. Right, Abdullah? Already, I believe. Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. I just want to point out several points. We'd like to request that you guys change the guidelines as far as pertaining to the door to door. People brought up the what other cities have done and taken into account. Oakland, San Francisco. Why not take into account that we have offer an exemption for. Stores that are similar like mine, Amazon, where we have. A dedicated smoke shop that has a dedicated 21 and over only room that only. 21 and over are allowed to access. We ask that you. Meet with us retailers, you city council meet with us retailers. We tried time and time again to meet with you guys, visit with us so we can sit down and maybe come to some type of resolution. Include us in the process to try and. Figure out an and a resolution that's beneficial to both the city council, our students, the youth, as well as the business owners. It will devalue the business. It will cost people jobs and lives at work. It can cause it's a detriment to a lot of people's lives. Please take these into account. Thank you, Robert Todd. Then Irene. Longtime resident of Alameda and most recently co resident of the reservation in Lake County is Pomo Indian people of mixed origin. I have to thank you, Mayor, for your resolution encouraging the Native Americans and the American representatives very well. When she spoke of the broken treaties and broken contracts that they had with the government. Over the years. I see these regulations as just more permits and licenses and more more of the same. Regulating our use as a sacrament. Our use of our land. Our use of our time and our talents. To benefit other people who have no no feeling whatsoever for us. Salesman here. Our tremendous people. They have invested all their money in it. Can I have another minute? And I won't speak on the cannabis thing. I'm sorry. That'll be later. The cannabis will be another item. Sorry. I have to stick around for another one. Yes. The feeling would be. I'm sorry. We need to continue this time, Irene. Thank you. Hi. Good evening. I'm with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. And while cigaret smoking among youth has declined, the use. Of e-cigarettes. And. Hookah has increased. Most most youth who report using tobacco say they begin with a flavored product like. Names like Jolly Rancher, Cotton Candy. Even the packaging is designed to look like popular candy. Whose names of products they have sold, and they're clearly marketed towards kids. Menthol Cigarets is another product targeted towards youth. It has a minty flavor that masks the harshness of tobacco, and it's popular among youth. 12 to 17. While cigaret smoking has declined, menthol, cigarets and sales have increased, especially among youth and people in youth, smokers, communities of color. The LGB population have been targeted by predatory marketing for menthol Cigarets youth become addicted. 95% of tobacco users who become addicted to before the age of 21. Please protect our youth. Thank you. Okay. Mike Cho. Mike Cho. And circle and. And then shop her. And then Theresa James. And. Yes. I just want to say to the city council that. There is a big flaw in your ordinance that you. Need to look at the distance and things that are in. There. It's going to impact. People who want to sell their stores safe ways. They don't have to worry about it. They're not going anywhere. The gas. Stations, the corporate owned gas stations, the chevrons and the shells that. Are not privately owned, they're not going anywhere. But people like us who spent. 24 years of our blood. Sweat to build up this business and our retirement, can't afford to lose it. And if anybody in this room thinks that I can sell my business without a tobacco license. We submitted addresses in a letter from a person in San Francisco to the city council, and people walked away. Whenever an owner lost over. $500,000 of his investment. He just couldn't sell his store. So there is a big impact. Thank you. TAPPER As. Hi. Good evening to every console. Sorry, my English is weak and I'm new. The new new owner of a retailer and I'm close by a Walgreen and liquor store. And also. And also if if if if these things bend it or tobacco flavors or tobacco or close by bend it, then how how I pay my rent, my expenses. And I have four children's to and I'm new, new in this country too. And, uh, and I don't know how to, how to pay my expenses and, and, and I cannot sell my business and I don't know what to do. If, as other users business. Please, please think. Think about this other you are business. Thank you. Thank you, Teresa. Hello. I just want. To say I get what you guys are trying to do with this ordinance. But I fear that it's not going to be successful. The education starts. At home and in schools with preventing the. Children. From getting the. Cigarets. Not the stores because the stores are not selling them. To the children. And we're affecting as a community of small businesses, not big corporations, says Alameda. There's not a whole bunch of big stores that you're going to be affected. It's going to be families that are going to be. Out of business. I mean. The price of cigarets has already gone up tremendously and the age is already up to 21. And I know the main goal here is. Now that keeping it out of the hands of kids, this is not the answer. Please reconsider. And also. Please reconsider the start. Date. If this goes through, please reconsider it to January 2020. Thank you. Thank you, Paul Cummings. And if you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip at this time. Good evening. My name is Paul Cummings. I work for Alameda County Public Health Department and I'm the tobacco control program director there. And I came to remind people that tobacco continues to be the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Despite everything we have done trying to protect young people, trying to keep them from starting smoking and tobacco continues to kill more people than anything else. And that's why this is being discussed. And I hope that you will do what you can to protect people so that we don't have to continue saying that tobacco continues to kill more people than anybody else. Thank you. Thank you. If you were here to speak on this item, this is your last chance. All right. That completes the public comment on this item, council members. Who wants to go first? Member Ashcroft. I will go first. Thank you to all the speakers, some of whom have already left. I appreciate you coming out. I have met with some of the retailers. I've met with members of our business associations. And I will tell you that the most compelling argument I have heard from the merchants is that these small businesses. Do. Tend to be owned by immigrants. There's there's a large percentage of our businesses in Alameda that sell tobacco that are owned by immigrants. And and I'm sensitive. I'm both a child and grandchild of immigrants. And one of my grandfathers was a merchant with a horse and cart. But but at the same time, we're balancing a very important interest. And that's the public health. And I was I was struck by the young man who said his dad, his parents have been able to send him and his brother to college on what they've made from their their small business, their convenience store. He's an engineer and his brother's studying to become a doctor. Well, cancer there's a tobacco, there's a known link to cancer, and there's a public health cost to that. And this is something we want our residents to be healthy. And, of course, as an adult, you can make a lot of choices. But the reason that tobacco sales and I'm not talking about flavored but cigaret sales were going down was because such effective education was done that people stopped smoking in the kinds of numbers they once did. And so tobacco manufacturers had to find another audience. And that was the young people. And and we're seeing this there's a lot of pressure on kids these days. I talked to high school students a lot. And and, you know, they turn to things like vaping to to unwind and relax. And yet for some of them and and I will say that even one of the business owners I met with told me I wish I'd never started smoking when I was 16 years old, because today as an adult, I'm unable to quit. But I what I told the business owners when I met with you is that, first of all, we don't have anything like a cigarets cheaper where 100% of your inventory is tobacco. So it's a percentage. I get 30%. Mr. Second provided us with receipts. I get that. What I've said before is that what you need to do? What any small business owner needs to do, even large business owners. You can talk about GM. You need to be nimble. You need to be flexible. Surely you saw over the years that your CIGARET sales were going down, so you were seeing less of your revenue coming in from that source. And so what I'm asking is, of course, we want small businesses, we want the corner convenience store put in other inventory, the 7-Eleven, to send you your inventory . If I'm understanding correctly, they need to do a better job for you and not saddle you with flavored tobacco in a city that bans it. And Alameda is not the first to do that. So they should have some experience. I know the one compromise position that was put to me when I met with the Business Association representatives last week was to extend the start date, passed July 2019. But we're here we are at the end of November of 2018. I mean, that's a good seven, eight months to start selling down that inventory, not ordering more. I, I mean, I will, of course, listen to what my colleagues have to say. But I think that I think it's time to do this. You know, it's never going to be something that is just clear cut and easy. But on balance, when I look at protecting the health of our residents and especially our young people, I just think that that is going to take take precedence every time. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question of staff. Do we have the data in regards to how many sales to use our city retailers make? Do we have any data in regards to retailers here in town? Making sales to youth. Madam Mayor. Members of the council, Michael Walsh from the city attorney's office. We do not have a a totally accurate number of tobacco retailers in town. The the state who does issue those license will not provide that because it's considered confidential information, apparently. And so we don't have the information. Anecdotally, from the information that's been gathered both by the retailers as well as by the tobacco folks from the county. We feel that there's somewhere between 50 and 55 retailers in the community. We feel that number is. Is fairly accurate within, you know, three or four either way. That was the my question. My question was, how many of these retailers are selling to youth that we know of? We have any sales? Yes. We requested the police department to provide that information. And what we have is data from 2013, 2012, in which case there was 47 stores visited in 2013, of which two stores had had violations selling to minors. In 2012, there was 45 stores visited and there were nine stores that sold to minors. The police chief advises that the Special Investigations Unit, which has responsibility for this that took place in 2012 and 2013, was temporarily shut down due to staffing shortages. But the department is hoping to get that operation up toward the end of March of 2019. So in the lot. So this is 2018. Did you have the most recent data you have as from what year? 2013 is the last time that there was an organized what I'll call sting or decoy operation by the Alameda Police Department. What about the homemade account? The county the county doesn't do any inspections. The county relied on the same information, provided me the same information as the police department did. So we don't have any data for over five years of whether or not our retailers are selling to use. That is correct. I see people smiling in the audience. Honestly, I'm not sure that that's a good response because we're being asked to actually have a financial impact on our businesses. So, okay, so I've already asked if I do have someone in the audience that may be able to provide additional information. I'm sorry, we in an order from the county point of order, so okay. So I did ask staff in advance and I did ask in regards to the county, not just our city. So this is a problem for my opinion. We should have data that is more recent then especially if the peers of the county has data. So it would be nice to have that information provided. So I want to confirm with our city manager that, correct. We don't have any data that our staff is able to provide. That's not more than five years old. Hmm. Mayor, members of council. I don't have any updated information. I would defer to this former dam because I've been absent from the city for a couple of weeks now. We don't. Have anything. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. And maybe staff can help me with this one. Online sales are sales permitted online to the city of Alameda residents? The answer is yes. Thank you. All right. Any other council members who wants to go next? Oh, member matter, S.E.. Well. I'd like to move the second reading as written, because what we do know is that the leading cause of preventable death in the United States is tobacco. What we do know is FDA has stepped up its warning letters on tobacco related industries, particularly those targeting children. What we do know is we don't have any control over online sales, but we do have control over sales in the city of Alameda. A vice mayor. I'm going to second Councilmember Morales's motion, but with a couple of comments. You know, we heard from a lot of the retailers that they should be able to sell their license to the next person. And then we also heard from one retailer who's a new retailer who said, I have a new business. What am I supposed to do? And in many ways, the solution of allowing the licenses to continue and to turn over like that defeats the purpose of the ordinance itself. And frankly, in many ways, my concern is, is that you're just kicking the can down the road. You're saying, okay, it's going to be somebody else's problem, it's going to be the new business owners problem, and then they're not going to be able to sell it. You know, in terms of the the ratios and everything else, by comparison, we're looking at four cannabis dispensaries throughout Alameda. Compare that with the 50 plus tobacco licenses that are going to be issued. I mean, that's a substantial difference. I also think, you know, if we want to talk about real life, real life is when I was in high school driving my grandfather to chemo. That was how I got my hours, my permit hours to qualify for my license. My grandfather was a smoker. He got free cigarets when he was in the U.S. Navy. He got addicted. He ended up quitting when I was five years old because I asked him to, because it was causing me to cough when I was little and he gave it up cold turkey, but he still died of lung cancer. And it was a very painful death to watch. And that's something I wouldn't wish on anybody. And the reality is, is that we know tobacco is extremely addictive. We know that it kills and we know a lot of things about it now that we didn't know back then. And while I'm sympathetic to the plight of small businesses, I really don't think that the solution is to pass the the pass it on to the next small business owner. I also think that, you know, there is something to adapting and finding new products and things to sell. Part of having the convenience store, the local convenience stores to get items like groceries, to be able to run to the corner store, to get milk, to get eggs, to get things like that, instead of having to get in to get into a car or go across town to get different items, it's for those types of convenience items, and I think that there's still a market for that. But when we start looking at the map and we see how many convenience stores and liquor stores are located right next to each other. My question is, you know, if you can adapt and find a way to to continue your business to sell to the, you know, the local community, that that's just a bigger problem of of what your business and marketing plan. And I do have a concern about having these located near schools. I think, again, what we're trying to do is we're trying to prevent these these sorts of sales happening so close to our schools. So I'm ready to support this as written tonight. And wordy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief because I think my colleagues stated a lot of the things I wanted to say, you know, just to kind of look at some of the the numbers. I mean, a study was shared with us by this group called The Truth Initiative, and they asked teenagers or youth where they got their jewels in the last 30 days. And 74% of them said from a physical retail location, 52 from a social source and 6% on the Internet. So, I mean, that to me is empirical data. I'm sure that there are, you know, merchants on the up and up that aren't selling, but, you know, those numbers are quite high. So these youth are getting these products basically by going out and buying them. So no matter what people say that they're doing, you know, I remember we went through this discussion with with the landlords and tenants. We always had good landlords come up, but, you know, we also had bad landlords. So we probably have good store owners and they're probably all here today. But that doesn't mean we don't have bad ones. So we still have to be able to prevent our youth from from getting these products so easily. I mean, I'll just tack onto Melia Story. I mean, there's a lot of talk about retirement. My both both my grandparents or grandfather smoked and my my mother's father. I never got to meet because he died of cancer and a stroke before I was born and he never got to have a retirement. So for all the people that are worried about their retirement, I mean, there's people that are probably sitting in the audience today that have smoked, that aren't going to be able to enjoy retirement because they they've been purchasing a product. And I think it's the only product except maybe guns, that the sole outcome of that product is to kill somebody. You know, it's to poison somebody. And, you know, my other grandfather also smoked most of his adult life and died of a heart disease. You know, four months after he retired, 64 years old, he didn't get a chance to enjoy his retirement either. I'm sure that some of these young women that that talk today whose brothers, you know, are now hooked, addicted, because a product has five times more nicotine in it in a jewel than than a cigaret. You know, they they may have children, but they might not even be alive to be able to pay for their children's education, because in 20 years, they may end up having having cancer. So they will not get to enjoy a lot of the things that people came up here and told me that they want to have the right to enjoy and the only reason they won't be. Able to enjoy that is because they use these products that were sold to them when they were youth. So I'm ready to move forward this as well. And I thank everyone for their time and for listening. And I appreciate everyone else, everyone that's come out and focused on this item. I appreciate my colleagues comments. I, too, am a cancer survivor. I too grew up with a smoker at home who did stop at some point. I also recognize that the data I saw showed that 75% of the youth are reporting a purchasing from other social places, not from retailers. And the data I heard in regards to our city was that it was like 95% of our stores have not sold to youth. That is actually a very low percentage in the last five years. And as a state, we have in fact increased the age recently from 18 to 21. And so that many of the surveys are actually based on a when 18 was the limit, not the age limit, not the 21. And I do support the efforts by our state. I support the efforts by our federal government, I think as well-intended as this issue is. I also support banning the flavors other than menthol. I actually don't have a problem with cigarets that have menthol in them for an adult that someone is over 21, 21 or over that wants to go to their local store and purchase a menthol cigaret. I'm not going to hold that against them. And but I grew up in a world where we had the draft when I was a kid, 18 years old, and you get drafted. We do have an army currently, a military that's, you know, 18 years old and over and 18 years old. Actually, in our society, you can make a lot of decisions, I think, by the time you're 21. We I can respect their decision. I also want to make sure people know that I strongly oppose smoking. But at the same time, I do support adults being able to make decisions. And I am concerned in regards to what are we going to ban next? And I so I expect anyone that's under 21. Now we as a state have said, no, we don't want you smoking you over 21. I hope you make good decisions. And I and I do empathize with our businesses, many of whom that we've seen this evening are, in fact, recent immigrants to our country. And if people are going to turn around and then purchase. And we do have a lot of youth here. You should not be. If you're from high school, there's no way that you should be allowed to smoke in other states and in fact, take an actions to not to not allow you to possess tobacco. And that's, I think, actually something that our state could consider rather than making it. Making it up. Making it so that adults can't go to their local store and purchase a legal product. That being said, all those we have a motion and a second. I believe all this in favor. I am opposed and I oppose. Motion carries 4 to 1. All of you that are in the audience, we will now take a short recess. And if you brought any thing that is now trash, please take it with you. Thank you. Yeah. And that we just completed five day and now we're going to do our regular agenda items six a go ahead.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to accept a loan from the Washington State Public Works Board and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118775

Thank you. The bill passed in was sign that agenda. Item number 13. Agenda item 13. Constable 118775 relating to the Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. This ordinance authorizes Seattle Public Utilities to accept a loan from the Washington State Public Works Board for the Morse Lake Pump Plant Project in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed near North Bend. The Public Works Board administers the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund, providing low interest loans to projects to finance two projects in order to finance to provide financing that increases public health protection. Seattle Public Utilities has applied for revolving loan fund loans on previous occasions, including 12.1 million in 2015. Early in 2016, Seattle Public Utilities applied for and was granted additional loan funding in the amount of 6 million for the Morse Lake Pump Project. The loan rate is 1.5%, and the loan term is 20 years, saving the utility of about 1.1 million in present value borrowing costs. Thank you. Can see her comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Herbold II Johnson Juarez. I O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzalez. President Herald. Hi nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and Sherwood Senate. Please read the report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee.

A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget and making appropriations for the Budget Year 2021 and approving a Mill Levy. Approves the 2021 Work Plan and Budget for the Gateway Village General Improvement District in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-10-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1269

13 Eyes. Resolution 1268 has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council member Flynn, will you please put Resolution 1269 on the floor? Certainly. Thank you. I move the council resolution 20, dash 1268, be adopted. I think we had a typo here. Can I get you to 1260? That. I think there is a second. Thank you. All right. The council resolution of 20 Dash 1269. It's very. Good. And we have the motion and we got your second. Councilman Herndon, we got that 1/1. That's what I get for reading verbatim. All right. The public hearing for Resolution 1269 is open. May we have the staff report, Michael? Leaving board members once again. Michael Kerrigan with the Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Division. I am afraid tonight to give staff, report and request approval for the Gateway Village General Improvement District 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget. The district is located northwest of the I-70 and Chambers Road Chambers Road intersection. It consists of approximately 243 acres on the eastern border. A border of Montebello is completely developed and primarily consists of residential property. Responsibilities for the district include maintaining landscaping and parks. City Council approved formation of the Gateway Village District by ordinance number 551 series 1994 and established City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The creation ordinance was created, also created the District Advisory Board made up of property owners within the city. The ordinance specified that such advisory boards should conduct and manage all affairs of the district as the authorized agent of the Board of Directors, including its financial and legal affairs. Pursuant to Resolution Number 332 Series 1995, Denver City Council authorized the District Advisory Board to create a work plan and budget for approval by the District by the Board of Directors annually. The Gateway Village 2021 budget proposes overall expenditures of $824,016 and transfers to the capital fund of $435,000, with total revenues of $687,884. The district plans to assess 20 miles on real property within the district during 2021. The district anticipates starting on the next phase of its major landscape improvement project, which will address the landscape issues along Chambers Road. Additionally, the district plans to contribute to continue landscaping, irrigation maintenance, snow removal, external drainage maintenance within the district. City staff has reviewed the 2021 budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Jeff Erb is here on behalf of the District to answer questions as well. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. And we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. And the first one is you, Michael. And so you're here available for questions. And our second speaker is Jesse Paris. It was a council I was watching at home. It's just a missing person. And I live in District eight and council had in this district. And I represent the Denver homicide well, black star examiner for self-defense. I was the first to come in for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado at Mile High Noon . And I will be the next November in 2023. Honestly, I have no questions on zoning or this board approval. This gentleman from the district. There's nothing I'm going to tell you that's going to change your mind or any of this. So you just go ahead and do what I do. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. So, you know, no questions from members of council. The public hearing for Council Resolution 1269 is closed. Comments by Members of Council. Seen none. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Black. I. CdeBaca, I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon High. Hines. I. Cashman. I. Can each I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please closer voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Resolution 1269 has been adopted. Council is now reconvened and there be there being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending Ordinance 121176 to remove certain performance pay provisions.

SeattleCityCouncil_11202017_CB 119115

Bill Parsons Show Sign Please Read Agenda Items 29 332. Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 119115 relates to the City Department Committee recommends the bill pass agenda item 30 Council 119 120 Related to Organization of the Office for Civil Rights, the committee recommends the bill passes amended agenda item 31 Council Bill 119 124 Conditioning the Department of State excuse me conditioning the State Department. Transportation's 2018 Grant Applications Committee recommends the bill pass agenda item 32 Cancel 11913 6,000,000,002 Decreasing Mineralized Material Excuse me. Militarization of Police Activities Committee Recommends Bill Pass. Very good. Any comments and items 29 332 comes from Herbold. Thank you. I'm going to speak to items 30, 31 and 32, but I recognize that other council members might want to speak to those items as well. As it relates specifically to item number 30, this relates to the Office of Civil Rights. Back in September, in my Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee meeting, we discussed discussion on an issue related to areas of the Seattle Office of Civil Rights that would actually benefit from having more independence for that office. Through incorporation of feedback from civil rights staff, through an engagement process that department ran. Our committee discussion and input from each. The Women's Commission, the LGBTQ Commission and the Human Rights Commission. We developed an ordinance that would require racial equity toolkit be done on the questions of permanent structure leadership and the duties and responsibilities as OCR. And it also outlined the governance structure of OCR during the the completion of the Racial Equity Toolkit Kit, including specifically allowing the Women's Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the LGBTQ Commission and the People with Disabilities Commission to advise on director appointments. Adding adding a firing for cause protection to the future associate director appointment and outlining a term for future directors of four years based on community input and request. We also included a recital regarding the intention to introduce an anti retaliation amendment in the next 60 days. As it relates to item 31, I just wanted to pull this one out because there's been much discussion and work done by my council colleagues, especially council member O'Brien, as it relates to how state can apply for funding on projects that this Council hasn't maybe fully vetted yet and given a green light on. And so this ordinance states that items that asked can apply for grants above 5 million. And then lastly, item 32 relates to demilitarization of police activities. This is an item that was brought to us by a network of progressive elected officials that each councilmembers, Gonzalez, O'Brien and myself are members of. And it specifically adds a new section of the municipal code stating that MPD will not participate in the U.S. Department of Defense's 1033 program, and it directs the department to take steps to withdraw from that from that program. This is in response to the issue of militarization of police departments nationwide. It's less of an issue in Seattle than in other places because we have not been participating, but we have not yet formally taken the steps to withdraw from that program. And we definitely want to memorialize the past practice, since police chiefs, mayors and council members come and go. Very good. Thank you for those comments. Guzman Herbold Councilmember Gonzalez. I just wanted to quickly talk about agenda item 32, which is the council bill that Councilmember Verbal just spoke about. So she and I sort of teamed up to get this over the finish line. And I, I took the lead on making sure all the right words were on the on the, on the paper and that the process was met so that she could focus on her budget share responsibilities. But I was really proud to be able to be the primary sponsor on this particular ordinance. And I think it is wise for us to memorialize this Council's desire and intent around federal surplus weaponry programs such as the 1033 program. And I think that this puts us on on on a clear and solid footing to make sure that that there is no slipping back in terms of the department's current commitment to not participate in that program. And they had an opportunity to review this ordinance and felt that it was a good step forward and they are completely willing and wanting to comply with this ordinance and are supportive of the passage of this particular bill. Excellent. Any further comments and items? 29 332. If not, please call the role on the pastor of Constable 119115. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien, Sergeant Bagshaw Gonzalez I. Harris Talley I. Herbold, i. President Harrell, I. Nine in favor an unopposed. Bill pass and show. Sign it. Please call the roll on the part of Constable 119120. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzales, I. Harris. Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Arrow. Hi. Nine in favor. An unopposed bill passed and chose. Sign it, please call the roll on the passage of council. Bill 119124. Johnson Maurice. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez Hi. Harris Talley. Herbold. Hi. President Harrell II nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and show sign it in, please call the roll on. Constable 119136. JOHNSON Whereas I. O'BRIEN So aren't I. BAGSHAW All right. Gonzales I. Harris Talley. Herbold Hi. President Harrell, I. Nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passed in show side. Please. I'll try to give the clerks little time. You're shuffling just as fast as I am. So please read.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a Project Partnership Agreement with the Seattle District United States Army Corps of Engineers for purposes of executing the Alki Coastal Erosion Control Project; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_08072017_CB 119043

Will pass and chair assignment please read agenda item number 12. Agenda Item 12 Council Vote 1190 43 Relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation Authorizing Superintendent Parks and Recreation to enter to your project partnership agreement with the Seattle District, the United States Army Corps of Engineers. For purposes of executing the Coastal Erosion Control Project and modifying, confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends vote passes amended councilmember words. Thank you. This is the other seawall issue. This is the Schmitz Elk Seawall Replacement Project. This council will authorize the superintendent to enter into an agreement to complete a replacement for the badly deteriorated seawall at the Emma Schmitz Memorial Overlook Park. The current seawall has a projected fail rate of almost 3%. This course will continue to grow unless the replacement project is done soon. The Army Corps of Engineers hold total of the project, I think is 2.9 million. The Army Corps will be spending 1.9. The city will contribute $1 million and the committee recommends passage of the bill. Very good. Any comments or concerns or questions? Customer Herbold I just wanted to thank Councilmember Juarez for her work on this, as well as the work with the Army Corps of Engineers. The cost share, I think, is a good, good deal for the city, and I appreciate that the design is two feet higher than the existing structure to account for what we know is very likely to be in the future, which is sea level increases and increased storm wave heights. Very good. Any further comments or questions? Please call the role on the part of the bill. Morris I O'BRIEN Thank John Burgess Gonzalez purple hi Johnson President Harrell all right Aden favor and unopposed will. Pass and chair of the Senate please read agenda item number 13.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Center Department; authorizing execution of an agreement with Festivals, Inc. for the presentation of the annual Bite of Seattle® Festival at Seattle Center in 2015, 2016, and 2017; and ratifying and confirming prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06222015_CB 118408

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item eight. Agenda item eight Council Bill 118408 relating to the Seattle Center Department authorizing execution of an agreement with Festivals Inc for the presentation of the annual Byte of Seattle Festival at Seattle Center in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and ratifying and confirming prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you. Council Member. Gordon. This is authorizing the head of the Seattle Center, Robert Nelms, to execute an agreement with Festivals Inc for the presentation of the annual byte of Seattle, which is a very free, family friendly, popular event for 2015, 16 and 17. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. So aren't I. I. I. Gordon Harrell I Lakota O'Brian. I Okamoto High. Rasmussen President Burgess High nine in favor. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item nine.

Adoption of Resolution Appointing Adam Elsesser, Brock Grunt, Tim Karos, David Mik, Remy Moteko, Mike Rose, Madlen Saddik, and Debbie Stebbins as Members of the Mayor’s Economic Development Advisory Panel.

AlamedaCC_10012019_2019-7295

Item six Adoption of resolutions appointing Adam Assessor, Tim Karas, David MC, Remy Motueka, Mike Rose, Lynn Fettig and Deb Severns as members of the Economic Development Advisory Panel. And so any of those individuals who. Well, I guess we have to first vote on that, don't we? Okay. Sorry. Okay. So council this is these are my appointees that you heard at the last meeting to the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel to have a motion to adopt this resolution. Madam Mayor. I would like to move approval of it and just say that I think that's a stellar group that you put together. And I look forward to what they what. Could impressive president they thank you and and for all. Your. Appointment. Thank you. But as with all of our appointments, we do so appreciate you going the extra mile because everyone is a busy working person and you represent a particular sector and you give more. You go above and beyond to give your time to help advise the city on economic matters. And we very much appreciate that. So I have a motion to have a second. To. Have a motion and a second all in favor. I any abstentions or a position that was unanimous. Yes. Is realized. Okay. So three here, maybe four. So I'll come up. I see. Look, we weren't sure about later. Yeah, I see. I Debbie Stebbins from Alameda Hospital. Madeline Sadek from Chamber of Commerce. Tim Karras, president of College of Alameda. They'll represent the whole group. Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution, the United States Constitution, the state of California? And the quality? Take a look. Yeah. That's good. And then I think, Oh, yeah. Because it didn't. Even have my head high. You're too good to see. Yeah, well. Okay. We are moving on to item six B. Okay. It's a public hearing to consider the proposed 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Initiative, adoption of a resolution finding that majority protest does not exist. Directing a property owner ballot, proceeding for the city's 2019 water quality and flood protection fee, and directing the city manager to vote yes for the city owned parcels and introduction of ordinance

Adoption of Resolutions Reappointing Thomas Saxby as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board; Reappointing Adam Gillitt and Appointing Tierney Sneeringer as Members of the Public Art Commission; Reappointing Gerald Serventi as a Member of the Public Utilities Board; and Reappointing Samantha Soules as a Member of the Transportation Commission.

AlamedaCC_09152020_2020-8292

returning. He is the current president of the Public Art Commission. Tierney Ringer is a newcomer, extremely talented women worked for the Smithsonian when she was back in D.C., worked for the Exploratorium. When she came out here, mom of two preschoolers, you know, one of those with lots of free time, but willing to share her time and her talents. And then do we have some of our others or who could make it? We were told they were going to make it. So I just want to make sure if if anybody on it, maybe under a different name, that any of them could raise their hand because we could only find Adam. Okay, we got one more, Jerry. Yeah. They told us they were going to be here, but we were having trouble finding them on the zoom. Is on this, and. It's. Oh, Jerry, you found Jerry. Okay, there's Thomas. Saxby Thomas is an architect. He's on our historic advisory board. Where do you see? I think we're finding him, too. Where I see Jerry Boden. In in the attendees. We're looking in the list of attendees so we can. Promote that speech. Yeah. Okay, guys, here comes Jerry, 70, reappointed to the Public Utilities Board. Yet. To be in charge of engineering for the Port of Oakland. Anthony Ally Parent who is, I know a really strong supporter back there. I'm not biased, but our kids start elementary school at Payton together and we've done lots over the years. And Isabella, remind me who Isabella is. Maybe Samantha, right? That's what we're hoping. Yeah. Is that you were hoping she might have been using a different registration. No. NOM de plume. Hi. You want to reveal your identity? Hi. I have the honor of Abigail Cafe. I'm Joan in your. Um. Sorry. We thought it was okay. Clearly not. No. Okay. She reached out. All right. Okay. Well, Samantha souls, if you're out there, raise your right hand. Maybe she took my advice and went for a hike. Yes. Yeah. So. Yeah. Go ahead. Just before we do the if we'll take the roll call vote just to have the vote on first. We've moved. Did you get who moved in second? Yes. Camera Odie moved in. Nice. Very nice. Split second. In. Perfect. Okay. That was to approve all of these appointments. Then maybe we have that roll call vote. Councilmember de SAG. Yes. Knock fight. Hi. Odie. Hi, fella. Mayor as the ashtray. I. Okay. If you will all stand and raise your right hand, I'm not sure how feasible it is to stand, but. On camera. And say, I love you. Just a fact. Yes. Okay. Do you solemnly do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California, and that you are well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which you're about to enter? I will. I will. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you all so much for. Thank you for stepping forward. And we are delighted to have you on board. I know the various staff have already let you know when your first meeting will be. And again, I was we're all just so appreciative for you as to you for doing this. So enjoy. Take care. Stay safe. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye. See you right. All right. That's always a fun one. And next well, at the end of this agenda, I will announce my next nominations, and we'll do this all over again next week. So item six B. Recommendation to approve the D Pave Park Vision plan.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan. Amends the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan by adding the Emily Griffith Project including the rehabilitation of the 140,000 square foot historic Emily Griffith Opportunity School Building into a 250-room hotel with 6,000 square feet of meeting space in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-11-18.

DenverCityCouncil_10012018_18-0979

Good evening, Mr. President, members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins and I am the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority here this evening requesting City Council consideration of an amendment to the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan. In August of 2017, City Council approved the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan. And with your permission, I'm going to refer to it as Emily Griffith instead of the entire name through this, through the rest of the presentation establishing the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment Area. The area is comprised of approximately two and a half acres and is located in downtown Denver's cultural core, as defined in the 2007 downtown Denver area plan. The area is generally bounded by Welton Street to the northwest, 13th street to the northeast, Glenarm place to the southeast and 12th street to the southwest. The site is located in Council District nine in approving the plan. City Council found it to be in conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 and its applicable supplements. While the plan authorized tax increment financing, it did not approve the use of TIFF for any projects. The Urban Redevelopment Plan Amendment. This evening it will do two things. It will approve the Emily Griffith Project as an approved project, and it will also amend the plan to correctly reflect the blight factors established in the condition study underlying the creation of the plan. The Urban Redevelopment area was occupied previously by the Emily Griffith Opportunity School, a Denver public school for nearly 100 years prior to its closure. The school was expanded several times and continued to operate at this location until its programs were relocated to 1860 Lincoln Street beginning in 2013. Since relocating, the buildings have remained vacant. In May of 2016, the school was designated historic at the local level and restrictions were placed on the amount and nature of possible redevelopment. Most of the structure fronting on the Welton Street must be retained, and setbacks were established for new development to ensure that the appearance and massing of the Welton Street buildings are preserved. Any development on the site is subject to the design standards and guidelines adopted by Denver City Council with the designation and must be approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. So bear with me as I try to match my comments with the numbered points on the image that is on the screen, if you would, please. So the project that we are asking you to add is an approved project, will redevelop the entire 100,000 106,400 square foot site into the following on the Welton Street side, which is here. It will rehabilitate the historic building into 140,000 square foot hotel with 250 rooms and a 6006 thousand square feet of meeting space. It will also activate the alley between Welton Street and Glenarm place by creating alley access to the hotel entrance, as well as pedestrian circulation between the convention center, the hotel and the Glenarm place facing retail. On the Glenarm place side, it will seek to convert the existing building on the South Side into a 120 stall parking structure , which will serve the entire project. Convert the Northside buildings to 37,500 square feet of retail and office space, as well as demolish a portion of the mid-block buildings on again on the Glenarm place side to create access to micro retailer space and complete the pedestrian access from Glenarm place through the hotel to the convention center. The Urban Redevelopment Plan. While it authorizes Doura to finance projects within the area by use of tax increment, it again did not allow us to use the tip unless a project was specifically approved by council. So again, we are asking for the use of the increment to support that project. Dura staff has reviewed the development budgets and pro forma submitted by the developer and believes there is a financial gap in the project of approximately $21.8 million. This financing gap will be addressed by reimbursing eligible costs through property tax and sales tax increment generated from the tax increment area, which is also coterminous with the urban redevelopment area . The property tax and sales tax increment generated by the project of approximately $2.2 million per year upon stabilization and $350,000 per year of property tax and sales tax respectively will be used to reimburse the developer for eligible expenses over a period not to exceed 25 years. In approving the Emily Griffith plan, city Council found the plan to be in conformance with the Denver comp plan and its applicable supplements. Accordingly, any amendment to the plan must continue to be in conformance with the plan objectives in order to maintain the continuing conformance with comp plan 2000. The general objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to stimulate the continued growth and development of the area. The proposed project meets the following objectives of the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment Plan. And in the interests of time, I would prefer not to read each and every one of these, but instead to summarize by saying that they really seek to advance the historic preservation of the buildings and provide for increased activity in this very unique portion of downtown that is proximate to the convention center as well as to the 16th Street Mall. In doing so, draw upon the current conditions that are there so as not to disrupt those efforts while still again bringing new life into the area to encourage high and moderate density development where appropriate, including structured parking, encourage the participation of existing property owners within the area. This entire block is owned by the same development entity and to again really encourage land use patterns within the redevelopment area that will allow for pedestrians to feel safe and welcome. This amendment to the Emily Griffith plan invokes the requirement that before city council can approve a new urban renewal plan or an amendment to an existing plan . You must find that an agreement has been entered into between Dura and the affected taxing districts in regard to the allocation of property tax increment to the project. There are two other property taxing districts, those being Denver Public Schools and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Both taxing entities were notified of the proposed amendment to the plan to add the Emily Griffith Project. Following that notification, both entities evaluated the impact the project would have on their ability to deliver services and determined that the Emily Griffith project would have minimal service impacts and have agreed to allow the full available amount of property tax increment generated by their respective mill levies to be allocated to the project. As I noted at the beginning of my presentation, the amendment also corrects an error that was included in the original urban redevelopment plan. The condition study or blight study that was made a record of the public hearing, as well as my testimony correctly noted the factors of blight. But the actual text in the plan was incorrect. And so we are replacing the the deterioration of site or other improvements that was listed in the original plan is approved with the correct reference to but not predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. There are several other required legislative findings that must be made by City Council in order for us to amend the Urban Redevelopment Plan. That those would include that the Emily Griffith Project is located within the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment Area and will promote the objectives set forth in the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment Plan that a feasible method exists for relocation of displaced individuals and families and business concerns. The project area is vacant. There are no residents. Therefore no individuals or families will be displaced. And additionally, again, due to the vacancy of the site, no business concerns will be displaced by the project. A requirement that written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns within the urban redevelopment area. In the resolution setting this public hearing, City Council requested Dura to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment area on August 27th of 2018, which is at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. State statute requires that no more than 120 days shall have passed since the first public hearing excuse me before City Council on the Plan Amendment. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this Urban Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Statute also requires that two years must elapse before council can consider an urban redevelopment plan amendment. If you previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan amendment for this project, as this is the first consideration by City Council of an amendment for this project, the 24 month period is not applicable. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan on September 5th of 2017. The and I apologize. On September 5th of 2018, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the proposed amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to the Denver comprehensive plan and applicable supplements. And a letter to that effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. And I also placed a copy of that correspondence at each of your seats this evening, and door is requesting that City Council concur with the finding of planning board the Emily Griffith. The Urban Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the proposed amendment, will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Emily Griffith area by private enterprise. The project will be undertaken by Stonebridge Companies, the property's current owner, which is a private enterprise. The Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each other taxing entity whose incremental property tax revenue would be allocated under the Urban Redevelopment Plan. And an agreement has been negotiated governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue. As I mentioned previously, those agreements are in place between Dura and DPS and Dura and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. And finally that the city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Emily Griffith Project area for the period during which the incremental property and sales taxes are paid to the authority. And the Urban Redevelopment Plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements in city services should they arise. So as I mentioned at the at the council committee briefing, it has been a fairly long process for us to finally get to a point where we are able to bring this plan amendment forward. Part of that process did include the historic designation of the buildings, which we all believe were were completely appropriate and will really maintain the historic character of these buildings. In addition, the developer first approached ERA for just a portion of the site that would have redeveloped just the the Welton side. Upon further conversation, they saw the value in it in putting forward a plan that will redevelop the entirety of the block, which we hope you concur is really a huge benefit for, again, this very unique portion of downtown to not only save these historic buildings, bring them back into productive use, but also through adaptive reuse of a number of the other buildings, really redevelop the entirety of the block so that the entire urban redevelopment area has been addressed. That concludes my staff presentation and of course will be available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. We do have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you've signed up to speak on this, if you could come to the front row so you can be ready. First up in the Levinsky. Good evening. I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver, located at 1420 Ogden Street. We're a private, nonprofit, historic preservation organization founded in 1970. And one of our organization's roles in the community is as an advocate for historic places and spaces that tell our city's story and that provide opportunities for continuity and authentic placemaking. As such, we became involved in discussion about the former Emily Griffith Opportunity School back in 2012, when DPS made the decision to move the school function to the building at 19th and Lincoln and then to eventually sell the old site, which interestingly enough, had been owned by the school system and hence the public. Since before 1882, the opportunity school, as it was first known, was the first school of its kind in the nation and is significant both for the inclusive vision and legacy of Emily Griffith, its founder and the Denver Public School System. Its architects, particularly Gordon Jamison, are recognized as important in the history of Colorado design. And for these reasons, the school had been given a Tier one historic ranking under DPS policy back in the early 2000s. And most importantly, these are the reasons the community felt strongly that critical buildings on the site should be preserved and reused. In 2014, DPS convened a sales advisory committee and representation. Representatives of our organization joined others from downtown Denver, the Mayor's Office City Council, Dora and others for a series of intensive meetings. In September of 2014, a recommendation was brought forward by that committee to move ahead with the sales process, but to do so with guiding principles that included the historical significance and historic preservation desires. Even though the site was not yet designated, the sales advisory committee also spent significant time exploring the financing tools that might be available to a future owner seeking to adaptively reuse the school building. It was apparent that preservation offered significant opportunities, including eligibility for both state and federal tax credits, which on a project of this size, can reach tens of millions of dollars. Among the other tools discussed at the time was tackling tax increment financing through Doura. Given that the site was vacant and in an area of downtown where greater development energy was desirable, and given that historic preservation is one of the benefits Dura seeks to achieve, as Tracy mentioned and their website states, preserving Denver's historic buildings has been a longstanding goal of the city, and Dora's redevelopment efforts have contributed contributed to achieving that goal. The willingness of visionary developers to reuse older buildings, combined with the financial incentives that make such redevelopment possible, have helped the city preserve its heritage for future generations to enjoy and appreciate. So I'm here tonight to bring the conversation full circle and to offer historic Denver support. Stone Bridge. As the new owners have honored the agreements and spirit of those earlier discussions, they've embraced the historic designation that now protects the site. And we've had the opportunity to review their concept and believe that it really does those things and and actually preserves even more than we originally anticipated. So we are grateful that the community has assurance that the site will remain at downtown and look forward to seeing a project that will once again demonstrate the great city's embrace the past as they look to the future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Amazing. Just when we got news. Six, six, six. Okay. Yes. My name is San Francisco. Found organize a black star action movement for self-defense representing poor, working, poor, homeless, senior citizens and students. Also candidate for mayor 2019. We support this. Process. Otherwise then the approval of this amendment. Being a lifetime resident and. Going up. It's strange, but it's fair. 30 years ago, I decided that I wanted to be a floor designer. And I do floor design right here in the Griffin. And for 25 years, I had a floral company that operated in the state of Colorado from Boulder all the way to Pablo. I learned it right here. And so this has a very good memory for me in that it was a place where people could come and learn a skill. And then become contributing members of the community and actually entertain the possibility that from what we learned at Emily Griffin, we could actually begin the process of doing for ourselves and employing ourself with the education that we had. It was also a process of not going to look for no job but to create a job for ourselves that we could create jobs for other folks. So there was a ripple effect from this that you wouldn't get from any other institution. That was considered education because this was like a hands on thing for folks who want to do hands on stuff other than white papers and kick it in intellectual circles. So this one has to be preserved for the memory of those of us who grew up here, and also for the cultural continuity of letting us know that there's more than one process of education. And that can be the ones that we work with our hands and minds. And then sometimes we work with our hands in order to develop our minds so that we can have families and have occupations worthy of living and saluting everybody. And then to go to college. And so they had those kind of programs. And I'm sure that. If you wanted flowers for Valentine's Day, you wouldn't call them a button. Is it? Harry and say, hey, designs were sent for me because they couldn't do it. So it has a practical application to it and it makes all the sense in the world to do this thing because that legacy of this city and county must be preserved. And the legacy of who we are must be preserved because we're moving now into an area where a lot of what we grew up with is gone now. And that's our history. That's our culture. And so we have to have something to pass on this concrete so that especially the generations are coming up, can see the process of civilization and development that includes not only the future and the present, but the context from which how you got to where you got to. Over there on Lincoln Street. Where they now exist. And it's amazing that a lot of the students who now go to Emily Griffin over there in Lincoln City have no understanding about this building whatsoever. That one. And that's criminal. That's a shame. And so that's why this one's important. For the legacy of. Not how the West was won, but why the West is one. Which means all in E where one? And we're all here in this together. And for the unity and sake of the city, I implore you to approve this amendment. And we've been working hard at this for a long, long time. So now let's move it on forward on down the road, and I'll close with time. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I am a candidate for City Council at large 2019 and I am representative for a positive action commitment for change. Denver Homicide Loud and Black Star Action Movement and I reside at 2842 Josephine Street in Albert Brooks District. As a student of Emily Griffin Opportunity School, during my college days, a metro I attended school during the 2008 2009 season. I took two classes on web design and office mapping. My mother, who was not in attendance, also attended the school during the late 1980s and early 1990. This school is a historical landmark as of 2009, and it should be classified as such. It should not be turned into a unaffordable, non affordable 250 room hotel to house the tourists of the convention center in the west of the city. Instead of investing in 0 to 30% area minimum income, housing for low income and homeless people. So positive action commitment for change never homicidal loud and black star action movement will be opposing this measure and would ask you to redirect your priorities from tax to from tourist tax dollars to creating attainable and accessible housing. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, David Roybal. They robot live at 742 West and I represent West Denver United candidate for District three has a lot of history. My family went to this school and one thing I got to say about the area is probably one of the parts of downtown on this side that hasn't been cleaned up. I mean, it hasn't been used. You know, there's still homeless people there. But in the area, this is one of the you know, people come out of jail, families go there to give vouchers. And it would be real good, you know, if they could go use the vouchers across at this new hotel. But hopefully we see that and we know the effects of Dura, you know, cleaning up downtown, removing people that are from here to a betterment of business. Because I had the job downtown, it's very hard being a person of color to get a job downtown. And we hope that the opportunity remains in the school, the name, the opportunities for locals, for small owned businesses. And, you know, to put it into another hotel thing, it seems like it's trying they're trying to push it to the of the art district and connect it. And that's no affordability. You know, we still have seniors that live around here. We still have residents, long time residents. And I really don't see this benefiting the residents in the long run besides the city tax. And I hope that, you know, it could go back to the schools and and it could cherish the the history that's there, you know, because that's an important name. Emily Griffith, everything she's done one of a kind schools. I hope it honors that history instead of just being another expensive downtown business that doesn't benefit the residents who live here. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council or Councilman Brooks? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Is Tracy Huggins, can I get a quick question for you real quick? It has been a while since since I don't remember. What is the what is the requirement on minority construction for for these properties? Sure. And if you'll allow me, I'd like to answer that a little more broadly as well in response to some of the concerns that were raised. So any time there is tax increment part that is put into a project, there are several requirements that Dura requires of the developer. One of those is of the utilization of small business enterprises. And Dora's, unlike the city that has different goals that are set for each projects, are as is standard, with 23% of the total project budget exclusive of the acquisition cost needing to be committed to do SB enterprises as part of the construction process. In addition, there is a requirement to participate in the first source hiring process that allows for first opportunities of any jobs that are created on the in the project area to be made available first to low income Denver residents. There is also a 1% project art requirement and there is another one. Oh, there is also a requirement that 1% of the amount that we are committing to the project be paid by the developer to Doura, we then use those monies to partner with entities that are providing construction, employment, opportunity training. So we are working very actively to try to make sure that there are opportunities for for Denver residents in each of the projects that we participate in. Okay. How's your compliance on that? I mean, I know there's a lot of projects out there to to continue to keep up with that. How are you guys doing in compliance? We are doing very well in a compliance standpoint. And if I could speak more specifically to the 23% SBC requirement, we increase that level of expected participation. I want to say about two years ago, previously it had been 15%, in part because what we were realizing is that the 15% hurdle was met and then it stopped and we thought, gosh, why don't we try to see if we can go a little higher? And so most of our projects have been able to attain that 23% rate even in this challenging construction environment. Great. And if they don't meet that 23%, what happens? It can depend on how diligent they have been in addressing their outreach plan that they have put forward and approved by us. If they are meeting that plan and they just are not able to meet those requirements, but it is able is able to be demonstrated that they have made good faith efforts in doing that. There is not a financial penalty. On the other hand, if they if it is concluded that they haven't really done what they said they were going to do and trying to meet those criteria, we do have the ability to withhold the tax increment reimbursement from them. Got it. All right. Thank you. And I just have another question for the owner rep or come on up. One of the questions in a lot of these projects, we haven't seen a lot of TIFF projects with small retail components. And so, you know, I personally see that as an opportunity. I mean, this is you're getting tax. Dollars. And I want to make sure that this is an opportunity for small businesses, especially women and minority owned small businesses. In our meeting. You said that you would work to try and accomplish that. Is that is that still a part of your theme in what you're trying to work on? Yes, that's accurate. Sir, could you introduce yourself for the record first? Yes, sorry about that. My name is Tommy Negro. Stonebridge Companies Address 3291, South Magnolia and Council Councilman's Black's district. With respect to your question, Councilman Brooks, we we would love to see small owned businesses. We're not looking for chain retailers to go into our space. We are early in the process, so we haven't identified anyone specifically. I believe you suggested a group that we were not familiar with previously called Radian. We have reached out to them. We have not had any substantive conversations, but certainly open to those. And we would welcome, again, women, minority owned businesses. In fact, we would, you know, seek those out. We think that would be a fantastic I guess, tenants for our retail on the glenarm side of the the project. Okay. Thank you, Miss Nigro. All right. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of my questions were answered about the first source program. I just wanted to ask Tracy if there is a deadline by which construction would need to begin in order to. Utilize the tive. Do we set deadlines or timeframes on these on these projects? There is not a deadline that we have to have the construction start. With the exception of a deadline that I am not going to be able to recall, that is in the agreements that we have with the DPS and with urban drainage, where their willingness to continue to commit the tax increment ceases if construction isn't started by a date that is several years out into the future. I apologize that I don't know that date immediately. Dora doesn't have an immediate start date, but the clock is ticking on the tax increment that was approved at the end about this time in 2017. So there is only 25 years under which the increment can be generated. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. I'm surprised to see Commander Martinez here. Hi, Commander. The. The beauty of public hearing is that. Is in this case, and it happens to me fairly. You know, often somebody says something that makes me think about something I completely missed throughout the entire process. And this one sort of scares staring me right in the face. And I don't know why this question never came up, but it sort of goes to both you, Tracy and in the property and Stonebridge. There is a history to this site and this facility in the concessions requirements. I mean, what you detailed there are sort of boilerplate requirements for Dura and suddenly I'm going, it's not enough for me to just preserve the building. The building is important, no doubt. But there's a legacy that. That culture, that entire block. And so is there anything you can tell me that gives that that sort of puts me a little bit at ease about how there's going to be an ongoing relationship between the sort of opportunity that comes with drug financing, new to financing, and the things where the level of involvement beyond the building that actually would sort of start to resonate and help move forward those those those goals of the original Emily Griffith. Everything history there, because there certainly could have been a, you know, scholarship set up a, you know, 1% for something, you know, that it never and I'm sorry, it just never occurred to me till now. But none of this none of this conversation is happening without both what happened there and then the opportunity that we created by exchanging parcels and whatnot. So can you guys give me any sort of above and beyond. So so I have some thoughts, but I would also invite the developer to, to share their thoughts as well. And part of that goes to just how the project started with our continuing relationship with Denver Public Schools, who had this the sale of this site as part of a broader agenda regarding their facilities that included the continuation of the Emily Griffith Opportunity School, not only at 1860 Lincoln, but also at the other location that they have more proximate to the Mariposa Denver Housing Authority development. So the legacy of Emily Griffith and the importance of there being alternative means of pursuing education has in no way been lost simply because this project is no longer you in use for that. In addition to continuing with the threat of the Denver Housing Authority, when we talk about first source, which well, it may seem boilerplate, it is so important to us in order for us to continue to have the the much more clear and direct impact on folks who may never stay at the hotel, but they may have the opportunity to work there. They may have the opportunity to work in one of the small businesses that are going to come forward, that we work really closely with the housing authority in looking to find those candidates for those positions. And part of that also, again, includes some of those more. I'm going to say vocational, educational. I'm not sure that's the right terminology component so that they are positioned to pursue a career in the culinary arts that have opportunities as you are working in in the type of businesses that are coming forward. So I recognize it isn't quite as direct as from this project. We will do something that is in absolute direct correlation with what Emily Griffith stood for and the opportunities that were presented. But I think when we take a step back, there are a number of threads that when combined together, do make sure that the fabric of what she stood for, what this facility has provided, can continue on this site. Because I would imagine the facility would ultimately end up with some sort of narrative, some sort of acknowledgment of the the architecture itself and how this sort of facility ended up coming to be that way. So it would be interesting to me if there were some sort of actual, you know, design component where people who were trained through that program actually had a sort of visible presence in the in some aspect of the finished product. And then, yeah, maybe just an acknowledgment in their own sort of employee ID if they. Were Chancellor Euston questions before it comments. It is a it's not a comment. I'm sort of really directing it to Stonebridge and saying, do you guys have any have you considered anything along those avenues which is sort of visible, you know, bringing in graduates to do some actual work, you know, in a in a very in a visible and finished way. And then if you did have higher employees sort of essentially acknowledging that they were graduates of the program. You know, it's an interesting question. It's a good question. It's not something we have specifically addressed. I would say that the I think the idea and the spirit of what you're saying is, is a central value of our company, not just for this project, but for every project we do. And maybe going on a slight tangent as a company, we're very strong supporters of Metro State University and specifically the hospitality school there. I wish Nevin Demand and his wife Rita were here to speak to it, but they've contributed over $1,000,000 to start a fellowship program there, and we actively hire those students to work for our company long term. We are a local firm, long term holders of real estate here in Denver and throughout the state of Colorado. In addition to supporting Metro State and and bringing a lot of really first time college students into the company, we do have a very active, I guess, trying to blank on the word right now, but growth program to bring individuals from, you know, you know, kind of entry level positions up into management. And that was actually just featured, I think about three weeks ago on on Channel seven News. So maybe a little bit different than what you were asking about specific to Emily Griffith. But it's an interesting idea. And I will say just personally, as we've worked on this project, it's amazing to me, especially almost anyone who is a native, you know, Denver, right? Almost every single person has a family member or some story about an individual that that gained their education there and that that's really meaningful to us. So it's something I would certainly take away and and see if there's something that we can can do. But but we certainly want to honor the legacy of Emily Griffith. And it's what really attracted us to the project to begin with. Yes. Thank you for that. Knowing that you guys have a altruistic component to your business model. You know, I'm glad that we even had this little bit of discussion. Hopefully it's a little nugget kernel of thought that might permeate as you move forward. Thanks. Certainly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Quinn. Thank you, Mr. President, for Tracy and Annie. I think either of you, in looking at the renderings and the comparative pictures, it strikes me that maybe it's just the way the renderings turned out. But it looks like there's significant exterior modifications to the windows and to the entryway there. And I'm wondering if that's so. So, Councilman, you'll notice that those renderings were not part of the public hearing presentation tonight for exactly that reason. When I presented to Council Committee, I tried very hard to call out that those were just for illustrative purposes to try to show the reactivation. And in fact, those exterior treatments were not part of what had been approved previously. And so there is work that has continued since the time that those renderings were provided to be able to address the concerns that had been raised by by the historic community. Okay. I was going through the one that was in our system while you were speaking. Sure, yeah. We had the opportunity to meet with Stonebridge and discuss those and we gave feedback around the entryway and the window changes. And then when the landmark commission did their initial form and match review, they did conditionally approve it, but not those elements. So there is still work to be done on the specific design features. One of our comments was around really maintaining as part of the story of the building, those up the doorways that say opportunity, for example, in that location. So I know there is still work to be done on the details, but the general concept has been approved by the Commission. Okay. And refresh my memory, because the map on the city website, the mapping function is not working. The last day and a half or so, at least for me, is the Glenarm Street side also landmarked? My recollection is that it was not. Yeah, that is correct. The well it's all considered part of them like Griffiths designation, but there were non contributing, contributing buildings identified within that. And so the contributing structures are in what's labeled in the designation as the area to be preserved. And then the glen our buildings were the area that did not, were not required to be preserved. We're actually excited that they will be anyway, but they are not part of the required preservation area. Great. Thank you. Thank you, councilman flynn. Seeing no other question. The public hearing from council bill 979 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Brooks. Hey, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President, this has been a long time coming. Matter of fact, when the issue with Emily Griffith moving and the opportunity for a redevelopment popped up, I think it was even before this council, this current council was seated and I had the opportunity to sit on a community group and deal with all the issues coming around. Emily Griffith I'm excited to say that preservation and revitalization can coexist, and I think this is another example of it coexisting. I think the preservation community. I think folks who are part of the downtown of a partnership all came together and agreed on a way forward. And that way forward set the stage for this night and this development that's coming forth. You know, I want to say that when we any time when we approve tax increment financing, there's always and people should should know that this is the question that is coming out of many of our. I'll just speak for myself out of my mind is. You're you're you're you're using public funds to develop this project. What is the public benefit? What's the good? And so the public good in this is that we preserves not only the legacy of Emily Griffith, but the building. And and and that was incredible and a very important piece for a lot of folks in my in my district. And I always tell people that if you preserve the building and not the culture, you know, what have you done? And so it's so important that we think about the culture. And I got to tell you, I don't know, Mr. Negro was being a little, you know, modest because I don't know, another company who's more ingrained in the least of these in this city than Stonebridge and Nava. Dimon Small historical fact. Councilman Flynn Nevin Dimon was actually a employee of Federico Pena at the time as mayor and got his vision for this city working for the Pena administration. And I can say with without a doubt that this company and that person really knows how to connect those who are struggling in this city with opportunity . And so I think it was a great not only did they give $1,000,000 to Metro, where a majority of our folks of color in this city go. But he is very involved on the planning for the hospitality school. And the great thing about hospitality is you can you can start at a very low level and be managing in no time. But I want us to even go further. I think I think all of that is great. I think you guys are doing a great job. I think this is a great opportunity for women and minority owned businesses on this site. And and I will definitely be working. Radian is a great organization that connects individuals in the community who've been displaced and pushed out and connects them with businesses. And we're doing that at 30th and Blake right now. So I'm going to I'm going to be approving this because on every level this is the process was right. The public good and benefit is right. And I think it may be a model for, you know, the retail side as well, because we've never done this before. And so I appreciate that you reached out. That shows me you want to work with them. And in moving forward, I think we can attain this. Thank you. I'll be supporting this. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilman Brooks said it well, but I just had to throw in a couple of thank you's to folks who didn't speak tonight, and that one of them is DPS. When there was a call for a pause and a process, they responded to that. Call and I thank them. And it wasn't easy. They maybe had some financial obligations that created some pressure for them. And so this is possible tonight, in part because of them. And also Jeannie Rob, my former my former seat neighbor and. Colleague. Who who helped to, you know, make sure the pause happened and made all of this possible as well. So whether she's watching or not, she's appreciated and her legacy is is moving forward even years after she's no longer seated at this dais. And I just will also share the kudos in terms of Stonebridge for for frankly, taking second and third looks in terms of what could be saved on the site. And so, all in all, an appropriate project to really complement the old and the new of our city in ways that I think make our city richer, being right next to the convention center there. So it'll be exciting to see that addition and. Change. Come with this preservation. So thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add my underscore on a couple of things that have been said. I've spent a lot of time in that building. A dear friend has been a teacher for Emily for the most of the past 35 years and working with people with extreme physical disabilities and ESL students. And this is really is hallowed ground for a lot of people. And so just wanted to throw a little underscore on anything you can do to memorialize that in a fitting way so that people who remember the roots of that structure when they walk in, feel like it's been honored. I appreciate it. I look forward to supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, I. Cashman also took the words right out of my mouth, thinking, It's just important to incorporate that history in that legacy and then in the future build and and how you celebrate that building. It is part of our history in Denver and at a time when we where it's growing so quickly and moving and changing so fast, I just want to make sure that those stories don't disappear with the buildings. Right. Much needed, though, I think, you know, the use of the space is smart. However, when it comes to Emily Griffin and the concept, we have Emily Griffin in school and everything that it's done. I would encourage you to go cross the street or come down into the West Side and check out their campus, one of their campuses. It is amazing. The auto shop, everything that we used to have in high school out west anyway. And you know how to fix a car. You know how to had a saw wood. I mean, a lot of that stuff that they're working on there is is now over there. Right. And we miss that. And there's and the program they're running at, Emily Griffith, is amazing. They even do, you know, volunteer brake jobs if you want to go over there, I mean, that kind of thing. Right. So it's it's still around the legacy, still there. The population that's using it is benefiting from it. And it's close to my heart because my grandfather graduated from Melanie Griffith after he came back from World War Two. He was in high school when he was drafted at West High School? No. Highland and West Highland and all. Then West and then Emily Griffith, his dad, went when he finished it. So a lot of legacy for a lot of people in Denver. Thank you for for for the process. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks, you back up? Yeah. You know, Councilman Lopez mentioned Emily Griffith be on the west side and that's how the vision has spread. But I just want to be very clear that the Emily Griffith building, the DPS building, is now named after and lives on the east side. And there is still some training and of Emily Griffith Center there over there on the east side as well. So, you know, we got both sides of town. I'm just trying to compliment both sides. I so that's all. We can settle this later with a dance off right at the zero and seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. They don't play that music in Reno anymore, I. Black eye, Brooks. Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I feel more I Cashman. I can reach Lopez. I knew. Ortega. I Susman. Right. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 by. 12 hours. Council Bill 979 has passed. All right. We have one more tonight. Councilman Lopez, will you please vote council bill nine, seven, six on the floor.

Recommendation to respectfully request City Council approval of the 2015 Federal Legislative Agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislation Committee.

LongBeachCC_02032015_14-0976

Item ten. Yeah. Item number ten. Communications from Council Member Rex Richardson, Chair of the Federal Legislation Committee, but recommendation for approval of the 2015 federal legislative agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislation Committee. Okay. I think I'm to turn this over to do I turn this over to Ms.. Tang or Councilman Richardson. First, their staff report. Let's do this. Let's do it. Do the staff report. Yes. We'll give this over to Diana Tang. Okay. Mayor, members of the city council. Back in January, January we January 27th, the Federal Legislative Committee had a hearing and we took up the 2015 proposed federal legislative agenda. There was a robust discussion among the committee, and the committee recommended several changes which. Have been reflected in the stock report that you see today. And so with that, I'm available to answer questions. Okay. Councilman Richardson. Thanks. I thought there was going to be a little bit more of a staff report. I'll tell I'll tell folks what's what's in this legislative agenda. There are a number of things and some of that. Some of them have been high profile. One of them was the AH expressing support for federal legislative changes to ensure that Petco products were covered as they train, as they come in from out of state. So we went ahead and added that to the federal legislative agenda. The committee added a number of other things, like support for the minimum wage increase as proposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors two 1010 an hour paid maternity leave. Federal legislation for that comprehensive immigration reform. Some business friendly policies. Some language on a holistic approach to gun control. So there were quite a few things here. So there are. So it seems like on a number of these, there seems to be some uncertainty on on readiness on behalf of the council to move forward. So I would add one change that we not make changes to for different items and keep the original language so that we can rework these in committee. It just seems like they're not ready to go yet. So one of them is that we want to change, remove the changes from fire protection, medical marijuana, affordable housing and airport passenger facility charges, and just keep the original language in the original Fed led agenda and so that we can rework those because it seems like there's a lot more discussion and to be made in the committee. So that's my motion. Okay. There's a second by Councilman Councilmember. Would you just one more time repeat those sections again? So you said. So it's the Fire Protection Directive. So we're going to keep original language and send that in that back to committee to rework medical marijuana. We're going to do the same on that council directive on affordable housing. We're going to do the same. And on airport passenger facility charges, we're going to keep we're not going to make any changes there and rework those in committee. Okay. And so just so I'm clear, so those items we sent will be removed from the federal committee and then sent back to committee, and then your proposal would move forward. The agenda minus those items? Yeah. Minus those changes. Okay. Okay. I have a motion and a second. I'm going to do public comment and then I have some speakers. Any public comment on the item? Please. Diana LA genes again. Hi. I actually have a little bit of a question. I'm not quite understanding where the medical marijuana you're asking that to be removed from the from the federal pledge or some changes that are that. I would hate to see that particular item totally removed because that's really at the forefront right now. And we do need to continue with that. Is I misunderstanding something? I think I believe the the motion is to have these items be taken up at committee so they can be retrieved and stopped. So my understanding is that the Fed ledge agenda exists. We update it once a year. Right. So we proposed the commission. The committee proposed a certain number of changes to certain elements. I want to hold off on those changes and rework those changes in committee. So. The changes are what we're holding back on. Oh, okay. I was not quite sure. Okay. So fine. As long as it's not totally on is. I know it's coming back. It's a very, very important issue. I mean, it's at the forefront right now. So. So then the next thing that I would say is, is there a way that we can prioritize certain items, like, for instance, because it is so much in the forefront right now that really does need to be addressed very strongly. And I know it was put on the Fed, uh, federal legislation, um, before, but I'm just wondering how strongly that is going forward. And perhaps if there is a way to prioritize these items, that that should be one of the priorities. So that's what I'm I'm saying that perhaps there should be some items that you prioritize in your dealings with the with the feds that certain items should come forward with more priority. Okay. So that's what I'm proposing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. And Cantrell. And I'd like a clarification also. I haven't seen a new staff report. It sounded like maybe there was one out today in the old staff reports for this item, I could not find anything that reflected. Council member Mungo's amendment at the last Fed ledge committee meeting, where she said that instead of just saying you wanted to have the Petroleum Coke railroad cars covered, that she you add all products that pollute during transport be covered. And is is has that change been made in your. Staff. Recommendations. I'm going to have a answer that. Sure many members of the city council. That change was not made in the staff's report. Councilman Mungo had requested that all products be covered during transport. I believe there was a robust discussion on the importance of these these statements before his position on matters to be specific, so that we know exactly what it is that the city of Miami is taking a position on. Councilmember Mongo then said that she could go either way on that item, and for that reason it is not included in that report. Well, as I watched the tapes, I saw that she made the amendment. It was accepted by Councilmember Gonzalez as a friendly amendment, and it was never withdrawn. You voted to pass this when she says she can go either way? I would say that that means that she wasn't jetting to having any change me. I hope you all understand that when you're saying you're going to cover the pet coke cars, you are not saying you're going to cover the coal cars. There is a difference between these and you definitely need to add. If you're not going to say all products. Add Cole to this because Councilmember Richardson indicated that that was what he wanted to happen. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next week, please. Evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. I'm Eric Boyd, deputy district director for Congresswoman Janice Hahn. And let me first of. All say that we greatly appreciate receiving the information about this committee's work. It's good for us to keep abreast of what you're doing and support of the congresswoman's work. And in particular, she wanted to say thank you to the committee for your support of the minimum wage, the proposed minimum wage hike, and then also. For the. Committee's support of comprehensive immigration reform. If you've read any of her comments over the course of the last year and a half or so, you know that the congresswoman is a little less than pleased with the glacial pace of legislative movement and progress in this particular Congress and in 114, for that matter. So any any pressure that can be that can be applied, particularly from local governments, we think is is important and it will not be ignored. So what you've done here is is very important. And she's very appreciative of that. I understood you to say that the committee is going to be discussing a few more items in the course of that discussion if you've not already done so. We would encourage you also to consider making some kind of recommendation to the president in his budgetary proposals this year. You know, there's a there's a provision that's going to possibly reduce some of the harbor maintenance tax gains that have been made for the expenditure that the Harbor Maintenance Tax Fund. And we think that's particularly important to the two ports here. The San Pedro Bay Ports complex, as you know, is the largest in the country. For years, the Harbor Maintenance Tax Fund, we believe, has been has been administered in a way that is disadvantageous to larger ports and our two in particular. So we would ask the committee to take up that that issue as well, and maybe perhaps make a recommendation or and or a or and or take a stance in that regard as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, I'm Susan Dombrowski. I live in Long Beach. I wanted to address the the two issues of the trains, one carrying the Coke coal and I agree about. I would like to see that the however it is handled here, but just want to express my interest in having Councilwoman Mungo's request that all products that pollute during transit be covered. I did listen several times and I wasn't present at that meeting, and it really did sound like she was not going to go either way, that she really wanted that in there. So please consider that. Also the issue of the the health department has requested the notification of system of notification and response. When crude oil is in transit through our city. That is has been a recommendation in these in these recommendations seeking federal legislation. However, the original recommendations included the word funding for that which the health department has requested funding if the city does need to response to an incident, an accident or related situations when because crude oil is rail shipments of crude oil are generally contain a more flammable product compared to regular refined crude and present an increased risk to vulnerable populations in sensitive environments. So funding for that is, I think, a very important part, not just to know that these trains are coming through, but what can be done with them. And then one of the things about assuming that you do vote for these recommendations regarding the trains and other forms of transit of these. Pollutants that you not just seek federal legislation. I was not able to go to the state committee meeting, today's state committee meeting today, but I have not seen anything I haven't been aware of . Look for it that there has been anything regarding these items. The trains and the pollutants and the crude oil. Seeking state regulation, if and when that comes up. And any other methods you might use in places, you might try to get something done about regulating these. I hope there's a serious commitment and not just saying we did our part by recommending that it go for federal legislation. I hope you will persevere until these trains and other polluting vehicles are covered. And this is an environmental justice issue which you can easily picture if you look at the map and who lives around these communities . And the I've been to Long Beach Association of children with asthma and seen the. Amount me I'm sorry time is all up thank you thank you so much for coming in speaking. I see no other public comment. We're going to go back and turn over to the council. I have Councilman Ringo who made the second. Well, first of all, I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for and and the federal legislative committee for bringing this forward. I think it's a very thoughtful and comprehensive agenda that we're presenting and that we will be looking at. The initiatives are are broad based economic development, public safety, sustainable, livable cities and local control. And I hope that these will keep our Long Beach at the forefront of our new and positive changes that we're doing. I also am particularly supportive of legislation that helped with business development, and I look forward to working with our representatives to create a new living wage jobs and particularly here in Long Beach. In regard to the last topic of our coverage of Petroleum Coke. I am very, very supportive of that, and I hope that we move forward with that as well. Perhaps, given that we do have some other products that might be transported through our city that are not covered, that we might want to look and revisit that. However, in the interest of moving this forward, I suggest that we keep the worrying as it is presently and perhaps look at another way of adding other petroleum products as a whole. But other than that, I want to congratulate the committee. It's a it's a it's a broad and it's comprehensive. And it's certainly something that we can look forward to in the future. And it's also inclusive of housing, which is another big issue that we'll be dealing with the very near future as well. So we're very, very pleased with that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. I have Councilmember Mongo Councilwoman Munger. I'd like to make the motion to approve the federal legislative agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislative Committee with the addition of my intended motion of covering pollutant products. Do have a second. Thank you. There's no buttons to put this stuff. Actually, I'm going to ask. So, Madam Clerk, if there's a. A substantive motion that wants to be made. You would just push motion again or what would you push? Yes. Once they voice it, then we will activate it here and then you will have the option to motion in second. Okay. So just to be clear, since where we all have new technology screens you've been using for a few weeks here now. So just to be clear, Councilwoman Mongeau just made a substitute motion and Councilman Price at seconded that motion, and that is to go back to the Fed alleged committee as presented by staff in the memo . Is that correct, Councilwoman? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. And one point of clarification, I just wanted to make also, it was my impression that in the original motion. Which is presented, the issue on the covered trains was addressed. I thought it was Coke products, Petco products call. So that was my impression. But I'm not sure. Absolutely. So I don't think that we need to like. I wanted to wait to the appropriate time to state it. But the intent of what came out of this commission is that all Petco products will be covered, not necessarily cold. All Petco products are covered. That's not what I said. So in the in the committee, we. Talked to the original motion. If that helps to clarify, then that's the intent. I don't think we wanted to select like one particular type of coal versus another type of coal. I think the idea was, you know, we want to cover those products as they come in. And even more so like we there was another question about, you know, whether state or federal. So we already have assumed rule 1158. That requires all coal and petroleum products to be covered. So all we're saying is there's an exemption for trains that come in from out of state. So this already lists coal and petroleum products. We're saying we want to extend this to federal right so that it includes trains that come in from out of state. So hopefully that clear that helps to clarify. Thank you, Councilmember. I'm going to go. The city attorney wants to say a comment and I'm going to go to the maker of the motion. I was just a question on the substitute motion. If it included the recommendation by the original maker of the motion of CD nine to refer those proposed changes back to the committee on the four items he identified. She's going to speak to it right now. And. Okay. Okay. Councilman Michaels. Specifically, several weeks ago, I came to the federal legislative committee meeting prepared to talk about almost 50 different items listed in our several hundred items that the federal legislative committee is going to be advocating for over the next year. One of the things that I was very passionate about is prioritizing. We have certain amounts of resources, and it's important that we prioritize the things that are good for the economic growth and development of Long Beach, things that bring jobs. We are very supportive of Congresswoman Horn's item in bringing that money back to Long Beach. And with regard to the comment about medical marijuana. The item that was presented in the Fed pledged by a previous council was for us to advocate for other states policies and procedures and in discussions with the marijuana community. Some of the procedures and policies that other states have. Aren't things that I believe Long Beach should be advocating for because we have a difference of opinion and it needs to be debated as well. And so what we decided to do at that time, which councilmember. Gonzalez received the friendly amendment was that we made a couple of changes to the original Fed led agenda as presented to us by our predecessors. We added in immigration reform, we added in maternity leave advocacy, we added in living wage advocacy. We built in business friendly policies. We added in understanding of the mental health issue as it relates to gun control. We added in. Finding funding to help businesses when they need to put in fire protection. For those of you who don't remember, there was a particular city who had a very sticky lobbyist who went around and got enforcement of fire protection sprinklers without providing that grant funding. And he was a a family member of an elected official. And all of a sudden, every house in the city had fire protection sprinklers in them. We are looking to do the right thing for residents of Long Beach. And that's why when it talked about homeland security grants and affordable housing, we want to be able to open up those affordable housing units. If someone who no longer qualifies for affordable housing won't leave. We want to give landlords the opportunity to increase the rent on the individual who doesn't qualify and open up another room, another unit in the same building or in their same vicinity so that those individuals who need affordable housing are not suffering. Additionally, we wanted local and direct control over our airport passenger facility charges. Local control is a way that we as a community can ensure that those funds are spent appropriately and so respectfully. I hope that I will gain the support of my colleagues to approve the Fed large agenda as discussed in committee and vetted in committee. Otherwise, I would hope that there would be a substitute substitute to send the whole thing back to committee because that's where the work really needs to be done. But I advocate for us passing this motion as brought to us today, as we do need to get to work for the good citizens of Long Beach. Councilwoman Price was the second on that substitute. Did you want to speak? Because I didn't see you cued up, but you speak to the second? No, I just wanted to say that I support what Councilwoman Domingo has said. And I know that the committee spent a lot of time on this. I know that she's personally considered these issues. And I think that I'm supportive of the substitute motion. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the substitute motion. Councilmember Austin. Yes. I need a point of clarification now on your motion councilmember Mongo. Your substitute substitute. What are you trying to accomplish with that? And can you just read restate it for me. So. So presented in the council packet this week is the memo from the Fed Ledge Committee, which outlines a couple of key things that we're changing to the federal legislative agenda as brought forward by our predecessors. And while we as a committee agreed that there's still much work to do, this was a starting point for what we can do for the citizens of Long Beach and our D.C. trip in March. And so I would like the work of the committee and the changes as proposed to be accepted. My colleague, the chair of the committee, came forth today after previously voting yes on these items and would like to remove fire protection, supporting states procedures and regulations related to medical marijuana, which, as I mentioned, we did not have a list of what those procedures would be that we would be supporting, which was a scary idea, affordable housing, which would open up other units for those who are in need of affordable housing and just general local control of our passenger facility charges. Okay. I'm trying to figure out what the motion was to. To pass what was originally presented. The original motion made by my colleague came with amendments right out the gate. So I'm going back to the original. Okay. And I'd just like to express my support for for the local control, for airport passenger facility charges, I think. I mean, what was what was our what was the on the agenda or the the part of the PED legenda and the proposed changes are not much different in terms of the wording. I mean, I think it means the same thing that we support local control. Bottom line, I was looking for to to some more clarity on the matter in terms of what I believe the intent of this council was when the the issue of petroleum, coke and coal came through here and the commitment we made as a as a body. To me, petroleum Coke products are different than coal and other products. And so I think we need to be a little bit more specific in calling out what we want to see covered coming through our city petroleum, coke, coal and petroleum products, transportation. I think that is important to that. We specify that because if we just say petcoke products, it's going to be open ended. And, you know, we didn't really mean that. And it's going to be interpreted differently, you know, by by federal legislators in the future, city councils. And so I think that needs to be tightened up. And so I would would hope that you are open to a friendly amendment to specify that language in your intent. I will have more the second on the motion. Absolutely. And that's been like nice. I think I'm good. I think I just want to commend the federal pledge committee. I want to commend staff for their work. And then to the the the woman who who I offer public comment around the state legislative committee. We had a state legislative committee meeting earlier this afternoon. I chaired that committee. And yes, we did offer a similar language. We may need to go and tighten that up as well. But your point was well-taken. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So. So I think just as a matter of education, this this agenda helps to guide our lobbying efforts in and in D.C. for federal legislation that we think might be beneficial to the city of Long Beach. And a number of things have been added over the years, some of which have had a lot of discussion here in the city of Long Beach. So. My original motion was to send some of the changes back. So that doesn't mean we're not going to take on some of them, but take send some of the changes back to the committee and just a few of them to note like what the difference between a change in the original language. If we were to look at City Council directive on affordable housing. Now this change says support of federal a change in federation federal laws to prohibit tenants who no longer meet income requirements from continuing to leave , to leave and live in units that are dedicated for affordable housing. And then the change would be to provide landlord options to increase rent for people who had originally been living in affordable housing units and reduce the rent for another unit. So we still have the number of affordable housing units available more quickly in the environment. Now, that process is not something that we can like distinctly just do as a city. Just say, Hey, this unit or that unit is affordable or not affordable. There are more considerations here that need to be vetted through the housing community. And so that's why I say some of this is is I'm not prepared to move forward on some of these. But another thing is there's no particular rush. We have a very thorough, very comprehensive Fed led agenda that city staff has done a great job at honing into different categories and putting things together that help us to prioritize our lobbying efforts. So it so my thought is that moving forward on some of these may may put us in a larger predicament with the communities that we actually serve by not checking with them and working with them on some of these particularly like the one on affordable housing. And that's my that's what gives me pause about moving forward on a number of these. So that said, I'd like to I want to move something forward tonight. I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to read it. But at the same time, I really want to dig in in this committee. And I know there are members on this committee who want to dig in. And I think some of these need to be vetted out with some of the partners and stakeholders. And nine experts right now don't need to make all the decisions on every single policy. So that said, I'd like to offer a substitute substitute motion, and I would hope that my colleagues can support this. That is, to go back to the substitute. Substitute motion is to go back and remove the change on fire protection, remove the change on affordable housing, remove the airport passenger facility charges. We want to we we want to be clear on the position on Coke and petroleum products to read support federal legislation to require that coal and petroleum products from outside California in railcars be covered during transport to the port of Long Beach for export. And as it relates to the the one to medical marijuana, the debate tonight was actually pretty good about the original language that was in there might not fit today. I mean, in 2016, there might be a ballot initiative that changes everything. So I would say that we don't move forward with this one at all, like what's in there existing or what the changes. So those are my changes. So that would be we we keep original language on fire protection, affordable housing, Air Force, airport, passenger facility charges. We add the clarity on petroleum Coke products and our medical marijuana. We strike that all together. Okay. Can you is there is there a second on that motion? Point of clarification. Yes. I mean, I'm I want to second this, but I want some clarification as to why we need to go back in and deal with the airport passenger facility charges and local control on that. Okay. And just so you know, someone did chime in in second it. So but we can get clarification. So just again, just to clarify, there's already language in the Fed ledger agenda on this. And there were there was a request to change that language from the original language. Words support federal authorization to allow local governments to increase airport passenger facility charges. And the proposed changes support legislation that increases airport passenger facility charges or gives direct local, local control. Now, it sounds like there that might be just those three extra words, might just be a nuance. But I want to check with the airport community. I want to check with the our department. I want to check with our stakeholders and see like what the impact is if we do that. So why make a change if we're just adding three words? But I'm actually okay if if like I'm okay figuring out. You know, if we got to get do if we have to make some changes to this to make it pass tonight, I'm okay. But I think that that in those three words, we can just take our time and have a discussion with the airport community. Okay. There's a there's a motion by Councilmember Richardson and a second about Councilman Gonzalez. Councilman, do you want to speak to your second or do you want to continue on the speaker's list? Sure. I'll just I'll speak. I would say the same thing. I mean, we had maybe an hour to go through many of these these items. And so it leaves me with feeling like I need to make better informed decisions with more information. And so I do have a lot of questions in particular about the airport. I mean, does that affect our grant funding locally? I mean, there's a lot of different questions. I mean, the affordable housing, does that give landlords more power? I don't know. I mean, these are information. This is more information that we need. And I think that we need to go back and discuss this a little bit further with what we can. So that's why I'm seconding that motion. Okay. And next up on the speakers list, I have Vice Mayor Lowenthal. And just as we move forward, this is a reminder, what we have right now is a substitute substitute motion by Richardson. GONZALES Vice Mayor LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to understand from Councilmember Mongeau or Councilmember Richardson or the city attorney, whomever can tell me. The substitute substitute motion, removing the four items and sending them back to discussion. Three items. Sorry. Sending them. That's right. Three items and sending them back to discussion and eliminating the medical marijuana piece. How many items are remaining from the original discussion at committee where Councilmember Mongeau had asked for additions? Are these all of her additions that you're sending back? I wouldn't know the answer to that, but no. So of the additions, we have minimum wage, no business friendly policies and the addition of gun control. Those to I believe originated it from as well as homeland security grants. So those were all originated by council member Mongo minimum wage. Paid maternity leave were initiated by myself. I believe immigration reform was initiated by by Councilmember Gonzalez. But at the same time, you know, we all we all had a discussion we on a number of these, I think, as a matter of policy, matter of process, toward the end of the meeting with about five, you know, five or six meetings, minutes left, there were about seven or eight amendments that were added in that no one had more than 2 minutes to really hear as a friendly. And that friendly was accepted by Councilmember Gonzalez. And that's how these things arrived here. And none of us have had any time to even look at them. Okay. Okay. Actually, so sorry. Mr. Mayor. In response to both Mayor Lowe and those question and Council Member Richardson's response, this federal legislative agenda was presented to council in November, and as a member of this Council, I take it very seriously before I vote, even at the committee level, to meet with the mental health community, landlords and actual member of the low income community who specifically told me that they couldn't get into a unit because the landlord couldn't evict the low income tenant who didn't qualify anymore so that they could move into the building. Each and every one of these amendments was made. Quickly. And I appreciate that in my family to speak, you'd only get a few seconds, so you got to say it quick. And so, yes, those were quickly given off at the end of the federal legislative agenda item because there was such an. A rush to get through that meeting and get into closed session. We were already behind in all these other issues. But that does not mean that I would ever propose something where I was not informed about the communities and in discussion with those communities as well. This federal legislative agenda was presented in advance of this meeting with time for consideration of the public and the council members. And specifically, I do not see that the substitute substitute is different from the original motion. If I could get a point of clarification from the City Attorney as the original motion removed council directive on medical marijuana and the new motion while it now leaves it out. The original motion was a removal of it anyway, so I feel as though they're almost the same. Vice mayor, members of the council. I think you're right, they are almost the same. My understanding of the difference between the first motion and the substitute substitute does strike the medical marijuana, but it also adds additional language regarding the coal and petroleum products, which wasn't in his first motion. So when I made my substitute motion, someone had said that it was in there. And so that's where I got the point of confusion. I didn't have that additional language that the councilmember from the ninth District added to the substitute substitute. So that's an additional change that I think has enough substance to create. Understood. And then the last component was to answer Councilmember Austin's question. In the original version, three words do make a big difference where a comma is and where an end is, is, is very crucial in determining what we support or we don't support the way that this will read. Should we support it today is that we will support legislation that increases airport passenger facility charges and or legislation that gives direct local control over passenger facility charges. Even if that legislation does not propose an increase in the original language for us to get there, it had to include an increase. Now we're supporting legislation on either front, and so it's broadened the amount of support that we can have in the airport community. Okay. Thank you. Vice President So that you have anything additional and your comment. You know, I know we have a timeline where we'd like to have a federal agenda so that when our committee members do go on behalf of the city of Long Beach to D.C., we have an agenda. And so in the interest of passing the most crucial aspects of these items or of the entire agenda, but while also giving credence to the issues that Councilmember Mungo brings up, I'm trying to find where that balance is, and I don't know. So I'm really looking to my colleagues to collaborate on this and understand that what Councilmember Mongo brings forward, they're really important. These are items that we have as a city have evolved, whether it addresses airport issues, medical marijuana, any of these items that she brings up. And I worry that sending it back to committee with an acknowledged, without an acknowledgment of how significant they are and how important they are to that would almost assure that they don't get discussed. And so I'm feeling I'm feeling concerned about that. And that's not very scientific. It's just a gut feeling that I have. And so if you can help me where I honor my call, our colleagues interest in advancing an agenda that's right for Long Beach while also approving an agenda that you three can go to D.C. with . That would help me. If I could just respond as the maker of the motion. So when we discussed it in committee, what I suggest it was, rather than having two meetings a year, how Fiddler's did in the past, I'm okay going to meetings bi monthly so we can spend more time to evaluate these issues. And I asked that if there were a lot like major changes to hold them off. And Councilmember Gonzalez only submitted one or two. I submitted one or two with the expectation that moving forward, we're going to meet more often, more frequently to tackle this robust policy agenda. Now, I'm going to put that back on the table today. I'm willing to meet more often so that we can tackle some of these issues and give it the thought and consideration that it needs. And I think that I think that my colleagues should take it seriously when we say we'll discuss a number of these issues and others at the committee level. And just one more thing. This committee met twice and for a total total of an hour and a half to get where we are, it's going to take a lot of time. This is not a process we need to rush. So if there are things that people have concerns about, I'm okay taking it back and discussing them. Okay, I'm gonna make a comment and then I'm going to go back to the speaker's list here. I just want to confirm the that the members of the public are watching. I want to just first say that this agenda is actually really important to the city. And so this conversation and discussion is healthy. That's why we should have these conversations. It's this is the agenda that we will take to D.C. once this body passes it as a major document. And you can imagine that when you're talking about everything from immigration reform to medical marijuana to port products to gun control, there's a lot of opinions and a lot of discussion that happens. And so to put an agenda forward that we all agree on, I think is always significant for us to move forward. And so I want to start by thanking all three members of the committee, because they've actually put in a lot of work. All three of them have, and I think that's important to note. What I'm wondering about also is clearly what I what I'm hearing is there's an interest and I share this interest of getting an agenda done so we can have something in front of us as we move forward. But I think there's also clearly some concerns, particularly Councilmember Councilwoman Mungo has some concerns about a series of items that she wants to have to be considered discussed. And so she wants some of the verbiage. She's not comfortable with others she feels she wants to have not in bit discussed. So I'm wondering is if if the motion on the floor passes, I think it would be appropriate that those items as listed and I'm not sure what they all are would be on the agenda hopefully in the next couple of weeks so that those can be discussed thoroughly. And on any given committee day, this agenda can be changed and then brought back to the council. So we have a meeting that this needs to be done by in March. And so this process wouldn't would need to be completed over the course of the next 30 days. A committee meeting would do these items and then come back to the council. So if we move forward with the motion. I'd like to ask that Councilman Mangos items be on the agenda. Councilman Richardson And I'm not sure if that's going to fly with everyone or not, but I'm just saying that that would be my my request . I'm going to keep going down the speaker's list. Councilmember Andrew. Yes. And I want to thank you for that, because listening to, you know, all of our colleagues, you know, which is very concerned about what they're speaking out. But, you know, we talked about low income, but, you know, in my district, we have low, low income. And I really think you should really take that in consideration when you do take these things, because I'm on the committee with Councilman Austin and this is what I'm hearing tonight. It just seems like every one of these you and I mean Councilman go and Mr. Richardson, you guys are very close and I think is no relation any of these things. We have to get this and get it right because we're going to take it to a body that really will make some decisions that we really need to be very, you know, entrenched and understanding. So I would really thank both of you, you know, for you bringing two forward. And I will consider my voting, but I will. I'm listening to and I think we're close. We're very close. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mango. I hope that before us or 130 items of which I made 25 recommendations at Fed Ledge. Yes, we only spoke for an hour and a half and there were multiple things before the committee. And. If we are not clear on what we are speaking on, then we should not be voting today. We should not be voting on a policy that hasn't been discussed and vetted. I'm comfortable with. This with my emotion because I've done my research and I'm clear on understanding what I believe we can do to improve advocacy for the mental health community, for our low income community, and for our business community. Through the amendments that I made and I hope that I can receive the support of my colleagues both on the committee that voted with me before and today, to get back to the second motion, which is to approve the items as amended and to continue to have discussion because. We shouldn't approve things that we have at least know. And if we'd like to go item by item through them, I'd be more than happy to. There are serious concerns on the original language. We don't only want to support local control of our airport fees if it includes an increase and it sounds like a small change. But these small changes are pivotal to the way that we advocate as a city. And one of the things that if you watch the video from several weeks ago, you will notice is I am for a significantly reduced federal legislative agenda. We have a certain amount of resources and we as a city, we need to prioritize how we spend those. So I asked my council colleagues today to vote no on the motion on the floor and stand with me on the amended, the second motion, the substitute motion to go back to the original item as proposed. Council member, Ringo. Thank you, Mary. And in actuality, you touched upon something that that I that I originally stated. I see this as a live document. It it's due to change. It has been changed. It came to the legislative committee with recommendations already there from previous councils, from our previous colleagues, because they felt they were important. And what we've done or what the legislative committee has done was review those and either affirmed or made a effort to adjust them, change them, and, as you say, add some. So I see this as a living document. And what I'm saying, when I when I did my original comments in support of the original motion, was that for the purpose of getting these things forward and before our legislative committee, when we all go do go to DC, that we have something in front of us to present to our legislators that that would be supportive of our positions. Now I'm saying that with the knowledge that it's a living document, it's going to change. We're going to be revisiting some of these items here. We're going to be tweaking them a little more. And we can go that go there with that message that what we're giving you here is our agenda items are directives for Long Beach in principle. This is what we this is what we want to do. This is what we can talk about. This is a direction that we want to take. So I'm still I'm still with my original motion from the beginning that we move ahead with the agenda as presented by the legislative committee. Okay. Next, I have Councilwoman Pryce. Can I inquire of Councilmember Richardson what the detriment or negatives would be of accepting Councilwoman Mango's substitute motion? What do you see as the negatives of that? I think the distinct difference between my motion and Councilmember Mango's motion are the elements that we pointed out have some changes to them that have not been thought through and vetted out. Someone just said a moment ago, if you're not comfortable voting on something that you're not entirely clear on, then you want to support the substitute motion or the original motion, which was to exclude these things that folks have questions about. So the original motion was to send the things that have that we have uncertainty about back to committee. We made a commitment to vet them. The only. So it really comes down to whether you want to approve this Fed led agenda with all these changes where two of the three committee members have expressed their concerns. We've sat through all of the 90 minutes of the two committee meetings, and we've expressed our concerns and we're okay in due diligence. We will step forward and vet those in a more timely manner so we can have a healthy discussion. But I have to tell you, a number of these items, a number of these issues in a lot of these changes, if we vote on them, they are changing our legislative agenda. Right. We haven't done any significant outreach, particularly on housing, with the housing community, with the apartment association, with any of these folks, about what it distinctly means to play around with the way that we designate what is considered affordable housing. That is something sacred in this city. People take it very seriously, and I do not think that we should rush into this. That's why my motion is not to strike down these items out of the agenda. I don't want include some of these changes until they're very that's that's really the basis of my motion. Now, I'm again, I'm okay pursuing this, looking into it again. I'll take more time out of my schedule to vet, you know, 25 more of these these suggestions. And I do think we need to figure out a way to tailor them and streamline them. But the reality is a significant amount of work has been done on this agenda. A few things were slated at the last minute. I'm uncomfortable with them, and I'm not the only one that's uncomfortable with in my office, particularly on housing and a number of these issues. My office has been contacted and so I'm putting forth what I think is the best direction for this council if if folks want to move forward with these changes tonight. By all means, utilize your vote. But I would encourage folks to support the substitute substitute on the table, which allows us to meet the concerns needed. Concerns expressed about meeting a timetable to potentially get these back in before the Fed large trip, as well as approving this. This Fed led agenda tonight so that we have what we need to move forward. On that note, regardless of how the vote turns out tonight, I do want to thank the members of the Fed Ledge Committee, because I think this is really important work for our city. I agree with Councilwoman Mongo that our resources are limited and we really have to be advocating for the things that impact our citizens and our businesses directly and really try to stay out of collateral things that don't involve our city directly. So I want to thank you guys for the work that you've done. I know you're going to do great work for us when you are in DC. Regardless of how this vote turns out tonight, I want to have an opportunity to thank you guys for the work you've you've done. And regardless of where we go, we've come a long way. So. Absolutely. Counts. Councilmember actually. Councilman Richardson, you're cued up. You're going to pass. Councilmember Austin. Well, I'm glad I go to the concerns and the plotting, the Fair Logic Committee. This is this is pretty, pretty extensive work. On the bright side, you'll have the office holder accounts to be able to travel to D.C.. I could run the meeting on all these items and have time for fundraising. All of. Yes, indeed. I'm I'm going to go ahead and support the substitute substitute motion in effort to move the debate. It has been mentioned over and over that this is a living document. And if the substitute substitute motion actually holds back some of these items and sends it to committee two to allow you to to rework that, I think that's the best thing here. I think we have had a very exhaustive debate on this matter. And and if we can agree on agreeing on, you know, most of the federal alleged agenda and then allowing the committee to go back to work on some of those other issues, I think we're great. I just think it's important that we get out of here and have a clear understanding and and delineation, particularly on the the petcoke coal and petroleum products. And I think that is in. Mr. Councilmember Richardson Richardson's substitute substitute motion. But thank you. We have a final final comment from Councilman Mongo, and then we'll go to a vote. Charlie, I think that there's a misunderstanding of the substitute substitute, because when I understand that that my changes are being removed, it means that this council is voting for the. The policies that were written. It is not saying that we are going silent on the matter. It means that we are voting on something where specifically we have discussed that the wording is disadvantageous to residents in our committee. So just be clear that if you vote yes on the substitute substitute you're voting that when you want local control, you're also voting for increases when you vote on affordable housing. You're stating that when people are continuing to live in those units that instead of giving landlords options to find other livable units for low income housing, they must evict the person who's in there to make that available. You're also voting for requiring businesses to spend money on sprinkler systems without partner grant funding. And again, these are some of the very small wins that we got out of federal ledge versus the 25 of the 130 items that I was passionate about discussing that I had done my research on, that I had come prepared and talked to advocacy, advocacy groups. And so I strongly encourage that my colleagues support the substitute motion with a friendly amendment from my colleague, Mr. Austin, Councilmember Austin with the Petroleum Coke. I think we have one more comment and then we're going to go to a vote. Councilwoman Gonzales. I just also want to add a point of clarity to this. So just to get us all on the same page, I guess. But Councilmember Mongeau, I think when you're when you're saying all these things, it's it's you know, we're we're not voting on these items that you're mentioning right now. We're voting to bring it back to council, to I'm sorry, to committee to to get this out further. And so I think that's what we're we're intending to do with the majority of these, because there's still so many questions to be asked and so many answers that we don't have. So maybe I need a point of clarification, which is how I started my comment. Charlie and or Diana, do you now see that the motion as it stands would remove item 17 and six and 26 and four from the legislative agenda completely, or it would remove my changes and restore it to the original. Mr. City Attorney. Mayor and members of the council. I believe it's the latter. It removes the changed language that and refers those items back to committee for further discussion. We're going to work. But they're still in the motion being. So we do have we do have a speaker. So first, Councilman Gonzales, you were cued up. Do you have any further. Comments to say the substitute substitute will allow us to discuss this further? So that, I think, is the general consensus, it seems like, from the council, who knows? But I think that's the better route to go because we do need more answers to our questions and especially with affordable housing, with fire protection. I mean, there are a lot of things here that are heavy items that we don't have answers to. And this council does not seem to have consensus on moving forward at this time. So I just want to support the substitute substitute for that specific reason. Okay. With that members, please go and cast your votes. There is a substitute substitute on the floor. Public comment. We took public comment. Yes. No one can. Know. We had speakers at the beginning. It was just a long time ago. That's my OC. Please cast your vote. Councilman Austin. I'm sorry, Londo, please. Vice Mayor Valentine. Motion carries six two. Okay. Thank you. We're going to now go. Those were the four items that we had for Councilwoman Gonzalez. Let's wish her well. Thank you. Good luck. Well, next time, she'll be another mommy. So next time we see her. So thank you. And we're we're going to we're going to take a one minute break, get set up for our presentations. You guys have been very patient. So just a one minute break and we'll start our presentations. You know? Yeah. Mr. Clarke, I'm going to go ahead and restart the council meeting here. Please do a quick roll call. Started a quorum. Councilwoman Gonzales. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman Pryce. Councilman. Councilwoman. Mango. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Ranga. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia. I'm here. Thank you very well. We're going to go and begin with our presentations. We've been very patient in this unusual moving of presentations tonight. So thank you for that. Normally right on the agenda. I want to we probably all know we read about it in the community and in the news that community hospital is celebrating its 90th anniversary, which is very exciting. When you talk about the hospital, it's been a part of Long Beach for for a very long time. I will be the first also to admit it's it's the one hospital that when I've had to go that's where I've gone is to is to community.

Recommendation to adopt resolution to submit the updated Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan in accordance with the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 - Public Law 106-390; and authorize City Manager to amend and update the Plan annually or as requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03242015_15-0256

Motion carries eight zero. Item 11 Item 11 Report from Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications. Fire and Police Recommendation to adopt resolution to submit the updated Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and to amend and update the plan annually, or as requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency citywide. It was the motion in a second. Any public comment? CNN, Please cast your votes. Mr. Mayor. Yes. I just wanted to thank Reggie Harrison for the incredible amount of work that was performed by him and his team, including those staff members from other departments. This is not a small undertaking. I know we're happy to receive this tonight, but it really, from where we stand, seems like a very huge undertaking. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez. Reggie, I want to thank you as well. This was you know, it's a huge undertaking, so I appreciate it. I know my office just had a meeting with you and we talked about certain Espanol in Spanish and maybe in other languages. So thanks again for being open to that. Councilman Mongo. Emergency management is definitely one of my passions. And so when I was looking through this item, I just I really admire the hard work and dedication that went into something like this. It's no small task for a city of our size. Congratulations on. Excellent work. On price. Thank you. I, too, want to thank you for your efforts and your work. Where is he? I can't see him. Oh, okay. Thank you very much for for your efforts and for this report. I did talk earlier this week when we met about the possibility of creating a scientific review board that might be willing to work with our city on the various different types of emergencies that the city might face soon armies, earthquakes, you know, all the different types of emergencies that the state and nation prepare for. I would like to see us have a scientific review board who would work with our city staff, who's a specialist in that particular area. Is that something that you're open to looking into? Councilmember We would be very much interested in working with such a group similar to the scientists that we work with at Cal State, Berkeley and USGS on our earthquake early warning system. We'd welcome that opportunity. Thank you. Okay. Then with you know, with the city manager's permission, if it's okay, I'll I'll ask Julie Maliki from from my staff to send you some information of some scientists who have reached out to our office who would like to help us create a scientific review board and whatever process is involved with that. I'm open and available to you to help make that happen if you need any council action on that. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to also chime in and congratulate and thank you for for the tremendous amount of work that went into this. I know we've had conversations about our role as elected officials in this. And and I want to appreciate you for sending around the memo that outlines how we all have a role in disaster and has our elected officials. We need to prepare and play our position when the big one happens. And I also want to I want to take this moment to just, again, you know, give a plug to the CERT program. It's a great program. I went through the program myself with my wife, and I know that there is it's under a different department, but it's very much so in alignment with the work that you do. So I want to continue to just encourage us to support the CERT program and encourage our residents to enroll. Got some good. Thank you. I do want to get in line and commend Mr. Harrison for his work on this. And I know that he also had some great and wonderful support from the police department, police Chief Luna and the fire Chief Jerry. And I want to acknowledge them also for their participation in this proposal, and I want to thank them also for their work. Cancer Boston. Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'd also like to echo everyone's comments. A great job of Mr. Harrison. Job well done. It's great that our city is thinking ahead because it's not a matter of if, but when disaster strikes, we'll be prepared. Through your efforts. Thank you again. Councilman Landrieu. Thank you. Thank you again, Reggie. I know if anything does happen, you will lead us to the Promised Land. Oh, no, that doesn't sound right. There's a motion on the floor to second guess your votes. I don't want to go to the afterlife just yet. Motion carries eight zero. Next item. Item 12. Report from Financial Management and Harbor Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record regarding the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act. Public Hearing and adopt resolution approving the issuance of I'm sorry, issuance by the Board of Harbor Commissioners on behalf of the City of Long Beach Series 2015 Senior Bonds District two.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and adopt resolution amending the Master Fee and Charges Schedule by adopting the Fire First Responder Fee. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07212015_15-0674

Report from fire recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution amending the master fee and charges schedule by adopting the fire first responder fee citywide. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to our city staff. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. The staff report will be given by Mike Terry, our fire chief. Good evening. Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council. At the last Public Safety Committee meeting, we were given direction to come up with some various cost recovery and efficiency solutions to offset budget deficits proposed for fiscal year 17 and beyond. At that time, I mentioned that the fire department would be considering or has been considering implementation of a first responder fee. That would soon be we would soon be proposing to the city council. Tonight, we are proposing implementation of the first responder fee. Over the years, fire agencies from throughout the state of California have implemented first responder fees to recover costs and minimize the impact of budget deficits. This fee would help bridge the gap between costs of providing emergency medical services, which are approximately $22.1 million per year, and the revenue received for ambulance transport services, which is approximately $11.3 million a year. Additionally, as you are aware, there are projected general fund deficits that will need to be addressed in fiscal year 17 and beyond. The first responder fee is a proposed $250 fee that would be assessed for patients who are medically evaluated by the fire department staff on a first responder unit such as ambulances or fire engine or fire truck. There are significant costs associated with an emergency medical response, which includes a fire engine and an ambulance, and the six fire staff members associated with that apparatus or those apparatus. A patient evaluation and assessment involves a medical history and the taking of vital signs such as blood pressure, pulse, breathing, body temperature, and often includes monitoring heart activity and measuring blood sugar. Patients are often treated on scene as well. For example, we often evaluate and treat all diabetic patients with the intravenous administration of glucose or dh50. The first responder fee would help us recover costs of first responding personnel, as well as the cost for the use of emergency apparatus, equipment and emergency medical supplies. Currently, ambulance bills, which would in the future include first responder fee, are typically sent to insurance companies such as Medicare, Medi-Cal and private insurance companies for payment. Only about 30% of the bills that we send out go to individuals, and the bulk of those are typically not collected, as you can see. Other California fire agencies have implemented first responder fees. And this is not a complete list. But at the time we put this together, this was a good example across the board of many other agencies that have have this in place. These fees range in this grouping from $143 on the low end to $433 on the high end with an average fee of approximately $305. Agencies, as you can see, include Sacramento Fire departments, Sacramento Metropolitan Fire, Alameda County, Folsom, Novato, Contra Costa County, and in our neck of the woods, the city of Anaheim. Since this is a new revenue, it is difficult to project annual revenue amounts. Our best estimate is that the first responder fee will generate approximately $1.8 million annually. This would be partially offset by about $200,000 in additional annual costs associated with the billing and collection of fees, including staff supplies, postage and software maintenance. The net annual revenue is estimated to be $1.6 million once the program is established. If the fee is approved, we would only budget enough funds in fiscal year 16 to cover the $200,000 in additional billing costs. A year from now, when building the fiscal year 17 budget. We will then be able to evaluate the revenue patterns and collection rates to determine how much to budget for fiscal 17. Future revenue opportunities may also become available as a result of this fee under the states. Ground Emergency Medical Transborder GMT program. Under this program, the city is reimbursed for a portion of the difference between the full cost of providing medical transportation services to individuals covered by Medi-Cal and the amount of Medi-Cal revenue received for those services. Future GMT legislation has been introduced, and there's other legislation that will be introduced that will allow us to claim reimbursement for the evaluation and treatment of Medi-Cal patients when there is not a transport. However, we would only be able to recover costs under this program if we are currently charging customers for the response. The implementation of the first responder fee would satisfy that requirement. In a nutshell on that. We can't basically we basically can't build the federal government for something that we don't bill everybody for. So with that, that concludes my presentation. Council members, Mr. Mayor and council members and I stand ready to answer your questions. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Richardson, did you chime in or is that from the last time? Okay. Councilor Richardson. So what happens if this doesn't get a second? If this motion doesn't get a second? What happens? Well, I don't think you made a motion, but there isn't a second. I don't think you had. Is that right? Yeah. So it's not working, so. Yeah, that's. That's. But can we debate it without a motion. People are trying to. Press to get. Hold on. Well, if somebody does voice motions a second I want to. Okay. There is a second by Councilmember Andrews. Okay. So. I have a number of questions about this. I want to begin by just thanking our fire fighters, our both rank and file, as well as management for really anticipating. What we all know is that as city management says, winter is coming and we know that there are a number of tough decisions that are going to need to be made by the city council in the years to come. I have some concerns about this, some deep concerns about how this might disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities that I think we should consider as we move forward. I also want to want to have a better understanding on what the next steps are as this progresses. So first, I understand that Medicare, Medi-Cal and Insurance, this is something that they commonly cover. Is that correct? Yes, sir. So folks on Medi-Cal and I'm not sure that there's 100% certainty there, but how do we know that they that they actually cover this public. You know, covered California just insurance companies. How do we know that we cover that. The councilmember the the research that we did included reaching out to a number of the agencies you saw listed on that sheet there and asked that very specific question specifically related to Medi-Cal at the time and the ACA Affordable Care Act. Whether or not this would be reimbursed, we know, in fact, looking at our own health insurance here in the city of Long Beach, Anthem offers reimbursement for first responder fee. But we were unsure about the Medi-Cal and apps, but we did confirm it by reaching out to people who already have it in place. Okay. So so as of today, there is a potential benefit on insurance that we're not taking advantage of. I think that a better way to to look at that well. Councilmember I think yeah yeah I think that that's a good way to look at it. It's it's something that the insurance companies will pay for, but we are currently not charging them for. Okay. So I guess for the uninsured residents, what what sort of benefit? Can we is there some way that we can put in place a program or a mechanism for low income residents that are not insured? Is that something we can legally do or wrap your mind around as a part of this? Councilwoman Ramona, I'm going to let our director of financial management, John Groce, talk to that piece. I'm happy to. Councilmember We have an ambulance billing program now and it has not been a a program to date that has created substantial issues in terms of collections and people claiming hardships. We do have a hardship program in the city, monitored and done through the city attorney, where people who have a hardship can file a claim . We make the forms available. They are processed, reviewed by the city attorney. And then when when that is determined by the city attorney to qualify for hardship, we then follow up on that. So those that's probably our key mechanism. Again, history has not made it a huge problem because of Medicare, Medi-Cal and insurance. Most of our people who are unable to pay tend to be have had do not have a home address. We call them Jane and John Doe. Those people, as a matter of practice, it's not possible to collect from. And after a period of time, we write them off. Okay. So are you planning or preparing some a strategy to aggressively pursue those who can't pay? Are we going to put some guidelines in place that that provides some relief for those who have an economic hardship as a part of this? We have a program in place that already provides for that. We don't think that the situation will be significantly different, and we think our processes and procedures in place already provide for that and that we will be able to take care of those. Okay. So so if this were to move forward, I would I would like something more concrete. Then we have a program for this. I think it won't impact folks. I would love to see something more concrete that we can we can go out and educate our constituency on next. So I see that a number of city and county departments are utilizing first responder fees and they've seen some sort of a revenue increase. But I remember that the city council discussed the GM's funding, and we thought it was something that we could we could we could bank on. And and we thought we were going to be able to restore additional facilities and units into service. But but it didn't happen. So have we evaluated whether this is a stable revenue source that other cities have been able to depend on? And have they been able to restore services or maintain services as a result of implementing this first responder fee? Well, Councilmember, a couple of pieces there. So are our estimations on revenue generation with this program are very conservative. We are estimating the revenue at a 20% rate of return on our billing, which is a very conservative estimate. Traditionally, historically, we tend to do better than that with regard to our annual revenue in our billing. So the $1.8 million and if you take the $200,000 out to to offset the cost of additional people doing the billing, leaving 1.6 is a very conservative estimate based on based on what we know, it could very well materialize to a greater degree than what we're projecting. The as far as as far as the other agencies, when you talk about it being a stable fee source or a revenue generation. Yes. Our experience in talking with them or their experience has been that it's very stable. And I think the other point that I want to make clear is we're not necessarily talking about restoring anything when initially when we put this forward. We were very clear in saying that we don't want any of this revenue applied to our budget in fiscal year 16. Like I don't want to be in the same situation that we were in a few years ago with if recovery and some of the other programs where it didn't it didn't materialize like we thought it would, and then we were stuck with a negative hole in our budget. So what we want to do is we want to get one full year of experience. And so we know exactly what we're generating as far as revenue is concerned. And then have this discussion with the council again this time next year and say, here's a year of experience and this is what we would like to have applied to our budget, but it would be general fund revenue. So that would be a policy decision from the manager and the finance director and the budget manager and the council on how that gets applied. Certainly, we would like it applied to fire, though. Absolutely. And thank you for clarifying that you don't plan on actually spending these funds in the in the first year. You want to watch it and test it and see if this is something that we can bet our public safety on after a year of evaluation. And I think that that's smart, a smart thing to do if we move forward with this next. I know that there there's significant angst in the community in general and in certain communities about what the fiscal impact implications are when you dial 911. And there are some folks that. Might not press 911 because they're they're concerned about the cost of ambulance transportation fees. So I guess what can we or the fire department or just our city in general do to make sure there's an education component to a number of communities in court, including, you know, communities our diverse community that might not speak English? What can we do to educate and make sure that this there is an unintended consequence in terms of folks stop calling 911 because they're concerned about getting charged an additional fee. Have you done any thinking on that, Chief? Well, Councilmember, if if somebody needs to call 911, we encourage them to do that. I mean, I don't ever want anybody to not call 911. But the way this fee works is that if the firefighters, paramedics get on scene and we actually find a medical cause to do an assessment on somebody or find a cause to actually start to treat somebody with their consent, obviously then the fee would be applied. But for instance, one of the questions that we've had was, what if I what if, a, somebody is driving down the street and they see somebody down on the side of the street and they call 911 thinking, I think that person needs help. And we get there and the person says, I didn't call you. I don't want help. Would they have the fee applied to them? The answer is no. We will only if we provide the service. You know, I heard an analogy last week that I thought was pretty good. It's kind of like a toll road. You only pay for it if you use it. So I think that I think that's a fair enough analogy on on how this would work. I was joking. So so I guess the last thing I would say is so again, thank you for for doing the work and anticipating a solution to what we anticipate is some some challenging budget times. And personally, as a ninth District Council member, I've been able to watch and see the impacts when Rescue 12 was taken out of service and and sort of the feeling that you get when you know that this area of town has, you know, there's a perception that folks don't respond in a timely manner. When that when that happened. And, you know, I think is I think based on these these conversations, I'm comfortable with taking the next step in this direction. I definitely will watch those other things. But I hate I would hate to be in the position to cut to cut services in 1 to 2 years. That will that might impact the lives of our residents when we have an opportunity here today to make a meaningful step forward. And so that said, I guess my final question is, if this were to move forward tonight, what is the what are the next steps? Would this have to come back to city council at all? The end of that question. Is that question for me? Yeah, councilman. Or the city attorney or whoever can answer it? If this passes tonight, it would become effective immediately. Okay. I might want to think about it a little bit more, but but I think those are my questions that I have to make. Thank you. Councilwoman actually, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, to your second. I'll hold my comments for now. Councilman Price. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. First of all, I want to thank the chief for. Bringing this item forward for the following reason. We did ask, anticipating that we're going to have some difficult budget years ahead. We did agendas in our public safety committee, a budgetary item requesting that police and fire come to the Public Safety Committee with some recommendations and suggestions regarding how they might increase revenues and cut costs in anticipation of the budget situation that we have coming before us, really starting in 2017 and at the time that we agenda as the item, we did not know what 2016 was going to look like. I think we have a better sense of that in light of what we expect the budget to look like. And although I think this is a good item and I'm going to have a few questions to ask about it in a moment to clarify some of the concerns that we've received in our office. I do want to say that I hope that this item doesn't end our discussion regarding innovative ways that we might be able to increase revenue and or think about the potential deficits and their impact to our public safety structure, because I think that the proposed cuts to both police and fire are not the type of cuts that we can withstand in the city of Long Beach at this time in our city's status. So we're going to have to talk real seriously about that. And that conversation is not over. So I look forward to hearing some of the other proposals and they may be proposals that you would be recommending against, but I really would like to play those out a little bit more in detail in public safety in regards to this item. So thank you for coming up with this. I think the idea that we would. Have $1.6 million in our general fund as a result of this successful program is exactly the kind of innovative thinking process that we want our department heads to have. Now, going back to that. Where would you anticipate that that a $1.6 million going, would it go back into restoration of fire services? Well, Councilmember, it could it could go a couple of different directions. Initially, given given the budget projection that we were given a few months back, looking at a potential budget deficit of about a four fire, our share of about $1.7 million potentially in fiscal 17. If this were to material materialize tonight and we realized the $1.6 million over the next year, then our hope would be that those dollars would be applied to our deficit, which means we'd be able to keep our apparatus. The way it is today. If for whatever reason, the general fund rebounded and and we didn't have that kind of deficit next year and we had $1.6 million over and above, then we would apply that those dollars, if it was given back to fire, we'd apply those dollars directly toward our stated priority list that we had sent to the Council a year ago, roughly as far as the apparatus that we would restore. So it would go one of those two places. Okay. Now, we have received a few emails and inquiries from third district residents that I want to ask you a little bit about tonight. And I appreciate the time that you spent explaining some of these to me prior to council, but I do want to bring a few of these questions and answers to light so that the residents all have the same information as we continue to discuss this in a public forums and days and weeks to come. Some have said that this appears to them to be a tax and is a service that should be covered through property taxes. In response to that, has fire considered that argument and what would be the response to that? Council Member Property taxes pay for the fire department, fire suppression vehicles fire like fire engines and fire trucks, the active firefighting hazardous materials taking cats out of the tree, that sort of thing. That's what your property taxes pay for. Emergency medical service created in 1972 in Long Beach, was a fee for service business in addition to the regular line of business in the fire in the fire service. So their property taxes, although the general fund is subsidizing emergency medical service, emergency medical services meant to be a fee for service business. So none of your property taxes. Nobody should nobody should think that their property taxes are paying for paramedic service. Okay. In the staff memo specifically. We pull it up here? I think it's the second paragraph. Under the discussion section, you talk about a deployment model and the percentage of the responses, the deployment model that's used on 85% of the responses. Can you elaborate a little bit about that deployment model and what that paragraph means? So. Councilmember. I'm sorry. You want me to you want me to talk to you about how we deploy our paramedic service now and, like, how we respond on calls? So we have a tiered dispatching system in Long Beach. Basically three tiers for really, but three tiers of service and emergency medical service. Now, I want to start off by saying this. Of the nearly 70,000 calls for service, we get a year in Long Beach fire, 84.5, almost 85% of them are emergency medical calls. It has become the cornerstone of what we do. And it's it's not just a Long Beach thing that's a nationwide fire service thing. It's the paradigm has completely shifted. The way we dispatch calls is this if it's a non-emergent noncritical call, we call that an alpha response where we may just send the closest fire engine or truck to assess the patient and determine whether or not they should be upgraded and they should go to the hospital at all. A basic life support call, for instance, like a traffic accident or a broken leg possibly, or, you know, somebody falls, falls down or hurts himself. But it doesn't appear to be life threatening. We call that a Bravo response, where they'll get the first engine company or first truck company closest to them and the closest ambulance will respond as well. A charley response is the highest level of care that we have, and that's the first engine company and the first rescue ambulance. And those are the the calls like chest pains and shortness of breath and seizures and those things that are considered emergent calls. So that's that's how we respond. Now, one of the concerns that I've heard from constituents or from people in the community is how come we send the fire engine on these calls? Why don't we just send the ambulance? And that's a fair enough question. But the reality is we only have we have more fire engines than we have ambulances. And under the new paramedic program, I have a paramedic on every one of those engines so I can get an engine to the scene faster than I can get an ambulance to the scene. Now, if you had a different deployment model where I had 20 ambulances and and ten fire engines, then that would be that would be a completely different discussion. But the way we are deployed to to meet all risks in the community, it's faster for me to send a fire engine or a truck to the scene first and have the ambulance marry up with them on the scene. So that's why we deploy that way. I will tell you this, that my command staff are very smart, creative people, and they're constantly thinking about ways to for especially for the non-emergent calls. They're thinking about ways to to do kind of just that, where maybe we don't need to send a fire engine on everything. Maybe. Maybe instead of rolling the big red fire engine on the street, we can just send the ambulance on some things. And we're in the process of having that discussion now. And I actually think that sometime within the next year, we will we will see some progress in that respect. Okay, that's good. I look forward to that update because I think that would serve to, in terms of efficiency, at least what people perceive just to hear what the data is on that are on the non-emergent calls. Are there situations where the fire engine will respond and then if there's no transport necessary, the fire engine will just treat the patient and no ambulance will arrive on scene. Yes. So a good example would be the call that we get for someone who has fallen out of bed at 2:00 in the morning and they're unable to get themselves back into bed. So they'll call us, we respond out there, assist them back into the bed. We will evaluate them medically to make sure that the reason they fell out of bed was not because of a medical problem, put them back in bed, and then they often decline transport to the hospital. So yeah, that happens quite frequently. Okay, so, so it would be factually incorrect to make a statement that fire sends a fire truck and an ambulance and engine and an ambulance to every single medical call. That's that's not true. That's correct. That is not a true statement. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Got somebody, Ringo? Thank you, Mayor. I, too, have some concerns with the. With the. Given the emergency that we had last week, I'm pretty sure that the system was. Slightly overloaded, if not overloaded with the now one. One calls everybody needing a response of one type or another. So this feels a little bit untimely, I would say, at this point. But the only reason is that had we been able let me ask you first, I guess, is there a record of how many 911 calls we received within the LAT when we had our outage last week. In those three days that we were a councilmember? Yes, there is a there is a record of how many calls we received. I will tell you this, that fire on the fire side of things. We saw kind of a spike in calls and within the first 24 hours and a lot of those calls were related to people stuck in elevators and other things that would be considered non-emergent. Just kind of check the well type things from the first 24 hours on, a lot of the calls that we had there were kind of self-created, where we were out knocking and talking and trying to find out what people needed from us. But we didn't see we didn't see a tremendous spike in calls for service because of the of the power outage, if that's what you're asking. Well, related to that, it was I get my question wasn't clear in regards to calls that were that needed for an evaluation that states what that that would have triggered this feat. And I'm not sure. I'm not sure I understand the question, but. The numbers of calls that you receive and i11 that would have required a medical or a paramedic to evaluate a patient. So. And are you asking how this fee would apply to the people last week? First responder fee. The first responder fee. So if this is the way this this fee is structured, if somebody calls 911 and we respond out there to evaluate somebody, if that person that we're evaluating says, I'm good, I don't need I don't need to be evaluated. I don't want you here. I don't want to go to the hospital or whatever. There would be no fee assessed on them if if we went out for the stuck in the elevator example, if we went out and responded to somebody who was stuck in an elevator, opened the elevator, got the patient out and they said, Thank you very much, I'm fine. We are kind of checking there. Well, there's no first responder fee there. The only time we would ever apply the first responder fee is if we generated a medical report form on the patient and actually treated them or applied our medical training to their situation. So it wouldn't just be blanket application across the board to every patient that we see. My staff and I did a little bit of additional research on this and we found that there are some municipalities that have an opt in paramedic membership program that costs between 30 to $60 a year, and it's included in their utility bill, which equals out to maybe $3 to $6 a month. What was that consider or why is this an option here? A council member that was considered it's been considered a couple of times over the past ten or 12 years. And our last evaluations called the subscription fee. The closest example to us here in Long Beach that are doing that is the city of Huntington Beach. They do they attach an annual fee to their utility bills. And you literally in Huntington Beach at one time anyway, you had to go in and opt out. You were just automatically opted in. And if you wanted to opt out, you had to physically do that. The the when we looked at it here in Long Beach, our payer mix in Long Beach is different than in a lot of the other municipalities that have the subscription fee. And we felt that when we added it all together that we would end up it would end up costing us more money than we would generate on the subscription fee, because our payer mix is vastly different than Huntington Beach and many of the other places. So we didn't think it would be a feasible option to generate stable revenue. Well, and certainly that's that's the important issue here, because I know we're coming into a budget season and we are going to be evaluating budgets all across the city, all our departments. So I'm sure that this discussion is going to be coming up there. So I'm I'm a little concerned that that this is coming now right before we start actually crunching numbers for our departments. Also, my my district is very diverse. As you as you probably know, my district goes all the way from our Long Beach airport to the port of Long Beach. I have high income, low income, middle income, low income families there. I also have the highest number of senior citizens, senior citizen housing in my area. So those are real concerns of mine that would affect my my residents. So I'm hesitant right now on this and not too sure whether it would be something that we could implement immediately. I'd like to have it stated more often, more often, more thoroughly. I also really would want to see what kind of program we can have either to opt in or opt out any first responder fee. I think that would be I think that'd be more palatable in this situation. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you, Chief. I know we have to always look creatively for a different budget option, so I just wanted to and for the body for presenting that to you. I also have a question about the hardship waiver. I'm still not clear. And so there's a few things. So it would be great to get some sort, like some sort of criteria as to what would qualify for a hardship waiver. Would it be income? What what what would it be exactly as to who could qualify for this? The form which I looked at today asks for any and all information that would would make a person qualify. We leave that up to the applicant because the conditions may be such that you don't want to specify specific types of situations. So we ask for any information that an applicant feels they may be qualified for. And we may also do credit check background checks. But we we feel that leaving it flexible is actually in the best interests of the applicant. Okay. Well, that that definitely concerns me. And I know with our parking enforcement, for instance, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but when we have someone who isn't able to pay, I know we go through, I think, an administrative review process. So perhaps that could be enacted here, I'm not sure. But it's basically you don't have to pay until you go through this review or you go through this hardship waiver income or. Review, I guess you can say. Would that be something we would be able to do here? The administrative review for parking tickets is a little different in that that's a process to determine whether the amount is actually owed or not as opposed to hardship. The hardship situation we have is consistent throughout the city dealing with the city attorney. So it's it is an administrative review. It's just through the city attorney. So there is an administrative review process. Not not quite the same for as the parking citation, but for parking in particular. There's both the review is the ticket valid? And then there's a hardship review that would be done by the city attorney. And they would that would be so they wouldn't have to come up with the funds first. They would go through this review and then if it was determined, then they would come up with the funds if they had to. So is that what I'm hearing or. I'm sorry, would you repeat that again? They would have to pay the amount first, though, correct? I don't think that's the case. I don't think they would have to pay it first. In fact, I will say they would not have to pay it first. It's not it's not the same where you have a situation where we might tow the car or do something like that. So there's no there's no there's no requirement for them to pay first. Okay. And would fees still be enacted during emergency situations? So, you know, the power outage was a perfect example. And I was at Plymouth West with many of our seniors. And every hour, probably every half hour, there were fire engines and ambulance there for a variety of reasons. They could you know, they got stuck in the elevator. They couldn't walk down. They ran out of breath. So I get concerned in situations like this where, you know, now we have resources being sent over constantly. So how does that work out? Councilmember. The answer to that is no. They would not be assessed a first responder fee in situations like that. Plymouth West is a great example. Our folks were in and out of there over a 24 hour period last week assisting residents and checking on residents, knocking and talking, that sort of thing. They weren't doing medical reports on people. They weren't they weren't setting them up for transport to the hospital or any of that stuff there. They're just being firefighters. They're just doing good work, getting out, talking to people, making sure they're okay so the first responder fee wouldn't apply there. This will specifically apply to those situations where somebody calls 911 or the patient themselves calls 911 and says, I want I need the service. I need you to come take care of me. We get there. We work them up medically, work them up, do a medical report form on them and either transport them or not. That's when it would apply. But in the example that you use, no, it would not. But some of them were transported and did need medical and it was an emergency situation, you know, during the power outage. So that's what I'm concerned with. So we're still getting that treatment and it would fall under this and it was under the umbrella of emergency situation. So those patients that were transported have a bill would get a bill already for that transport. There's a there's a bill that goes along with ambulance transport, right. For both advanced life support and basic life support. So that wouldn't change. But as far as the first responder fee and just that kind of. Well checks on people. No, that's that's not what this is intended to do. And Marin County, if I may just add to that, we feel very comfortable that we do have a hardship provision already built into our system. What the chief was just mentioning is that we currently have a system where we are charging people who get transferred to the hospital a thousand, 1100, 1200 dollars, and this would be a fee in addition to that of 250. But we already are very comfortable that we don't have a problem where there are people that are needing hardship for the ambulance fee that we wouldn't be able to take care of. We have a process for that and we really don't see that that is going to be any different with this fee. We feel very comfortable that there is that process for them to apply for the hardship because we don't see on a daily basis us creating that hardship if there really is one out there that is justifiable . Sure. I just don't see any clear plan as to what the hardship would be, you know, so that it's just concerning to me. And there was another concern brought up by some of our property owners. So if, for instance, a resident couldn't pay or they just didn't acknowledge the letter, would property owners be billed? No, no. We will know what this has meant. This is actually meant to be implied, applied toward insurance, toward health insurance, homeowner's insurance, auto insurance, Medi-Cal, Medicare, ACA. No, we would not apply it toward like anybody in the apartment association shouldn't worry that we're going to apply this fee or put a lean on their on their building if their one of their tenants doesn't pay their medical bill. Okay. And then what about residents versus nonresidents? How does that work out? That from a fire service delivery. Some cities actually do differentiate between resident nonresident on how they apply the fees. We do not hear on any of the fees that we assess for treatment, transport or anything else we do. So this would be consistent with not differentiating between resident nonresident. Where we don't have a nonresident responder fee, it would just be resident responder fee. We just have this would just be a first responder fee for everyone, whether you're resident or not. Okay. And maybe I can make Councilman one more comment on on why we do not think there's there's an issue in addition to what Mr. Modica said. We're also have a practice which I'm reviewing really over the last month where, where, when we determine that bills are uncollectible and for, for the reasons that people can't pay, we have a process where we're, we're writing these bills off at at 180 days so that we do not continue to hassle people. And I think that's one of the reasons we also just historically have not had a problem in this area. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Before I go, I. Before I go to counter prostitution, I just wanted to touch on something that councilman said. Think it's. It's been repeated. Something. It's an important point to city staff. And maybe it's something that Councilor Richardson can address in his motion. But I think what you're hearing very clearly is that there needs to be a very dedicated and deliberate process for there to be an opt out provision for those that are disadvantaged and for poor seniors that have needs when it comes to income. And so, I mean, I'm hearing obviously from from from from staff that that is part of this process. But I think what you're hearing from council is that it needs to be very clear. It needs to be a very progressive in a sense, of leaning first and giving the benefit of the doubt to the person that's that needs the medical attention and it needs to be those that are needed. The attention shouldn't have to pay upfront. So it needs to be where they're they're not required to pay. And if they have, they believe that they qualify as a as a low income or disadvantaged person, that they can make that case before they're ever charge or expected to pay that fee. So I actually want to make sure that if Mr. Richardson can actually clarify that issue. Sir, what I'm thinking is exactly along those lines, like maybe separately they can come back because all those elements you I heard that from Councilmember Ranga and Councilmember Gonzalez, but I want to make sure that that actually comes back to that element, can come back to the city council at some point. So we can talk about what that program, what that program looks like. Is that something we can do? Because I'd like to amend my motion include that. Could part of that motion be for this separately that's separate from the from the from the fee that this program would come back to council for for review and. Conversation within 30 days. Within 30 days. Mr. Modica. Yes. We can certainly come back and review that program. Part of that comes from your ranga would like. I would like to add as part of that program, a councilmember to also review his suggestion of the what did you call it, the opt in program. Could it be part of that as well? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Vice mayor. Vice mayor. You okay with that? Okay. Thank you. Just for clarification purposes, the opt in program is that the paramedic subscription fee and evaluation of that? Yes. The council re ranking wants to see the evaluation of that as well. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I just had a few quick clarifying questions because I think a lot of the questions and concerns that I have have already been raised. But I heard a lot about there was much talk about Medi-Cal and Medicare and and and the need to establish just to be able to collect from Medi-Cal and Medicare first responder fees. But for those who have private insured or who are privately insured, if they if they are they are in need of a first responder, does their insurance pick up the first responder fee? For example, does Kaiser or a Blue Shield pick that up? Council Member Yes. The answer is yes. The insurance, you know that we have here in the city of Long Beach, Anthem pays a first responder fee if needed. Okay. And many public agencies have been suffering with budget issues over the last several years. You laid out a number of them who have instituted this this first responder fee, in your opinion. Why haven't other agencies felt the need to implement these first responder fees? Because it seems to be rather minimal. Councilmember, the that that is the list that we showed during the presentation is a fairly abbreviated list. Since we started putting this thing together, there have been a number of other municipalities in the state that are moving toward a first responder fee, and they're doing it primarily because it will help augment the amount of dollars that they receive under the EMT program. Should the state legislation be passed to allow for first responders? So there's a there's a lot of municipalities that are in the same process that we're in here today doing that. Okay. And I also want to echo Councilmember Price's comments to you, because to sit on the Public Safety Committee and we did ask you to come back with some creative new revenue ideas, and we certainly hope it doesn't stop here, like like to know that there's more more options out there. And and I guess for me, the options is really important. I'm hesitant to move forward tonight on this because, you know, I don't know that there may be something else, you know, a month from now or two weeks from now that that may be a better option in terms of, you know, fixing the fire budget and speaking to fire budget, if we are to collect 1.6 million, $1.8 million. I'm not sure that I was I'm not clear as to how that's going to be spent or where it would be dedicated. Is that going to be in the fire budget or is that going to go straight to the general fund? And just kind of before. Because this money was is part of the fee structure for the fire department, this revenue, from our view point would be fire department associated revenue just as just the way the chief described it. Okay. And I know also before this council, we we talked about and we do have the best, I think, fire department in in the state. And that's, to your credit, Chief, Terry, and to the men and women who work for the Long Beach Fire Department. We we want to maintain if we're going to add fees, I'd like to know that there's some guarantees that we're going to maintain the highest quality in terms of personnel that are responding to two calls. Is that something that you can guarantee for me tonight? Because what we have now, I mean, I know particularly for the blessed, there are there are paramedics and then there are EMT. And we changed that model recently. And we can talk about how that model is doing later on. But I'd like for for my resident residents to have some assurances that if we're going to be adding fees, that we're going to make sure that they have trained the highest trained paramedics responding to their needs because essentially we're asking them to do more. Yeah. Councilmember. Yes, fair enough. Every single. Every single. Patient that's evaluated in the city of Long Beach will be evaluated by the highest medical care possible under the in the California Fire Service. And we have no plans on changing that. Okay. We can revisit that. And and lastly, on the action here this evening. I just need some some clarity as to the timing and why tonight and not during our budget process. Well, Councilmember, thank you. But part of the reason we wanted to bring this up now is, as I mentioned earlier, we're not asking for any of these dollars, but for the $200,000 to go to financial management for billing purposes. We're not asking for any of these dollars to be applied to the fire department in fiscal year 16. What we want to do is we want to have it in place and have it work its way through an entire year so we can get some historical perspective on what we actually generate as far as revenue. And then this time next year, when we're sitting before you talking about the fiscal 17 budget, we can say it's generated this much revenue, it's stable and this is what we would ask be applied to fire. So we don't want to use any of it now. We just want to we in years past, we had asked for our budget to be reflective of a potential revenue generation idea, and then that revenue generation idea didn't materialize like we thought it would. We don't want to repeat that process. We want to take a more conservative approach. And secondarily, I do I do have I just want to remind you that the the numbers that we're putting forward to you are based on the 20% rate of return. It's a very conservative estimate on revenue generation. So we think that as we put it in place, as we go throughout the year, we'll have a better idea of what we're actually going to generate, which will give you the ability to discuss it and discuss how best to apply it this time next year. So it's a there's a possibility that the $200 responder fee, $250 for first responders could actually be less. If the projections are higher, we could come back and talk, have that conversation. It. I suppose. I suppose the answer to that is, is you could. We could. The other thing I might comment that you you mentioned is that one another reason for it not being received as revenue in 16 and only for 17 is that it also gives the city council an opportunity to see if the program works as well as the administration thinks it does in terms of being able to handle the hardship cases. So it's an opportunity to evaluate that. Again, we don't think there'll be a problem, but it's a perfect evaluation period. And I guess Mr. City Manager will discuss this if approved this evening. When will this go into effect? Is this something that goes into effect immediately? Katzmaier will be working with the city attorney's office to get this implemented, but it'll go into effect as soon as possible after we provide information to the public on how it's going to operate. And will it be reflected in the FBI 16 budget? No. So not just the $200,000. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Supernova. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Chief Dorey, for your presentation. I have two questions right off the bat from constituents, so I want to read them verbatim in case there any subtleties in it. One is, if a patient can't or won't pay, will the property owner? 20 to 40. Okay well the property owner of the location be build and or have a tax lien placed on their property. Can we be assured that will not happen? But that will not happen. Okay. The second question is, does research show that the fee will be an influence on a patient's decision to call 911? I will use the Sacramento Metro Metropolitan Fire Department as an example. I asked that very specific question whether or not their fee, which is higher, considerably higher than what we're proposing here, had any kind of effect on people, whether or not they were going to utilize 911 as their primary care providers in some cases. In some cases, they said that it did deter some people who were high propensity users of the system from continually using the system like they would find alternative methods to get to an urgent care to their doctor. But for the most part, they said that that the $250 first responder fee because there their first responder fee, because it's applied toward insurance, was not a deterrent for people to call 911 if they actually needed it. Okay. Thank you. The next question has to do with restoration of the cuts. And I think I heard maybe two answers. So I just want to have a lot of clarity here and I'll give you the background. And the reason why it's so important to the residents of Fourth District is we have four engine companies that are in mothballs. That's 1018, 17 and 18 and engine 121 is a secondary engine company to station one. The other three represent the three Eastern Council districts three, four and five. So to put that in perspective, Council District three has fire stations four, eight, 14, 22 and 21, and then 21 is a boat. So let's throw that out. 22 is on the border so we can throw that one out so we can count three fire stations in in in Council District three. Okay. And District five, we have station five, 16, 18 and 19, Station 16 to the airport. So that's not available for medical emergencies. Station 18 is without a fire engine. So if you those two districts, one third of their fire stations do not have a fire engine. The fourth district has one fire station and it is without a fire engine. So 100% of the fire stations in the fourth District are without a fire engine. Sorry for the long explanation, but the very first question I will be ask is do we get our engine company back in Station 17? And I think your answer is the definitive no. Councilmember We would go back and revisit the data that we use to put together our restoration list that we sent to the Council last year. But I will tell you, with regard to Engine 18, it's a definitive no, not not right now. I mean, if we were to have dollars to restore things today, we would follow our restoration list that we sent to council before and we would go right down the list. And Engine 18 doesn't come in until until we restore three additional engines or at least two additional engines ahead of it. Okay. And then for engine 17, I'm sorry, I said engine 18, Engine 17. Right. And Station 17 is central to the Fort Dix. Not only is it our only fire station is central to the fourth district. So it covers the maximum amount of area in the fourth council district. Okay. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Councilwoman. Councilman, Mongo. Thank you. I want to thank the staff for putting this together. I know that this was requested back when I was a part of the Public Safety Committee. And I, too, want to thank everyone for the hard work put in, because none of us want to see any more cuts to our fire department. And most importantly, as our medical calls for service are growing in their percentages. And we really need to have police and fire on hand to be able to respond. And our fire department is critical to that. My colleagues did an excellent job in outlining some of the things. I totally disagree that we are probably the best fire department in the country, not just the state, but just a small part. And thank you for Daryl, for asking the question related to our property owners, because I know that that's a big concern. With regard to our visitors and our recovery process on costs, a lot of the visitors that come into the city are here for events and such. And should those visitors. Receipt or if the calls are made by our hotel staff. How would that work? Well, Councilmember, we would we would approach that the same way, would approach any medical call for service. We we would obviously go to the scene and ask the patient whether or not they needed our assistance. If the patient were to decline and say, no, I don't need any assistance from you, there would be no fee assessed there . But if the patient did have a medical emergency, they were assessed. We did a medical report form part of that medical report form part of our our new system will be to collect insurance information. So that way we can assist financial management in getting the bill to the insurer. And so we would approach it the same way we would approach it. Every patient we respond on in the city gets approached will approach them the same way, whether they're resident visitor business. Whatever. And do you foresee any challenges with patients that are coming from other providers over state lines? Councilmember. I think that happens today where, you know, periodically we'll have conventioneers or somebody who's in town that has a medical emergency. They get transported to a hospital. I'm not familiar with any unique challenges associated with that. I mean, there may be that doesn't I'm just not familiar with any unique challenges there. We would still gather the same type of information to the best of our ability and and share that with financial management. And they would do their billing, I assume, the same way they always do. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. You know, I really want to thank everyone on the diocese who really use some very thorough, you know, questions. And I want to thank you, cheap and also your staff, because the thing I really want to know about was the hardship program. And I think you explain that very, very well. So I really am in motion to agree with Mr. Ricks dealing with Rex. I will second that motion and go along with it, because I think you covered it very well. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And lastly, Vice Mayor Lowenthal thought will go to a vote with within public comment, obviously, as well. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also wanted to thank staff for their work. I know it's very difficult to have this conversation about fee for service when we regard the service that we provide in the city of Long Beach to be all inclusive, especially emergency services. But I feel comfortable and confident that we have a compelling argument for not only protecting those that may not be able to pay, but also be sure that our our department can run and provide continue to provide the services that they do. Just a couple of brief questions. I know they may have been answered, at least in our conversations during our briefings, but when we talk about insurance coverage, I know Councilwoman Gonzalez had mentioned that there may be a limit on some people's insurance coverage. So I will lean into the mike. Is there a cap that you that you're aware of on the basic coverage that people have, not the premium coverage necessarily, but those that might be on Obamacare, for instance, or any other basic level of coverage? Is it one two per year that someone can have a reimbursable call for service? Council Member I'm not aware of any cap on calls for service. I mean, I think if, if you can as a patient, if you're transported to the hospital and you demonstrate a medical necessity, I believe the insurance pays the fee. But sometimes it can be an arduous battle, correct, between the insured and the insurer. I don't know the answer to that. Quite possibly, but I don't know the answer to that for sure. And I think we've heard from residents who do find that to be the case. But but still, I don't feel that your policy recommendation, or at least the recommendation for council to take action is is an onerous one. The hardship exemption. I, too, am interested in that. I know that our city would not would not place this kind of a burden on those in need. And so I have seen us do that in nearly the last ten years that I have been working with our city team. And so I think you'll find a way to ensure that those in need will continue to receive service. And I appreciate your comments earlier about this not being a barrier to service. I think that's that's what I take away from your description. It's not intended to be a barrier for those who need the service and have to call. And just as anyone rendering medical services, whether it's at the hospital or on the at the street level, you would not deny service. And that is not a a benchmark to reach prior to receiving service. And if I can feel assured that that is always the case here, then I'm in support of those. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? Please come forward. Please come forward. Very good you, Kirk, as the address. I'm glad I heard you. Just. Just the three rights I'm going to suggest. The three come forward. Look, go ahead, Mr. Goodhue. I'm glad the council said that you're open to looking at options. I think one of the options we have to examine and seriously consider. In terms of reducing our overall budget. Yes, we go back to work. What works so well for so many years? And not have a paid full time mayor and the staff that goes with it, period. One of the most ridiculous things that I saw in this outage over the weekend or last week. If we had a mayor. Out in the street with a podium and his and the seal of the city with a flight. You know, obviously, he's got a staff to do that. That's absurd. And that's an embarrassment to this city, period. There is nothing you know, you don't need a podium. You don't need a doctor in front of your name. Or if you do, you're in trouble. So I would suggest let's since we're not going to be getting any money this year, hold off. We will have that seismic change in management structure, both electric and otherwise, by mid-November period. And at that time, you can make we can make the decision. And hopefully I think you'll make the right decision as going back to what worked so well for so long. And have a part time mayor. There is selected. If not by the people, by the council, instead of a political hack using it for to build a political career which is devastating to this city or any city. Thank you. Thank you, period. Please come forward and be speaker. Good evening. My name is Jack Smith. I live at 50 Elm Avenue. That's in the East Village in the second district. Attacks as attacks as attacks. You can call it a fee, if you like, about this insurance coverage. There's never been the mention tonight about the word deductible. Insurance will cover it, maybe. But you pay your deductible first and that's cash out of your pocket. So if your deductible happens to be if you're really, really got good coverage at 250 bucks, you pay that 250 bucks. If your deductible happens to be which one, a lot of people who have their own private insurance is as much as five $6,000. That fee comes out of your pocket. So it's not covered by insurance. It's covered by insurance after the deductible has been satisfied. The issue of does it delay call? Well, let me tell you about my own experience. I unfortunately had to avail myself of the services of our fire department and paramedics. And they did a great job and they cost a lot of money. When I had a serious injury here in the city a few years ago, I did not call the paramedics and refused for anybody else to call the paramedics because I knew it was going to cost me a lot of money out of my pocket because of my deductible. At that time, I heard 1100 dollars. I think the bill I got was about $600. Thank goodness. In that situation, I had a friend with me who was able to transport me to the hospital. The hardship process is cumbersome. I've been through that. It is a lot of paperwork. It is a lot of time. You reveal that stuff to yourself, to city staff that maybe you don't care to reveal. He says it's your choice, but there's a form there that gives you a list of everything you have to provide. And then it goes through the process. And my question would be, how much does that process cost? City attorneys involved. I would imagine it cost a significant amount. A question I would have with this, too, is does it if you don't pay, does it get turned over to collections? That has to come up tonight. Collection agencies are very nasty to deal with. Given all the questions and comments and suggestions that have come up tonight, my suggestion would be that you should table this for now, get those answers that you asked for earlier in this discussion and bring this back at a later time in the 30 days, if that's the time frame and make your decision at that point. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Final speaker. Good evening. Thank you to the fire chief for the proposal and the Council for your wonderful questions. I just had a suggestion you might consider. It seems like you're adding $1.6 million to the general fund. It seems like your comments were that over the years, the efficiency of the system has changed such that you're responding 85% to medical calls. And I would just suggest that you might consider using some of that generated revenue to move the force in a direction that's more ready to respond to its its needs and invested in more ambulances for the city. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, we're going to Vice Mayor Lowenthal and we're going to go to work. Since it's been such a long discussion, can we restate the motion as well as the the part that is apart from the motion for the information coming back to us? Absolutely, Mr. Mason. Mayor, members of the city council, as I understand the motion, it is to approve the resolution adopting the fee and also request that the city manager come back with a report within 30 days providing more detail in regard to the fee waiver and also provide information about a program that has been referred to as either an opt in or opt out fee program. Thank you. Subscription fee. Thank you. Members, please cast your votes. Motion carries eight one. Okay. Thank you. No. But yes. Okay. Okay. Next up is we're gonna go back to public comment. And so we have Larry Goodhew, David Zink and Mr. Cromwell. Please come forward. Larry, could you if you can hold the cloud until we get a if I've got a transparency up there for the edification of the. Council members that have not seen it behind you or what you see here is the marine stadium to s which was nefariously raised about a year ago. This structure that you see is a repurposed structure, much needed, but was raised as a result of a criminal ruse that has the mayor's DNA all over it. And one of the things that has captured the attention of the Department of Justice. Is that the. Number of ring tones relative to this water fireside facility is remarkable, remarkably similar to a number of ringtones on a waterside facility 3000 miles to the east that sat on the Potomac. And which. In the year and 42 years ago. Engendered that 1011 word phrase by the late. Howard Baker. That forever changed the paradigm through which. Officers of the court and the Justice Department look at things. And I think you will find. That when they examine very closely. Their criminal roots and the DNA. Of Robert Garcia, who was then. Vice mayor. Coastal Commission member. You will find them looking and asking the same question that was posed by Howard Baker. The end result will be by November. Give or take a week or so, we will have that paradigm shift in management. Both on the 13th floor and the 14th floor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodhue. And I'm wondering if Mr. Zinke is here. David Zinke. Okay. If I might call Mr. Cromwell. Thank you. Thank you. For those of you who had your support that was self-initiated, that was not accompanied by the CFO conversation. So I would like to thank you for that support. First, I would like to know who will be held accountable. Amy Burdick wanted code enforcement in regards to the retaliatory illegal eviction. Want a code enforcement to kind of inspect our union? I did oblige her, and she said we'd take it from there. Code enforcement came out. They did discover 14 violations, many of which existed prior to my initial tenancy. Uh, that have yet to be remedied. Uh, they came out. Nothing has been done since. I have zero follow up from Amy Burdick. Since then, the landlord has locked us out of the unit, locked our cats and our turtle in the unit, boarded up the windows, shut the electricity off. The food in my fridge was probably spoiled. I don't know what the litter box is doing. It's disgusting. It's illegal. So where am I in mind you that in the retired formulation I just rendered to them 60 $500? I tried to put a bid on one of the Parsons parcels that you mentioned today. So my question again remains, why did Amy have code enforcement come out? I never called code enforcement to. I know the fines are minimal and I would call in years ago. I did it to oblige her and in return just had empty promises. Second, Mr. Mike Conway on. June 23rd assured me that the partnership with her strong Community Foundation Corp. the owners of the complex, they would contact the attorney and stop the eviction. Now, Mr. Mike Conway approached myself. In that room, in the hallway. Making these false promises and saying that he had a meeting to attend to the next day. And I have not heard anything from him since. Not once a little thing. June 2nd, City Council commented that they care about the tenants and retaliation and I would like them to prove it. There's no reason why we should not be placed back into our unit. We did absolutely nothing wrong. I should be able to go home tonight. Apologize to my cat. Apologize to the turtle. Clean the litter box. Clean the turtle cage and whatever else is going on inside of that unit. We did have food cooking as well. I was told it in regards to all of these events that it sounds bizarre. And that may be to some. However, Long Beach is no stranger to the misappropriation of funds at all. This is a fact. We did nothing wrong. Now the impact of the scope of this apartment complex owner. Thank you, ma'am. In Long Beach. Thank you. I have to wrap up. Time is up. Okay. Thank you very much. Do you have the rest of the speakers list, vice mayor? Yes, I do. Thank you, Robert Jackson. Lawrence Weathers. Georgie Rivera. I don't believe they're here, sir. Okay. Thank you. So we will move on now. Moving on from public comment, we do have I'm moving a couple items up because there's there's folks here. So I'm going to be moving at 1035 to the top of the regular agenda, which is going to be. Which is which is which is here. So 35 will get moved up if there's other requests of the council can come. Give it to me right now let's do consent calendar minus item four. Can you get a motion, please?

Recommendation to request City Council to support SB 687 regarding emergency rooms and request City Manager to communicate the City's support to the bill's author and our state legislative delegation.

LongBeachCC_04182017_17-0306

The last item that's been asked to be moved forward tonight, I know it's been a lot of them. Tonight is item 27. And then we'll start with the regular agenda. And Madam Clerk. Item 27 is a communication from Councilman Austin Councilmember Peers. Councilwoman Price Recommendation to support SB 687 regarding emergency rooms. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you very much. I think this this bill is SB six, eight, seven, I think is pretty cut and dry and self-explanatory. It would require nonprofit hospitals in California to obtain approval from the state attorney general before closing an emergency department or at least hold a one public hearing about planning codes closure. Currently, the Attorney General has regulatory authority over the state sale of state nonprofit hospitals, but not over the plant closures. This legislation is supported by emergency room nurses, as well as the California professional firefighters. This is a time sensitive matter as this legislation is about to be considered an important policy committee. I know there are few people here to speak on this, but I would ask for your support. I think this is something important to Long Beach because we do have some large nonprofit hospitals in the city of Long Beach. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Yes, I wanted to thank my colleague, Councilmember Austin, for bringing this forward. I know that some of us are supporting statewide bills, that there's some urgency to those bills to make sure that we are putting our support in front of those. And obviously, any closing of emergency rooms or any access to health care that might impact our residents is something that's of high importance to us. And so thank you for bringing this forward. I know it's time sensitive and I would urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this? C No public seeing no public comment on this or someone please come forward. But good evening, Mayor and. Distinguished members of the Long Beach City Council and those present in the audience today. My name is Joe Celestin and I am a community member of SEIU U EASTVIEW and proud millennial I to support the SB 67 resolution. Because over the past few decades there have been too many emergency rooms closures in the state of health in California. Excuse me. California is the last in the country. In the country when it comes to emergency departments per capita, a 6.7 per 1 million people. These emergency rooms closures have resulted in overcrowding, longer waits and ambulances to have to drive further distance to get patients to the. You're seeing how nonprofit hospitals are heavily subsidized by taxpayers such as myself and all of you. They should have an obligation to. The communities they are surrounded by. If we don't do something now to stop breeding of air closures, then my generation will be worse off than previous generations. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. City Council and Long Beach Community. My name is Edna Rivera and I'm a financial counselor at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, and I'm a proud member of SEIU United Health Care Workers. It's a statewide union that represents 90,000 members. I'm here to voice my support for the State Bill 687 resolution. This closing of the emergency rooms across the state of California can have a devastating effect on our communities, especially the communities that include Latinos, African-Americans, women, the uninsured, Medi-Cal beneficiaries, E.R. closures, forcing emergency responders to travel long distance to transport patients to an unavailable E.R., which may cause negative health impacts for patients in need of emergency treatment. SB 687 would require any nonprofit that operates are control of health facilities to write a notice to and obtain consent of the Attorney General prior to a reduction of eliminations of the level of emergencies emergency services. It also requires that public hearing be held to allow community members, like all of us, to voice how the closures would impact our community. In the end, this bill would help ensure that the hub. For. The harmful ripple effect of air closures are minimized or minimized in our communities. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Austin, any other words? Okay, we can do a voice vote starting on. Councilman Austin. I. I. I. I. Kate. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Moving on to the next item. We're actually we had one other request we're going to do item 14. So.

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the amendments to the current terms and conditions for the Refuse Basic Bargaining Unit. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09102019_19-0895

See there's a motion in a second. Ms. controlled the public comment. Okay. Members, please go and cast your votes. Item 14 Police. Motion Carries Item 14 Report from Human Resources Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the amendments to the current terms and conditions for the Refuge Basic Bargaining Unit Citywide. Bush in a second. Ask Mr. Modi, because anything you like to report on. This is a very good thing. This is giving a 2% increase to the refuge workers. This was already budgeted for, already planned for and with SEIU there. Now they are accepting it. So we'd like to get a recommendation to approve. Thank you, Ms.. Cantrell. Any public comment on this? And control. I have no problem with the. They're the refuge workers getting more money. I do have a question about the recycling. Money that we're getting. I understand that many of the recycling places are closing so that I'm wondering about the city continuing there to. Continuing collecting both recyclables and trash. Ms.. Kantrowitz stick to the basic bargaining contract, if possible. Okay. I well, I guess I'm not going to get an answer on that, so I will. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. And Vice Mayor. Sure. Yes. Thank you very much. And first of all, I can say a few things about the refugee union, because I want to thank the men's and women of the refugee bargaining unit for their hard work and dedication to the city. You know, these are people who are filling the bulk of the homeless and the impact on the streets and parks. They are people who we call the cleanup and the encampment who pick up, you know, the matches and the TV. It is a job that we few a few of us would want to do. But every day they risk injuries and disease, but they do it in the heart of the summer and the rain and the cold winter. If you talk to them as I do, they will tell you they do it because they are proud. The pride because the pride of the city of Long Beach and proud to keep our city clean and sanitary. We owe them so much more than we are proven today. But it is a start. And hopefully as we move through the our negotiations, we can offer them more as a as a way of expressing our gratitude to them. And I ask for your support. Thank you very much, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. With that, there is a motion. A second. Please cast your votes.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute a contract, and any necessary amendments, with South Coast Fire Equipment, Inc., of Ontario, CA, for the purchase of two Pierce Arrow XT fire ladder trucks, with related equipment and accessories, on the same terms and conditions afforded to the Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC), of Houston, TX, in an amount not to exceed $3,130,518, inclusive of taxes and fees;

LongBeachCC_09082020_20-0892

Mayor Item 18 or 19. 1818 Report from Financial Management FIA recommendation to adopt a resolution for the purchase of two Pierce Arrow x t fire ladder trucks. Adopt a resolution for the purchase of ten Seagrave Capital Cab Fire Pumpers and authorize city manager to execute a ten year lease purchase agreement for the financing of two fire ladder trucks and ten fire pumpers in an amount not to exceed 15.3 million citywide. I have a motion by Councilmember Austin to get a second. Please signify councilman, your anger. Is there any public comment? There is no public comment on this item. Look, obviously, district one. District one. I speak to my district three. I. District four. By. District. By District. By. District seven. By District eight. By District nine. All right. Motion carries.

A proclamation designating the week of June 23 through June 27 as “Bike Week” and Wednesday, June 25, as “Bike to Work Day” in Denver.

DenverCityCouncil_06232014_14-0527

And like I said, I continuously thank God for that and I thank you for allowing me to work with the city that way. Thank you. Thank you very much. Very moving. We have another proclamation, and I'd like to call on Councilwoman Shepard to read proclamation number 527. With with pleasure, Madam President. Proclamation 527 series of 2014 designating the week of June 23rd through June 27th as Bike Week, and Wednesday, June 25th as Bike to Work Day in Denver. Whereas the city and County of Denver partners with the Denver Regional Council of Governments, local bicycling, bicycling organizations and cycling enthusiasts each year to plan activities and events intended to promote bicycling. And. Whereas, Bike to Work Day is an annual event designed to encourage people to ride bicycles for transportation consistently, to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and benefit public health. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works hosts the Civic Center Park Breakfast Station, one of the largest in the region where cyclists celebrate their commute to work with free snacks, raffle prizes, music and educational outreach offered by the bicycling organizations. And. Whereas, Registration for Bike to Work Day by staff of the city and county of Denver has more than doubled from 2013, with 400 registrants and growing for the 2014 event. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works is a major contributor in the planning and implementation of Denver's bicycle infrastructure, adding at least 15 miles of new bikeways annually, and this year installing Denver's first protected bikeway on 15th Street downtown with vertical separation between bikes and cars. DPD Denver Public Works plans to install more protected bike lanes are contributing to Denver's rank as a top bicycling, bicycling city and its inclusion in the National People for Bikes Green Lane Project. And. Whereas, the city now has more than 140 miles of on street bike lanes and SROs and more than 100 miles of off street trails , offering recreational opportunity along scenic routes and is in the midst of closing a major missing link in Denver's Bike Network with the new pedestrian and bike bridge across I-25 to the Colorado Center and light rail station. And. Whereas, Denver is supporting bicycling in other new and creative ways, testing for the first time this year the viability of on straight on street bike corrals and bike sharing stations where people gather with the goal of supporting local businesses and making bike riding more attractive for Denver's residents. And. Whereas, bicycle and pedestrian safety and infrastructure continues to be a top priority for the Denver City Council of the City and County of Denver, which is supporting funding for additional and expedited multimodal improvements that will increase bicycling in our city. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council, the City and County of Denver, Section one that the by the council designates the week of June 23rd through June 27th as Bike Week and June 25th as Bike to Work Day Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affects the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy here to be forwarded to the manager of Public Works. Thank you, Councilman Shepard. Your motion to adopt. Thank you. I move that proclamation 527 series of 2014 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by Council Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President. I am pleased to once again be asked to read this proclamation and sponsor it, which gives me great pleasure, because as folks who know the work that I do well know that I am absolutely committed to increasing ability and walkability both in my district and across the city and county of Denver. It is imperative that we give our residents every option possible to not have to have a car and to be able to move through our city. And that, you know, contributes, obviously, to reducing our carbon footprint, helps public health outcomes, puts more eyes on the street and and can long term lead to some easing, I hope, of our parking problems. But this is this day on Wednesday of this week is a particularly great day that we have a chance to, you know, all get in our spandex or or not don our helmets and ride down into the city. And as you may know, there's many free breakfast stations and snack bars along these routes. So I encourage folks who are going to be participating to avail themselves of all the free food and other activities that are organized around this event, especially at seven. Senator Park. But I also want to say that this is just, you know, one day and one week that we celebrate. But we've really made tremendous strides during this council term on really increasing safety, comfort, connectivity and infrastructure for cyclists in the city and county of Denver. In 2013, this very body voted to make that the number one priority. And because of the advocacy that we did, we were able to get additional planners and engineers designated into public works department to work on increasing our bicycle network. And I want to thank all of my colleagues, the mayor's office and also public works for teaming together and collaborating together to reach that goal. And I did mention earlier in the proclamation that we were chosen in a very competitive process with other cities this year as one of six to participate in the Green Lanes Project. Our first thing that we've done in that project is to install that vertically buffered, protected bikeway on 15th Avenue, which is all of you know, is an extremely busy street with a lot of traffic, a lot of turning movements, busses, but also bikes. So that extra vertical protection, you should go out and try it if you haven't had a chance to do it yet, because it really, you know, even though it wouldn't keep a car from coming into the lane, it makes the cyclists feel safer and gives a lot more predictability to both the cyclists and the motorists about where , you know, each mode user is supposed to be on the street. And I and I encourage you to try it if you haven't had a chance. And lastly, I'll just say, you know, cycling is is fun and it's a great way to connect with community members. And so I hope that folks will not only try it this week, but, you know, at several other times during the summer. Do you happen to have that photo? So this is a funny photo. But let me let me explain the reason why I'm posting this today. So many of you know that we've got the heads up campaign happening right now, which is an education campaign targeted for all mode users to both be aware and alert while they are driving, walking or cycling or skateboarding or what have you both for their own safety and to be looking out for the other mode users on the trail. So I just want to say that this morning I was biking actually on the bike and pedestrian path at Crown Hill Park and I came across this mode user who was cruising down the bike path at zero miles an hour. He's obviously a fairly vulnerable user because of his size, so I just want everyone to head's up lookout. Be careful. You'll never know exactly who else you might be sharing the road with. Now, at least this stately gentleman has his helmet on. So I do encourage everyone who's going to participate in bike to work day activities this week to be very safe and wear your helmets and look out for the other vulnerable users who might be sharing the trails with you and the roads. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Looks like we are ready for the roll call. Shepherd I Brown Fats I Herndon can each laman lopez. Monteiro Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi, Madam President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Close to voting now to results for Vice 12 eyes. The proclamation is adopted. California shivered. Is there anyone you'd like to ask up to the podium? You know, forgive me. I'm not sure who the recipient is. I don't. Oh, Emily Center. There she is. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Emily Snider from the Public Works. She's our bike and pedestrian planner in the city and she's magnificent. Good evening. Madam President, members of council, thank you again for the proclamation on Bike to Work Week and Bike to Work Day. We're excited about another successful year leading up to this. We've had several milestones in this city. Councilman Shepherd mentioned our protected bike lane on 15th Street just this month. We've also implemented our on street bicycle wayfinding signage that provides destination direction and distance. Based. Signage for cyclists out there on our streets with partners on councils such as Councilman Leavitt's office and some of our merchants associations. We've also installed the first on street bicycle parking corral in which we've taken one bicycle, one car parking space and made it available for 12 bicycle parking spaces and with other members of the community, such as the downtown Denver Partnership and bike Denver. We've made it more than just this Wednesday those to. Asians have been working on a campaign called Bike to Work Wednesdays and getting more people on bikes more often. But I think the biggest thing that I wanted to recognize this year is the increase in staff participation. As the proclamation mentions, we have doubled the enrollment in to work day by city staff and that would not have been possible without one of our new bike planners, Rachel Bronson, who really spearheaded an efforts of many organized representatives from many different departments across the city, very enthusiastic people and staff that have committed their agencies and encouraged their agencies to participate on that day. So it's a great thing for us to encourage all of the cyclists in Denver to participate in Bike to Work Day. But I was thrilled that we have even more representation from the city. So thank you very much. And we look forward to your continued support and getting more people on bikes. Thank you, Emily. Okay, that's moving on. Let's move on to resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.

AN ORDINANCE relating to appropriations for the Office for Civil Rights; amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 Budget; and lifting provisos.

SeattleCityCouncil_08102020_CB 119839

So will the clerk please read item 12 into the record? Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 119839 Relating to Appropriations for the Office for Civil Rights amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted the 2020 budget and lifting provisos. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will move to pass Council Bill 119839. Is there a second can? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Considering what else, as the prime science sponsor of this bill, you are recognized in order to address the item. Thank you. Council President. This bill is lifting proviso for $170,000 to the Office of Civil Rights for work that's been done around the criminal legal system. The idea here is that we need much better coordination and alignment of efforts across various work groups and initiatives and different structures that have been set up over time by the city . As I mentioned this morning, the goal here is to eliminate some of the duplicative work that is happening as these different initiatives seek to engage community to get input from community. There are certainly a lot of interest from community members in participating in engagement in surveys and sharing their expertize and knowledge about what community wants as it relates to how our criminal legal system works or doesn't work. But because there is there are so many different things happening, it is really burdensome on community to be asked to repeatedly. Participate in these so that so that's part of the goal is is to ensure that these multiple requests for engagement and serving are better aligned and better coordinated and just to move the work forward in a much more coordinated way as we think about how to make investments in our city and in the in the work that the Office of Civil Rights and other parts of the city are doing for community safety. Thank you. Councilmember Morales, are there any other comments on. Item 12 cheeseburger bill, please. Thank you. So this is a body of work that had been hosted in my former committee last year related to the civil rights work in my committee. I really appreciate that comes from Rawls as a lot of my co-sponsorship of the bill as a little bit of background. In the 2020 budget, the Council voted to allocate $170,000 from a proposed probation pilot program for high area individuals and to use those funds differently. The proposal was to use 140,000 for partnership, outreach and engagement related to the criminal legal system and 30,000 for community engagement sessions related to the criminal legal system realignment. And I just I want to lift up the history around this because on a weekly call that I and some other councilmembers have had with decriminalize Seattle and King County Equity. Now, the question came up, what happened to those funds that we worked to get cut from the probation pilot program? And serendipitously, we are talking about releasing them to the community now, given the heightened attention to the criminal justice system in the context of COVID. Office of Civil Rights is proposing this use of the $170,000, which central staff has access to meet the proviso language. The goal is $60 million for community mitigation of COVID 19 impacts on houseless communities that are part of the population identified by the High Barrier Work Group. $80,000 is for expanding economic opportunities for formerly incarcerated communities. Working Group in collaboration with the Office of Economic Development. And $30,000 will be for community engagement with regards to COVID 19 related changes in the criminal legal system done in collaboration with City Council central staff in order to move forward with this plan. CCR is requesting that council lift the proviso that's what this legislation does. And again, this is, I think, really the beginning of bringing community in to to lead us as policymakers around criminal justice reform and the creation of a high barrier working group to make sure that those voices are centered. Thank you. If you can't remember her words. Are there any other comments on this item. Who. Keep hearing? None? I will ask the court to please call the role on the passage of the bill. Peterson. I. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Guests. Let's get to. Thank you. Sorry for the delay. I am President Gonzalez. Yes. Eight in favor. None opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The time just. Before. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And the Kirklees effects my signature. It's in the legislation. Item number 13, will the Kirklees read agenda item 13 into the record?

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute and accept from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of The City of Seattle, an Aquatic Lands Lease for Seattle’s Waterfront Parks; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09252017_CB 119085

The Report of the Parks Library, Sir. Excuse me. The Report of the Park Sales Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee General 17 Council 119035 authorizing the Superintendent of Parks Recreation to execute and accept from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the City of Seattle, an aquatic lands lease for Seattle's waterfront parks and I think for research in prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass. Kasper and Bagshaw. I'm pissed. Oh. Maybe you're. Our. So I'll just talk loud and know. I think I'll take it. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. I'm actually pinch hitting here for Councilmember Suarez. The bill in front of us will approve a lease agreement with the Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Lands at Seattle's Waterfront Park, Pier 62 and 63. It's an updated lease. It's necessary to update and complete the reconstruction we're very excited about. This work has been in front of the park's waterfront committee for many, many times over the last year. There's no cost to the city for this, and the committee recommends passage of the bill. Thank you very much. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Johnson O'Brien. Sergeant Major Gonzalez i herbold II. President Harrell II. Seven in favor and unopposed. Bill passed in Sherwood Senate. Please read an item number 18.

Consider Directing the City Manager to Draft Policies with Regard to AirBnb and Related Temporary Lodging Activities in Residential Homes and Zoning Districts. (Councilmember Daysog)

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1794

Directing the city managers draft policies with regard to Airbnb and related temporary lodging activities in residential homes and zoning districts. Okay. Thank you. I just want to. I'll be brief. I just wanted to also talk about the benefits of partnering with Airbnb. Effective July 1st, Oakland will be the city of Oakland. Airbnb will collect the collecting taxes on their Airbnb guest or host. Effective July 1st. It's Airbnb is growing. They're getting larger and larger. And. I believe that Alameda has a great opportunity. I think this is one of the first things that we would look at to increase tourism is to think of ourselves as partnering with Airbnb. Unlike many surrounding cities, Alameda has no bed and breakfast. Since we don't have luxury hotels, we don't have boutique hotels. So the Airbnb rentals are the closest thing that we would have to to bed and breakfast. Right now, Paris is one of the lot. Airbnb is becoming more popular in Paris, London, Cuba. And one of the other benefits of Airbnb is it addresses the sharing economy. And I'd like to talk a lot about that because tenants have a tremendous opportunity to negotiate with their landlords to say, okay, look, you're going to raise my rent and I would like to rent out my space or rent out my extra spare bedroom for some income to help offset the expenses and my other expenses. So Airbnb actually has an entire page to help tenants negotiate with their landlords. No, NOLA, this is a company that prepares legal forms and and helps small businesses. They also have tenant agreements, prepare tenant agreements to help tenants. So we have an opportunity to do something unique and different. And I think we can the rent review board could possibly use this as a tool, and I know that that's why not talking about when we view boards, but I just I've done a lot of research . I spent almost the whole weekend researching the benefits of Airbnb and I know this is going to come up again, but I'm really excited about partnering. Take a look at the city of Malibu, the Airbnb, the advertising, a promotion that they're doing for the city of Malibu. It's pretty incredible. Partnering with Airbnb means that they will do a lot of your advertising, so that's what it looks like to be partnering with it. And so you're getting all of this advertising and branding and it's pretty exciting. So if you get a chance to do that. And one last comment, Paris, they said according to their site, many of their hosts work in the creative industry and more than 40% are self-employed, freelance or part time. So this is an incredible way to increase their income and allow them to continue to be artists. So as you can see, I'm pretty excited about this one, too. Thank you. Any other comments on this item? All right then proceeding with Council Communications Member DE. I just want to say now I know that the item of the rent reforms will be coming back to us later this month. I just want to take a moment to say, you know, it's. It's it's sad when I know two families were one living next door to my good friend Kerry and another living next door to

A proclamation honoring David Stewart for his service to the City and County of Denver.

DenverCityCouncil_10052015_15-0688

, you know, reassuring, talking it through. He called back in the morning. That commitment to safety goes above and beyond. A lot of times, I think the call of duty and we're sorry to see him retire and leave the city, but I'm sure that we are all much safer, safer with him being here and having his touch around , making sure that workplace safety is a high priority. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Clark? Yeah. I just wanted to also chime in and say thank you so much for your service, especially when it comes to our park ranger program. This is just an incredible asset to our city. These park rangers are out in our beloved parks and doing really hard work with people who get angry with them. And I have seen personally so many times them just be calm in the face of yelling people and really help make sure that all of our parks are safe and enjoyable for everyone. I can't imagine our city and our park system without this Ranger program. And so I just wanted to add my. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Lopez. I also wanted to just chime in on the thank you's and congratulations. Thank you for the hard work. I actually am very thrilled you are here in the council chambers celebrating and the proclamation. And not because I had a six pack at Barnum Park not too long ago. I was like, God, I swear to God, we drank that all medium and put it in. I'm just kidding. It's keeping you on your toes, man. No, I. It's. The Park Ranger program is so important in our city, and you all help keep the peace in our parks, help keep them pristine, but also help educate people on what the rules are and and what we can and can't do to our parks. And also because our parks are so historic. However old or however new they are, there are places for everybody and there are places for community gather and you all are the faces. And you all served this city with such with such dignity and with such hard work and honor. And I think it's it's fitting and congratulations and thank you so much for your service. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. Mr. President, I'd like to have my name added. And I just wanted to say, do we have Happy Haines here in the audience? Happy served on this city council. And back then we used to have parks police. It was before we had Parks Rangers and, you know, a lot a lot changes in the city. But I think the fact that we do have park rangers is so important, especially, you know, not just in the city, but in our mountain parks as well. And not long ago, a number of us had an opportunity to go do a tour of our mountain parks. And the amount of land that we have in our mountain communities is pretty, pretty massive. And so to be able to cover all that ground and deal with some of the challenges and issues that come up, I think is is important. I know that involves a lot of interface with Jefferson County where most of that land is located. But I just wanted to say, David, thank you for your 19 plus years of service and really appreciate your dedication and commitment to the city and just wish you Godspeed in in your retirement. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Any other comments on 688? CNN Madam Secretary, roll call. Gilmore I. Cashman I can each. Lopez I knew Ortega I. Susman, I black I. Brooks, Clark. I. Espinosa, I. New. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please, first of all, to announce the results. 1212 8688 has been adopted, Councilwoman Gilmore. Don't suppose there's somebody you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to invite a Denver Parks and Rec leadership, along with Mr. David Stewart. So I just wanted to say a quick word. So, David. David has been huge for me. I mean, I've been in this job about four years, and I learned very quickly that when he's not the person you call, when something's going right, you call it when something is going wrong. And I'll tell you what. Not once did I ever call him, and he did not pick up his phone. He was always there for me, and he always gave me the sage advice. He kept he just kept things on the right track. And he made sure that I was doing making sure I was doing the things right and correctly, to make sure that we kept people out of trouble and we made sure that we were following protocol. As as Councilwoman Ortega mentioned, you know, we had an amazing mountain parks tour. And and on that great adventure, we had a little mishap on the way back to Denver on Sixth Avenue. And I'll tell you what, the first person I called was Dave Stewart. And I'll tell you what. Within 15 minutes, he was out there on Sixth Avenue helping us deal with that situation and taking care of business. So it is true. It is totally true. Dave created the park ranger program in 1999. He decided, we need a park ranger program. And it is true that when he started the program for at least the first month, he took his bike and he strapped it to the front of RTD bus and went around to Parks and and basically was our first park ranger. So I want our park rangers to stand up. I just want you to know, if it wasn't for Dave, we would not have a park ranger program. We probably have around 30 park rangers in the city of Denver right now. And to think that he was he did this and he envisioned this is pretty amazing. So I want to actually acknowledged Janet, his friend that's here. And thank you for coming. And all of our park staff has come to definitely recognize David because he's been a huge part of our department. So I do want Bob Tall to come up and say a few words. Good evening. I'm real proud to stand up here and to recognize Dave for his years of service. And I feel very honored to be part of the ceremony tonight to help congratulate him on all those years of service. A lot of things have been said already. They're all true, and I really appreciate all of council's support for the program and the kind words for Dave. They're well-deserved. Dave I don't know how to say it, but Dave exemplified and yes, he does answer his phone like Scott, no matter when you call. But Dave exemplified and promoted excellence in serving park visitors and protecting park resources and the finest park system in the nation. Denver His legacy of leadership and mentoring continues to inspire all of us and including myself and is very much appreciated. I feel fortunate to work the last three and a half plus years with Dave. So Dave, on behalf of the Denver Park Ranger program, congratulations on your retirement. And I'd like to present this little badge plaque for Dave. And let me just read it to you, maybe just a little bit of background. First, we always called Dave the godfather of the program because that's that's what he was. And so this badge plaque is presented to Dave Stewart, the godfather of Denver Rangers. Thanks for all the years of dedicated service. Denver Park Ranger Program 2015. Once again, I'm. Just window dressing. But I did say to what I said to Davis, Is it something that I said. Dave? Well, thank you. This is truly an honor. And I really appreciate. The. Opportunity to serve the citizens of Denver and Denver City Council. The mayor's office and. I have. Started out with the city attorney's office. For my first seven years and moved. To the finance office and then finished my last six years. With the Parks Recreation Department. So it's truly an honor and thank you very much. And good luck with the new appointment. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, for that. We are moving on to Proclamation 689. Councilman Cashman, would you please read Proclamation 689? Thank you, Mr. President. Let's see. Proclamation 689 celebrating October as spell binders aural stirrer storytelling month. Whereas in 1998, Spell Binders was founded in Denver, Colorado, bought by Jermain Deitch, who wanted to build intergenerational communities between children and older adults. And in 1997, Spell Binders became a Colorado nonprofit corporation with the goal of establishing storytelling chapters across the country. And. Whereas, Spell Binders oral storytellers have shared the art and joy of oral storytelling with 65,000 Colorado students each year. And. Whereas, Spell Binders is dedicated to restoring the art of oral storytelling to connect seniors to youth, weaving together the wisdom of diverse cultures throughout time and. Whereas, Spell Binders oral storytellers are volunteers who embrace the power of stories, keeping children spellbound with literature. Today there are 18 chapters in six states and in Canada. And. Whereas, Spell Binders oral storytellers are committed to enhancing literacy, encouraging character development, providing humor, building resources of wisdom, and sharing a love for the written word. And. Whereas, storytellers gathered at Denver Union Station on October 2nd, 2015 at 4:25 p.m. through October 3rd, 2015 at 5:25 p.m. to set the world record of 25 hours of storytelling. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council proclaims the month of October 2015 as

Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Update on Crime within the City. (Mayor Spencer) [Not heard on November 7, 2017]

AlamedaCC_11212017_2017-4844

And I want to thank counsel for allowing this to be moved forward. It was not her last time, and I actually submitted this referral back on October 11th. And it and I think it's very important. So the ask is, the members of the public have expressed concern over what appears to be an increase in crime in the city. Consider directing staff to provide a public update on crime within our city. That includes trends. What the city is doing. And what additional steps can be taken to reduce or thwart criminal activity. And council could consider also holding a workshop. And I also submitted today another referral that's very related to this asking council to. Can we talk about something that's not on the agenda? I believe the city attorney is indicating we cannot. Well, so part of this referral actually says to consider. You'll hear from the acting city. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Can we stick to the item on the agenda, please? So I just wanted to speak to this as considered directing staff to provide a public update on crime within the city that includes trends. But the city is doing. And what additional steps can be taken to reduce or thwart criminal activity. So in regards to that part, I think I can add that we could consider adding an oversight committee by the community. That's clearly different. That mayor, is that in the referral? That's I didn't see that. So as regards the additional steps that we could discuss at council. What is his account. For us at? So you're saying under. This under this, we could consider that, I think, in regards to additional steps that we can discuss. But I think staff to. To consider that as a possible additional step. But it doesn't have to be at this time because I do have it coming back. It's just another way of that could be considered. That was that was why I think they were looking for discussion now. Yes. So we can have. Yes. And I don't know that we have any speakers on this item. We do not. All right. A member of addressee. I see no problem with. Having staff. Publicize all the points that are listed in the referral as far as what the current trends are. We have a public information officer. We have we have many ways that the city manager can can make this happen. So I think that's good direction since it is it is a matter of concern. And across many pockets, many neighborhoods of have expressed this and this is a way to get a update on the city. So I have no problem with that. I think a workshop is premature. I don't know what tasks that council would be considering or directing without understanding what the trends and and what the actions that staff comes back to us with, with this direction. So I think that's a future item. And then your what you mentioned as another possible step as an oversight committee. Again, I have no idea. What is that, a police review board? Is that a crime committee? I you know that that's something that I'm not prepared to comment on, but that we can, again, looking at what comes back to us and to the public , more importantly, because the public is is right now is it's spot reporting and we're all hearing it from many different spots. And how does this all come together and what plan does the city have to publicize exactly what you laid out? So I'm I'm fine with that, but I want to hold off on scheduling any kind of workshop just because I don't want to have a workshop. Just have a workshop. And this like an oversight committee, I don't know. What are we overseeing? We don't know yet. Any other comments? Vice mayor. I think one thing that would be helpful and council member matter as briefly touched on this is that we're hearing a number of different reports. And I know that our police officers and police chief have been having various community group meetings and meeting with various constituent groups. So it would be helpful to have that all put together in one report to us so that we can all be on the same page and understand what the concerns have been and and what, you know, what? What our constituents are saying and also how we can go about addressing that. I thought we had a you know, we all attended a meeting at the Edison School at Edison School for one neighborhood. But I think that those types of meetings are happening all over, and it makes sense to have a report on that and hear about that in terms of next steps. I think we probably are going to need a workshop at some point. But I you know, I'm open to holding off. I think we could just say that based off of the report, the council can at that point determine if any next steps are required and what they would be. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, on this I was also at that meeting, I think all five of us were at that meeting and and two members of our police force. And, you know what what concerns me is, you know, there seems to be a disconnect. And there were some letters back and forth. And I think the police chief responded to one and I kind of chimed in. But, you know, if you look at the numbers, you know, we are actually in a period of low crime. Yet there seems to be a perception in the community and I don't know, because maybe there are spikes in certain neighborhoods, or maybe because everything that happens that 20 years ago nobody knew about. You know, we're all seeing on Facebook and Twitter, you know, I followed the, you know, the peeps post when we had the incident over there with the guy that was chased and he threw his gun away. I mean. I think. You know, that was like real time. So I mean I mean, but, you know, that's the first time I've heard of that happening in Alameda in many years. So. I mean, is is there a perception issue or is there a real issue? And if it's a perception issue, you know, then maybe it's not something that, you know, belongs in the police department sphere. I mean, maybe that's, you know, working to communicate that, you know, we are in a period of low crime. Our officers are doing X, Y and Z, you know, and, you know. So maybe that's why a workshop might be good, you know, a workshop that we can have, you know, statistics talked about and, you know, kind of figure out, you know, where the problem is because people seem to be afraid, but yet the numbers don't back up the fear. So, I mean, I think a workshop would be a good idea and I think we should move this forward. And, you know, it'd be interesting to have this discussion because, you know, when these things happen, you know, like it or not, you know, we are the elected officials and the public comes to us and expects answers. So and we've done a good job, I think, on, you know, keeping the council informed on hate incidents. You know, I didn't realize there were so many. And it's disappointing that there are, but I'm very appreciative that, you know, we're kept up to speed on those. But I think what, you know, everyone has to understand in this building is that we are on the front line. You know, when it comes to people, people see us and they expect us to respond and they expect us to know. So, you know, the more that information we have to share with our constituents, you know, I think the better we can do our jobs and ultimately, the better everyone here can do their jobs. So in regards to the workshop, is that something I've heard? I supported that. May I speak to a member? Yes. So. So I'm wondering if. We could call Chief. Larry up. I know he's in the audience. And one of the things that I think I think communication is really important. But there's also a time, a place and a conduit for the information. And I think if the chief doesn't mind me putting him on the spot, as I usually do, but he always handles it really well there, you know, we we hear things. And these days with social media, it's it is kind of a double edged sword. Information gets out quickly. It's not always accurate, but it's really hard to get those horses back in the barn. And so, Chief O'Leary, if you could talk to us a little bit about reporting when an incident comes to light, how and when is it appropriate for the police department or the city or the school district to to comment and maybe also talk to us a little bit about all the different things your officers are doing on any given day. Before you answer, I want to ask, is that part of the referral? I don't really believe it is. When we're talking about an update on crime within the. City that suppose that would be part of the referral that it would happen if we agree, that is the ask, right? So that's actually ahead of where we are. So it's not appropriate at this time. And I apologize, the chief, but that's actually what I'm asking for. That would be more comprehensive and not putting you on the spot like it's happening right now. Okay, so I put you on the spot, but I'll keep the this the you can sit down, chief. But I do think it's important when we talk about for staff to provide a public update on crime within the city. I do think it's important to to understand that it's not just necessarily the minute something happens and we we blast an announcement out because an investigation is often under way. So that's not really the ask right now. I don't think I said that either. I mean, I didn't say that. I mean, so. I would prefer. I'm not. All right. So so thank you. All right. So I have a referral I did here, so I'd like to make a motion then. So actually I'd like to clarify with that, come back in the form of a workshop with the data at that time, or would we want it to come back at the council as a council meeting and then decide in the future of having a workshop? That's fair. Yes. I would support having a summary report and overview just like you laid out in the referral. Come back to the council. And it talks about trends. It talks about what's going on and it talks about where the crime is. So with that, then we can have a discussion on whether or not. The next step involves jumping right into a workshop or having a periodic reports so we can start looking at. Point A, point B, trends, what's going on and then make a decision as we see what the data show. I spend. You know, a workshop at least. We've had some workshops that have started prior to council meetings, and I think that this is one of those items. Our, our officers are doing a lot of work, but I also think we need to give a platform so that everybody understands that. It's not just that they had one meeting at Edison School that one night, that there's all of the work that's being done. If we're not telling people this is collectively all of the work that we've done, I just think that the report is going to take longer than one item. And if there's public comment, then I just worry that we're going to cram it into a meeting and then we're not actually going to get to other agenda items. So so that's my only concern and I offer some information. So the police chief has asked his staff to collect data for the last 30 years. It was mentioned at the meeting at the school that all of you went to Edison School. And that was meeting. Right, that we would be providing that information. And so the police chief and Arpaio drafted an article that they are planning to give to the public through all of our media outlets, like we do all of the information that we try and get out to the public. And it shows over the 30 year time period a drop in crime. That this chamoy area as well as perch crime. Not currently, but we can bring that data back and give it to the council or. I'm looking for more specific data. That's right. Right, right. Because I I'm just sort of I want the council to be aware that staff is hearing you not just as this referral, but what was stated and what you have told neighbors that we will provide as much information as we have as we get it. And we want staff wants to be able to give that information out to the public. And if we wait to schedule a work shop before we get that information out, it's not in the best interest. So that what they ask, if they're writing an article, obviously you can release your article any time you want data and hopefully share it with council. I mean, that's part of what's happening here is we want to be included. But this is the vice mayor and then the. RASCOFF So. So. You. So part of it is also that we're also asking for what additional steps can be taken to reduce or thwart criminal activity. And again, I just think I commend staff for the work that's being done. I really do. I think that there's been a tremendous effort. I want staff to get credit for the work that's being done because there's a lot of one on one conversations happening. Our officers are responding and even when they're they've been busy with other calls, they're they're going the extra mile and meeting people to take the reports in. I do think we're in a different time. And I also worry about our officers safety when we're seeing these reports real time, when people are listening in on the radio broadcasts. So I also feel like this is an opportunity for us to have a conversation with some of the folks in the public who have a different perception of what's going on, and for us to be very united in terms of what's happening so that it's not just our officers, it's the officers, it's the council, it's the city. And we're really trying to look at I think the trends are going to be very helpful for people to see. That'll change some of the perspective, but I think it will also be good to have that in conjunction to have us collectively have that conversation. The only reason I think a workshop might be helpful is our agendas tend to be so packed that it would it might facilitate a better conversation with the community and kind of support what the work that's already being done. So that's kind of where I'm coming from on it. Mary Ashcroft And actually, I was going to come down on the side of the vice mayor. I think if we could have a workshop, um, timing is always tricky because I actually not that I like giving up my Saturday mornings, but I did think that we were fresh and we were. But because Friday night really wasn't optimal. And but if we could, because one of the things and I talked to the chief about these things that I think. There's a lot of different perspectives and they're all correct. Statistically, there is a trend. If you look over the last three years, the line is going down. However, if you had your garage broken into or entered in the bicycle stolen or packages taken off your your porch, that's cold comfort. And so that's why we want to make sure that our residents know, to report to the police, not on Facebook and and to and the police will, you know, they take that information very seriously. And also, these preventive matters now, maybe the 30 years of statistics won't be compiled by then. That's a lot. But I think it might just be a you know, it's structured correctly. It might be an opportunity to hear from neighbors and also to hear from the source rather than the change on social media. That, again, is that double edged sword. It's quick. It gets out there. It's not always accurate and it's really difficult to correct the record. So. But then it's up to staff, of course. When could we I mean, this is we're like looking into the next year, obviously, because. Yes. And it is an impact on our police chief to come out on a Saturday. It's an impact on, you know, staff that's really working hard to try and do actually keep the crime down. And I think what the vice mayor suggested might be a good compromise of doing a workshop at 6:00 or 530 or. I'm I'm not etched in stone as far as the time in the day, just but a stand alone workshop, I think, you know, is. So it isn't as an agenda. And I would also I think we're all respectful of staff time. So we would I'm assuming we would look to the city manager to go back and, you know, with her department, the relevant department heads, most likely the chief, you know, figure out when it works. We don't want it to be an imposition. And so so I didn't mean that, you know, I'm just saying, if we could figure out there's never one perfect time, I get that. So but if we're already meeting at a council meeting, at least it's easier to schedule the council for that. So it. Helps member. I mean, just quickly, I would agree with what, you know, the vice mayor said, you know, I'm not quite convinced that we are have a crime problem as much as that we are not communicating to the public, you know, the successes of our police department and the good jobs that they're doing. And I think that goes for, you know, a lot of things that staff does. I mean, we talked about the three leases and, you know, the money earlier, you know, that was basically genocide, not in the rest of our staff. So, you know, if we do some analysis there, you know, let's just make sure we kind of look at more than just, you know, is crime up or is crime down? You know, you know, whether what's up in the front side or, you know, wherever, but, you know, figure out ways that, you know, we can better we can better give. Has the vice mayor said give the staff the credit for doing the job that they're doing? And, you know, I'm perfectly fine with having a Saturday meeting. I think I think better at three in the afternoon than three in the morning. And, you know, I'm worried about two hour, three hour workshops, you know, making council meetings go later. But, you know, it's an imposition on us to to give up our weekends, you know. But that's what we signed up for. So, I mean, however it works out, it works out. But, you know, I'm fine with a weekend workshop to. All right, so they're in motion. I'll make a motion. So I'd like to move that that we direct staff to compile a report. That would include a public update on crime within the city. That includes trends as well as what the city is doing and what additional steps can be taken to reduce or thwart criminal activity and to hold or conduct a workshop to give the report. I'd like to second that question. Yes. Member matter. I would. But those come simultaneously. I think it's a public report on what's listed on the trends and what you can do. I think police have already are already starting to work on that. I do not want to have that held up and held from the public and waiting for us to schedule a workshop sometime next year . I think that train can roll by itself and then we get a chance to look at. I prefer that it comes out as soon as it's ready to come out and then we get a chance to look at it, to interact with the community and then have a workshop if we're going to have a workshop. And so I want to make sure that distinction is clear. So I'm not saying that we don't I think that part of the conversation has been that the report can be released whenever it's completed, but that the purpose would be to actually host the workshop so that we can discuss the contents of the report in a meaningful way. I just want to make sure the point is that that report comes out before the workshop. Well, I think the report can come out whenever it's ready. Right. I mean, I don't think there's any ask to reject to withhold the information. The reason I submitted the referral is, honestly, I want the information and I would like it as soon as possible. So I can amend my motion to just state that whenever the report is completed that it be released. However, I would also like to have the workshops set as soon as possible after the information is released so that we can have that conversation. Well, and again, I think we leave that to the. I think I think the direction is is that and I think we've made it very clear in the conversation that we scheduled the workshop to occur. The staff have an estimate of. Time whenever, whenever feasible. I mean, that part of it is also just going to be a schedule, a scheduling issue. And we don't want to schedule the workshop during the holidays when we're not going to be able to actually interact with members of the public. What I'm hearing is that the report is probably going to be released sometime relatively soon. So through the 30 year timeline of criminal activity by. Part one and part two. By sector. Five, 30 year timeline by part one and part two citywide from the FBI. Information over a 30 year time period is what we will first give to the public. And as we're doing a more refined data and we can also submit that before workshop. And what I'm hearing too is that we will try and schedule the workshop as soon as possible, but after the holidays. And just for clarification, which is kind of what I'm probably being dense here, but what is the part, one part to you? It's major crimes and, you know, rapes and robberies and or even worse. Oh, is it scheduled at least? Jeff is a better person to me. Maybe have him speak now. See, that's not too much on the spot. Right? So two things. Part one, crimes are basically the more serious offenses murder, rape, robbery, auto burglary, burglary, grand theft, arson. Things of that nature are two. Crimes are everything else. That's that's how and the reason why it's broken up that way is that's what the how every law enforcement agency reports their crime every month to the FBI . It's based on something called UCR reporting requirements, uniform crime reporting. So the federal government doesn't care what the individual states thresholds are for, say, grand theft and petty theft. They've got their own categories and they want us to report to them every month based on those categories. So part one is more serious. Part two is everything else. So my understanding is the city has sectors. That's how we break up the city. We do. And I have I have crime statistics that are available by those sectors. The article that Sarah Henry and I worked on, that's going to be coming out later this week. I did not break it down by the sectors. I just did an overall for the entire island, 30 year kind of a look back. And then I spoke specifically about some of the trends that we're seeing this year. I can absolutely do the sector reports. No problem. But one thing that I would want the council to know upfront is that when I was hired 26 years ago, almost, we only had four reporting districts. We now have five. So it's not going to be it's going to be a little bit skewed. And five is the base. It's Alameda Point. In 1992 when I was hired, we didn't patrol that area. We now do. And so that's our fifth sector. Sectors one through four haven't changed or. Have not. Changed, or the data would still be relevant in regards to any change in crime in each sector. One through. Four. Yes, the addition of five. Rests with with the caveat that sector one has just grown exponentially in the last couple of years with Alameda Landing. So again, you're going to be talking about sector one four that looked one way for 23 years and then for the last couple of years looks entirely different. Right. And feel free to in your report to make footnotes in regards to that. So the public is aware so that it's more meaningful to the public and to us? Absolutely. That'll be very helpful. Yeah. All right. So now can I make one more suggestion? The report can be prepared because I already have the data. It's just compiling it and doing a narrative with footnotes and all that. My suggestion would be that here we are near the middle of November. If I could come to you in early January, I would have the complete 2017 year. The data from the month of December is usually available in the first week or two of January, and so I could come to you with a complete year that way as opposed to 11 months. Okay, so that sounds great. So then we can try to set something in early January. That'd be wonderful. Thank you very much. Our second meeting of. That meeting in January, probably. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Welcome. So we have a motion now ready to say something like Vote the motion. And I seconded all those in favor. My motion carries unanimous. Thank you. And now we are on six B was moved. That's going to be coming back to December 5th, six C. Public hearing to consider amendments to the Community Development BLOCK Grant Action Plans for fiscal year 2010 through 11 through 20 1617. Authorizing the City Manager to execute related documents and adoption of resolution amending fiscal year 20 1718 budget. Hi. Hi. I'm Lisa. You probably want to pull your mike down just a little. Yeah. Perkins. Madam Mayor. Members of the city council and staff. I am Lisa Fitts with the Alameda Housing Authority. I'm the manager for the CDBG home and BMR programs and I've been with the city since June.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit grant applications to the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District (District) for the Fourth Supervisorial District Excess Funds Program (Program), upon receipt of a grant award; accept a total of $2,600,000 in Competitive Excess Funds from the District for the Program to be utilized for the development of park projects in the City of Long Beach; and, upon acceptance of the grant award, Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $2,600,000, offset by revenue from the grant. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11012016_16-0994

Okay. Motion carries item 24 and Mr. West, I know this is I don't 24 is a pretty big deal. And we're very thankful to Supervisor Tanabe for his work on this. Did you want to do a short staff report? Yes, I think we should. This is huge, $2.6. Million at the end of the term here. I'm going to turn this over to our director, Marie Knight. But scrutiny married members of the council. In June 2016, the Competitive Access Funds became available from the fourth supervisor Supervisor of the District Access Funds Program. This program is provided under Los Angeles County Proposition eight and allocates excess grant funds equally to each supervisor or district, which distributes available funding to eligible recipients through the Office of Supervisor Duncan Harvey. The City of Long Beach was notified that it would be receiving $2.6 million in competitive excess funds. Funding may be used for park projects that consist of acquisition, development, improvement and or rehabilitation of real property in the fourth Supervisor District. County staff indicated that funds must be prioritized for shovel ready projects that can be implemented in a short amount of time. The Department of Parks, Recreation, Marine and the Department of Public Works to prioritize park projects for this funding based on a set of established criteria designed to leverage existing funding and maximize grant funding. These park projects would include shovel ready projects that can be completed in a short amount of time, and specifically those that require gap funding for completion are related to park safety and accessibility projects and priority projects, not funded by Measure A. So here are the projects that we have chosen 14th Street Park expansion project that is underway. There's $200,000 being dedicated to that citywide park, irrigation and landscape improvements. As you know, we are in desperate need of upgrading many of our irrigation systems throughout the city. And once we do some of those upgrades, which will in some cases require us to re landscaped those areas after we have done the irrigation improvements. That money will be used in those areas. El Dorado, Duck Pond. El Dorado, West Duck Pond Restoration. This will be added to some existing grant funding that we have already. El Dorado Regional Park Restroom Rehabilitation. This will help us rehabilitate two of our restrooms in our regional park. The next one is ADA improvements and some relocation of some park amenities at the heart. Hutton Park Stearns Park Community Center improvements. This is to go towards some existing emergency funds that were set aside from our general fund for some repair of the roof there. And we're having some major issues there with some structural issues and some leaking of the roof. The Wrigley Greenbelt Trail. This will help us provide the final piece of gap funding that's needed so that project can move forward. And the red car greenway, this extends that Greenway project into the next segment in the next phase. So again, we are very, very grateful to Supervisor Tanabe for this funding that allows these projects that some of them were in sort of a holding pattern until we had this money to move forward. Think. And I just want to add also my thanks to Supervisor Tanabe. I know that he was very supportive of his projects and it's his last, I guess, last ability to give to the projects. And as a note, I know he's giving these to Long Beach, but he's doing some projects across the county. And so I think all cities are benefiting from the projects added in this pool. So thank you for that. And Councilmember actually, I'm sorry, Councilman Andres, you didn't have any comments on the motion, right? Okay. Let me go to Councilman Austin. Did you know Councilmember Pearce? I yes. I also want to thank. Supervisor Tanabe for prioritizing our parks. And I just had a question for the citywide park. Irrigation and landscaping improvements. I'm not sure if Bixby Park is included in that, if it is included in that when we return to redo the landscaping there from doing new irrigation. I wanted to comment that I would really love to see a dog park there and to get some dollars for us to explore what that would cost and how quickly we could turn that around, particularly with trying to activate the entire park right now. So at this point, the irrigation projects won't include landscaping in addition to what is needed just to repair the landscaping that has been torn up because of the irrigation projects. So that landscaping that's included in this is not additional or landscaping in other park areas, but it is to replace what is being torn up from the construction. And do we know, is a Bixby Park included in at this point? I do not have the final list. We're combining this money and projects with some of the major aid money that we have. We are prioritizing those park areas where we are either manually turning on irrigation, which is very inefficient. So for example, there are some areas in Hartwell Park that will be looking we'll be looking at parks that are not using reclaimed water so that we can be more efficient with that. So I don't have the final list at this point in time, but I will let you know because the park makes that list. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you. There's a motion and a second and a public comment saying now please cast your votes.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft resolution in support of AB 664 and SB 893, regarding presumptive work-related injuries and worker's compensation for first responders and return to the City Council for adoption on June 2, 2020.

LongBeachCC_05192020_20-0449

I know. Ocean carries. Thank you. Item number 12, please. Communication from Councilmember Pearce, Vice Mayor Andrews, Councilman Austin Councilmember Richardson Recommendation to request city attorney to draft resolution in support of AB 664 and SB 893. Councilman Pearce. Thank you, Mayor. And this item is in support of AB six, six, four and as written SB 893 as at b893 did not make it. And so I'd like to make the motion to just be a resolution in support of AB 664 AB 664 due to the unique dangers faced by first responders, certain types of injuries deemed presumptively work related. During the COVID 19 pandemic, first responders and health care professionals are required by law to provide vital public safety services. This puts them at risk of exposure and infection. AB 664 would classify COVID 19 and other communicable diseases as as presumptive work related injuries for nurses, firefighters and police officers. This bill has the support of the L.A. Police Protective League, the California Firefighters Police Officers Research Association of California, Riverside Sheriffs Association, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association, California Professional Firefighters, CNA, and many more. There's a belief that these items are going to pass on the floor. We were asked to support our local first responders in supporting this. So I ask that my colleagues support this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And there was a motion. The second baseman, Andres Best Mariners. Yes. Excellent. I support that. Okay, great. Roll call vote. District one. I. District two i. District three. I district for. All right. District five. I District six. I'm District seven. I. District eight. High District nine. I. Motion carries. Thank you. We're down to our last two items. Let's go ahead here for item 14 next, which we'll have a short report. I know. And then we'll move on to our largest item of the night, which would be 13.

Recommendation to request City Manager to engage California State Lands Commission and other stakeholders regarding potential modifications to the Oil Barrel Production tax; Request City Attorney to prepare all necessary documents to place a ballot question on the November 2020 ballot for an increase in the Oil Barrel Production Tax and to work with the City Manager to provide options and financial impact on the amount of the tax and mechanisms for a progressive tax that increases over time and for a resolution defining the City Council's intent for use of the funds; and Request City Manager and City Attorney to explore the feasibility of preparing a ballot advisory question on whether to reinvest future cannabis revenue into economic equity, health equity, and youth investments, and to further strengthen our cannabis equity program to expand equitable ownership opportunities.

LongBeachCC_07072020_20-0636

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We are now doing item 23. Communication for Mayor Garcia, Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilmember Pierce, Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request City Manager to engage California State Lands Commission regarding potential modifications to the oil barrel production tax request. City Attorney to prepare all necessary documents to place a ballot question on the November 2020 ballot for an increase in the oil barrel production tax. And request city manager and City Attorney to explore the feasibility of preparing a ballot advisory question on whether to reinvest future cannabis revenue. Thank you, Madam Cook I'm going to make a few just opening comments. I know that the Council is queued up to to discuss and make comments, so I'll be fairly brief, but I just want to make some overarching comments. I just wanted just a little a little context. Obviously. I think that as we know that from a timing perspective, the council is going to consider anything for the November ballot. Now is the time to consider those and trying to give the city attorney enough time to bring what a ballot measure would actually look like in front of the city council. So that's why this is being discussed. So the in line, which we have, of course, an oil barrel production tax, it's a common in cities that have this industry. We know that here locally, the last time that this tax was raised was about ten years ago. Actually, it was part of a proposal by our city auditor, Laura Dowd, who increased and took to voters an increase of $0.25 to the oil production tax. Back then, it was 11 years ago that passed the voters and at the time it was put in place for public safety services. And in fact, we still see those to this day. We know that in Long Beach, the oil for the oil barrel production tax is $0.47. You look at our neighbor in Signal Hill and it's at $0.67. And so there certainly is a difference between us and and our local our local neighbor. These taxes just for the council discussion are not taxes on residents. So local residents, of course, don't pay into this. It's directly on oil barrel production and essentially is on companies that that that produce oil. But in addition it's also on those that that see revenue. So if you include the state of California, the city of Long Beach, which also, of course, the oil revenue are also part of the overall production pie as it relates to revenues. And we concern it just broadly speaking, obviously, you think about Long Beach is as a leader on climate, we've been doing a lot of great work around climate, whether it's been the cleaner action plan that we've got to finally adopt solar or the first cities to go to all LED lighting craft across the city, water quality issues, electrification at our ports, our bike biking, multimodal plans. We've been aggressive in those areas, but we also know that we have had and continue to have in the city a debate about the future and quite frankly, debates happening across the country as far as what's the sustainability and the dependance on oil here locally at home as well. We know this is a very this market is unstable. We can see where the prices are today versus where they were years ago or or years before that. And so we know that this is just a piece of that conversation, but it's one that I think we should have in this time. There's an opportunity for us to reinvest in issues around climate justice, around equity and health, around the work happening, around the framework. And so I think this will be a it's a good discussion to have, and it's certainly not it certainly comes with precedent. And there's something that the city has increased, you know, over over the years, the last time being ten years ago, when we look at this time to look at it again. And I want to thank everyone that's been involved in the conversation. With that, I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Richardson, who has a motion, and then I'll go through the list of of members. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to start just acknowledging that we have a great city. We talk about it all the time. We speak about it all the time. You know, downtown on the waterfront, largest port in the United States, great educational institutions. We're also a city with deep, deep economic health and environmental divides. And we have to do better to change our systems and invest in equity. We're at a critical point in our history, the history of our city, the history of our nation. We have an equity mandate in front of us, calling on all local governments to recommit to structural investment investments into equity programs, governments at all levels. I've heard from community that they expect more from us specifically as it relates to the investments that we make, our commitment to equity and addressing inequality in our communities. This call to action from the from the public is why the City Council moved to embark on the framework for reconciliation four steps acknowledging, listening, convening and catalyzing action where we're in the process of concluding the listening process over the next week. And then we begin the process of shaping recommendations immediate, short term, medium term, long term for action for the City Council. And we know the staff have done a good job. I applaud their efforts to engage with community and we think staff are meeting the commitment. When we started this we said, Hey, make sure that you keep us in alignment to not miss the opportunities for this November. The staff has come to us and let us know what that timeline is, which has prompted this this conversation tonight. I want to be clear that this item isn't meant to undercut or diminish the framework process. We're continuing with that and we're making great progress and we're going to take a look. We should be in a position in a matter of weeks, not months, to begin taking action, but rather we are complementing that by making sure that we meet these critical deadlines that have the resources necessary to actually take meaningful, meaningful action to advance equity. As we discussed, discussed tonight's actions. It's a this is a process of us asking to prepare and engage with stakeholders on a source of revenue to actualize many of the things that are coming to light throughout this framework process and will be further informed by it. In addition, there's additional actions that require other processes to take place concurrently, like our budget. So let's get started. Let's go to the next slide. So today's recommendation has three parts. First, we're asking the city manager engage with State Lands Commission and other stakeholders regarding the modification of the oral burial production tax. I want to be clear. Other ideas may come up from this. So we want to you know, we want to really listen to what folks have to say because it may inform what what ultimately goes on the ballot. Secondly, we want to request the city attorney to prepare all necessary documents to place a ballot question on the 2020 ballot for an increase in the oil production tax. Third, we want to explore the feasibility of preparing a ballot advisory question on whether to reinvest future cannabis revenue into economic equity, health equity and youth investment. Next oil. We have a long history, a little bit of context. We have a long history of oil in our city. From 1911 when the state placed all of its all of its state lands within the city limits. 1932, when when oil when discovered oil was discovered in Wilmington oil field. And for the past 60 years, pipelines has been restricted to Titan's area, making it difficult to invest resources into other parts of the city that are also affected by oil related industries. Pipelines goes into services like police and fire lifeguards, beach maintenance, lease management, parking operations, a whole host of investments. And 27 Long Beach voters approved Prop eight. That's the police and fire public safety oil production tax to increase the barrel tax on oil producers to support public safety. That was the legal strategy the more broadly invest outside of the titans by taxing oil production. That is the legal way to invest in the entire city utilizing the oil production tax to fund service. So this is not a new concept. That's the point. In fact, public safety departments still receive funding for oil production taxes that were approved 13 years ago. Although the city's an operator of our domestic oil production, we operate as a trustee of the state. Because of this dynamic, we are engaging with state lands and that is a part of this motion. I had a very productive talk just this afternoon as chair of State led with the staff from the from SLC. They were very open to talking with us. They were very appreciative that we spoke with them and they look forward to the conversation. It was a very productive discussion. We have a meeting next week with the lieutenant governor as a member of the commission. She was very open and willing to have a talk. She's one of three members of the State Lands Commission. So these are very productive conversations. And above all, this is an opportunity to leverage funding to advance health and environmental equity that includes climate investing, youth programs, the resources and address the economic issues that have been raised within our communities that have been historically left out. Let's go to the next slide. So so we have a unique opportunity to respond to the disparities impacting, you know, the North and the northwest, the southwest parts of our of our city. The areas that are impacted by environmental challenges. That map on the left shows Long Beach residents where Long Beach residents live by race and ethnicity. Asian Pacific Islander, Latino black residents live northwest, the southwest part of our city and greater concentration to the right. You see the Carolyn Biro screen that reveals that those neighbors, those same neighborhoods, are exposed to higher concentrations of pollutants, which also happen to be in northwest and southwest parts of the city. I didn't include a map of household income levels where they live, but the correlations are the same. Low income communities of color are concentrated in portions of the city that have the worst air quality and environmental health metrics. Near the port adjacent, the 1791 corridors in our industrial corridor. These neighborhoods have fewer open space or green space options. They're on some of the largest environmental waste generators means of color in Long Beach already experience health disadvantages, such as higher rates of asthma, heart disease, diabetes, low birth weight. These environmental health disparities are also apparent in the overrepresentation of African-Americans, Latinos and positive COVID 19 cases and hospitalizations. More. Additionally, with respect to cannabis, in 2016, the state of California legalized recreational cannabis, followed by Long Beach, passing ordinances on both medicinal and adult use cannabis in 2016 2018, which includes a cap on 32 dispensaries in light of the legalization of cannabis as well as the adoption of cannabis, social equity programs are steps in the right direction. There are still equity issues that exist in the in the high cost of entering into the industry and that it continues to exclude many communities of color. These communities have been impacted by the war on drugs that's left a long standing impacts like loss of property, disqualification from employment opportunities, reduced earning potential exclusion from public benefits and other negative impacts. The night's item offers an opportunity to explore to buyers requesting that cannabis revenue back into communities and retool to invest in ownership opportunities. We may or may not the council may or may not move forward this question. We understand that, you know, there would be there are ways that we can achieve this without action on the ballot. But we want to make sure we head down this direction and we can make that decision. Whether to move forward on this part or not based on additional research will do on what we can access the council meeting next. Like really this this is a great opportunity for us. It's an opportunity for us and we don't have to start from scratch. We have you know, we can fund key areas where we know inequity persists. Our research and engagement has already been done on a lot of this. Now is the time that allocate resources, support the findings and drive change as it relates to youth development. The city department has published the safe Long Beach Violence Prevention Plan. We discussed it tonight. We need to fund these things and fund you. We're in the we're engaged in a youth strategic plan process and the Parks and Rec Department. Both of these plans employ collective action approaches to understanding gaps and opportunities for our youth. Early, early intervention. This is an opportunity to make a real commitment to our youth and a world class youth development operation in the city of Long Beach. Next, you'll see under as it relates to environmental health equity, we are in the process of establishing our first ever climate action adaptation plan, and we're reminded of the various impacts of climate change on our low income neighborhoods, kids of color, their ability to respond and adjust. Long Beach Community Health Community Health Assessment also called out health and quality of life disparities facing disadvantaged communities. Investing in programs like Black Infant Health, Climate and environmental education, placemaking infrastructure that improve health outcomes in the most impacted neighborhoods are types of the types of things that we can we can address. And then as it relates to the economy, we know that we have tools. We've done the research over the last few years and work like everyone in economic empowerment zones, our digital inclusion roadmap. We know that we understand the disparities as relates to how our communities, the economic divide within our communities and the strategies move forward. We've already adopted these things. We've lacked the resources to invest in it. These are things like investing in and opportunities to make sure folks who buy homes, small business support, teen workforce centers all of these things are things that we can move forward if we have the resources to do. Let's go to the final flight. So, so close. Number one, it's not this is not a new taxes proposal. It's not a tax among these. Rather, this is an opportunity to align our oil production tax with neighborhoods, neighboring cities, and invest in areas where are in the issues where our disparities exist. It's an opportunity to align funding with our city's current priorities. This is an opportunity to have a world class youth development strategy make a real difference as it relates to our health, climate and environmental issues, and also make real steps to close the economic divides of our cities. Our next steps engaged California State Lands Commission and other stakeholders regarding the potential modifications engaged community partners such as the Best Youth Coalition around what the resolution may look like for this next report. Back to the City Council in time for us to give direction in order to get it over the November 30 ballot. And I want to add that we also want to make sure that we evaluate options to create an oversight mechanism that can look like aligning with an existing commission or creating or creating some other oversight mechanism to make sure that we're continuing to invest these resources in equity as we move forward. That that is my my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. I know that was a motion seconded by Councilmember Pearce. That's our. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate all the work that's gone into this. This motion, this concept of being able to at least get at par with our oil tax, with our neighboring cities. We know that right now we're in a historic moment where we have lifted up the systemic issue of racism that we have not given enough time to in the future and in the past. We know that we are living at a time when our climate continues to deteriorate as much as we have been a leader in things like electrification and trying to bring in new EV charging stations. We also know that. Time is running out. Some of you guys might have followed me online. I am taking sustainability classes at UCLA right now, so I'm bombarded when I'm not in council with the reality that even if we did everything that we needed to do today, that the effects of what we've already done are going to be lasting into our great grandchildren. And so I'm continually feeling the urgency of figuring out a way to inspire us to act on a bigger scale with our climate. And when I dove into the numbers and recognize that the number one cause of death for people in our community is not police violence, even though that is the most violent and atrocious because we see it and we know that we are paying out our community members to not have that happen. The number one killer is diseases that are caused by pollution and other issues around our heat islands, around poor water quality, around lack of access to food because of food deserts. And so when I see this item, I see all the buckets that Councilmember Richardson has talked about. But I really talk about climate, not only because it's a tax on oil, but the reality is that the market for oil is going down and that when the cost of oil goes down, it's not necessarily great for our climate and the cost of oil goes down. It means that it's difficult for people that have been living below their means to access, whether it's electric cars or green energy on their home, whether it's solar or whether it's retrofitting that it's important for us to make sure that that that gap is thin. And when that happens, we're able to see more investments in clean energy. And we as a city can play a role in making sure that we're using this this pocket of money to create new renewable opportunities, to create more opportunities for solar, to do a home retrofit program that has a jobs component. Some of you know, I've been very busy talking to everyone from Black Lives Matter, to people in the labor movement to organizations in Los Angeles that have dealt with how we close this gap. And they've all been supportive. I'm really happy to see, at least on one letter, there's 15 organizations that have signed up to say that they support this and several community members. So I support all the buckets and making sure that we get to the highest payroll tax that we can. I think that the $0.67 mark is an important mark for us. I think making sure that we have an oversight commission is absolutely critical and we know this idea has been talked about over the years, but we really saw a window on an opportunity right now to move quickly. So I know that some people haven't been able to be fully involved in the conversation, but I'm hopeful that that will change now that this vote has happened or will happen. And I want to make sure that we have public process in the meantime, where we're talking about the opportunities for the jobs pipeline, for health impacts, and making sure that those that are most impacted by our poor air quality are along the 710 and the 91 are the ones that can have access to the benefits of increasing this tax. So I am very supportive. I'm very thankful for the mayor and Councilmember Richardson's work on this. I look forward to hearing from our community stakeholders that are going to speak on this item as well. Thank you. Thank you. And also, before I move on, I have Councilmember Austin next. Before I move on, just want to clarify also that this is a this is a all about production taxes. It's a general tax would not be a special tax. Just wanted to clarify that. And the city attorney was asking and so just to clarify that as well. Let me move on to Council member Austin. Thank you to Mr. Mayor. And I believe this item also of to a cannabis. Question on the ballot, potential ballot as well. I think we should also give some attention to that. But I'm pleased to sign on to this item because it makes me feel good about this measure of poor oil production tax. It makes fiscal sense for us at this time and makes good timing sense. It makes sense from a community justice standpoint, from a fiscal sense. Our residents are demanding more investments in programs to address disparities and inequities that affected our communities of color for far too long. There is systemic change and greater investment in and community in, particularly the black community. Given the budget constraints we are facing in the coming year, identifying new revenue sources makes sense. Oil production tax is not a direct impact on our residents, especially our communities, and we're trying to help make a difference in November by putting it on the November ballot and if it's approved by the voters, will be able to start investment funds within a matter of months to benefit our revenue by dedicating funds to programs that support our youth economic opportunity and health and environmental equity. We're committing to our residents that we have been have been disproportionately affected by the health crisis, academic, economic impacts and lack of opportunities for our youth. I strongly support the goal to ask our residents to vote on this investment in our community. But I do have a couple of questions regarding the other part of this item. And of course, I signed on to it as a code. But there and again, I think most of this makes a lot of sense. I want to understand that that, you know, putting forth ballot initiative is also a cost for the city. And the and as I understand it, the part regarding cannabis and perhaps, you know, the interesting thing to clarify, but the part regarding cannabis, cannabis is meant to be advisory or only an advisory measure, a question to the voters of and that of revenue and revenues the city already receives from a measure, and they are a general tax, from what I understand. So the Council can already vote to allocate some of the revenues of that program already for measure or may without an advisory measure. I'm not mistaken. And so I guess the question is, what about it? I've seen a while of having an advisory measure. Measure is there rather than part of the budget process or framework of the reconciliation. We see community input about investing a portion of these residents, these revenues from cannabis. I hope you guys got that. You know, so basically, are we are is this going to be too damaged, spending this extra money for a question to the voters that we as a city council already have the ability to to move? I guess I put that question to you, Mr. Richardson. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. You're absolutely right. So we're you know, we're in the process of obviously exploring what we can and cannot do get in one of the cannabis laws measure M require to go to the ballot. Kind of the the are on recreational adult use did not. It seems like we can probably get to this without the ballot question. So if I go so far as to say it was strategic, this was included strategically. But we may not need we may be able to abandon this at the end if we as we kind of research and learn a bit more, the timeline for this, the timeline for the framework of running concurrently, the listing process ends this week. We should expect, you know, in a matter of weeks, not months, for recommendations. And that process might play out in front of the council. And that's when we will know very clearly about what our options are. So I agree with you. If there's a way for us not to have to do this and save a little bit money, we can. And I think we'll get to that point when this comes back to council. Okay. Thank you so much that that's my comment for now. Again, I support moving forward with this with the question mark on the cannabis question. And you know, I'm sure a staff research it wants to put this together. We can we can make a decision down the line. Within the next couple of weeks. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilwoman and House. Councilwoman in the house. You may. You can hear me, right? Yes. First of all, thank you to Councilmember Richardson for bringing this item forward. I think it's very, very important. I share the same sentiments as my colleagues, and I look forward to to the development of this item and putting it on the ballot. Hopefully, we are we are headed to some very, very difficult times when it comes to talking about our budget. I think it's going to bring this item would bring additional revenue to service our communities that are so much in critical need. So I'm fully supportive of this item. And, you know, it's going to be something really good that the public will actually have the opportunity to vote on. And I think that whenever we have the public be able to vote on something, I think that's very powerful. So thank you again for all the hard work that's done on this already. Councilmember Richardson and all those who've signed on to it as well. It's important to make sure that our budget reflects our values here in the city, and I really think that this is an important step in doing that. So thank you again. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Price. Q Mr. Mayor, and thank you to my council colleagues who brought this item. I think this is a very productive discussion. I think it's an opportunity that's definitely worth exploring. I do have a few questions and I also think. Well, let me just let me ask that some of the questions I have, and then I'll come back to that. So in regards to the item, I really in my opinion, I don't think the cannabis piece is essential. I think that we have flexibility with our current structure to allow or some policy decisions to be made regarding the expenditure of those funds. I am curious when we're talking about cannabis as a revenue source. I know the last time we received an update. The revenues were falling far shorter than what we had expected. Mr. Modica, do you have an update on that revenue source? And if so, we will as part of the budget process? We're looking at that right now. My general sense is that it's doing better than it was last year. So we always knew this was going to be a lagging revenue source where it takes a couple of years to build. We are now seeing more dispensaries on board and so we do expect some revenue to be increasing from this, from that, the exact amount we'll have in a couple of weeks. Okay, great. But I do think that we have some opportunity there. Maybe the city attorney could weigh in on this. I mean, is it necessary for us to expand 3 to $400000 to put this on the ballot? Or is the city infrastructure in place to allow the council to weigh in on how those revenues would be expended , given the language in May, as the city attorney can the city attorney weigh in on that? Council member this is Charlie Parker. And you're correct. And I think Councilmember Richardson said it, too, that you have in place during the budget process that revenue is coming in and is currently allocated under the budget and could be reallocated by the Council during the budget process. Okay, great. So good. It sounds like we're all kind of in alignment on that. That was one question I had when I was reading the item. So I'm glad we had some clarification for Mr. Modica. Is this a tax? And I know that Mr. Madison I talked to off line about this, but I have received quite a few questions from residents as well as some oil operators as I have several of them in my district. So would this be a tax that would be placed on local producers? So the way the oil barrel tax works is, it's essentially a tax on those who are producing the oil in Long Beach and it becomes a unit expense of the oil field. So it is ultimately paid by the person who has the mineral rights as one of the operating expenses of the field. Okay. And does the city have the mineral rights for any of the fields that are operating right now? So about 94% of the funds that, you know, that would be spent are come from the state of California. And of that pot, the city has a portion of that where we get some interest in tidelands. We also get some upland. So we would pay a portion of this. The state pays the vast majority of this. And then some of the other operators that have oil interests and mineral rights would pay that as well, as well as anyone who else who owns little fractions of oil. We do have some of those in our community. Okay. So when the report comes back, will it outline what the city's obligation would be if there were a change to the rate? Yes, we would take a look at, you know, what what this could generate. I believe the item is to have us look at a number of different, you know, factors and then come back with a recommendation. And we would certainly do a financial analysis as well. Okay. Because obviously, it would need to make financial sense for us since we would be responsible for some of the some of the tax obligation as well. Correct. Okay. The other question that I had is I know there's a request for communication and outreach with stakeholders. Are we including oil operators, local oil operators and producers in the city as part of the stakeholders? And will we be doing outreach with them? So we haven't designed that process yet. I think we wanted to hear from counsel. We can certainly ask those who are, you know, kind of the bigger players. We're only going to have, you know, a couple of weeks at most to bring everything back. Be happy to talk to anyone who is a person who is affected by payment of the tax. It's going to be a pretty small group. Since this isn't a tax and it doesn't tax our population, it really has a limited group. So we'd be happy to talk to anyone who has an interest. Okay, so I'd like to add a friendly I'm not sure who made the motion, but to the maker of the motion, I'd like to add a friendly that the oil producers who would be subject to this tax be included in the stakeholder outreach. Council member, my understanding is only three potentially. So that's a synergy signal, Hill Petroleum and CRC. And so they've already they've already engaged with the city. And so I don't know that we need to put it into the into the motion to call out specific companies. I think in general saying stakeholders. I think that broadly says if they're paying into this, they are a stakeholder and they're already used the manager, the flexibility with them. That that's fine. The reason I made the friendly is because I received calls from them today. They didn't know anything about it. So I just want to make sure they got that. At least all of these stakeholders, every single one of them, is involved in the outreach process. So if that friendly is denied, I appreciate that. But it was just meant to be inclusive. So hopefully the city manager can hear that. I think city manager, I think I think under the current motions in front of us, I think you have that flexibility to do it. Councilmember Price And now we can talk to to those groups for sure. And if you have any others, let us know. We'll do. Thank you. And then in terms of the Tidelands Fund, Mr. Modica, can you please explain the impact, if any, of this ballot measure, if it were to pass on the existing tidelands funds that we utilize for capital and infrastructure projects in the Tidelands area and also for operation of services in the Tidelands area, including police and fire. So we'll know that a little bit more in specificity when we come back. My general sense is it's going to be pretty minimal. We would probably be looking at a, you know, something in the range of a, you know, ten cent, 2010, 30 cent, maybe 40 cent increase. We don't know yet. We have to calculate that. And each $0.10 is about $1,000,000 and the state is probably about 60% of that revenue. And the city is, you know, in the 15 to 20%. So our share is going to be pretty small. We would certainly do our best to estimate what that impact would be, but we don't expect a big impact on on existing projects. There might be a slight reduction in some of the Tidelands revenue, but ultimately we will have more revenue in the general fund net because we would be taxing, you know, the state of California would be paying a big portion of this, as would a couple of others. Okay. So when the report comes back, is it going to include a breakdown of how it would impact current existing enterprise funds like the Children's Fund? Yeah, we would do a financial impact of what it would mean for the general fund and what it would mean for Tidelands. Those are the two big funds that would be impacted. Okay. And then the Tidelands Fund has currently has some restrictions on where that money can be spent and what for for what purposes would that restriction remain in effect? And those tidelands funds still be limited for that purpose? It's my understanding that when we do a citywide tax, it becomes a a general fund revenue. That's how we do it with sales tax. So for example, sales tax in the of sales in the Tidelands becomes a general fund revenue if it's applied citywide. So it's something we'd work with our attorney, but we that's how the tax has been applied in the past. But that's the tax portion. It's not the tidelands portion that we currently use. For this trial. That's correct. That the Tidelands portion has to remain in the Tidelands, as Tom explained as a tax. It is not considered restricted by the Titans fund. Yeah. So all the oil money that we normally get from Tidelands would not be affected. Just whatever that tax amount is that is increased would become general fund. Okay. That sounds good. And then the other question that I had is, is there any tax opportunity for oil that is imported into the city? You know, the tankers that we see out there filled with oil. Is there any tax revenue opportunities on those sources of oil? So we currently get some franchise fees. We'd have to look into that a little bit more. We do get franchise fees for certain pipelines that are in the ground that we have an interest in, and that is part of our general fund revenue stream. Typically, the taxing of imports into the United States is a federal issue rather than a local issue. Okay. Is that something that can be definitively studied and reported back on is is imported oil and whether the city has any sort of opportunity to. Exercise any options in regards to tax revenue on that? I agree with you. I believe it is a federal issue, but is that something that can be definitively researched and included? If that's the will of the council, we can do that. They would probably not. That's going to take a little bit more time. We we wouldn't be able to do that within the 30 days. We can do the initial research, but maybe not a full proposal, but we can look at that if that's the will of the council. Yeah. I mean, I think that I think it would be a fairly simple question. I mean, if it's a federal issue, then the city wouldn't have jurisdiction to impose any tax burden on it. So we can do that high level analysis. Yes. Yeah. Because if it's not an option that it's not an option, then you don't have to go any deeper. But I'm just interested to know is does the city have any standing to impose tax on imported oil since we do have a port in the city and we do are source of receipt of a lot of imported oil. So I think the answer to that question is that it's a federal government standing and not a city standing. But if it requires further research from that, then maybe you can report on that and we can require further action on that. That would be. Great. Yes, we can report on that high level question and then it'll be more of a nuance question about franchise fees. That gets pretty complicated. So we'll do our best to answer both those questions. Okay. Thank you. I have nothing else. Thank you very much. Thank you, Captain Ringa. Thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate all the commentary from my colleagues. The one thing I do like about this coming forward is that the fact that it will include some kind of oversight of those funds, and I think that's wonderful. It would be an opportunity for the community to keep abreast as to how we're spending those funds. Once it starts generating, of course they need to pass first. But so I'll be very supportive of the settlement. Thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Woman Mango. Can you hear me? Now. Yes. Hello. Oh, wonderful. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this item. It's important to kind of talk through some of the high level things. A lot of those questions have been fleshed out. But what I think it's also important to. But I think it's also important to kind of recognize is that the price of oil is that. By the market. And so it doesn't necessarily mean that this tax is passed on to the consumers. I will say that when we added some fees at the airport a few years ago, I don't think any of us could have predicted that the largest share of the fees would be burdened by one hotel or one user or one person. And so when we look at this, I'm really interested in seeing this protocol. You said 65% would be paid by the state of California. 15% would be paid by the city. And then of that remaining, 25%. I hope that it doesn't fall on one provider. I know Mr. Richardson stated that there are three providers and one would hope that. It's not being burdened just by one company the way that some of the other feeds have kind of turned out. And I know that that wasn't done in a way to harm any particular company. I think it was an unintended consequence of a policy that when the information came back to the council, that level of analysis wasn't included. And so while I'm not here to ask the specifics of any of those three companies, I think it's important for us to know whether or not any one company is going to be taking a burden that's significantly larger than the other two. But I don't know what the production levels like, and I also don't know if every year the percentages that come out are the same or if there are various volatility and variability of their production makes that difference. So is that something that you think a quick high level could be included? Sure. We can report back on what the the users are a bit of the Long Beach unit and then some of the private just in general how many barrels per per day that they produce. So the numbers I gave were kind of rough swags. You'd be happy to kind of show you what that actually looks like in terms of barrels produced. And then when it comes to the marijuana side of the discussion, I appreciate Mr. Austin and Mr. Price's discussion. It is something that we can do at the council level. I just would like to remind us that we were sitting at the dais not four months ago, reducing taxes on marijuana. Now that everyone has gotten up and running and a lot of these facilities are at full steam ahead, I don't know that the stated objective of the reduction in the tax has actually come to fruition. I don't see that we've had any additional applications or any of those things. And so I think that it's a good time to restore what the community asked for. In terms of the question of what level tax should be at. And I think that that's important, at least in my discussions with some of the. Individuals that are in that industry. They want some certainty. They don't want us coming to the table and reducing and then increasing and then inducing and increasing. And the same is true of what that does for the market around them and the customer base. So I think it's important for us to set a standard and if we want to have an escalation over time or a rebound of what changes things in the future, I think we just need to come up with some policies that are consistent and forth and very transparent to that group of individuals so that they know what they're working with as a business owner. The most harmful thing that they're facing these these times is the uncertainty of so much. And so to add another component of uncertainty, in my opinion, would be not great for the industry. And so I think that we need to work with everybody to come up with what that could look like. Other than that, those are my comments. And thank you for my colleagues for their openness to discussing and understanding the depth of impact of this before we make what could be a very impactful decision. And then I think I'll just add one additional question. Mr.. MODICA It's my understanding that the amount we pull out of oil, out of the resource over time is going to be declining. So we would be theoretically creating a new revenue stream that would decline over time and eliminate itself. That's correct. The number of oil barrels produced declines about 8 to 10% every year. And then at times we get large investment and it actually goes back up and then it tends to decline over time. And so at the the highest level, $0.40, we're talking about $4 million a year. And then it would go down theoretically at 8% a year until a potential investment came. And then theoretically, it could pop back up. But we're never talking about large amounts of money of more than 4 billion a year. On the oil side. From the oil bear attacks. It's it's I don't have the exact numbers. It's roughly in that in that range. Okay. It doesn't go up. It's huge amounts. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to go to you before I go to Consul Richardson and then also then to the public. Just as a as a just a perfect nation, I think there are three major companies. But there are more than three companies, I think, that are involved in this work. There are some small, smaller operators as well. And I wanted to clarify that as well for the council, the public. So, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I think it was a good discussion by the council. I want to take a minute and just acknowledge the letters that have come in today in support letters from Senator Gonzalez. Dr. Benitez, come on, girls in action. Invest in you. Long Beach Forward, LLC seven Neighborhood Group, The California League of Conservation Voters. California Mexico Study Center. Earth Justice Green Education Inc. Great Alternatives to Los Angeles Long Beach three six. The Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy. Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and Healthy Community. Long Beach Community Choice Energy Working Group. Long Beach Environmental Alliance. Long Beach Sacred Resistance. Long Beach Alliance for New Economy. Small World Strategy. 350 South Bay. Los Angeles also acknowledged that we've received letters from the State Lands Commission. We again, we spoke with them today. They acknowledge that within that letter, and we're going to continue to talk with them as as state led and staff is going to do that based on the result of this vote, as well as the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce. And and we want to just acknowledge all of those stakeholders for for submitting their letter. That's it. Let's go to public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Court. Please go through public comment. Our first speakers and a christianson. Your time starts now. Anna Kristensen, Sierra Club Conservation Chair, Long Beach Area Group. The Long Beach Area Group would like to share the following concerns and suggestions regarding this agenda item. We find the goal of ending racial. And social injustice in our city. To be both admirable and absolutely necessary. The city can and must take immediate action by directly funding measures to address. These critical issues from the city's general fund. And must not rely on the success of a November ballot measure to do so. Additionally, we are concerned that the oil. Production. Tax is like those on cigarets and alcohol, basically a center in which the city profits from a product. That is destructive. To the health and well-being of individuals and the community. Funding social and environmental justice should not involve doing harm to people or to the natural world. As the agenda item points out, is primarily low income. Communities of color in Long Beach who are most impacted by GHG. And other toxic emissions from importing drilling, refining oil as. Well as from vehicle emissions. Sierra Club takes the position that oil should be left in the ground and. Cannot help but wonder. If increasing city revenues from drilling will. The center buys us to end oil operations in our community? Culver City is moving toward eliminating oil production, and Long. Beach must do the same. As stated in the agenda item, the Aquarium Pacific's calculations. Show that. Our oil operations are one of our largest polluters. Sierra Club stands with Black Lives Matter and advocates for defunding the police. Therefore, we do. Support a ballot measure to either repeal Prop. Eight or to redirect Prop eight funding for police officers and the related. Costs of policing. To address equity concerns. As instead, current operations. In the lower Cerritos wetlands are at the highest level of. Toxic emissions in the city. This area is within the sacred. Side of both Obama and both Sierra Club and tribal leaders. Oppose the city sponsored. Expansion of oil drilling operations, leading to the. Release, which will lead. To the release of an additional 70,000 tons. Of additional GHG emissions. Native Americans suffer when the land suffers both spiritually and physically. Racial and environmental. Justice for. Tribal people means leaving oil. And ancestors in. The ground as the oldest and largest environmental. Organization. In the United States. Sierra Club asks to be included in council members and city staff outreach. We have not been, I might point out. And to shape. A ballot measure. Should this agenda item be approved? I find. It very interesting that that no. City council member reached out to Sierra Club. And yet you managed to find people up in L.A.. So maybe you knew that we would have problems with funding social justice by. You know. From oil money. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Cesar Armendariz. Your time starts now. Hello. My name is Cesar Armendariz. I live in zipCode and I know a24. I am calling in support of this item. When I think of oil and pollution, I can't help but think of my son. His name is Steel. He was born with chronic lung issues, and the more that we pollute the environment, the more likely that he is going to suffer because of it. And my story is not unusual. There are many, many people in the black and brown community, kids with respiratory issues because of the pollution in the air. So the other thing I think about is I want to make sure that when we move on from this earth that we leave behind something for the future generations. And the scientists have made it clear that unless we phase out immediately from oil corporations and fossil fuel corporations, that we are not going to leave a habitable planet behind for our kids. So for me, this to measure this item is about taxing the oil industry out of existence, period. Now, I understand that there are some political maneuvering that has to happen. I understand that everybody has to talk about incremental change and all of that. But this is about the environment. And ultimately, unless we act quickly, we're not going to leave the planet behind for our kids. And so I do support this item now as we think about, okay, if we were to tax the fossil fuel industry out of existence, what about the jobs of the people in that industry? Well, we should also be talking about a just transition process to a green economy, and that is part of this conversation. Now, in addition to that, I would like to see as we tax that oil industry out of existence, I'd like to see those that that tax revenue go to the black and brown folks who have been paying taxes with their lives. Air pollution is a big reason why black and brown folks have short lifespans. And so as we tax these big oil producers out of existence, it's important that the revenues go to the black and brown communities. Councilman Richardson has talked about dealing with the upstream issues rather than downstream issues. And so the upstream issues would include investing in the youth programs, libraries, park health programs. So I asked them when we passed the House tax possible, the revenues are specifically earmarked to lift up our black communities and other communities that have been left behind by our economic system. Councilwoman Mongo is right that oil production is diminishing and that we can't rely on this revenue stream. So to address our budget issues, we also have to look at our budget and reassess our priorities, which will also include divesting from the police and investing in programs that are more effective and helping our quality of life. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next speaker is Christopher Chavez. Your time starts now. Yes. Mayor Garcia and city council members. My name is Chris Chavez and I am the deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. I am also a resident of the sixth District. I wanted to thank the councilmember and the mayor for bringing this item forward. This is an important conversation and the need to correct decades of environmental injustice that the people on beach face, particularly those living in the western, central and northern parts of the city, needs to be addressed. Simply put, the global economy is subsidized by the health of long beaches, front line communities. The South Coast Air Quality Management District estimates over 75% of the air toxic cancer risk in West Long Beach is from diesel particulate matter. Oil drilling, transportation, storage and refining emit volatile organic compounds which help form smog and impact public health. Meanwhile, the climate crisis continues unabated, putting us all at risk for more extreme weather, coastal erosion, disaster intensification and more. What we cannot forget, however, is that communities of color and low income communities are disproportionately impacted by air pollution and the climate. Our letter to the Council submitted earlier today recommended several policies and practices for reinvesting and transforming the community. I want to emphasize for currently first the oil palm oil production tax revenues must be directly invested into Long Beach's disadvantaged and low income, low income communities. It's a similar to the requirements governing over the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the state's cap and trade program through SB 535 and AB 1550. Second, there must be community buy in and control over the investments and programs that are created through these funds. Third, local nonprofits and community benefit organizations that work to organize, educate or provide direct services to disadvantaged communities should receive some of these funds. Lastly, these investments should yield quantifiable benefits via air quality public health or economics to the community, as well as avoid harming the community and the population currently in place. Finally, if the city is truly committed to correcting these and other environmental injustices, Long Beach face as many environmental injustices the city must create and implement policies that are consistent with this goal. We urge the city to carefully consider its actions and incorporate environmental justice principles in its actions. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, we have Dave Shukla. Your time starts now. Hello, this is Dave Shukla. In this capacity, I speak as the operations director for the Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy. We wish to applaud the the council people who brought this motion forward. The voters deserve to decide where oil money are spent. Proposition eight. 11 years ago, they decided that public safety would be a priority. The values, the vision. The priority. Of this country, of the city. Are changing the revolt. There is no stopping, but there is no stopping the recognition that we have maybe ten years to not only bend the curve planetary emissions, but bring them all the way driven down on a trajectory that goes one direction, like the Mongols suggested. It draws down. We need to start discussing things like a drawdown date for his own oil operation. We need to start discussing things. Like the cost of inaction or how much money we've left on the table. We need to start talking meaningfully. Microsoft, as mentioned and as I mentioned earlier, only certain people have already been paid with their lives, with shortened life. For the way that other people live. The way that other people get from. And that's the crux. So much of what we talk about. When we talk about transforming the system into one that works for everyone. The people who are tired, who are desperately tired to an economy of death need not be. Patronage transitions, although. Thank you for your support on this item. Thank you. And last speakers and control your time starts now. Good evening. And control and looking at the air quality map included in the staff report. It's obvious that oil and gas production have a tremendous negative effect on air quality and health of Long Beach residents. This is one. Of Karp's arguments against allowing new oil drilling near the Los Cerritos wetlands. According to the ballot measure the staff report, the ballot measure will address two different taxes oil production and cannabis, and how these moneys will be spent. They should be. Two different ballot measures. It is stated that future cannabis revenue be spent on, quote, economic equity, health equity and youth investments. I believe most voters would agree with this use. This does. Not say how the oil production. Tax will be used. The staff report requests the city manager and the city attorney to provide options and financial impact on the amount of tax and mechanisms for a progressive tax. That. Increases over time and for a resolution defining the Council's intent for the use of the funds. Currently prop age oil revenues, $0.33 a barrel can only be used for fish, police and firefighters. I would suggest that the entire oil barrel tax increase be designated for clean energy, such as putting solar on every public building in Long Beach . This might make the syntax more acceptable to those of us who want to leave the oil in the ground. Also, the cost of this election is not three or $400,000. It is 1.4. Million dollars. I think that the council can come up with a better way. Of. Providing social equity than causing them spending over $1,000,000 for another election. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Do you think you will go? And with that, I think we're going to go ahead and do a roll call vote. District one. I district to. I district three i. District for. I. District five. High District six. High District seven. I. District eight. District nine. High motion carries. Thank you. Next item, please, is going to be on the eviction moratorium discussion. 26.

AN ORDINANCE related to human rights; and adding a new Chapter 14.21 to the Seattle Municipal Code to prohibit the practice of conversion therapy on minors.

SeattleCityCouncil_08012016_CB 118746

The motion carries and that resolution is adopted. Thank you, Councilmember Burgess. Thank you. Support of the Civil Rights, Utilities and Economic Development and Arts Committee. Please read the report. The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item four of Accountable 118 746 Relating to Human Rights and adding a new Chapter 14.21 to the Shadow Minister Code to prohibit the practice of conversion therapy on minors. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. I'll turn to Councilmember Herbold and follow your lead on how this is presented. Thank you. And I would like to allow Councilmember Gonzales to make remarks about this bill, since she is the prime sponsor and initiator of this effort. Councilmember Gonzalez, thank you. And before I get into the substance of the bill and move for its adoption, I have one small technical amendment that needs to be made to this to the version that passed out of committee last week. So I am going to move to amend the Council Bill 118746 Section one Seattle Municipal Code 14.2 1.050. B by deleting the word me and adding ciao before the director. Second. Is there saying it. Second OC has been moved and second to make the amendment as council members. Gonzales described all those in favor of the amendment vote i. I oppose. The ayes have it. So we now have an amended piece of legislation. Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. Imagine yourself as a child or a teenager growing up, coming to realize who you are as it relates to your sexual orientation or gender identity. Now imagine that a guardian sends you to a therapist who intends to cure you because they think you should identify as someone you are not. They tell you you're not normal, but you have a disease or mentally ill and that you need to change who you are. Sadly, occurrences like this are not rare, and this psychological manipulation is what is commonly referred to as conversion therapy and is a largely discredited practice that claims to use therapeutic tools to supposedly cure people of their same sex attractions or non-conforming conforming gender identity. Nationally, one in three LGBTQ youth may experience some form of conversion therapy upon coming out, and there is no reason to believe that Seattle is an outlier in this regard. Let me affirm a simple truth that I've been stating over the past week about this particular legislation, and that is that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer or transgender is not an illness, nor is it something that needs a cure. Conversion therapy is a harmful practice that needs to end and cannot be allowed to grab a foothold in Seattle or anywhere else. Today, I'm thrilled to move for the adoption of Council Bill 118746 as amended, which would ban so-called conversion therapy for minors in Seattle by prohibiting licensed mental health providers from practicing conversion therapy on minor children . The legislation would prohibit licensed providers from practicing conversion therapy on children with a $500 fine for the first violation and up to $1,000 for any subsequent violations. Advertising for conversion therapy would also be prohibited, and our Seattle Office for Civil Rights would be responsible for enforcement of the law, but also for ensuring the community outreach that is necessary and appropriate to educate both potential victims of their rights, but also to advise licensed mental health professionals within the city of Seattle about their obligations under this new ordinance. Dozens of organizations have voiced opposition to the practice of conversion therapy, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association of Child Adolescent Psychiatry. And the list goes on. If adopted by the full council today, Seattle will join Cincinnati and Miami Beach as the third city to ban gay conversion therapy. Washington, D.C., California, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont and New Jersey have already enacted statewide prohibitions. I believe that it's time that Seattle was added to this list. There's a few thank you's and acknowledgments I'd like to make. In conclusion, first, I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for allowing me the space on her agenda and in the credit committee to have this discussion and to advance this piece of legislation. Thank you so much. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank my legislative aide, Corey Dahl, who's sitting right here in the back in the audience, who was instrumental in crafting the policy and working through some of the more complex issues, both in enforcement and in the substance of policy. Thank you, Corey. And last but certainly not least, I want to give a huge amount of credit and thanks to our local LGBTQ advocates, some of whom are here today. They approached me several months ago to ask me to develop a bill to prohibit conversion therapy in Seattle. And I readily agreed to what I believe is a common sense approach to to dealing with this particular issue. It really is because of their advocacy that we now have this piece of legislation in front of us. And I am thrilled to be able to call this the first piece of legislation that I've been able to introduce and hopefully get passed. And truly, at its core, I believe this bill affirms equity, compassion and understanding of our LGBTQ youth. And it also affirms that discredited practices as it relates to the identity of our LGBTQ youth children will not be tolerated in in the city of Seattle. So with that being said, I'd like to move for its adoption. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilor Herbold, did you have any remarks you'd like to make? Thank you. I just wanted to, first of all, say that this is an important statement on behalf of the city. Should the city choose or the council choose to pass it today, that any practice that requires somebody. To. Repudiate their very identity cannot be called therapy. And I'm very proud that our city is joining those who have decided to ban it. And I hope that this is something that we can with our Office of Intergovernmental Relations. Work to get passed by the state legislature as well. I did want to also lift up the fact that we had asked OCR Office of Civil Rights in committee last week to identify the costs associated with this bill. And they've they've provided some additional information about that cost associated with building community based partnerships. Bus ads, print ads and mailers and translation services, primarily for. The purposes of. Promoting the fact that this is now the law of Seattle. So I am happy to provide that detail if anybody wants it. But that was a sort of a t that t that we decided that we in an eye that we decided we needed to dot and cross. Thank you very much for those words. Councilmember Suarez, I believe you have some words. I do. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Sarah Mays for her words about talking about queer children. Conversion therapy is the 20th century or 21st century version of what happened to my people, all in the name of assimilation to not be us. Except we had the government that took our children boarding school beatings, not allowed to speak our language, practice, our religion and our culture. We were forcibly taken from our families, our children. I am literally one generation removed from that horrific practice. So today I join you and I'm happy for you and your children. And what I hear. It breaks my heart. That we have to pass a law to recognize your humanity. So today, God bless you. Thank you. Cuts. That's true. Any other comments from any of my colleagues before we call for the vote? I learned one thing in this job most equipped way or had those wise words from all three of you. Thank you very much. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. Swan I beg your pardon? Burgess Gonzalez I heard Bob Johnson whereas I. O'Brien High President. Harrell High. Nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passed and chair was signed and let's give that an applause. He offered to take credit for it. By the way, thank you very much for your leadership, colleagues. All right, all right. All right. It's a. Community effort. All right. A report of the civil rights, utilities and economic development and. Item five I was just testing you your read on. Please read the next report, please.

Ordinance Providing for Remote Participation in Meetings of Public Bodies. On motion of Councilors Breadon and Louijeune, rule 12 was invoked to include Councilor Mejia as a co-sponsor.

BostonCC_04272022_2022-0545

Thank you, Councilor Fernandes. Anderson I could 04802.0482.0483 in docket 04842.2.80486 will remain in committee motions, orders and resolutions. Mr. Clark, please. 3.0545.0545. Councilors Brayden and Lucien offered the following ordinance, providing for remote participation in meetings of public bodies. The chair recognizes counsel. Braden. Counsel. Braden, do you have the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move to suspend the rules and to add counselor here. As an original co-sponsor, please. Counsel Braden six suspension of the rules and to add counsel me here as the third original co-sponsor seeing here no objections counsel me here is added to the third as the original co-sponsor counsel rating of the floor. Thank you. I offer this remote participation ordinance today as an amended refile of an issued an initiative led one year ago by our departing colleague, Senator Edwards. We're going to miss you, Governor Baker. And the legislature, as extensions of provisions for remote hearings and meetings by public bodies are set to expire within 80 days. And there are no law which will take state action to amend the open meeting law to allow for hybrid meetings for public from members of public bodies. It is it is within our ability to provide for remote participation for members of the public to observe the proceedings of public business, whether through livestream or for real time observation or via Zoom for public testimony. I want to acknowledge and appreciate the coalition of advocates who have kept this issue at the forefront, including the ACLU, Common Cause, Mass Public Interest Research Group, the Disability Law Group and the Boston Center for Independent Living. Remote Participation is not simply about safety or convenience in the midst of a pandemic, but about about maintaining equitable and meaningful access to public processes. We cannot simply retreat from pandemic provisions which have been in place for the past 25 months and are set to expire in less than three months. I want to express that I am less concerned. I am I am less concerned for the concerns preparedness for July 15th, but that but for what many of other public body bodies across the city, the zoning board of Appeals licensing and the BPA and more. We know this. We know from experience and talking all across our city that community participation in these public meetings increased during the pandemic was the opportunity for remote access. And I think that's something we need to continue. I believe that this is also timely and what's the budget season so that the council can engage in a conversation with property management and do it to identify city hall meeting spaces that need equipment investments for tech set out. We do not want implementation to be a burden for any particular city body and hope to engage their chairs to discuss capacity support then they need in order to standardize the practice by providing of providing for remote participation . I also want to appreciate the incredible work that our central staff does in supporting our city council, in doing their work and all through the tour, through the pandemic, they very quickly and efficiently pivoted to support us in doing remote hearings and meetings and is greatly appreciated. So this is about setting a standard for how we continue to engage people with disabilities, seniors, people with limited access to transportation, and people with work and family obligations who would otherwise be unable to attend a meeting in person. And I look forward to to advancing and to advancing this as in our city, working together. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. The chair recognizes Council on Inclusion Council agenda. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Braden for keeping this issue alive and well. Thank you to Senator Edwards also for bringing this up. We know that this is more than just about convenience. It's it's about being very intentional in creating a democratic process that is accessible to more of our residents. We should always be thinking about how do we bring city hall out of city hall and bring it to people? And remote participation is one way that we can ensure that we've seen firsthand how remote participation, as Councilor Brayton mentioned, has boosted civic engagement at all levels throughout our city. And so we have a responsibility to to continue that and not to roll it away. Remote participation in meetings has been a key element in bringing down longstanding barriers to access who gets access to who in City Hall. And we know that access is transactional and it is important that we keep the doors. Even if there are virtual doors at City Hall open to our residents. It also allows a lot of our important constituencies to fully participate in the policymaking process. We're talking about people with disabilities. People of limited access to transportation are low income workers. And residents, seniors, people working multiple jobs and having to hustle just to survive. Maybe they can hop on to a zoom. And people who have family responsibilities, we also on the council have been very taken advantage of the fact that some parts of our process have been virtual, allowing us to multitask and attend multiple meetings at a time. You know, some of our virtual access still, there's a lot to build upon there, as Councilor Braden said. So staff is in an incredible job here of making it accessible and also ensuring that we maintain community space. But there are also different departments in the city that we have to work in partnership with them to increase how they're how they're allowing the public to access those virtual spaces, including the PDA, their important community functions that are turned off even in the virtual space that I think are important for a community gathering to really mimic what it's like to be in person. So I also want to thank the incredible advocates who have been working on this issue ACLU, Common Cause, Disability Law Center and others that were mentioned by Council. Braden We should really take what we've learned during the pandemic, which was, of course, an unfortunate continues to be an unfortunate event, but , you know, build on the strength that we were able to. And one of them is virtual participation, access to democracy, really bring it to the people. So thank you, Councilor Brady and I look forward to working with you and custom here on this on this effort. Thank you. Conclusion The chair recognizes counsel. Here, hear counsel. Here you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to my colleagues, Counselor Bruton and Louisiana, for having me as a co-sponsor. And I also want to give a shout out to Senator Edwards. I remember when I first started working here, and one of the things that I was asked on the campaign trail is what would be my first hearing ? And I said, I'm going to do a hearing on public hearings, not really understanding kind of the fact of the matter is that most people really deeply want to be engaged but just didn't have access. And oftentimes we would host hearings at times that were inconvenient for people who were most impacted. So along the way, I made commitments about we're going to make it open and we're going to do all of this amazing work to make sure that the power of the people and the voices of the people are uplifted. And here we are. When we started working here in 2020, we were set to, you know, we had like 12 hearing orders in one session. Thank you to Jacob Blake for his leadership in that space. And then we had to go remote. COVID came and really created an opportunity for us to really show what is possible in terms of creating space for people to really participate. And I think that for us in that journey, we've learned that we can do this and we have an opportunity to continue to engage folks in this process. After we filed that hearing order. We went right into into the world of virtual reality, and we made it happen. And that experience was shocking to all of us. But we but it was also a teachable moment, because as soon as we made that transition to virtual events, we began to see a crowd of people who had never been engaged with the council before. We were able to meet people who otherwise wouldn't be able to be in direct community with the city, either because of language barriers, accessibility concerns, or simply just because they didn't have the time to come down to City Hall. Through this ordinance, we have an opportunity to keep the channels of communication open so that more voices and more people can be heard and centered in the process. As the Chair of the Committee on Government Accountability and Transparency and Accessibility. Part of my job is to ensure that people who have never been part of the process are centered in this work. I see this ordinance as a tool that can help us achieve those goals of accountability, transparency and accessibility. And this is our moment to create a gold standard for our community collaboration in the city of Boston. I look forward to the work and to collaborating alongside my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel me here. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Would anyone else like to add their name as as a sponsor to this? Please add Councilor Bullock. Please add Councilor Ferdinand as Anderson, Counsel of Charity Council, Novara Councilor Baker. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Please. With withdraw that one. Please add Councilor Murphy council overall and please at the chair. Dark at zero five, four or five will be somebody assigned to the Committee on Government Operations for the for the next docket, which is docket 0546. I would like to ask Counselor Edwards to to stay in here as the as the chair. Mr. Kirk, would you please read the docket number 0546.

A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the Stadium District Master Plan, which plan shall become a part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Adopts the Stadium District Master Plan, as part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-21-19.

DenverCityCouncil_06172019_19-0488

I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Nine Eyes. Nine Eyes. Council Bill 407 has passed. Councilman knew. Will you please put Council Bill 488 on the floor? Okay I move that councilor bill 488 be placed on final consideration do pass. Has been moved and we need a second seconded. Thank you. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 488 is open. May we please have the staff report? If you go down. Hello. Good evening. My name is Jason Whitlock. I'm a principal city planner, Urban Design and Community Planning and Development. I am joined today with my colleague Sara Corson. We are here to present an outline of the planning process in the master plan itself for the Stadium District Master Plan and its contents tonight. We are very excited to be here with you today. We're excited to have a really thoughtful steering committee, an engaged community that helped us work on the contents and the recommendations of the stadium district master plan. The plan area for the Stadium District Master Plan lives across the river from downtown, adjacent to two light rail stations, right at the confluence of Lakewood Gulch and the South Platte River. The Metropolitan Football Stadium District property currently surrounds the Broncos football stadium and the Stadium District Master Plans recommendations primarily address the southern portions of the stadium district's property. And also, as you look at your map, includes the land at Federal Boulevard and the West Colfax Avenue interchange, the cloverleaf in the plan area. As it as it is indicated on your map, the area of the master plan is also located previously within the boundary of the Decatur Federal Station Area Plan, and this master plan continues to build on the visions, the recommendations, the strategies within that station area plan. So we had a start point, we had a sort of a place to jump off of, and this plan will continue to make those additional clarity and specificity recommendations in the master plan and where things apply to both the strategies and the recommendations. If there is anything that conflicts the guidance of this master plan, we'll take the precedent. This has been the city led process in collaboration with the stadium management company, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District Theme Investment Corporation, an active steering committee and engaged community who have been meeting and providing input into the planning process over the last year with a goal for adoption by City Council tonight, there have been 1300 participants in this planning process with about 600 points of feedback in-person and an. Additional. 10,000, 11,000 points of of points of sort of feedback online. We've received and evaluated these thousands of thousands of point of impact of input to help us craft the recommendations and align those with sort of the community goals that we've heard and help us kind of prioritize what we're having in front of us in this digital age . We varied all of some of our approaches to how we're getting information for those that are not able to willing or able to make some of our in-person meetings, it was important for us to actually go into the community and get the information out, participate there. We're at the Sun Valley Garden Festival. We're at Denver days in Sun Valley. We collaborated with Denver Parks and Rec and Sun Valley Kitchen, Sun Valley Community Coalition to actually provide transportation to public meetings that people weren't able to make the distance to get there was really important for us to have a good group of community there . We provided translation that was really important and in child care, in order to make these events well, well attended. And we actually even had a sort of a Halloween event, which was fun. We gave out some candy hats and costumes, too, which was just part of the joy we had in this process. We received seven letters of support for the plan, including Jefferson Park, United Neighbors, Sun Valley Community Coalition, West Colfax Business Improvement District, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, Sun Valley Eco District and two adjacent landowners, including Sue Powers with Steam on the Platte and David Keefe with the original Brooklyn's. So some good letters of support there on the process. The planning process started with the what we called the Visualize phase, where we sort of investigated existing conditions, existing plans and studies and started gathering input on both what you see as sort of some of the ideas and what the challenges would be with the site and the hopes for these surface parking lots on the south side of the stadium. We move then into a strategized phase, recognizing that we kept hearing this idea that we need a seamless every day experience and then sort of took them and. Reviewing them as we also wanted, and we're getting input about what a great game day experience would be. We identified those themes, kind of compared them, looked at the game day and every day we found sort of mobility, amenity and housing opportunities. We looked at sort of recommendations for art and public spaces and including these sort of really important spaces along the Gulch and the South Platte River. As we were looking, looking at these comparisons and to see kind of what things when we were doing our kind of our outreach, what things were aligning, some of the other sort of things in that previous slide that were that were surprising to us was on those everyday preferences and the amenities, the sort of the, the lower ranking of parking in some of that and the importance of public transit on those gameday experiences, knowing that up now sort of up to 30% of the people arriving on that game day can come by transit, including light rail and Broncos. Right. Some of the things like that, recommendations for the south, portions of the plan area adjacent to the South Platte River and Lakewood Gulch focus on the ways to seamlessly connect surrounding neighborhoods to make a good mixed use district. So some more of these things in our final stage, which Colby which we call that relies moments in sort of to summarize the desire for the community and the Metropolitan Football Stadium district was to transform these existing surface parking lots used primarily on gameday special events into a neighborhood hub that feels like a, like a local main street linked to a regional destination and really use seven days a week throughout the year. And this included opportunities for jobs, opportunities for businesses and opportunities for affordable housing. Input we received on the look and the feel of this neighborhood indicated a very high level of excitement with the type of images that we included and continued to inform the recommendations that we made throughout the process. We have six vision elements from the comprehensive plan which guided our recommendations and the elements of a complete neighborhood and blueprint. Denver are used as that framework for the recommendations to create this mixed use neighborhood in the plan. In evaluating desire for a seamless neighborhood, we verified that are surveys through captured the surrounding neighborhoods voice and that recommendations balance sort of some of those those local and those neighborhood desires and a regional perspective. As part of that experience, we have really three important social equity concepts that are in and blueprint that are used to guide , change and give the surrounding neighborhoods an opportunity to thrive. The plan uses equity concepts and blueprint to prioritize recommendations that benefit all. In addition to improving the access. Improving access these neighborhoods, the access of these neighbors opportunities. Community input also focused on recommendations to expand housing diversity and the job diversity within the plan area. You can see we have mapped the plan area as a mixed use neighborhood and have shown the yellow hatch zone on the plan, indicating active corridors with additional recommendations regarding sort about enhanced people per first pedestrian experience. You'll notice the inclusion again of the West Colfax and Federal Boulevard interchange in the plan area and within our land use and built form recommendations to create this this seamless again this neighborhood with one one look and one feel, one with an opportunity of being integrated together with other opportunities we have on that side. Community input prioritized the south of the side of the stadium to have that mix of uses to support a livable neighborhood and encourages and opportunities for those nearby to have really close, walkable opportunities for jobs. While noting that the sort of the northern half, the part that we haven't talked about in the stadium, there's a recommendation, a key one that it remains sort of similar to today, flexible for game day uses on the north side. The community, including the surrounding neighborhoods, provided valuable input on the need for a neighborhood with those jobs and housing. We included recommendations to target that incentive affordable housing onsite to target the marketing of that to the residents that are living around the playing area as being sort of important steps to to keep this a local environment. Right here you can see a festival street, sort of a key north south connection to the doors of Bronco Stadium on an every day. This is a place to drive slowly, but on game day, as shown here, it can be changed and transformed into a pedestrian first environment as envisioned, at least in this plan. And what you see here actually is the kinds of building forms that we intend to see on game day or what you actually see every day. The plan, if you read it and look through it, recommends a base height of five stories, which aligns with nearby planning efforts and existing guidance in the area. You can see on your plan, the little arrow points to sort of a step back here about five stories. So we're kind of graphically showing what a five storey base height could look like in the area. And the recommendations allow up to 20 stories to promote those opportunities for walkable jobs from nearby neighborhoods and the desired housing that we've heard throughout the planning process. So the height above five stories to what we showing here is about a 20 story building will be applying both affordable housing incentives and recommend and requirements. And along with what we calling mass production, mass reduction would be those buildings sort of step backs and sort of minimal tower sizes to provide that sort of those opportunities that we were talking about talked about in the importance we also heard throughout the process was for for something that created a variety of building shapes and there was a variety of building heights as being important that the building step backs and the shaping and the massing and sort of the ground access to to light and to sky views being important and would work in conjunction with other sort of design standards and guidelines. And and here we're showing kind of an area in the distance with a height above 20 storeys to about 30 storeys to a maximum height of 30 storeys. And those from the 20 to 3 storey allows even greater step backs, greater affordability. And sort of in the area that's just south of the stadium, primarily, we've mapped the map to be allowed to actually get up to that height. The waterways are a valuable component to creating a thriving neighborhood as a gateway into the project, as a front door to an active river edge and the introduction. And then in the design guidelines section, there is a river vision and design recommendations for the buildings on and facing the river and the gulch, including pedestrian access. The idea that if you're going to be entering or if you're going to be on balconies and other things like that, you can be on the river, facing the river. It's it's something to be at instead of something to ignore and be on your side. And there are sort of additional parts of this are talked to about some additional transition elements that we want to be seen kind of at those edges, particularly the river, but also Old West Colfax and some other places in the plan. You can see this maps here with these additional discussions and with the nearby neighborhood and community input, it was important for us to make sure we had a good map, clear map of where the 20 story recommendations would be with those additional requirements for for transitions and the hatched and the kind of area south of the stadium that will have that 30 story height available there is mapped on this and is really important for particularly Jefferson Parks, the mother and some other places to actually understand what they were able to see to and see through in the space. Lastly, on the land use some built form. Additional street sections are shown here that shows sort of the suite of strategies. We know that one thing is going to make a great neighborhood, but things need to work together. These additional strategies, design standards and guidelines create that people first that pedestrian first guidance. And so we have a section in the plan related design standards and guidelines. I will now transition to, of course, as we move on to mobility recommendations. Hello. I'm Sarah, of course, the city planner with community planning and development. So the next section in the plan is mobility. The current plan area lacks a cohesive, multimodal street network, and so the plan recommends to create this multimodal street network and to provide new vehicular pedestrian and bicyclists connections. I'd also like to point out that this diagram, as well as other diagrams within the plan, just show one scenario that can implement the plans, goals and strategies. The plan also recommends a very important A-grade intersection with West Colfax Avenue and a future North-South connection within the plan area. This is a very important intersection to further connect the plan area, but also to further the functionality of the stadium's operations. In addition to that, I want to point out that all the plan, recommendations and strategies apply to the Federal Boulevard and West Colfax Cloverleaf Interchange Area. This includes the mobility, land use and quality of life infrastructure recommendations. In addition to creating a connected multimodal street network, this plan recommends prioritizing pedestrians, creating a complete network of high ease of use, bicycle facilities, and increasing access to multi-use trails and pathways, especially prioritizing connections to the South Platte River. This plan includes a bike network diagram, and it includes recommendations that recommend a variety of bicycle facilities, including bicycle facilities that are grade separated or protected bike lanes. Throughout the planning process, we heard there should be a variety of street types, so this plan recommends several different street types. We explored these street types and included images within the plan that sort of portray how these three types might be built out or what they might accommodate. Mixed use streets could accommodate wider pedestrian and amenity zones, and they should also incorporate high ease of use bicycle facilities. Main Street should accommodate high quality pedestrian and amenity zones and festival streets which are shared. Streets should accommodate high levels of pedestrian activity and especially events. In addition to that, this plan includes a matrix that sort of outlines or identifies what these street types should accommodate and the additional components and design elements and amenities that could be incorporated within them. The plan also recommends implementing an area wide transportation demand management plan and to utilize the strategies to improve every day and game day area wide circulation. There's also a spread within the plan that further explains transfer transportation demand management strategies and outlines what these strategies are, including programmatic design, transit, parking and commute trip reduction strategies. This plan and this section also identifies some recommendations to retrofit or replace the Cloverleaf at Federal Boulevard and West Colfax Avenue, and that we should continue to collaborate to explore a transformation of the Cloverleaf Interchange that builds upon past planning efforts and studies. The most recent effort has been done by the West Colfax Business Improvement District, and they have identified an alternative that could be potentially implemented in the future. And this alternative is portrayed in the three images below. The last section within this chapter is Quality of Life Infrastructure. The plan recommends incorporating a variety of parks and public spaces across the planned area, and that these public spaces should be publicly accessible, including the parks and facilities associated with this plan area, and that they should also incorporate a variety of activities for people of all ages, abilities and incomes to enjoy year round. In addition to that, we recognize all of the projects and efforts going on right now and that we should continue to look to coordinate our efforts between other plans, projects and future development. In addition to that, we want to recommend that there should be a variety of amenities included within these public spaces, especially active and passive users , and that we should utilize best practices for stormwater management and to expand upon the tree canopy across the plant area. This plan also includes a matrix that further identifies what parks and public spaces should accommodate potential sizes, their distribution and location, and also potential amenities and elements that could be incorporated within these spaces. Last but not least, this plan recommend recommends prioritizing the South Platte River and to enhance the public space adjacent to it. It includes strategies to foster an interactive relationship with the river, to transform the public space adjacent the river, and to utilize the river as a very important connecting link between existing and future development. The last section of the plan is moving forward, which includes implementation strategies. These strategies include regulatory policy, public investment and partnership strategies. In addition to that, this plan includes a summary of community benefit priorities, including items that may be addressed in a community benefits agreement between the developer and the community. There are three criteria that have been established in the comprehensive plan 2040 that this plan must meet or be consistent with to be adopted. The first criteria is an inclusive community process. As Jason outlines before me, there has been quite an inclusive community process with a variety of community outreach and community engagement. So we have found that the Stadium District Master Plan was developed through an inclusive community process. The second criteria is plan consistency. This plan utilizes the comprehensive plan 2046 vision elements and builds upon them. In addition to that, it also utilizes the blueprint. Denver Three elements of a complete neighborhood and the Decatur Federal Station Area Plan is there and provides guidance while this plan builds upon it and provides further detailed guidance for this plan area. Given that we have found that the Stadium District Master Plan is consistent with the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 and other city plans, the last criteria is long term view. The Stadium District Master Plan establishes goals, recommendations and strategies that will guide change in the plan area for the next 20 plus years. It also recognizes that plan implementation takes place over the course of many years and may take shape in multiple phases, including short term and long term phases. Given that the Stadium District Master Plan encompasses a long term view, so finally, based on the findings that the applicable review criteria has been met. Staff recommends adoption of the Stadium District Master Plan as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan 2040. Thank you. Thank you. We have 17 individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to. Call the first five speakers. If you could please make your way to the bench here in the front, that will help speed up our proceedings. We have Jose Batiste, Philip Kasper, Derrick Friedman, Jean Granville and Jesse Parish. Our first five. Good evening, counsel. My name is Hosea Butera, the co-owner of Rice's brewing company, a Latinxs LGBTQ veteran, immigrant and woman owned business located at 26 West Colfax Avenue in the Sun Valley neighborhood. I'm here today to speak in support of the creation of the Stadium District Master Plan. I believe the plan has been well thought out and participated by the community. Thanks to the leadership of Jason Whitlock and his staff. My support isn't without any caveats. As a former Chamber of Commerce President, Commissioner for the City of Boulder and Community and Cultural Broker, it was my responsibility as a member of the Steering Committee to make sure that progress is with our public benefit. A key point on this plan calls for the conservation of Sun Valley's diversity. Diversity and inclusion needs to be maintained by making sure that affordable housing, affordable commercial rentals and businesses owned by underserved groups becomes a priority and don't get lost in the process. Local employment and access to training opportunities should also be a priority. Sun Valley is made up of mostly women and kids, so those considerations need emphasis as well. Furthermore, the inclusion of the businesses wedged between the Platte River and I-25 but immediately next to the district is a must. Steam on the Platte Mile High Station still works near Wolf Lift Rice is Brewing Company and many other businesses need to be taken into consideration since they represent businesses that are have been there or will already be there even before the district happens. I thank you for your time in considering the topics brought before you and the signing of a neighborhood benefits agreement drafted by the community to go along with this plan to make sure that our most vulnerable and needed do not get forgotten. This is an opportunity for our city to serve as a model and say, yes, we can be progressive while putting people first. Thank you. Next up, Phillip Kasper. I'm Phillip Kasper. I'm a 33 year. Resident of Sun. Valley. And my address is 2727 West Holden Place. I think that the stadium district plan will pass. I don't believe that it's ready yet because from History Stadium District has not acted in good faith to complete the parts that impact the surrounding community. They may do community work across the city, but they don't do what it takes in their own community to mitigate the impacts. So one of the things that needs to be excluded. Is that there will never be any aviation uses at that site on top of any of those buildings. We don't need a friends of. Mach heliport up on top of one of those buildings. It's happened before. We don't need it again. When we had then first. This stadium built under the plan that. Built it into in. 98 the we ended up with a traffic problem that was studied by fears. And peers and their conclusion was you would be hard pressed in North America to find a residential use street that has the volume, speed and character of the traffic that we have on Decatur. They recommended closing the street. To eliminate the traffic. Now we're going to increase the traffic. When in this plan. Is the traffic through a community that has the highest percentage of children known in the nation. Nobody has ever matched it or found one. It runs from 54% to 66% over the last 20 years, and they're. Mostly. Under 14. I mean, they're mostly kids. We cannot absorb the traffic. The original plan had mitigate. It was supposed to plan to make the changes on their footprint to attached to the full facts. What in the 98 plan has informed this plan? I think it's not ready to be passed. I think these questions need to be addressed and amendments need to be made before. This plan moves forward. Thank you very much. Thank you, Derek Friedman. Hi. My name's Tarik Friedman. I am a Denver entrepreneur. I own two retail concepts sports fan and soccer, and I employ dozens of people in the city and one of my stores is immediately adjacent to this project. I was a steering team member and was really amazed by the content and rigor of the process. There are so many opportunities for the public to get involved and I was just really impressed by all of the thoughts that were shared. Immediately after buying a sports fan, I traveled around the country to look for other places to expand, and I was looking particularly close to other stadiums, and I was surprised to find the contrast between places like Detroit and Cleveland and Minneapolis. Um, I choose to live near Denver. In Denver. And I was surprised at the sharp contrast between the environments around those stadiums and the one that we have. And so what I love about this plan and why I'm so enthusiastic about it is because it transforms the stadium from an island that's separated from its surrounding communities to something that's integrated fully and brings all those neighborhoods together. It transforms empty lots into a vibrant, mixed use community with designation for affordable housing. I hope that this plan has your support and I'm really excited for the transformation to start. Next up, we have Jeanne Granville. Good evening. My name is Jean Granville, 2715 West told in place. I am speaking here tonight as president of the Sun Valley Community Coalition. I was also a member of the steering committee representing the coalition and I am also a member of the West Side Stadium Community Coalition that has an interest in really ensuring that community benefits are addressed within the plan as and on an ongoing basis. So I really want to thank you for everyone's support and inclusion of all of us in the process. We're really excited about the vision for a mixed use everyday neighborhood that will really transform the northern part of our Sun Valley neighborhood giving, providing housing, jobs and amenities along with an exciting gameday, cultural and entertainment experiences. I want to thank you for expanding the plan to include some of the work and efforts that are already underway, both east of the river, as you've just heard, as well as in regards to the Cloverleaf and what that future may be. We did have some concerns, I think, as you've heard about traffic management plan and particularly impact of construction and ongoing and density that will be developed, its impact on the southern part in particular where there are so many children and residents. I want to thank Councilman Lopez and his office for really taking the initiative to go ahead and start that conversation with public works to see if we can't do some things to mitigate some of the immediate concerns of already unsafe conditions as well as going forward. So thank you for that. I also want to thank and really recognize the Stadium District and the Broncos for really their openness in inviting the community to envision a neighborhood in the northern part of our neighborhood far beyond what we could have ever imagined in the Decatur Federal Station area plan. We look forward to being a part of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and to continue as a member of the West Side Stadium District Community Coalition to work with everyone on community benefits. It is really our interest in really trying to do whatever we can to really contribute to ensuring that we create a seamless, inclusive and dynamic neighborhood . Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Parrish. While he's coming up, we'll go ahead and call up Chris Roller Sun to join us in the front bench right here. Leslie. Tariq Olasky. Njoroge Abu Samir. I'm sorry if I mispronounce that. Hamida Bashar. Always Bashar. And we'll go ahead and go with you, Mr. Parrish. Jesse Paris resigned in District nine 2842 Josephine Street, Denver, Colorado. And I'm representing for Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I was on top of the ballot for at large this past May election. I got over 15,000 votes with no money. We are against this. I keep hearing all this talk about inclusivity, but from the photos that I've just seen displayed in front of me, I have seen nothing inclusive about any of it. I see nothing but white people. I honestly know people of color and historically people of color. A neighborhood, an area that has the most children of color in one area. And we are refugees. And there's all kinds of people of color in this neighborhood to say nothing of that represented in these pictures. So I had several questions. I want to know what was the AMA level for this affordable housing I keep hearing about? What were the wages for these commercial developments? Because you say that you're going to put the people in a community to work. How much are you going to pay them an hour? Is it going to be a livable wage? And just so you know, a livable wage is 25 plus an hour to afford a one or two bedroom in downtown or decent Denver proper. I agree with Phillip with the traffic study. I have partnered with West Denver United during this whole campaign season. I worked with them and I've seen exactly how neglected this Sun Valley is. And my good friend David Roybal, who ran for office, too, is a native. And he's told me on numerous occasions that he was not in approval of this, and I am not in approval of it as well. I was not in approval of the comprehensive plan either because I didn't believe it was given enough ample giving people ample enough time to read and review it and to actually come up with their own conclusions with it. So I want to know what is the AMA level for this sustainable housing? What are the wages for the employment? And is there going to be a traffic study done for this area? Thank you. Next up, we have Chris Roller son. Good evening, Chris Roller said. And I'm representing the Sun Valley Youth Center and all the kids of Sun Valley. So we are in our 20th year. It's our birthday this year and so we are in support of this with the concern around safety and kids. So a lot of the times the trails and the streets are designed for people who know how to ride bicycles, but not necessarily the youth. And Sun Valley had 335 units previous. There will be upwards of 4000 and more with the new development. And I'm assuming there would also be more children coming into some of those newer high rise properties. So assuming those kids want to come and access services at the youth center, how do we have safe transport from the new areas and the new spaces to us? The plat trail is not safe for kids. It's great for commuting and it's great for folks who are grown. But a lot of our kids don't have parents going back and forth with them. So I just want to continue the conversation together and say, how can we work together to make sure that we have safe transportation back and forth from the stadium? The stadium district has been amazing getting the kids in there. We rode our bikes to one of the stadium district meetings. We took 65 kids by bike up to one of the meetings just to go and experience it. We ate up all the pizza, had a blast, but I just want to make sure that that can continue to be a partnership and not just because there's a plan at hand that we just want to continue to move forward and develop things together with them. So we have good, safe places for the kids to be from our community and not just the new kids coming in. Thank you. Up next, Leslie, talk about skin. Hi. Thank you. My name is Leslie to our galaxy. I stand before you today as the executive director of the Federal Boulevard. Business Improvement District. I was one of the members of the stakeholder committee. And my comments. Tonight are speaking on behalf of my board of the Federal Boulevard bid. First, we want to thank Jason and Sarah and CPD for including the removal of the Cloverleaf in this plan and including the Cloverleaf at all. As you all know and could see from the visuals, this is an integral part of the entire neighborhood. And so thinking of all this, instead of as separate plans, the Todd Plan, the Stadium District Master Plan, the Cloverleaf Plan in the West Area plan. This will help us tie them all together. So I wanted to say thank you for that. We look forward to a variety of housing options on this site, including affordable housing. We look forward to the addition of much needed green space in this neighborhood. And we're very hopeful that that green space will be designated so that it will always be open to the public. We look forward to commercial space that encourages small, local business owners to set up shop. We look forward to signing the Community Benefits Agreement and we eagerly anticipate helping ensure that this soon to be built neighborhood will seamlessly integrate. With the current. Communities that surround it, including Sun Valley, Sloan's Lake and Jefferson Park. We hope that you support this plan, and we want to thank Councilman Paul Lopez and Robin Canete for helping us with the Community Benefits Agreement, CPD and the Broncos for what is a very exciting plan. Thank you. We hope you support it. Next up, we have Nazar Abu. Soraya, I'll let you go ahead and pronounce it correctly. First of all, I. Want to thank everybody who have hand on. This development. Developing. For Sun. Valley. And I live here on Sun Valley for five years old. I like to cook. So my dream is to have my own restaurant or my own shop. And I hear there will be opening. Like small projects and small. Like small restaurant. Restaurant. And I think because we are living here for a long. Time, we must have the first opportunity for. Be a part on that. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Hamida Bashar. And if you wouldn't mind, at least give us your city of residence. And if you feel comfortable, your address, please. Hello, everybody. I know my brother Hamidullah. Yes, my name is Hamida. And I can walk across the room. But I cannot. I cannot read it and write it. And I can. America Manuel Barroso in. Latin cooperation, bravado, no nonsense. Since I came to this country, I like to learn, but I clean my mouth. He couldn't pick up. A La Liga Maradona going in the tankers in Ghana. But I appreciate a lot to welcome in to this country, to the United States. A lot. And my father didn't return a wallet buying. So we need help wherever we need. We might need from our help. To remain a mother in a mother forever. In an analogy or in. This song as my dream is to open my own restaurant. In LA, madam, in a family car, in a land, in our will, and on one with Mercosur. So we need more help from our family to to everywhere. And my revenue in all of community. ALMOBARK On his own and on the dollar and all that. We would like to have our own community which will build our own community. However, the government knows about it with our communities. And I still had dinner, my tank on. Car in a gallon and had the old gun to watch you. I appreciate a lot from Glen. Glen who invited me from here today. Some value went to which I guess we all had on our way. And then he he's the one who helping us out to somebody for on on this moment for now. Allow can that that you can picture Google and my homework all ordered all the special work of Korea. We cook we are the people who cook the special. A lot and had them for that and I no I will not turn on more than all. Well I don't know what. We will like to have the help from how we can open up our business, our restaurant, and we can help our family and our kids. So I think it was in Ali and Hoyt. Thank you so much. That's the only one I have. All right. Thank you. And next up, we had always. You're up next. It's always bizarre. Good afternoon to everybody. And appreciate it a lot. I'm from Sun Valley. I've been in Sun Valley for eight years. But we would like to have the opportunity to share them with us when it comes at the Sun Valley. Oh, we like to have an opportunity as a business to open as a restaurant. But we would like, hope and how we can get that help. That's why we are here today. And we appreciate it a lot for Glenn to help us to invite us here today. Wonderful. Thank you. Could you please pronounce your name for the record? For the record, my name is always Hussein. Great. Thank you. All right. Next up, our next five are Devin Buckles, Jeff Shoemaker, Rudy Gonzalez, Mac Freeman. And then our last hour, we'll go ahead and then Jim Mantle. Mentally, those are our next five. So Devin Buckles. Good evening, members of Denver City Council. I'm Devin Buckles. 1855 South Pearl Street. I'm the director of the Water Connection, which is the Policy and Water Resources arm of the Greenway Foundation. I'm here this evening to speak on behalf of our foundation in support. Of. Plant adoption. The foundation has collaborated with the Denver Planning Office and the Steering Committee throughout the planning process to incorporate a number of provisions to guide the relationship between the development and our waterways. This plan identifies the South Platte River and Lakewood Gulch as front doors to this exciting new neighborhood hub. These edges will be treated as priorities through plan guidance and subsequent implementing regulations and guidelines. We support the plan's recommendations for innovative stormwater management integration of green infrastructure throughout the site. Thoughtful design and function of Mile High Stadium circle on the river edge so that it adequately serves the gameday traffic while serving as a pedestrian prioritized street for the remainder of the year for safe and easy river access. The plan also contains a call for design standards and guidelines to ensure the intensity, orientation, scale, height, massing and design of buildings along the edges of these two important waterways create a positive experience for users on all sides. Of the waterway. And finally, we support the plan's emphasis on this tremendous opportunity to. Activate and. Engage this section of the River and Lakewood Gulch. So thank you for this opportunity to. Speak before you this evening. Next up, Jeff Shoemaker. Good evening, Madam President. A member of Council Jeff Shoemaker, 1855 South Pearl Street, Denver, 802 ten. It's an honor to stand before you. I'd like to immediately acknowledge Jason and Sarah for your. Seriously solid work on this and your willingness to sit down with Devin and me and take a strong plan. And hopefully with Devin's help and despite my engagement, the plan is stronger. So thank you very, very much. This is yet the latest opportunity to make the South Platte River the best place to work, live and play in the city and county of Denver. A vision of my father many, many years ago. And just a little bit of trivia. 54 years ago yesterday was the flooding of the South Platte River. And 45 years ago, yesterday was the founding of the Greenway Foundation. And look where we've come. Look where we've come. This plan respects our river. I am going to be so bold as to say that the reason that the stadium district has put this plan before you is because they get that they understand that being near the South Platte, they understand that being near Lakewood Gulch is a good thing. And who could have imagined that when? Let us remember that the reason the original Mile High Stadium was built along the river is because it was purchased as a former landfill dump site for a buck way back when when, yes, I was alive. So this is another opportunity to take our city's greatest natural resource and evolve it and improve it and enhance it and make it and engage equal opportunity for every single person within the city. And I'll finish with this. Councilman new. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your service. My foundation will miss you. And so while I thank you, Madam Chairman. Next up, we have Rudy Gonzalez. Good evening, city council members. And thank you. My name is Rudy Gonzalez. I'm the executive director services at La Raza also was a member for. The past year, 18 months with the steering committee. And I'm here to speak in support of the Stadium District Master Plan tonight. And the fact that it was probably one of the most inclusive processes that I've been part of in my life. It brought many stakeholders together. Community people, civic shows. We're at 3130 on West 14th Avenue. So we're right there in the heart. Of Sun. Valley in West Denver. Serving scores, if not thousands of families. Throughout West Denver, including over 147 families from Sun Valley in a multitude. Of services. So to be part of this process, you know, we've had and service was has hosted us senators. Governors, mayors, you know, legislators and even many of you esteemed council persons at our places. But we've at our place but we've never hosted a developer who came in and met with all of our staff, the entire agency, for 2 hours to speak about what? Opportunities. What kinds of things did they want to see. In this neighborhood, in. This part of Denver, with their pulse. On so many of the. Issues that happen around social services and the social safety net? And it was a very robust discussion. We have a lot of great subject experts as as staff. Over there that know their business and know their work. And with that, I also want to. Acknowledge Mack. Freeman. RDC Well, and the leadership of Paul Lopez in bringing. A lot of. Diverse community. Stakeholders together. In this process. I've also sat for the last year and a half on. The West Colfax, the Cloverleaf. Redesign, and so how it integrates, it's pretty seamless. And we're talking about housing, not just affordable housing, but housing that allows. Dishwashers. To CEOs to live where they work. And I think that's important. But again. I think also important was the community. Benefits agreement that I think. Will hold all of us accountable to. Ensuring that there is justice and equity in this work going forward. Thank you. Mack Freeman. Good evening, council members. Mack Freeman, the chief commercial officer for the Denver Broncos. And I think first off, I'd like to thank every one of you and those that are not here tonight for taking the time to sit down with us and understand what a unique project this is. Because I don't know that you've had something like this in front of you. I can know this. I know this has been hard for some to get their arms around and that we don't have a developer at the table yet. And I. I appreciate all of you trusting that that's going to be a good, good path, because I think we've made a lot of progress and we're excited about where it's going. But again, this is a unique project. This development is on behalf of the taxpayers with all of the ground lease revenue going to the Metropolitan Football Stadium District to fund the capital needs of the taxpayer owned stadium. The long term outcome of this effort and creative funding strategy is to save the taxpayers the forward burden and cost of maintaining the stadium while at the same time creating a dynamic urban neighborhood with the jobs, investments and community benefits that come with that. I'm here to support the Stadium District Master Plan before you participated on the steering committee and have been thrilled with the community engagement and inclusion of all stakeholders in the public process. The plan envisions a dynamic, urban neighborhood that is authentic to the city and one that is designed to celebrate the largest gatherings of this community. This plan supports the efforts and goals of the Sun Valley Eco District and can go a long way to ensuring its success. The plan focuses on connections to all the adjacent neighborhoods. The plan prioritizes the six vision elements of the recently adopted comprehensive plan 2040, those being equitable, affordable, inclusive, strong and authentic. Neighborhoods connected, safe and accessible places economically diverse and vibrant, environmentally resilient and healthy and active. We've had extensive discussions on community benefits and recognize the importance of addressing affordable housing, job opportunities, workforce development parks and open space connections and mobility, public art, the river. And continuing to engage with with many of the folks you've seen up here tonight, this has been a phenomenal process. And and I think everyone's come to it with good faith. After 20 years, the stadium is getting more expensive to maintain it, as all facilities do. This plan can be the engine that allows us to extend the useful life of the stadium for many years ahead. Like others, I'd like to thank Jason Sarah of Karen Steve for who attracted the best public participation I've ever seen. And I'd like to thank Councilman Lopez in particular. He has he has held the process accountable on community benefits. We have committed to sit down when we start. Sorry. That's your time, sir. Stadium investment. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Jim mentally. That's correct. Thank you. My name is Jim and Tele 5660 Logan Street, Denver. Representing Colorado State Conference of Electrical Workers. Oh, excuse me. I am a 45 year representative of the electrical construction industry in the state, serving at many different levels. We have seen the potential for job creation and opportunities for a project like this. We have seen them come to fruition numerous times in this city. We have seen the we have benefited from the from the development that has led to opportunities of numerous types here. Also tonight, representing the MEP Alliance, the alliance is a consortium of four highly skilled construction trades the pipefitters, plumbers, electricians and sheet metal workers. The four industries represented by the MEP Alliance all have registered apprenticeship programs that provide more than just jobs. They provide incredible career opportunities, education and everything that goes along with providing pathways to the middle class. The wage, the starting wages for apprenticeships are incredible. They do come with benefits, not only health, but pension annuity type benefits. And the spectrum is wide. We work in. Close conjunction through our MEP Alliance with Services de la Raza as a community outreach agent. They have worked with us in numerous outreach, community outreach and apprenticeship programs. And it's important that we realize and you realize that a project of this nature with these own hiring requirements and with services De La Raza being domiciled right in the area, we can provide job opportunities. We are eager to do it. And in a day and age, when the problem is recognized nationally of the shortages in these skilled trades, we ask that you support a project of this nature in its client. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have our last two speakers, Matt Sugar and Dan Schorr. Please. Thank you, counsel. My name is Matt Sugar. I'm the director of stadium affairs for the Metropolitan Football Stadium, District 17 on Ryan Street. I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you this evening. First, I'd like to once again thank the city's planning staff, Jason and Sarah and Karen and the many others who have been invaluable along this effort throughout the year. Over a year, the city staff has exceeded expectations in bringing together a truly diverse group of stakeholders and have succeeded in creating a document years in the making that reflects the values of Sun Valley, adjoining neighborhoods and businesses. Broncos Stadium at Mile High Visitors and the city and county of Denver Broncos Stadium at Mile High is almost 2020 years old. You might not notice that it's age because the Denver Broncos in the district have invested heavily over those years into the publicly owned asset. Maintaining and upgrading is necessary. The Metropolitan Football Stadium District site consists of over 80 acres. The building is approximately 1.8 million square foot. As you can imagine, taking care of 1.8 million square foot requires some upkeep. The District and the Broncos have shared an interest in maintaining and enhancing the publicly owned asset now and well into the future, that this plan can play a key role in helping develop the revenue source, allowing investment into the stadium while avoiding seeking revenue from taxpayers for capital repairs to the stadium. The District, the Broncos, the Denver Housing Authority, Sun Valley Economic Development, local businesses, the city and county and numerous other individuals and organizations have participated in bringing forth a plan that can preserve and build on the longstanding traditions of the area and improve the experience for locals and visitors alike. While we have a long ways to go to make this vision a reality, this plan is the first major step in that direction. On behalf of the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. I urge your support of the Stadium District Master Plan. Thank you. Next up, Dan Schorr. Okay, last, Dan Schorr, West Colfax Business Improvement District 3275, West 14th Avenue. And we are I'm here speaking on behalf of the bid, also in support of the plan. And I just want to say that in terms of a. Process and participation, I really think that that's actually reflected tonight by the sort of sentiments that are expressed, the ideas are put forward. And it's really been, I think, a plan that has evolved a little bit and I, you know, somewhat so, you know, in my own world of the Cloverleaf in a way that I think has improved the plan, especially from the point of view of mobility and creating a sort of a vibrant area of West Denver that can work and together that's vibrant commercially and provides opportunities for the people who are currently residing in the neighborhood, who will come both as visitors, future residents. And I feel like the so that I feel like that that the relationships that have resulted in that you know, sort of developed evolved outcome is are sort of in place and you know, sort of a fruitful opportunity to further, you know, for for further development as the process evolve, develops and the project develops. And so I think it's really a just a good testament to a good planning process and a, you know, it is it tells a story of good collaboration. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So a couple of questions I have. First of all, can someone help me understand what the maximum build our square footage might look like? So based on what is allowed, the height densities, what what could be the the maximum amount of square footage that could be built on on this property where . That we're doing this master plan for. The the area of the stadium district, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District owned portion is about 50 acres. We also know that there's about 19 acres at the clover leaf and then there's some other assorted parcels in there. So the plan is giving guidance to to the area to be a mixed use environment. We've also are making recommendations about affordable housing and mass production as part of it and as the plan is setting up what our next steps are along the way. A lot of that building shaping is going to be a key part of knowing kind of what that allowable amount is. So I don't know if we have a total. I don't know if there is a number that we have are targeting related to it. But it is a it is a, you know, an urban neighborhood. And we do have both sort of formal recommendations. We do have kind of the highest areas in the middle and they step down to the side. So we should see more of those details when the rezoning application. That would be, yeah. I mean, there's going to be a suite of things that will happen. Rezoning will let you know more about that. We'll have a design centers and guidelines which will continue to shape some of those things, but a lot of that mass production component will be part of that rezoning discussion. But then there's also just people either building out their full entitlement or, as we often see, not building out that full entitlement to. So probably the end result will be. Obviously, as you know, a range of form. One of the speakers raised question about aviation uses. Is that excluded? Will that be addressed in the zoning? What kind of discussions were there about that type of use being proposed as part of the The Master Plan? We didn't discuss aviation uses as part of the master planning process. Phil mentioned that before in another discussion that would be actually used would be a part of a I think a zoning discussion as part of that. But aviation, neither benefit nor detriment, really came up as part of the master planning process. So as. For what exactly the context of their. Discussions with the neighborhood on the zoning, the proposed zoning, some of those topics should be part of that discussion. Yeah. Okay. And then help me understand about the impacts to Decatur Street. I'm very familiar with this neighborhood and the the real concerns being expressed about the potential new volume of traffic that might be on Decatur because of the proximity to the school, to Denver Human Services, to lots of small kids in the neighborhood. So. How much was that part of the plan discussion or how much of it will be part of the zoning discussion when that comes forward? To highlight a couple of things and certainly can stand up if there is additional to. But one of the the value of of that as a good location for what we want to see is the sort of the direct access to the two light rail stops to the recommendation for an at grade connection to the to West Colfax. That was an important part of the process. Important part of the discussion is the understanding that there is a a traffic management and parking plan in place now in the future. Sort of relook at that to understand what the impacts are on game day and every day to the surrounding neighborhoods becomes important. So there are a variety of things happening. We also know that as part of our our project management team and teams moving forward through the process, public works will be there and be part of the table games here today. But other things, including 13th Avenue realignment, things on federal are all part of the the network and will contribute to that. And I think understanding how they work together is going to be important for the safety of a really important street in one that we know that there are a lot of kids on. And the one that we want to be a walkable, bikeable connection, primarily up to the district is going to be important. I want to ask Matt Sugar, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. Neither you or Mac can answer this question. I wanted to inquire about how much discussion there was about looking at leveraging other resources so that when we start talking about infrastructure issues that need to be addressed or infrastructure impacts, whether it's to our water system and whether the current infrastructure can handle the volume of all the new development that might be proposed on the site to maybe cost sharing some of the improvements on 13 Avenue, perhaps Federal Boulevard, any of those kinds of things. How much was any of that part of the discussion? Obviously, there see you've got Dr. COG urban drainage in flood control district where there could be some leveraging of other resources to address some of the. Overlapping impact issues. Yes, I think that I, I don't know that I can address address those specifically. And those certainly are things that we would look at moving forward. I think that Jason and the team had looked at some of those issues as we looked at what the site might look like and reconfiguring the infrastructure and those types of things . I don't know if I'm the best person to answer that specifically, but I think it's something we need to explore. Mercury behind you. So he may have. To say the answer and match, right? Is the specifics? Not yet. Currently, our design team has begun meeting with the city to really get in to the infrastructure master plan. I think we have discussed the topics we're raising and realizing that we need to figure out how to coordinate those. Obviously, the biggest change was the relatively late inclusion of the Cloverleaf because that actually introduced a number of new infrastructure issues that possibly affect where we were on the original 52 acres. So we're not there yet, but that process is underway with the city and I think again, we added some work to it. So we're probably we moved further from the goal line than we were a few weeks ago. But it's I think we all realize the value of if we can create solutions for the Cloverleaf as a part of this, it's a big win for the city. Madam President, I have one last question, and this is for CPD. So with so many changes that have happened at the department and the fact that we don't currently have a planning director who is point on looking at sort of the big picture of a lot of the development that's happening along this I-25 corridor and looking at how these projects are going to interface with one another, where we're going to be looking at the opportunities for some cost sharing with the infrastructure improvements or, you know, the effect of that and obviously the effect that all of this development will have on the neighborhoods adjacent or in terms of gentrification and displacement. So is there like a point person or how how is that being looked at and addressed by CPD from that bigger picture perspective so that we're not looking at every single project piecemeal? I said, of course so. Throughout this planning process, we've definitely been in discussion with kind of other members of our department, and we always continue that conversation and recognize plans that have already been done, plans that are in process right now in upcoming neighborhood plans. So I'd like to recognize that this plan really puts forth the community's desires and everything that they would like to see in conjunction with the stadium needs and their operation. So that's kind of how we looked at this plan. In addition to that, moving forward, it's really in the next steps where we have more of an idea of what will actually be implemented and how that really, truly impacts the adjacent areas, adjacent, surrounding neighborhoods, and also what the other plans and projects are doing. So we don't really have an answer for that right now because that really is down the road and that this is more of kind of a high level policy document of what we'd like to hope and see there in terms of equity and potential displacement. We recognize that there really is no residents living there right now. It's a very singular use parking lots and the community is very excited to see that transform into something that they can use. And we looked at that from the perspective of this planning process is how can we provide something in this planning area that really gives back to the community and include their voice through this? And so that's kind of our goal is we recognize that future development will impact them. But what are the tradeoffs of what we can also get through this process with future development? So we know there's going to be changes in Sun Valley. There's a whole master plan for Sun Valley. I'm talking about the effects that this will have on Villa Park, on Barnum and Westwood, on many of the other neighborhoods along the western edge of I-25 with all of the new development that's coming. So, you know, we've got the stuff that will happen on the other side of the river and the religious site. You know, further south, you've got the whole design center and the bright green marketplace. So when you start looking at all of this, we're talking about over 500 acres of new development all on the west side of town. And, you know, we've got see that doing their their palace study. So just wanting to make sure we've got somebody bird dogging the cumulative effects of all of this that's going to be happening, maybe not all at the same time, but looking at where we can leverage and interface and address all of those impact issues. I see. Dr. Arena, you are in the in the audience and I know that she's been brought on to help look at the gentrification and displacement issues. And I'm wanting to make sure that we have the right tools in place to address those and to be thinking about them and looking at them on the front end, rather than waiting until the impact is happening and it's too late to do anything about them. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Four times, sir, can I ask you on the mobility section? And after looking through the plan, I see I want to make note, first of all, that the Colfax Viaduct will soon be about 40 years old, and that's the new viaduct. And so looking ahead to the time when that might be at the end of its useful life and we're looking at a replacement, I'm wondering if the steering committee or the community or the stadium district or anyone involved in this effort considered the possibility of bringing Colfax down to grade at some point. Maybe the geometry doesn't quite work with having to cross the river, but when I look at your mobility section, I see the recommendation for a at grade intersection at West Colfax with a North-South road. Is that in the line of the lady where LRT would be or where is that? But I note that that's on a big embankment where the viaduct then takes off across the property and really it's not even part of the the parking lot, if you will. It's or the ground level just takes traffic from from federal over to the foot of, I think, seventh Street and Osage on the other side of downtown , on the other side of the river. Was there any discussion as to what to do with the Colfax Viaduct when when it's at the end of its life? No. So what I was going to try to answer the first part of your question. So the accurate intersection was something that we looked at and the feasibility of that happening. And so that is an intersection that can happen and be at grade. Granted, there is quite a significant amount of grade change between West Colfax Avenue diving down and then coming back up to Federal Boulevard. But that was one of the more important intersections that we could get, knowing that there is still the viaduct. So the viaduct right now that I think could be a sort of a next step study. There was, you know, thoughts of what comes up. Must, you know, what goes up must come down at some point knowing the infrastructure will age. But this wasn't really a part of our planning process, kind of deciding what to do with the viaduct and then also the feasibility of the viaduct. If it does come out great, how does it cross the planet and, you know, connect to I-25 and other mobility networks? So this I'll just say that's kind of out of my purview of expertize and kind of we sort of kept to more of the kind of community's desires and what they wanted to see in this process. And that I think some of the feasibility will come later of figuring out how do we really implement everything and get what we want. Keeping in mind of kind of long term or the longevity of the Mobility Network as well. So that at Great Intersection would involve lowering the grade of Colfax or raising the grade of of the North-South Connector. Or resistor right now. It would connect it would be without moving West Colfax Avenue, and it would be kind of altering certain grades to meet up to Colfax. Okay. And then I saw elsewhere in the plan that you recommend looking at uses for the real estate that exists under the viaduct for some in some form or fashion. And to those uses take into account the possibility that somewhere in the near term, whatever it is conducted under the viaduct might have to be disrupted in order to construct a replacement viaduct or bring it back down to grade. Yes. So the plan currently keeps it open ended. What uses could be there, but it would be more temporary and looking at public space. But we also recognize that there is concern in terms of public health and air quality. And so we're working with other departments to figure out what uses could actually happen there. Knowing that we heard from the community that they'd like to see a variety of things from art to kind of little pop up recreational area. Mass market. Farmers markets, things like that. But we want to make sure that that definitely is something that can happen. And I think just with how that would build out it, it would probably have to be more of a temporary kind of structure if there's anything built. All right. Just one last thing. On page 86 of the plan, I noticed there was a typographical error refer to the viaduct as Old West Colfax Viaduct. And that's actually Old West Colfax is the at grade street. So that's on page 86. Okay. Thank you. And that's all, ma'am. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Lopez. There's somebody in the Flynn household who sweats every day making a typo. Oh, I have a few questions. So one of them first one is for for Mac Freeman, if you can. So Mac or in Mac, there's been a lot of conversation about community benefits. And I want to make sure. So what we have and what the folks have in front of them here on the dais is not a community benefits agreement. It's a letter in which the Broncos, a signatory, along with some other folks in the coalition, will be signed at the end of the at the end of the hearing about the community benefits, some of that. One is because there is no development entity in terms of who to enter into community benefits with yet. But and so I want to make that sure it's clear on the record to some of the community benefits that are in the letter. Responsible contracting policy practices. Utilization of registered apprentices. Minimum Wage. Living Wage. Prevailing wage. Minority women on business schools. Affordable Housing Initiatives, local hire program site. Specific housing plan, small business support parks and open space and then ongoing implementation and communication. Can you going to talk about where, you know, the group has been, where you where you're at and. Yeah, well, that's that's obviously I mean, we haven't we haven't been able to really contemplate how much we're building, how high we're building. I mean, they get the zoning questions. It goes back to the question of, you know, what the mass square footage is. I think until we know what zoning will allow and what kind of uses we're going to build once we know that, I think we'll be able to get very specific. But I think, you know what, we've tried to come to the process, as has the stadium district is just come to the table in a good faith effort . We don't have developers at the table. And I think, you know, all of the community benefits that that you've proposed, I know they're in there in the master plan. We we we subscribe to them all. I think, you know, I'm not a developer. I'm a football guy. The best hour of education on affordable housing I got were the 230 minute sessions with Councilman Can each. So I'm learning along in this in this whole process too. And I think, you know, we're we're trying to understand what that balance is. Right. And I guess, you know, we're we stand behind our commitment to keep the keep communicating with the neighborhood and make that a formal engagement and then sit down and really talk about all of them. I think it's it seems to me, you know, there is a really a window to avoid any of this. It's coming up with what mix works for year development. And again, until we really know what we're building and how much of it, it's tough to get to specific with that. And I know that's been somewhat frustrating for for you. Hall In some cases, but we're going to get there and we're committed to doing what's right for this project. And again, that's part of why we're trying to address some of this prior to being sort of commercially conflicted. Thank you, Mac. Mr. Sugar Stadium, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. So the talk about the community benefits agreement, how far along are you after this plan? If this plan were to be adopted by council tonight, how far are you on selecting a developer? And is that a would it could it be a condition of the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, as you know, said in his letter to. To advocate for those same commitments. A couple of things. We as I think we've been described here, we have several steps to go. This is a step. We have zoning steps. We have reverse clause steps. We have several different steps to go. Now, as you know, the district is represented by the seven county region. So they they have all been patient playing, paying close attention to what we're doing here. Now, of course, it resides in the city and county of Denver, the building and the district property. We have worked with the neighborhoods. We have worked with the Broncos in the past, and we will continue to do that. We are committed to do that. Now, when you started getting into the specifics, I think that what Mac just described, that's something that we need to work out. Exactly. Again, we don't have a developer. We would like to move forward rapidly. We think the time is right to do this. And with all your help, we can continue to move this process forward. So, again, I don't want to prejudge conditions that we don't know what they are at this point. So there's been some mention about the condition of the stadium itself. Is a stadium I mean, a lot of people a lot of us I remember when in you know, was a great timing when we built the stadium, voted to build the stadium because we just had one Super Bowl. It seems like that's just yesterday. What I mean, shouldn't the stadium be in tip top shape? And if not, what kind of repairs are needed and why do we. I'm sure. Sure. How much what would the price tag be? I mean, some of us have toured the stadium, but there's a lot of folks that still look in the stadium is, oh, that thing's brand new. We looking backwards. It looks like we built the stadium for about $400 million. The price tags are going north of of 2 billion. Now it's in our interest, the district's interest, the Broncos interest and all the folks involved that we preserve and protect that stadium to last us another 20 to 30 years. That's what this effort is all about, is we're trying to generate an income stream that allows us to keep that stadium viable. So when people ask me that question, there's a lot of things you can say about that. And Mac can probably talk to this specifically. You know, an escalator, an elevator might have a life span of 10 to 15, maybe 20 years at the tops. It's close to $1,000,000 price tag to replace one of those. Multiply that by 20 a seat, the seat replacement, another 15 year product. We've already been through a process where we replace the boards, the video boards several years back. Now, I guess 2013, we spent about $32 million upgrading those types of things, not to mention some of the technology that goes along with this way. Back in 2001, when I was there and we opened the stadium, things like wi fi and those things weren't necessarily thought of as an important piece. Now they're like a utility. They are expected. Those are the investments that the Broncos have made into the facility, as well as the district. And I'm sure Mac had come up with a hundred other things that we've done. Not to mention the ongoing things like expansion joints in the building, again, 1.8 million square foot. That upkeep, I mean, it's literally separate buildings that are all built together because of expansion and contraction of the steel. Those are ongoing efforts. 14 or so parking lots try to repave a parking lot. I'm sure you've all dealt with looking at the city's issues with repaving, parking lots, that those kinds of things are expensive. So I'm rambling on here, but there's a lot of need. We've looked at conditions of the facility and what we need over the next 20, 22 to 30 years. And we're looking at a significant amount of money. What's the opportunity after this passes to get a Pro Bowl quarterback is not different fun. Different fun. Okay, I oh, okay. Okay, okay. Okay. But I'll get Councilman Lopez or. Yeah, yeah. Okay. I don't know if we're going to get an answer to that one tonight. All right. Next up, we have Councilwoman Canete. Thank you very much. And before I ask, I just want to first share my condolences for the loss of Pat Bowlen. I'm sure our entire community, including especially the Broncos community. And it just feels like we should mention that in as we're discussing this, I wanted to first ask, I think Sara probably or Jason a question. So Councilman Lopez has been asking some questions about the community benefits piece. This plan document describes a couple different groups in it. And so I just want to get clarity on the record. So there's talk about an. Neighborhood Advisory Group. And then there's talk about community benefits. And so I share some concerns with you about developers self-selecting community benefits group in terms of who they're negotiating with. Generally, those are more organic. So can you just talk about whether you believe the plan provides flexibility for those to be two separate groups? One group that kind of gets updates on the project and can include everybody in their uncle and. And just give me your your answer that we we we talked about. So the plan does remain flexible in terms of what that organizational structure would look like for a community benefit agreement. And in the plan, we recognize that typically they are between the community and the developer and that there could be potential for the city to remain as an advisory role and to be a part of it. So I think there definitely is flexibility and that there's definitely flexibility to negotiate what that looks like in the future. Right. So I. You think I want to ask this question, too? Maybe I'll ask Melissa Tidey to come forward for a second. One of the things that the community has discussed and the plan does a really excellent job of identifying is a desire for on site housing. And the way that that is typically done is through an alternative plan to paying a linkage fee. So this site would be standard expectations be required to do a linkage fee. Maybe there will be a bit density bonus. But the regardless of how the path of on site housing happens, it would usually go through the Office of Economic Development or our new departments gait. And so but we have a community very interested it being in the table and talking about their vision and their goals. So can you share some thoughts on how it is that we can accommodate both our legal requirements as well as now our blessing that's in this plan for the community to be involved in that conversation? Sure. Melissa Tardy, housing policy officer with Denver Economic Development, an opportunity so has been has been discussed a little bit earlier. This is just a visionary document. So is this plan guidance? No development has been committed at this time. There are strong recommendations about what would look like potentially a height, incentive overlay or some way of incentivizing affordable housing through or density. So through that process, it would require rezoning. This also would probably fall under the the large development review process that's going through city council process right now. And all of that requires community outreach and engagement to talk about what makes sense for the specific area area, median income levels, bedroom sizes, all of those things that the community's really been asking for. Okay, great. I think that's it for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each. The public hearing for Council Bill 488 has closed comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam President. Well, first thing and I'm glad and I'm glad a councilman you to mention this, because we know whether to do it in announcements or now. But just in that spirit, we wanted to acknowledge the passing of Pat Boland, Broncos owner who had a good vision. I mean, Bears Stadium had been there for a long time, Mile High Stadium, but it wasn't always a sure thing. And from what I understand, Mr. Bolen had had a vision of not just having the stadium, but but a vision of everything around it as well, too. Right. And if you think about what Coors Field has done for the city of Denver and Coors Field was built right smack in the middle of that area. And if folks don't remember what it was like in that area, it's nothing like it is now. Now, think about going back in time. Think about that kind of opportunity down in in Sun Valley. But think about the community benefits that's tied to it. An economic engine that can help generate jobs, opportunity, housing, community benefits that go along with it. Yes, we will be able to maintain our stadium, a stadium that has such history in Denver. It's a diamond in West Denver. But also to think about not just the stadium and maintaining the stadium and make sure we you pay for it, but the surrounding community. And so this planning process has been one that's been seamless. And talking about a seamless neighborhood, we looked at different iterations of stadiums in neighborhoods around the country. Some are good and some were bad. Some of them were just poor planning, some of them almost like its own isolated little Disneyland. And it's a ghost town unto itself when there's no activity, no games. This is not that. There's this is a neighborhood. It's Sun Valley. And it's making sure that we are connecting and not just a planning sense, but transportation, economics, culture. Right. And making sure that it connects Federal Boulevard being part of that connectivity. West Colfax and Old West Colfax. And looking at what can be done there, you've got an up and coming brewery. You have businesses like sports that have been there for such a long time on federal. How do we make sure that it's those folks who have an opportunity as well to as as this as this fleshes out? And so, you know, I got to say, over the last year, it's been a heck of a process. It's been very inclusive. A lot of folks have been part of this process. But now the steering been part of the steering committee had meetings at the stadium, which drew hundreds of people to all chime in, everything from planning to parks to things like community benefits, the layout. And then, you know, this is a one step in in a lot of in a series of steps in terms of what this looks like. Now, I think about this and I think about this opportunity to be able to have this hearing tonight, this plan happening today, just weeks before we change guards on the council. And I can think of. The opportunity I had as a young man. I was I was I lived at 2704 West Second Avenue, just over there on clay. And second, it was a bike ride away from the stadium in the shadow of the stadiums where I grew up. One of the places where I grew up, we moved around a lot. I rode my bike to go sweep the concourses at Mile High Stadium and clean the bathrooms and take tickets. My my friend sold soda. That was our opportunity. But it's much more than that. And if you think about not just the jobs of the stadium, but everything that this economic engine would create around it, it's those local businesses. It's the mom and pop shops. It's those jobs. You think of office space. You think of retail. You think of just these opportunities for food access, right? For parks space, an open space, even in a place like this one. When Paco Sanchez is just down the street and Rudy Park is just down the street and the Platte River, you think of that kind of connectivity. And this plan addresses all that. So whether it's the built forum, the platform or even the economics and social, it's there. Now, Councilman Flynn have always been talking about Denver's Brooklyn Bridge. That is another conversation. That's a conversation you all will be have. But, yes, looking at that viaduct and how that viaduct transforms into a viaduct that moves people from the west side to central to the rest of Denver, not just by cars and vehicles, but by streetcars, by bikes, by walking across Colfax. Right. Without having to watch your back. So it's these are the generators, the cloverleaf. Right. And how it addresses the cloverleaf not turning its back on Federal Boulevard. And that's why you see a lot of that support here. The Broncos didn't always win a super Super Bowl, as a matter of fact, for the most part of my life. We've always lost them painfully. We've had some seasons where we I'm sorry to say this, but we barely made an average 500 season, but we still filled those seats. And the people who filled those seats, guess where they came from? He came from the surrounding neighborhoods. Paid those tickets. Watch those games. Cheered on. Sometimes we were disappointed and sometimes we were, you know, cheering them on all the way to the point where we go and watch us get blasted out of the Super Bowl 55 to 10. But we still came back. And that's that kind of ownership that the stadium had, and that's the kind of ownership this division will have. And I think as we remember those folks who live in that surrounding area, you will remember that they helped carry the team. But also we make sure that we create those opportunities. Right, those economic opportunities to advance forward. You know, I want to acknowledge, like folks like like yourself at that time, like Derek Friedman, Rudy Gonzalez on services. There are some the partnerships that have existed, the champions in the community program with the Broncos. Right. You look at the construction and building trades, the Electrical Workers Union, apprenticeships, it makes me feel good that there's a commitment to those community benefits. Now, this letter that's sitting on my desk is going to be signed after this by all these different folks, the Sun Valley Neighborhood Coalition, the Broncos. But it is a it is a a and a memorialization of those commitments. We're not a community benefits agreement yet, but that'll be this next council. I mean, you are and I want to make why this letter just kind of memorializes that, because we can't do it in a plan, because this is the planning documents a little different. Up until that time. This is what we got to refer to and you memorialize that commitment. So thank you all so much. And especially the Denver Broncos, especially all of you all for for committing to do this. Our planning staff. Thank you. This is a great process to have Steve Atwater and the real Vince Lombardi trophies. I had to go up there and actually look at them because I thought they were fakes. No, they're real. And they brought them there. I don't know what the price tag on those, but the closest I've ever gotten to anything like that. But at the end of the day, I just wanted to say thank you and thank you to her sous or A.I. at my office, who has been our point person to our office, our interface for this whole whole thing, and making sure that at least on our end, the strings are tied together in the community and that communication is there. So with that, you know, I do support this moving forward and look forward to seeing this as a well. As another as. As a resident of the neighborhood in the surrounding area. But not from this diocese. So. Thank you, ma'am, but I do support them. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Madam President. It's it's not lost on me that we've just now last week had the first major area plan under our new planning documents in the far northeast. And then this week we have the first small area plan in this stadium district. And you know that the headline writers, you know, through our last municipal election, the only headline that we could really see was growth. And you know what get gets lost in the the 30,000 foot level headline is the kind of alignment that is frequently happening in this chambers when communities are deeply engaged in long term conversations over the course of months and in some cases years about the places where growth both best belongs and the values that should be reflected in that growth. And so the subtitle of both last week and this week is that you can use a planning process to identify that alignment and you can get it with folks of very diverse backgrounds, including residents of public housing and those who represent an area of town, Colfax and Federal Boulevard, that have serious safety issues. And frankly, even though they represent districts representing vulnerable districts, vulnerable areas. And so I think that that's just a really important thing for us to pause and notice for a second that the details matter. And so to highlight, I think, a few of the details in the plan that I think are significant, where that alignment came together is one, you know, the physical alignment, right, about the connections, about the safety of streets, about the cloverleaf and the idea that we can do better than 19 acres of death trap. Right? Which is what that is for anyone who's not in a car going 40 miles an hour. And so I feel that, you know, there was incredible work done by all parties. And I thank all everyone who's here tonight and who testified because I think you all highlighted that alignment. And then secondly, on the principles of equity, you know, I know that one thing that sometimes we think about is that this term development is all about some owner making a lot of profit. And it's interesting because I actually think there's a lot of similarities between this conversation about the Stadium District and Union Station, a project that I was very close with, which is that in both cases, the development profit, if you will, is going to fund a public amenity. So we used all the development around Union Station to help pay for the transit, to help pay for the bus station, to help pay for the train station through a different structure. You're using this development to pay for the stadium. So that is a good thing. The question then becomes, well, if it's not just some land owner who's getting rich, are community benefits needed or appropriate? Aren't you getting the community benefit by virtue of funding the stadium or in that case, funding Union Station? And here's how I answer that. And I hear, I think how the plan answered says, which is to say, yeah, you still have to talk about the equity impacts and about the mitigation and the benefits because it is still an extraordinarily large amount of public investment involved. Right. So those street alignments that are going to make these things possible and you know, all of the public taxpayer money that went into this stadium, it's appropriate that the benefits flow equitably. That's the first reason why you still have to talk about community benefits, even though the stadium is an important beneficiary of the profit or the the margin. The second reason is because the displacement risks don't change based on who owns it. So if you put a lot of new fancy things in an area, no matter who they're benefiting or who the profit is going to, we know the ripple effects lead to the potential for displacement. We know that they make it harder for local businesses to have access sometimes or for residents to afford the housing. So the benefits are agnostic. They don't care who got the profit, they just affect the residents the same way. And we know that because a lot of the things that have resulted in displacement have been really important. Public infrastructure, like fixing the river or fixing streets or adding parks. They're great, they raise values and they result in some displacement. So so community benefits are appropriate, whether it's a corporate landowner, whether it's a public beneficiary, even if it's the city itself, building something. I think the question about how they get decided is, is where things get interesting and maybe the trade offs. Right. Into the conversation. But I want to commend the city for making its commitment for the first time, frankly, as clear as it has, that it's appropriate for the community to be in this conversation, not just us negotiating privately. That's a breakthrough, and it's just really worth highlighting as we go forward. I think that each milestone will bring us a better level of definition in detail. Right now, the plan lays out topics without laying out how they get decided. I do encourage and I appreciate that it seems like the stadium district is close to agreeing that these are the topics that your future developers need to discuss, and then we'll get more to how those topics get resolved in the future. But I really just wanted to kind of highlight all of that because I think that it gets skipped over a lot of times in the conversation about these projects. Once we leave the chamber and once we end up in the community, we're all just like, Oh, you're putting a lot of growth in. The other thing I want to say is to communities concerned about change in existing, existing neighborhoods. The more growth we can put on this site, the more it relieves pressure in other neighborhoods. So I want to be clear. The development here is happening on parking lots. It's happening on parking lots. Every story that is built here reduces some of the pressure elsewhere. And if we do it right, if we do it the way the plan says on site, with the mix of incomes on site, with open space, on site, with local business opportunities, it will reduce pressure for that same growth elsewhere. And I think that is really important also to put in the subtitle, this is the right place. And so it's it's a lot, but I don't think we're going to be worried about the views from the stadium. Right. So that's the right place to put it, right. And versus maybe next to a single storey home, right in in a different established neighborhood. So thank you for your forbearance with the long comments. But these are, I think, turning points for the city, and they need to be underlined so that we're on the same page going forward. I'm excited to support this plan. I appreciate the time everyone spent. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Next up, we have Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. So, first of all, I want to say great job in all the collaborative work that you have done, because I can remember when the first football stadium project came before city council that was looking at closing down McNichols Sports Arena and then moving that and opening up the Pepsi Center and working to, over time tear down the old football stadium and build the new one. And they were both at the same site at the same time because we needed one for the games to take place and lots of community input in that process as well. And so fast forward to today, you're in a very active part of North Denver where communities are very engaged in what's happening in their neighborhood. And to be here tonight and to not having people here say, no, we don't want this project, we don't like it. I mean, everybody I think is in unison in wanting to see the changes happen, understanding that the stadium district needs to find some revenue to maintain the ongoing upkeep of the facility and at the same time creating some real benefit and opportunities for the community. And, you know, we'll see more details as you come forward with the rezoning plans and the actual community benefit agreement with the community. But to be here tonight and know that, you know, everybody's pretty much singing the same tune. Yes. They're different issues still need to be worked out. But in general, this is this is a big deal and some great opportunities, I think, yet to come for the broader community. My comments about impacted neighborhoods deals with the cumulative impact of 500 acres of development, not just one project at a time, but over time, the cumulative effect that may have on the adjacent neighborhoods. And so I think as a city, we need to be looking at and working on the bigger picture of how all of that happens in the next area or the gas area. That in DCC, the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, was created to look at how all those projects interface with one another, as so many of them are happening at the same time, and making sure that, you know, communities can get in and out of their neighborhood and things. Like that. But I think in general, you all have have done a great job. I would just strongly encourage that. I'm assuming the issue of the neighborhood parking program was part of the discussion. But I would anticipate the neighborhoods will want to continue to see that strongly in place and enforced not only on game days, but when there are big events like concerts and whatnot. So that as we remove the use of parking lots that currently get fully utilized on game days and people now have to find alternative ways to get to the game, that we're not looking at putting any of that impact into the adjacent communities. So I know those are all detailed things that you all are already looking at and talking about. But, you know, good job and I know there's a lot more work yet to be done. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you. All. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. Pro tem I hesitate to take Councilman Flynn's mantle is our council historian, but there's something I want to bring up. And in reference to Mr. Bolen, that and all the stories that have been in the paper about him recently, I haven't heard mentioned, you know, South Broadway, South of Sixth Avenue, has become very hip in recent years and it's booming. And there's people on the streets at all kinds of hours and nights of the week. And there's Punchbowl Social Club and the Hornets been there for years and years, and there's some new and great restaurants and ice cream shops, and it's just as vibrant as can be. But over the years, as a resident and as a journalist, I've watched literally hundreds of businesses come and go on that strip. Every decade or so, new businesses would come in. They'd form a new merchants association and declare, we're going to revitalize South Broadway. And it didn't happen until recently. But through the decades, what's been that the drawing card, bringing those businesses to try has been the main theater at first and Broadway, and in the mid eighties, the main theater was literally within hours of the wrecking ball. And I believe the story goes was Federico Pena that made former energy secretary and our former mayor, Federico Payan You made a contact with Mr. Boland, who got together with his partner at the time and purchased Union Bank and Trust, which owned the block that the man was on and preserved the man theater. And the man, as we all know, has been revitalized and still stands as as that primary landmark that people know when they come to South Broadway. And so what I would just urge, as you know, we had a couple of people here tonight talk about, you know, not talk about who we hope some big chain comes in . But I'd like to have my own restaurant in this district. I'd like to be part of it where Mr. Baldwin bought Union Bank and Trust. I hope he made some dough on it, but that was not a I want to get rich type of decision. That was a community benefit right there. So recognizing that Mr. B is passed on to his next journey, I hope you'll stay in contact with him as this gets planned and be sure that those community benefits, those local businesses are part of it. So I think it would be a great way to honor his legacy off the football field and really deliver something to that neighborhood that the residents can can take part in. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And I'll just add in that I, you know, love that folks have been proactive and really looking at the community benefits piece and echoing Councilman Cashman around the small businesses that that we heard from here tonight, and that we want to make sure that we're bringing them into the fold and that with this amazing, great new development, that we don't lose that inclusive feel of the entire area. And so with that being said, I'm happy to support this tonight. And Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Black. Flynn I. Cashman I. Can. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Hi. Assessment, Mr. President. I'm sorry, Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Nine Eyes. Nine Eyes Council Bill 488 has passed. Councilman new, will you please put council bill 538 on the floor for us?

A RESOLUTION adopting the Statements of Legislative Intent for the 2021 Adopted Budget and 2021-2026 Adopted Capital Improvement Program.

SeattleCityCouncil_03012021_Res 31995

And Item seven Resolution 31995 adopting the statements of legislative intent for. The 2021 adopted. Budget and 2021 to 2026. Adopted capital improvement program. Thank you. Moved to adopt resolution 31995. Is there a second? Second. It has been moved in seconded to adopt the resolution. Councilmember mosquitoes sponsor of this item were recognized in order to address it. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Pro Tem Council colleagues. This is the resolution that formally adopts all of the statements of legislative intent, pass through the 2021 adopted budget, as well as the 2021 through 2026 adopted capital improvement program. I want to thank all three from central staff for being present with us this morning to walk us through the detail of this acceptance of resolution and appreciate all of the questions and comments that she has already addressed. Look forward to getting this passed and continuing to see the detailed reports that are statements of legislative intent requests in many cases. Thank you all for all of your work during the budget process to put those slides forward. And we take that with the same level of urgency and importance as any line item funding approval. Look forward to having more conversations on as we receive each of those reports as well throughout the year. Thank you, Councilmember Mosquito. Colleagues, any other questions, comments? Concerns. Councilmember Herbold. Just want to underscore piece of information that I think most of us have been notified by Council Central as it relates specifically to some of the Seattle Police Department responses to our statements of legislative and central staff will be providing quarterly updates in the Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Regarding the monthly requests regarding overtime use, staffing and Seattle Police Department financial reporting and of course, the quarterly nine one response report requests. I just highlight that because although many of these are monthly reports, we will be addressing them on a quarterly basis in committee. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember old colleagues, any further comments, questions, concerns or support? I maybe that's the last. Word to use in that phrase. Signal. Clark, will the Clark please call the role in the adoption of the resolution? Bold? Yes. Lois. Yes. Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Peterson. Yes. So what? Yes. President Pro Tem Strauss. Yes. Seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item eight. Will the clerk please read the short title of item eight into the record?

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities’ Emergency Assistance Program; temporarily expanding access to assistance; and amending Section 21.76.065 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_04192021_CB 120036

Agenda Item three Council Bill 120036 An ordinance relating to Seattle Public Utilities Emergency Assistance Program temporarily expanding access to assistance and amending section to 1.76.065 of the Seattle Municipal Code. Thank you. I need to pass Council Bill 120036. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilor Pearson, you're also the sponsor of this bill and hand it back over to you. Describe legislation. Thank you. Council president and colleagues. This is just the second bill and I just spoke to. The first bill was Seattle City Lights program. And this is the program, the emergency assistance program for Seattle Public Utilities. I recommend passage. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? As a member herbal, please. Keep this room faithfully. I want to thank both of the utilities for bringing these forward. It's so important to assist customers who are behind on their bills. Even though we have a no show policy. We know that overdue utility bills could be used to evict the tenant after the moratorium is lifted. So making it possible for people to get current on their bills now is really important for customers who have access access the program over the course of the year. I know many folks were told that they could only access the assistance once a year. We've confirmed with both Seattle Public Utilities and City Light that customers who have already received assistance this year will actually be contacted again to let them know that they can now utilize the assistance a second time and just really appreciate that extra attention not only to the need but to the the outreach to let folks know that the policies have changed. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing none. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Herbold asked. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales a muslera. I. Peterson, I. Salon? Yes. Council President Gonzalez. I in favor and oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the crook please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read item four into the record? The report of the Governance and Education Committee agenda item for Resolution 32002a Resolution Supporting Renewal of King County's Best Starts for Kids Levy. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use; amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes related to Mandatory Housing Affordability as proposed as part of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process.

SeattleCityCouncil_03182019_CB 119443

Any comments or questions before we take this appointment? Okay. Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Congratulations, Mr. Short. I'll please read the next agenda item. The Report of the Select Committee on Citywide Mandatory Housing Affordability Agenda Item three Constable 119443 relating to land use amending the sale a comprehensive plan to incorporate changes related to mandatory housing affordability as proposed as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process. The Committee recommends of a pass as amended. Okay. Councilmember Johnson, I know we have some amendments that you will make, so we'll just sort of let you walk us through it. But, Councilman Johnson, you have the floor. Thank you. Council President. So we have four items related to the citywide image today. And in sequence, we're going to start with the first council bill which amends the comprehensive plan or move to the second council bill which amends the Seattle Municipal Code to implement city wide image. A third will have a solo bill that implements a major on a tiered side and Northgate. And finally, a resolution which is a companion resolution which is consistent to what we've done and all of our other image zoning changes. There are individual amendments for several of those, so I'll address those as we get up to it. But I wanted to start, if you'll indulge me, the council president, by just reflecting a little bit on the four plus year process that has gotten us to this point. And then after those prepared remarks, walk people through some of those individual and please. So, folks, today we're voting on legislation that addresses a very personal issue, I think, for everyone in Seattle. And that issue is change. We all have stories to dramatize how our city has changed over the last decade. Being something is where it is now struggling to make rent in Seattle's brutally expensive housing market to something as wasteful as missing our favorite neighborhood haunts because it's closed down. For my part, I missed dailies and Eastlake with its great shakes and low key charm. But Eastlake is a great example of how urbanism can work. It's a neighborhood without single family zoning, but with a lot of character. It's the place where I met and married the girl who lived across the hall from me and our little five unit apartment building. And it's where we had our twins and where we'd still be today if we hadn't realized that after doing the math, we were going to be paying more in rent than we would have if we bought that little house and rent it. But that's not an option for many Seattleites now, a majority of whom are renters. Ultimately, too many of our stories are about struggling and struggling to make the cost of living, struggling with traffic congestion, struggling to make rent or struggling to find affordable housing to begin with. Like many in my little fifth generation cousins who struggle to afford to live in the neighborhood they grew up in, and the source of that change is no mystery. Seattle is growing at a phenomenal rate. Consider that at the beginning of this decade, Seattle was 25th largest city in the United States. But by the end of this decade, we've passed Washington, D.C., Boston and other East Coast cities climbing to 18th biggest in the United States. During this decade, in raw numbers, we've grown from 608,000 to more than 730,000 people, a nearly 20% jump. And whether you're maneuvering your cart in the grocery store or waiting to board a 36 to go to work, whether you're stuck in line at a pharmacy or at a packed restaurant before a show on a Saturday night, it's impossible not to notice Seattle's leap from a mid-sized city to a major metropolitan metro metropolis. Unfortunately, the rules we have in place now have not kept up with that pace of growth. And in fact, the status quo policy, which bars us from building townhouses and low rise condos in most of Seattle, has undermined, which should be a real boon to us as a city economic success and population growth. But for too many of us, has turned success into a source of disenchantment. But it's time for city government to step in and change that status quo. I'm proud to say my colleagues have risen to the occasion. My colleagues, Councilmembers Misgender and Suarez have been rightfully getting credit for their work to highlight urbanism as a critical social justice issue. My district two colleagues have worked hard to build winning coalitions neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block to implement major in their districts. And three different mayors work to get us to this point, starting with Mayor Murray's 2015 proposal to Mayor Burgess, who sent MHL a major bill to council in 2017, to Mayor Durkan, who has helped us get the bill here to the finish line. Countless city staff from OPEC. dd0nohs TCI, the planning commission, the law department, the mayor's office put in long hours to make this moment possible. And I'd like to thank some of those folks this afternoon. Directors Sarah Stouffer, Kathleen Ireland, Diane Sycamore, Steve Walker, Andrés Mantilla and Nathan Torgerson. Thank you for your leadership. Staff numbers including Sarah Mac, Santa. Jeff Wendland. Robert Feldstein. Michelle Chan. Nick Welch. Jessica Brand. Susie Phillips. Laura Hewitt. Walker. Jason Kelly. Jim Petro, Lindsay Masters, Mike Podolski, Dave Clark, Jeff Weber, Leslie Price, Emily Alvarado, and many others who I've left off. Thank you for your long nights and many tears that we've all sat around DiMaggio. I want to thank John Howell, who facilitated the hall committee and the council's community design workshops for your leadership. John. And I want to thank the thousands of neighbors who participated in our community engagement events. We relied on the help of our clerk's office and our council communications team. Our central staff land use team has been critical in the last few years. And I want to thank Ali, panicky Kito Freeman, Les Woodson, Yolanda Ho and Eric McConaghy for their good work. I also want to thank my team who's worked on this legislation since the Hall recommendations were released on the same day the ballots were mailed out in 2015. Amy Gaw, Noah and Spencer Williams. Jerry Morris, Patty Camacho. Maya Elisha couldn't have done this without you guys and I'm so grateful. I want to say a quick thank you to Katie and our girls who spent a lot of nights on their own because of the number of public hearings that we took to get us here. And finally, I want to send extra thanks to my vice chair, Councilmember Gonzalez. You've been a champion, confidence and passionate advocate for the program. And Lorena. If if I'm allowed to do so, I'd like to bestow upon you an honorary master's degree in land use planning. For all of your meticulous work over the last three and a half years. I am really passionate about zoning. It seems like a trivial thing that makes for boring meetings and migraines. But however, I think my colleagues have realized that within the finicky zoning formulas for low rise one, low rise two and residential small lot housing, there's a formula for equity. And today we passed that formula, a formula that provides for growth and affordable housing. It does this by creating more opportunities for multifamily stock while tying that new development to an affordable housing fund. And the mandatory housing affordability program will create 6000 new units of affordable housing in the next decade. That growth should be synonymous with creating a sense of place, a place for everyone to live. And that place should be building more housing. Housing for single moms like Jessica, a service worker who moved back here to pursue her sociology degree when she found affordable housing and a tiered project on the light rail line housing for graduate students like Marlen, who couldn't afford Seattle without a subsidized apartment in a new affordable housing building in the Central District. Housing for young parents like Laura and Matt, who live in an affordable housing townhome on first sell with their three kids. Housing for social workers like Natasha Hanley, who lives in Bellwethers, housing on Stone Way. And she said she wouldn't be able to attend good public schools in Wallingford if it wasn't for that affordable housing. In short, we're embracing growth by embracing inclusion, and today we're embracing inclusion by updating plans that were drafted 25 years ago, largely by single family neighborhoods. And we're acknowledging what we've learned in those last 25 years or more, so even in the last five years, that effectively planning for growth means sharing space to make room for everyone who wants to find their place in Seattle. So for a while we were able to get by without original approach, one that maybe didn't fully embrace equity because Seattle was growing only incrementally and many of us didn't notice something unfair was happening. But while King County has grown by 13% in the last eight years, Seattle has grown by 20%, while our fastest growing cities such as Redmond, Kent and Bellevue have added about 2000 people in the last year. We've added nearly 17,000 people, so we've had to jump into action. And to create a proactive housing policy, we had to get proactive about engaging the community. And to create that policy, we had to engage more of Seattle. So we did that by hosting more than 200 meetings. And I met Jay when it was first proposed since 2015. We've knocked on more than 10,000 doors. The city council itself has hosted more than 40 public meetings, including community design workshops, open houses and public hearings. We drafted and considered more than 80 amendments to create more childcare space and new buildings, more affordable small business spaces to protect trees and historic buildings to incentivize more affordable homeownership opportunities and allowed for taller buildings to be built near frequent transit service without mandate, without mandating unnecessary and unaffordable parking requirements. To my deep satisfaction, that outreach has been accompanied by something policymakers in the city haven't seen in the past. And that's a surge of pro housing activism from a diverse coalition of stakeholders more representative of the city's housing needs. This coalition reflected what solutions can look like when we all work together. We've regularly had the MLK Junior County Labor Council show up to. Support building more housing for their union members. The Chamber of Commerce often stood by their side. Groups like the Sierra Club and 350 Seattle recognized this is an environmental issue and join the cause. Traditional housing advocates like DC Future Ys and the Seattle Transit blog were joined by new groups like Welcoming Wallingford, Seattle for Everyone. Seattle Greenways. Seattle Tech for Housing Share the Cities. The Miller Park Weber's. The Capitol Hill Renters Initiative and the Urbanist. And they all helped us frame this policy with one guiding question Who is this city for? Our new mandatory housing affordability policy answers that question by saying the city is for people like Jessica and Marlin and Laura and Matt and Natasha. And with that, I'm proud to introduce this legislation, Councilperson. Thank you, Christine Johnson. So I would like to move. We have got one technical amendment which would require adoption of an amendment to attachment one. It would reflect changes to the urban center and urban village boundaries that were adopted by the Select Committee on February the 25th. And that amendment has shown an attachment of the central staff memo. So with your permission, Council President, I'd move to amend Council Bill 119443 Attachment one by submitting version two for version 1/2. Has been moved in second. And this is just the amendment attached from one, as Councilmember Johnson described. Any questions on the amendment only? All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. It is amended. Did any other council members want to speak on item three? We have several companion items to follow, but we're on item three as amended right now. Everybody good on this one? Pretty good. Okay. The next one's the next one. The big one. The next one's the big one. So we have and we have four amendments, I think, scheduled for the next item. So why don't we pass this 1/1? Okay. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the amended Bill. Bagshaw High Gonzalez High. Purple High. Johnson High. Juarez Macheda O'Brien. So on President Harrell High nine in favor and. Unopposed, the bill passes and the chair signage. Please read agenda item number four the short title.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the transfer of City real property for housing development; transferring the jurisdiction of a 1-foot strip of the property from the Office of Housing to the Department of Transportation for right-of-way purposes; declaring the remaining property located at 7750 28th Avenue NW (“Loyal Heights Property”) surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing transfer of the Loyal Heights Property to Habitat for Humanity or its designee; authorizing the Director of the Office of Housing or the Director’s designee to execute and deliver a contract for transfer of land, deed, and related documents; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09292020_CB 119890

Agenda Item 17. Council Bill 119 890 Billings The Transfer of city real property for housing development trusts for the jurisdiction of a one foot strip of property from the Office of Housing to the Department of Transportation for y of way purposes. The Committee recommends the bill passed. Thank you so much, Madam Per customer Muscat. As chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Thank you very much, Madam President. This is a small but very exciting piece of policy that we are now able to put into action that builds on the work that we began years ago. Actually, in my first year at City Council. We passed legislation to allow for community and housing advocates to be able to acquire city owned land or utility own property that could be transferred to the city at no cost for the creation of affordable housing. And here we are putting that policy concept into action. We know that the price of land in Seattle has significantly increased over the last decade, with greater competition on available in making it much more expensive to build housing and to especially build affordable housing in our community. We need to take every opportunity that there is to acquire or to maintain city owned land in city hands or to transfer it to those who have the value of the city's commitment to ensuring affordable housing and core public services in our community have the opportunity to build on that property and to create housing and strong community opportunities such as community centers and childcare. In 2018, in partnership with our friends at the state legislature, we passed legislation that I sponsored to update the Seattle disposition policies to put into place the newly granted state authorization to make sure that we are prioritizing affordable housing for surplus lands and to embed an equitable development lens into that process. Last year, we authorized the first no cost transfer to the Office of Housing for Affordable Homeownership for the Loyal Heights property following that piece of legislation. And this year, this piece of legislation follows up on all of those steps to enable the department to transfer the loyal site to actually create the permanent affordable housing that's been desired on this site for so long. This will result in affordable, first time home ownership opportunities for the first time in this area, creating things like three bedroom townhouses that will be built by Habitat for Humanity on the site, along with preservation of trees that, long said about building affordable housing and creating community led development does not have to be in competition with trees. And here's a great example of where we're cutting back our offsets and we're creating opportunities for trees to remain in place and to be planted. I want to thank the Office of Housing and Habitat for Humanity for putting this project together and very much look forward to seeing families move into this site really excited about the opportunities that this provides for us. This project has received the permits and homes to be turnkey ready and for families to move in within the next year. November 20, 21st at the latest. Thank you so much to all the folks, especially in community who worked on this and in my office Erin house for her ongoing stewardship of these types of issues and our partners at the office of Housing. Really excited to see this finally move forward. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Strauss, please. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, catherine mosqueda. I'm glad and thankful to see this bill come forward. We know that housing in the Oil Heights neighborhood of North Ballard in 1970s was worth about $30,000 in the 1980s and was about $100,000 today. As it stands, one of the lowest prices for houses in the area is at $650,000. Many over a million. I am still a renter today because I can't buy into the neighborhood in which I grew up in. And this is an opportunity to welcome new neighbors who were able to buy into the neighborhood for the many decades previous to the last run on our real estate market. So I'm very, very excited to welcome these new neighbors. Just a couple of comments about the site, the site specifically in regards to Tres, thankful that the Office of Housing was able to preserve the trees along the perimeter. We know the trees provide an economic value and will be easier to cool and to keep warm. The units of housing there as well as it's just nice to look at them. Unfortunately, the trees that I used to walk by when I was walking home from middle school along 28 cherry trees or cut down a number of years ago. Again, beautiful, beautiful trees that I wish were still in the neighborhood. I'm glad that we've been able to retain the tree once again, highlighting the note from the committee, which is that by preserving these trees along the perimeter, we were we reduce the number of units on the lot by one. So while we'll have seven neighbors, we could have had a cost benefit analysis that we have to do in regards to unit housing. I have also heard some concerns about the need for green space in the area and that this could have been used for green space. I will just highlight that we have Boyle Heights Elementary School a couple of blocks away. Boyle Heights Community Center, a member of what's further. Sunset Park is very close by home gardens and hopefully as works because of the great work of neighbors. The garden patch is looking like it will still remain just a quarter mile away. So again, this provides access to general generational wealth in the Oil Heights neighborhood and an opportunity to buy into the neighborhood. And I'm glad to welcome our neighbors. Thank you very much. Council President Holmes. Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments on the bill. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill or else? Yes. Must get a yes. Yes. So what? Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez Yes. Lewis Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation report of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee Item 18 Will the clerk please read the title of item 18 into the record?

Recommendation to adopt resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2020 Salary Resolution to revise the salary range for the Members of Boards and Commissions eligible for compensation as provided in Option 2 of the City staff report dated November 8, 2019 to the City Council; and Request City Attorney to work with City Manager to prepare the necessary documents, including any Ordinances and Resolutions, to provide compensation for the Members of Boards and Commissions currently prohibited from receiving compensation, and return to the City Council within 90 - 120 days for approval. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01072020_20-0018

District eight. District nine. Great motion carries. And then I know we're going to quickly do item 2001 and then we're going to go to item 22. We're almost there. Communication for Mayor Garcia, Councilwoman Mongo recommendation to adopt a resolution amending the fiscal year 2020 salary resolution to revise the salary range for the members of boards and commissions eligible for compensation. And request City Attorney to work with City Manager to prepare the necessary documents to provide compensation for the members of boards and commissions currently prohibited from receiving compensation in return to the City Council within 90 to 120 days for approval citywide. You know, we've had extensive discussions on this and I know been a lot of staff, staff members, so I'm not going to get into a lot of it. I just want to thank the BRC for addressing this issue. On a few occasions I've been working with Councilwoman Mongo on this item. The only thing I'll add one is I just want to add to the motion that I included inclusive of the work that the city attorney has to do to come back. That will come back to the council. Just want to make sure that also is inclusive of the civil service commissions, a different hearing structure. So as the as a motion and the staff recommendation lay out civil service because they have so many hearings, they would they would hit their cap midway through the year. So I just want to make sure that we just look at that so we can have that discussion on civil service when we come back. And then the last thing I'll say is the one thing. This hasn't been reviewed for 20 years by the city. And the one thing I think is important and that I am glad about is I think that every person on a commission, regardless of the commission, should it be thanked and compensated for their labor and their work. And so I think this is important and it's something that I'm glad that we're finally doing. And so with that Councilman Mongo and you won't want to Miss Cantrell want to speak to this or Misconstruction, Miss Lee? Nope. They'll say, I think it says here. No. Okay. Councilman Mongo. Anything? Vice Mayor. Please cast your votes. I'll do the roll call. District one. I. I'm sorry. There the comment. I'm sorry about that. Councilmember Austin. Mr. Mayor. Oh, so I've I've served as a commissioner, and I really do appreciate the work that those who who step up to do to help our city do on behalf of our city. There's a lot of important advisory roles that are that are played in our commission by our commissioners. But to me, I think it's. It's a little bit of a stretch to go beyond our charter commissions to to look for compensation. And so, with that said, I'd be happy if you entertain an option to to compensate only charter commissions at this time and then possibly look beyond that. I know we are facing some very tough budget times coming up. Forecast for next year. We had a presentation just a couple of weeks ago and for me, I'm just not too comfortable, you know, with Christmas in January right now. I appreciate that, Mr. Councilman, but I just want to I think that all commissioners, regardless of the commission they serve, I should be compensated. And I respect that position. But I'm just going to have the motion to take the vote. And if you have to. Vote accordingly, thank you. You know, they want to support it or support it. I get that district one, I, district two, District three. I. District four I, district five I, District six, District seven, District eight. Ney and District nine. Thank you very much. Motion carries. And then with that, we will move to item 22.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a contract and all necessary amendments, including term extensions, with the City of Los Angeles to receive and expend Department of Homeland Security grant funding for the 2015 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant, in an amount not to exceed $5,377,994 for a period ending May 31, 2018; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Department of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications (DC) by $200,000, in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Fire Department (FD) by $2,319,098, in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Health and Human Services Department (HE) by $225,500, and in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Police Department (PD) by $2,333,396. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03222016_16-0265

Motion carries. An exciting report from Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Communications and Fire and Health and Human Services and Police recommendation to execute a contract with the City of Los Angeles to receive and expand Department of Homeland Security grant funding for the 2015 Urban Area Security Initiative grant in an amount not to exceed 5.3 million citywide. It was emotion and a secondary public comment on this item. Please come forward. Very good. A heads up relative to the specter of having all federal money suspended for any purpose to the city of Long Beach. These are the the Sorento. Pathway project. That has not. The Sorento pathway project has not come before this council yet. But in essence, this Sorento pathway project is supposed to be finished or started. At the conclusion of the current phase of the Naples Seawall Project. The Feds have approved that project to finish that first phase off. What is in jeopardy is the Sorento. Pathway. Because of the chicanery used in designing the plans. Those plans, which are now marching in formation, are directly at war with federal l federal aid laws. What the feds are going to require is that the Sorento pathway be completed. And completed in a manner that someone in a wheelchair. Can start at the Eastern End at the Bay Shore Bridge and travel all the way down through the end. If not. If not. And until that's done, all federal grants. For any purpose to the city of Long Beach will be suspended because they don't want the Gloria Allred of ADA knocking under general law. More importantly, to do so, to give the middle finger to the ADA community by doing what the Sorento packed some of the Sorento path residents want, i.e. they don't want them in their front yard. And part of this problem belongs to previous city councils that look the other way and allow them to build out onto public walkways or public areas and so forth. So I caution you very carefully in terms of federal grants. There's a good possibility they're going to be suspended until the plans for Sorento pathway are approved by the feds, and that pathway is completed. Then and only then will the money flow to the city of Long Beach for any federal, out of any federal, and which will also then trigger a suspension by county and state. You don't mess with the admirals. Thank you. No other public comment. Cast your vote, members. Motion carries. Excited report from Financial Management Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the annual and Five-Year Reports for the Transportation Improvement Fee Park and Recreation Facilities Fee via facilities impact fee and police facilities impact for you citywide.

A RESOLUTION establishing a Watch List of large, complex, discrete capital projects that will require enhanced quarterly monitoring reports for the 2020 calendar year.

SeattleCityCouncil_02242020_Res 31931

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Thank you. Thank you. Let's continue with our agenda. So first matter on our agenda, item number one, finance and housing. The report on the Finance and Housing Committee. Please read the report. Agenda item one Resolution 31931. A resolution establishing a watch list of large, complex, discrete capital projects that will require enhanced quarterly monitoring reports for the 2020 calendar year. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Casper Mosquito. Thank you, Madam President. This resolution adopts the 2020 watch list of projects from the Cities Capital Improvement Program, for which the executive will provide quarterly reports. This is a list of 17 large, discrete, complex projects that will be subject to in-depth quarterly reporting this year. This watchlist was established, as you all know, I think, in by ordinance in 2018 after several projects had significant overruns and delays. Without the council or the public's knowledge involvement, including the $70 million overrun at the Seattle seawall and streetcar. So this watch list is a result of the hard work of my colleagues, Councilmember Herbold and former colleague Councilmember Johnson. Thank you for all of your work on this. And I'm excited that we were able to have an in-depth conversation in our committee. Add to the watch list. This watch list now contains projects that would like that. We would like to have additional oversight and transparency on making sure that there's clear scope and that we watch for shifting estimates in cost or uncertain capital funding plans. If there's ill defined operation costs, plans or other funding plans, we will be able to have clear, I think, heads up on that and be able to have the legislative branch weigh in on our perceived priorities, identify significant, significant questions and ask questions about scope, schedule and budget so that we can ensure that the public's dollars is being well accounted for and that we are on track to fulfilling the Council's desired outcomes for these projects. Happy to bring forward this resolution today and thank our colleagues from the Finance and Housing Committee for their work to make this resolution even better. Thank you. Any more comments? Casper Hubbell. I just want to flag that. One of the things that we talked about in committee was a recognition that the intent of the resolution was for the Finance Committee to be the designated committee to hear the reports overall. But there is a hope that individual committees that have responsibility for capital improvement projects that are on the watch list, that those individual committee communities do a deeper dove on monitoring projects that are in the watch list and consider spending limitations where appropriate, as yet another way to enhance oversight, perhaps by using stage gating or budget provisos to have additional oversight on some of those projects. And thanks to Chair Mascara, I appreciate that. She has indicated that she also has interest in figuring out a way whether or not we can, as a council, identify some ways, some checks and balances on ourselves to make sure that that enhanced oversight is happening. We can't we can't rely totally on the Budget Office and we can't totally rely on our central staff. I think we have to also think creatively about ways that we can do our part in monitoring. Some of these projects. Thank you for your comments, Councilor Muscat, you want to make a motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the full council approve resolution 31931 as amended in the Finance and Housing Committee. Second motion and a second. With that, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I don't suppose they know the ayes have it. Thank you. The resolution passes. Thank you. Let's go to item number two on the report of the Transportation Utilities Committee. Please read the short title agenda item to Council Bill 119744 an ordinance relating to the Department of Transportation's Hazard Mitigation Program. The committee recommends the bill pass.

Recommendation to Accept Update on Recently Installed and Ongoing Traffic Safety and Traffic Calming Activities. (Public Works 96013)

AlamedaCC_02042020_2020-7660

Nice to meet you. All right. Thank you very much for your good work. All right. Thank you. So then we move on to item six P. Recommendation to accept update on recently installed and ongoing traffic safety and traffic calming activities. All right. And presenting this item is our city engineer, Scott Wickstrom. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Scott Wickstrom. I am the city engineer. I apologize. What did I say? City attorney. Or. Engineer? I did. Okay, good. Apologize for my voice a little bit. I've been fighting that cold from so tonight. Presenting with me will be Don Emery. To use your microphone. Lean in as much as I can. I know I'm taller. When? Tonight presented with me will be Donya Mary, who's a principal engineer with us, and she will share the presentation with me. I want to start really kind of, you know, laying out why are we here and how this item came before council. Between August in November of last year, there were 16 bike and ped pedestrian collisions involving minors. The photo on the right was a silent protest that members of the community concerned parents held before the November 5th City Council meeting, where this body adopted the Vision Zero policy document. And then two days later at on November 7th, the active transportation plan kicked off along with its open house. And I think you started the meeting tonight, recognizing that the unfortunate tragedy that occurred on Friday brings poignancy to the efforts that we're trying to achieve here. So. They would acknowledge that together these items have really highlighted traffic safety as a significant and immediate concern of both the community and the council. So we're not here to talk about Vision zero per se, but I want to at least bring it up in terms of a context. It is the guiding principle for our planning, design and maintenance for all of our transportation activities. The goal is really safety for all modes and all users. And really the underlying goal is eliminating fatalities and serious injuries through education, enforcement and engineering. One of the things I want to least broach tonight is that it really is a data driven approach. We look to existing data to the best extent we can, and we use that data to to hone in our efforts where they can be most effective and have the greatest impact. I'm going to show you a map that you can't read, but this is really collision data that has been gathered for the last ten years. And the little dots represent incidents for either bikes, peds or vehicles. It really is part of the vision zero effort. There will be more discussion about this as the Vision zero item comes before City Council. A key thing to point out, though, is the idea of high incident corridors. And these are areas where we want to begin to focus our efforts of how we can make improvements as quickly as we can to have the maximum impact. So those are the colored areas that get you to. The colored area, so that the two blue lines obviously on the west we have Webster and Park Street to the east and then there's Lincoln and Central and Grand Street are ones that have already been identified through the visual process, and you'll hear more about that in the coming months as that whole process comes forward. But that that serve to help us as we as we go through our process for immediate and short term responses. This is really the same data in a slightly different format. On the left, you'll see the total number of collisions a year. And it's and if you look at it, there really have been close to 800 collisions every single day or every single year. That's over two collisions every day. It's a significant item. It's also as you look at that graph, of course, of ten years, it's stubbornly persistent. You can be generous and say there's a slight downward trend, but it's not that significant. You look at the pedestrian and bicycling involved collisions and for our most vulnerable users and those are also holding steady. One of the things that we have committed to our staff and as obviously council is committed to as well with the Vision Zero, is to do what we can to bring those numbers down. And that's really what the Vision Zero policy is intended to do. One of the things I want to caution the public and also council is to recognize that this is not going to be accomplished over the course of weeks or months. It's a it's a many year effort that through continuous improvement and continuous efforts, that we will gradually look to reduce both the number of collisions and, almost most importantly, the severity of those collisions that lead to permanent life altering injuries. So with that, I'm going to hand off the presentation to Dana, who's going to kind of walk through what we have done in our short and near term to address traffic safety, don't you? Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Good evening, Madam Mayor, and members of the City Council. Tonight I'm here to let me to my slide go over two major topics. One is our immediate response to the children involved collisions. And secondly, to go over our next steps and our near-term plans. On October 28th, 2019, the city manager called for an immediate an emergency meeting in response to the data that's shown on this map. This map depicts the 16 locations that, unfortunately, children and and minors were involved in collisions throughout the city. The green dots depict the additional nearby locations that we looked at. The very first thing that we did was form an interdisciplinary response team, including members from our city managers, office engineers, planners, police officers and school officials when available. What we did is that the map that I showed earlier, the 16 identified locations, we visited each site as a team and determined what happened, what was the what we knew of the cause of the collision. But what else could we do in terms of traffic safety improvements at that location? Our lieutenant showed us how the collision occurred, additional information that was available to him. School officials also joined us in the field and explained to us typical traffic patterns around the schools and school drop off zones and other concerns they had around their school. Since we were there doing this investigation, while we, in a period of 6 to 8 weeks, visited all of our sites and gathered information, the police department also ran a special enforcement effort on overtime in the month of November to issue over 400 tickets around the locations of the known collisions. All in all, we developed 25 work plans, which included the original 16 plus the nine nearby locations that we developed work plans and scheduled the work through our contractor. And some of that I would quickly go over some of the some of the things that we did that we were able to achieve pretty quickly. One was daylighting. Daylighting was adopted by city council, and it's basically red painted curbs at intersections to improve visibility. We thought this was a pretty simple improvement that we could do in almost all the locations we looked at opportunities to either extend or introduce red red curbs for the first time. Part of Daylighting is a notification process, which is a courtesy letter that we send out to the residents who are losing parking or businesses that were losing parking. So the notification letters went out in two phases, and we did that in two phases because we wanted to quickly start the work scheduled with our contractor. So some of our residents got this notification letter, but the next thing that we did, as you can see, is add ladder crosswalks and do a striping refresh. So this is the intersection of Encino Avenue and High Street. Here we refreshed the striping at the crosswalk with a thermoplastic, yellow thermoplastic paint and a ladder of stripes. As you can see, it really enhanced the safety, the visibility of the crosswalks at this location and really brightened up the look intersection. Another safety element that we introduced through our project was an advanced stopper, so that the stop bar basically pushed the vehicles further away from the crosswalk by moving the stop legend further down and making vehicles stop further away and of course, refreshing the the crosswalks and the center lines. This is a before and after picture of Lincoln Avenue and Sally's Avenue. So those are basically the three top things that we did at the 25 intersections, which was our immediate response to the children involved collisions. We knew that that wasn't going to be the end of our traffic safety efforts in Alameda. So right now, I will go over what our next steps are, which are basically our near-term improvements. And given that our concern, and rightly so, was due to the collisions involving children, mostly around schools, walking and biking to school. Our number one focus right now for near-term improvements is around schools. The next focus will be intersections and corridors known, as Scott mentioned, to have high collisions and speeding and other intersection issues that we have data on already. The third is a traffic signal timing updates for increased safety at the intersection. And lastly, it's infrastructure modernization to give us the capabilities to run the special timing, I guess, controller features that would be available to us to make the intersection safer in terms of how it is timed. So quickly, go over these four things in terms of school. Our number one priority, I have great news to share that we have seven assessments already in hand. This kind of gives us a good head start or a boost in our efforts. The assessments that we have in hand are called Safe Routes to School Assessments funded by Ictsi Safer Afterschool Program. And I won't go through the list, but I have listed the seven locations that we have already and our plan is to actually implement the striping plans. I'm sorry. Our plan is to implement all striping recommendations that have been given to us through these school assessments. However, if you could just focus on the fine print on the bottom of this exhibit, which is an example at Franklin Elementary School, the consultants from Ictsi that gave us the assessments basically said that these are just our recommendations and actual engineering analysis are required for some of the things that we're putting on a map, basically. Which is which brings me to my third bullet point here, which is perform engineering analysis as needed. So depending on what was recommended to us, the ones that require engineering analysis, we would do that next and seek funding for the warranted recommendations. Typically, things that require engineering analysis or if there is recommendations regarding traffic signals, a stop, a new stop control intersection and our fobs, the flashing beacons for the crosswalk. And there is a combination of all those three things mentioned in the seven assessments we have, but we will start off with our striping and work our way down. But definitely safe routes to school assessments will be our starting point in addressing our first goal. And in terms of intersection improvements, we have Lincoln and Walnut listed as a location. Unfortunately, this location has been known for collisions. We recently had another collision here and what we're planning on doing here, sorry, there's a lot of information here, but just focus on the green boxes, which is the first thing we want to do is do a lane drop west of the intersection. So so right now you have four lanes total two lanes in each direction. And we want to get that to one lane in each direction. And in order to do that, west of the intersection, we have to drop the lane 2 to 1. So as you're approaching the intersection, there's just one lane plus a left turn pocket that we want to add on both sides. So we want to have two left turn pockets, single lane with enhanced crosswalks so that you see the it'll be a ladder crosswalk as well as yield lines before the crosswalk for vehicles to stop for for pedestrians crossing the intersection. And lastly, we have a hatch painted bulb outs, so we want to shorten the crosswalk. So the distance through the crosswalk is shorter, vehicles are stopping and the lanes have been narrowed down. This is just an intersection improvement and we do believe that Lincoln Avenue needs a further all corridor evaluation. And like I said, these are just our near-term goals, that that is a future goal for us to look into the full corridor at a later time. Another example of an intersection improvement we are doing near-term and this work actually got done yesterday. I was in the field verifying it is at the intersection of Burnside Boulevard and High Street here. For the first time we are introducing a new crosswalk leg and pedestrian. Signals. And in addition, we are doing ladder crosswalks all around the intersection to add visibility and just bold, you know, crosswalks for pedestrians where because this intersection has the, I guess up to date controller cabinet and controllers, we're able to run lead pedestrian in a interval for all the phases of this intersection. What this means is kind of like along Park Street, pedestrians are able to start crossing the street while all vehicles are at a stop. And in terms of corridor projects, I will just highlight and repeat what Scott brought up in terms of the data that we have regarding our high injury corridors, which are shown as Webster, Webster Street, Park Street and Grand Lincoln and Central. Two of our corridors have, I guess, existing projects that just need completion. One is the Webster Street Corridor Project. It's I've learned has is a ten year project. And we have some technology to implement or install in the cabinet to basically run signal coordination along Webster. Likewise, Park Street received the technology needed in the cabinets and we just need to complete the signal coordination portion of that. So in terms of signal coordination and timing update, those are the two corridors that we're focusing on this year. And in terms of other improvements for our high injury network corridors, we were planning on Daylighting all along Lincoln Avenue Central and Grand. And so I'm going to combine my third and fourth point, which is traffic signal timing for safety and modernization of our traffic signal system. So there are features that we can run at our intersection that would enhance our safety at the intersection greatly, in my opinion. And one of it is I've listed them there as basic signal timing updates that we could do for traffic safety. An all red phase is a it's like a safety buffer to to basically have all vehicles, pads, everyone at a stop before the next phase gets their green. It kind of gets everyone a chance to, like, recheck themselves, be aware of their surroundings, and then the next phase will go. It is a slight delay at the intersection, but a one or 2/2 stop is very important and increasing safety at the intersection. The next bullet point I have is a minimum green time for bicyclists. This is great for bicyclists and not so great for vehicles, but that is okay with this signal timing changes. What we would be doing is looking at every intersection in the city and ensuring that a bicyclist has the sufficient time to safely cross the intersection to the last leg, making a left turn, basically the longest trajectory from one direction to another versus the view of vehicle. So right now, our traffic signals are timed for a minimum green time for a vehicle to get to an intersection. I don't think that is the safest programing and that is another effort. So what we would have to do is re time, all of our signals increasing our minimum green so that if a bicyclist were there, they could make it to the intersection and not get stuck in a yellow or red halfway through the intersection. The third thing I already mentioned is lead pedestrian interval. This allows pedestrians to get into the crosswalk in advance of vehicles. And lastly, it's time of day signal timing plans. So right now, our city, all of our intersections are timed, fixed. So what that means is that it's regardless of an afternoon peak traffic time or school dismissal time or 2 a.m., when traffic is very light, we are running the same exact times throughout the day with no differentiation for the change in traffic. So while we are like I have a picture of an old cabinet, that's basically what most of our city is like in the picture. To the right is this traffic signal cabinet, which is which has the equipment needed to run some of these things. But running the time of day signal plans would be something that for the most part, we have some of our controllers that can handle this change. So I believe this would make our corridors more efficient and help greatly with our traffic safety efforts so quickly. There are some other things that I would like us to implement near term, and one is a yellow reflective border around signals so that you could see from afar that you're approaching a traffic signal. The pedestrian countdown signals. I know we have them mostly everywhere, but not all intersections have it. And lastly, we have some intersections where the crosswalks are missing. The signal head for a pedestrian. So this is a matter of purchasing equipment to ensure that if a pedestrians crossing the crosswalk, not only are they getting the information of not only are they getting an API to safely cross the intersection, but a countdown to tell them how much time they have to get through the intersection. And so I will actually pass it back to Scott to continue. Thank you. Great presentation. And I want to ask, I don't think this was included in our packet. Will you be able to make that available to us? I think that's great. And I also wanted to just let the public know that in the back of the room, we have Lieutenant Matt McMullen from APD Wave to the people . So thank you. He came particularly for this item. Thank you, Mr. Wickstrom. I'd like to continue and build off what Daniel was saying. So we have a very active program to improve traffic safety. But there's another component to traffic safety, which is basically good maintenance of our existing infrastructure. So signs and striping anyone who's been anywhere west of Grande Street has noticed stop signs, stop legends, crosswalks that have been re striped. We re striped over 250 intersections west of Grand. Focusing on those three components. We are moving on to our next phase, which is really looking from grande to park and then eventually park to the east and the island and eventual kind of work away into Bay Farm Island as well. I will say that payments is also a component of traffic safety in the sense that while we've revamped our our our paving program, we're doing more than just 2 to 3 miles the streets per year with a lot of preventative maintenance. We're going to be doing ten miles of pavement maintenance this next year or this year or 2020. And with that comes all new striping and opportunities to look at ways to improve our our striping crosswalks, potentially painted billboards where appropriate. So that's another major component. And then I want to talk about sidewalks, because sidewalks are a critical component of our transportation network. There's a lot of dots on there. So this is kind of what we call zone four, which is between Grand and Broadway. You notice we tend to work left to right across the city with our with a program. We're going we've transitioned to a new kind of method for sidewalks where we're doing a lot more cutting of offsets. And it's going to help us go from a several hundred remove and replaces to over 2500 potential trip and fall hazards that will be removed just in this section alone. Staff report should be coming to you in two weeks to award that contract, which we'd certainly appreciate. It just approved it for the next agenda. I yes, it will be next two weeks from now. Yeah. Want to talk a little bit about some capital projects that are in construction that are near nearing completion. Obviously, the cross Alameda Trail is set for a grand opening on the 29th. They took half of the fences down for the remaining section today. They're down tomorrow. So if you want to ride the cross Alameda Trail on your bike or walk it from Webster to Main Street, you should be able to do that on Wednesday. But certainly by the end of this week, the business park over at Harbor Bay has that long had some concerns about traffic and the ability for their workers to leave safely. At the end of the day. And we are in progress of installing two new traffic signals on what are called A street and B street or Penumbra Street. Those are in progress and should be operational by the end of the month or not early into March. So those are well under construction as well. And perhaps a couple of things that you might not be as attuned to from, I'll say, a city council perspective, but we do have a fair amount of design that we're working on in the background. So Island McCartney Intersection has long been on our, I'll say our our work plan for a capital budget. And originally the idea was to install a signal here. We've been working with one of our traffic consultants who did it recently completed an intersection control evaluation, if you will. What is the best way to manage traffic here? And there's the idea came out about what about possibly doing a roundabout at this location. This is something that we recognize. We're going to go back and make a visit by the Transportation Commission, bring this idea through them and get a little more input and feedback from them before potentially bring it back up here to council. That's something we're working on in the background as well. Hopefully that will be to Transportation Commission this spring. And then I do want to talk a little bit about protected intersections. Most collisions occur at or in the vicinity of an intersection, and the latest practice or latest guidance is to protect the intersection as best possible, to separate the pedestrian movement from bicycle movements, from vehicular movements. And these are sometimes referred to as Dot's intersections. We currently have eight of these in design. Seven of them are out on Alameda Point. A lot of them are with the base we use project which we hope to kick off in in 2021. The one that's going to come first is likely going to be well is going to be Otis and Grand as part of the Otis Street Safety Improvement Project. So there's a lot of exciting stuff that we're working on in the background, and I also want to at least put some thought through that. Traffic safety happens as part of development projects as well. Side a, phase one that was really early in the morning when I took that photo. But they have the pavement down. They're beginning to get the sidewalks and the bike paths in there. It may depend on a couple items we're trying to work through open to the public as early as April this year. And you'll have access through to see play in the ground and potentially access back between the north and south of Alameda Point and then Del Monte Construction. The new developer pulled permits last month and they have actively begun construction. And the big carrot there is that Clement Avenue will be extended from its current terminus at Entrance Road and carry all the way through to Atlantic. So that'll be a wonderful addition for it. So that kind of concludes our presentation that Danny and I had prepared, and both of us are available for any questions, anyone we might have. Thank you very much, both of you. That was a great presentation. I do we have public comments on this item. Speaker Okay, well, shall we hear a public speaker and then have to have comments and questions? Okay. Jeff Not. Good evening. Evening, mayor. Council members. I'm Jeff Canals and I live at the corner of Lincoln and Walnut and I feel like I've hit the lottery. After hearing that presentation about what's going to happen at Lincoln and Walnut, but I'm going to go ahead and read this anyway to put an exclamation point on why the work needs to be done. According to Alameda transportation statistics, there have been 47 collisions at this intersection in the past five years. In one, one of my cars parked at the curb was totaled. In another, my fence was taken out in four separate crashes. The neighbor across the street has lost two cars parked on the curb and two fences. To be fair, the city has implemented traffic calming measures. Cornered parking spaces have been replaced with red curbs to improve sightlines when crossing Lincoln with a newly repainted crosswalk, a neon yellow pedestrian crossing signs. But the collisions between cars trying to cross Lincoln keep happening. In the past six months, there have been four accidents, all resulting in personal injury requiring ambulance transport to a hospital. In one recent collision, it resulted in a car crashing through the front bedroom of a house where a mother and her two children were sleeping. The house has been red tagged and the occupants displaced, still not back. There are several conditions that make this intersection so difficult for drivers. We already know that drivers regularly exceed almeida's 25 mile per hour speed limit. On Lincoln. It's more like 35 to 45 on the stretch between Willow and Oak. I know because I live there. As speeding drivers approach the intersection going east from the light at Willow, they have to merge from two lanes to one. The merge happens right at the intersection of Lincoln and Walnut. Going west from the lighted oh. There's a split from one lane to two drivers behind a slower car step on the gas at the split. And that acceleration happens right before the intersection of Lincoln and Walnut. Drivers already exceeding safe speed limits in a hurry, distracted on their cell phones, often encounter cars on Walnut wanting to cross Lincoln, not to mention students from Love Elementary. Love the name of that school. By the way, I'm a retired principal from Alameda Unified and Alameda High School, just two blocks away, one to across the street vehicles , including the mail truck who parks there every day at the red curb, obstruct sightlines and they never get tickets when there is an event closing Park Street, a default detours Walnut Street, which exacerbates an already difficult crossing. And I promise that I did not have any prior knowledge to your presentation. One obvious solution is to change the lane configuration on Lincoln from two lanes each way to one. I just wrote this tonight. It's brilliant. With a middle lane designated for turning cars, Broadway has this configuration. My neighbors and I have been in contact with the city as vice mayor and city manager. To their credit, they have met with us to discuss the accidents that have caused significant property damage and personal injury. We have heard there may be a plan to mitigate the danger. I'm almost done last sentence to indicate the conditions that link in a wall and we would love to know what the plan is. Thank you very much for that tonight. And I would love to know how soon it might be put in place. Thank you for your comments. Okay. These are all our public comments. Correct. Okay. We we will close I have a comment and I was thinking I didn't know we had a retired principal in the chambers, but I was thinking how nice it is to have all these students from middle school and high school listening because it's for all of you. You're one of the reasons we want to keep our streets and our sidewalks safe so that your parents will let you walk and ride your bike to school. But we want to have safe ways for you to do it. So with that, and thank you to to both of our folks from the city engineer's office, because this is a it's a big issue for this council, for our city. And so with that, let's let's start out with our comments. So we just go down the line or to somebody somebody just itching to go first. Vice Mayor Doesn't matter to me. Okay. Well, okay then on my right. Okay. So couple questions since since I got the mic first. So that gentleman raised some interesting questions. Can we get some answers to those? Oh, you know, you. Are schedule for Walnut and Lincoln is. So we have the plans, as I showed, and it's a matter of getting our contractor crisp company to schedule the work. So we are expecting it in in spring, so within a month or so. Thank you. Yeah. All right, you heard it here. So then what's our long term? I'm sorry. I mean, what's our long term? Because it's not just that section of Lincoln. I mean, all of Lincoln is kind of a speedway. Right. So as I mentioned, we do believe that Lincoln Avenue needs a fuller full corridor analysis. And we expect that there's a lot of community outreach required, additional funding and design for what could be done. Narrowing the four lanes to two lanes with some billboards are just things that we're imagining. The lane shift actually would offset some of our traffic signals and the location of the signal heads. So there's some modifications along the corridors that are needed and each traffic signal modification is a few hundred thousand dollars at the least. So we are hoping to revisit or scope out this project. And this year, like we want to look at the full corridor and have like a ticket, an item, I guess a price tag to what we need, how much we need to fully address the full corridor. And are there things we can do on an emergency basis? You know, like, for example, temporarily shut down lanes if kids are getting hit lower the speed limit in school zones, because I thought we had that authority under the state law. So. Sure. So regarding the speed limit we are I'm putting together an RFP to do a citywide speed survey. I'm working with our police department to determine the segments that need to be surveyed. Once we have that data, the Council can and we will share that with you. And there there is some ability for the agency to lower speed limits around school zones. Now, there's I think I know of Sacramento who has done it, but in order to get that far, we need our speed survey done first. And the speed survey actually also it's very tricky because the speed survey could show higher speed limits. And in that cases, lowering it where it is, you're kind of tied to what you could do there. But we do have more ability around school zones. Okay. And then the other thing I think I asked this last year when we had this discussion, I remember working in San Francisco, and if you were a pedestrian, you could pretty much walk down some of the major arteries to Market Street because the lights and the crosswalks were time to pedestrians. I mean, if we thought about implementing something like that to make it, I mean, we're doing it for bicycles, but making our main streets park in Webster and so on. A little more pedestrian friendly. Yes. Great recommendation. And that is something where I'm looking at and considering all the safety improvements that we could do with traffic signal with our traffic signal system, some of our intersections have obsolete technology, obsolete cabinets and controllers. We just don't have the ability we have the ability to replace the cabinet and by the cap, the controllers, basically the computer running the intersection to install these features along certain business districts like Park in Webster. We are definitely considering additional pedestrian timings because we know the volume. Is there more? Not at every intersection in the city, but definitely along certain corridors. There's a need and it's being considered. Definitely. Well then I'll just make some quick comments. I appreciate your presentation. I appreciate the fact that our staff has prioritized working on this. I mean, to me, this is the one thing we cannot get wrong because I don't want to look in the face of a parent or a child who may have lost their mother or father . You know, some of us that are not kids also get hit in the street. Right. I see one of our surviving accident victims in the audience. So I'm intrigued by the, uh, the roundabout. On on Harbor Bay, I think there are a number of places in the city, that High Street intersection being one of them. I think there's one on Gibbons where that comes out. So I think this is something that's not just European. I know, Malia, when you were prepping for your wedding, I was driving around and I didn't cover a lot of roundabouts. So I think it's a much safer way to deal with some of these dangerous intersections. I'm excited to see that. But let's let's keep up the work. Let's keep prioritizing this. This is something we have to do now. We have to do it right. And we we have to just get it done. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember de SAG. Well, great. Well, thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. I think one area where I'm interested in is for all the 25 locations that you've identified as well as. The various corridors that that you've identified. If we can make sure to get, uh, ample data, you've already gathered the data, ample data so that you can compare in a statistically significant manner, have the, have the, you know, approaches that you've adopted actually resulted in statistically significant improvements that are outside of chance. I think we need to know that, you know, that I think the public needs to know that the the tools that we're adopting are going to be effective. Um, and, you know, I have no doubt that, you know, if you put a stop sign, you stop the car. But, but, but you also want to know, are you diverting traffic to elsewhere, other parts of town which did not exhibit, you know, high traffic incidents? So I think that's the type of data that we need is not just to collect trends data, but be able to put into some kind of context that allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of our decision. And I think it's not it's not difficult to just, you know, to, uh, put the data all together and just, you know, run simple statistical significance analysis. Unfortunately, what that means, though, is once the the techniques are put into place, we won't be truly able to measure the the statistical significance impact for at least three or four years, because we have to gather like a number of data, but we can do some preliminary basis. You know, we can compare five years before with five years after. Um, but I think it's important that we at least put, begin to put some kind of remedies in place. But, but at the end of the day, though, we need to know that the remedies are truly effective. And I think we owe that much to to the residents. Otherwise, we're just kind of, you know, making people feel good and saying, oh, hey, you know, we're going to put all these ball balls and I'm going to put all these are one, two to let two days to one lane remedies. But at the end of the day, we need to know that that what we're putting in place will be effective. But like I said, though, in order to make that kind of comparison, it's going to take some time. But these would be lessons learned that future councils can can look to and draw on when it comes to saying, you know, what are the remedies that work? So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Next. WHITE Thank you. So I believe this is Ms.. Mary's first council presentations. I wanted to welcome her and also recognize that when she started last fall, she came in at probably one of the most horrific times for a traffic engineer to start in Alameda, because not only were children being hit at a shocking rate, but a council who was prioritizing street safety was screaming, do more, do something now. Holy cow. And I just wanted to, you know, thank you. Thank thank Mr. Wikström as well for the work that has been done, because there's been a lot of it. And I know that sometimes and I'll say this personally, but I'm sure you're hearing from other people, we are always saying more. But but that doesn't necessarily mean that we're not also recognizing the hard work and the work that's being done out there. I also wanted to recognize that the courage in pronouncing it for sales took me five years to get there. So, you know, I've been trying to think about how to how to talk about this. Maybe one of my former neighbors who grew up in Alameda, you know, really wanted to bike. She really wanted a tricycle. And she was an older adult. And, you know, our neighborhood came together and bought her that. And she felt so unsafe riding and riding on the streets of Alameda that she would only ride on a few sidewalks in our neighborhood. And so when I think about, you know, where we need to get to as a city and again, thank you for doing everything we're doing. But also, oh, my gosh, we need to do so much more. You know, I think this is an example of we are trying to not just make it safe for for students to be able to walk to school, but for people to just have mobility around their own neighborhoods and whatnot. You know, we have decades and decades of decisions that have led us to the city that is unsafe and doesn't feel right now. And we don't have decades and decades and decades to undo that work and fix it. I said at our council workshop for for me, the word of the year is transformational. And, you know, as we move forward, I do see a lot of repaving, repaving projects and whatever else actually starting to transform our streets. And I really appreciate that there's been a lot of proactive work done there. I, I am still curious when we're going to start. I have seen that. So if you go down Broadway to Bayview, the first protected interstate or first clear intersection with bollards in Alameda has appeared. But when I see us clear zoning and doing projects on Lincoln, etc., I'm not seeing the use of bollards. And unfortunately, I know, I know they're not the most beautiful things. But unfortunately, people who drive seem to as, as Mr. Chernoff mentioned, park in those red zones with quite a imputed community. And we have to, unfortunately, have to put a physical barrier to tell drivers that the red zone is not a place for you to park for 15 minutes because you're just running in. It's a safety zone for for our for our neighbors. And I'd like to start seeing I'd really like to start seeing that as a part of our ah toolkit coming out because I think we need to not just create the space, but we need to protect the space. Yeah. You know, I we we started this meeting with with a moment of silence for the fatality that happened on Friday night. You know, one of the tenets of Vision Zero is that all fatalities are avoidable. Right. That there are changes we can make, whether it's providing better protection on sidewalks, whether it's slowing the speed limit down . It is it is not a shock that that fatality happened on one of our four and that many of our fatalities happen on our fastest streets. That is a 35 mile an hour street. We have had many conversations kind of at the community level, not within the city, about just removing the four or five streets that are 35 miles an hour and making them safer at 25 miles an hour. And just having to be in Alameda, we drive 25 and I would like to see that as a part of our conversation as we're going forward. Again, acknowledging that you're doing speed service for 50 mile an hour school zones and. Right. This is not a let's bring it back in March. But but, you know, let's keep that in the mix as well as as we're thinking thinking things through. San Francisco has done a lot of work to extend pedestrian crossing times for seniors. Alameda as population is, you know, aging quickly. County's population is aging quickly. That doesn't always come at the cost of extending the length of time that the light has to stay green. It can actually come out of sometimes if the green area just means, you know, a longer yellow. But it gives that it gives seniors a little bit more understanding of how much time they have if we just program them for a slower crossing time. And that's been shown to have some safety impacts as well. You know, I guess I want to say I appreciate Councilmember D's call for evaluation and whatnot. I want to make sure we have the right metrics. For me, the metric isn't we divert traffic to somebody else's street. For me, the metric is are people getting hit less? Are the behaviors we're trying to change changing? Because sometimes these numbers are not going to go to a place where somebody where there have been, you know, 15 collisions over five years and find a statistically significant change over five years. But you can go and measure whether or not people are more slow and stop slowly making the corner or people are yielding for pedestrians, etc.. And those are the behaviors that that, you know, we know yielding speeding illegal turns and running red lights and stop signs are typically the five things that lead to people getting hit. Are we are we are we reducing those incidents so that there is a reduction in the chance that we're going to be hitting people? My guess is we're going to find that, yes, we have kind of reduced it, but we haven't eliminated it. And that actually a lot of the things that we're doing, which I appreciate, are quick and effective. Right. These are best practice, are not enough that we're not going far enough. And that gets to the long term and the more transformational things that I know you're working on. And I will stop here in basically just saying, you know, I am proud to serve with the council I serve with because I think you have strong partners in safety. You know, I think you have you have the council that you can come to and talk to about the fact, you know, we have 1950 stoplight traffic lights and we're trying to implement 21st century safety things. We need to have that conversation. And I think we're here to to support you. So, you know, ask us for the tools we need. Bear with us when we seem impatient again. I mean, me, you know, but I also know that it's done. It's done with support and and appreciation for the hard work that's come in and that we want to be here for you, because you guys are doing a great job for our community and we all want to work for the community, you know, to become what we what we have always said we are. But when I talk to people, people are not feeling that we are the small town, that you just feel like you can send your kids to the movies anymore. People feel like they they have to kind of armor their kids up to just, you know, have them go hang out with some friends for an afternoon. So thank you. Councilmember Vela. So I want to thank staff for the quick turnaround on this. I think whenever and it may have been a few months, but the reality is with city government and all of the things that we have to look at and take a comprehensive approach, a few months is a very quick turnaround, so I really appreciate that. I'm also somebody who used to live at the corner of Sherman and Santa Clara, and while I lived there and multiple cars drove up over the curb and we actually put in a rock wall of sorts, which has even since then prevented cars from careening into the house. But I was also there when cars hit rope, drove into the house across the street, and I saw that happen a couple of times and was the first person out making the call to 911. And I think, you know, a lot of these changes have been a long time coming. Many of these intersections were just on the cusp. And I think we need to and I think we are doing that as a policy, kind of changing how we're looking at this from a problem solving standpoint and who we're trying to make. Make it safest for a couple of questions that I had was. You know, we've I heard you speak about the obsolete obsolete traffic signal technology. There have been a few intersections that I've been at where the as a pedestrian, I see a lot of pedestrians walking against the pedestrian light because they haven't hit that button. They either don't know to hit the button or. And in fact, when I was over at Love school early one morning with the mayor and the vice mayor. Out in the. Rain. Out in the rain, I think we all witnessed this where the that the pedestrians didn't hit the hit the button and so the pedestrian light didn't turn on for them to cross and they basically missed a cycle or were walking against the pedestrian light. And so that's something that I would just like to see gone. And I see it happen all the time. I live near Washington Park and it happens all the time where people kind of miss the pedestrian signal and then they have to either choose between waiting for another cycle or crossing against the signal. And I kind of hold my breath whenever this happened. And I see a lot of parents doing it with strollers and things like that. And as a new parent, you know, in fact, the other week I was out there telling people, no, you have to press the button here, otherwise it doesn't change for you. So those are the types of things that I would just like to see gone. I think there are a hold over. Obviously there's a cost associated with them. But to that point, when when looking at these zones and I know we're focused on school zones, but I would also like my question is, are we looking at kind of the zones near these major parks and thoroughfares the same way? Because if there's a dog park or things like that that we know are kind of heavy pedestrian traffic, it seems to me that we should be. Obviously, there's limits. You said that. Is that part of the overall consideration in terms of what we're focused on? I'm seeing Scott not. Okay. Thank you. The other the other question that I had was the roundabout or the intersection, I guess, at and Snell Central and Sherman, which is where the three streets kind of come together for streets, I think , come together and what the plan is for that. When I say roundabout, I'm I'm hoping that hopefully we'll think about that at some point. That specific intersection and one of the things I'm going to make and I'll I'll yellow get your. Voices softer tonight. Yeah we didn't talk too much about some of the longer term plans and actions that are going on. I know the active transportation plan will be in front of this council and next month sometime and they will be talking about a lot of the larger corridor projects. The specific intersection you're talking about is at the end of the Central Avenue project. And so that will be incorporated into that project. We're looking at it. I know a roundabout has been discussed. There are some challenges, geometry that will be presented and evaluated as part of that larger Central Avenue corridor project. Okay. Appreciate that. The other thing that I've seen a lot of is the illegal double parking. My colleague, the vice mayor, mentioned parking and red zones. I've seen a lot of that. But there's also been a lot of illegal double parking. I've seen everyone from delivery drivers to people on, you know, picking up food and things like that, running into restaurants, illegally parking, double parking. And I know that while it's convenient for them, I also see them doing this in our bike lanes and seeing cyclists have to bike around this, seeing cars have to drive around it in an unsafe manner. And I'm hoping that we can also be looking at that in some of our plans. And I think to staff's point, when we're looking at new structures and new kind of areas of commerce and things like that, making sure that there are delivery, ample delivery of 15 minute parking, that sort of thing, so that people can actually have a spot to to safely double park or not to safely park rather than double park. Excuse me, because it seems in some of our districts we don't have those types of spaces which mean that there isn't an ability to stop for a few minutes, drop something off or pick something up. You either have to park in a in a regular parking spot or double park. And obviously, I would like to see that cut down because I think it's incredibly unsafe where it's happening. Thank you. Thank you. And so I will just echo a lot of what my colleagues have said, but I also want to start out and recognize both of you. I think we're lucky to have both of you on Team Alameda. But Missouri, I have to say, it's always a pleasure. It makes me proud to see a woman engineer. You're a great role model. We have a lot of young men in this room, but I'm hoping there's some girls watching do. And even for you guys, she's an engineer, isn't she? Awesome and great. Just a great presentation. So so thank you for that. I had a few questions that I made in my margins when I was reading I'm reading the staff report. So one of them is when I'm out and about in the community, people come up to me and talk to me about their intersections of concern, and I will just throw out that Councilmember Vela and I get our nails done at the same salon. It's this is not an advertisement, but it's at the corner of Central and Ninth Street. And I cannot tell you how many times I've been there, a captive audience. I'm always happy to talk to me any time that they come up and talk to me about and especially the women who work there because they saw a window and they see so many near misses at the corner. This is at Central at Ninth Street. And so they've asked me, you know, what's being done about this? And so I promised them I would bring this up during this report. So you heard it here. You can tell my manicurist. And then the other intersection that was brought to my attention is at Central and page. And page is that little street you might know where Spitzer's cafe is just down from Washington Park on central. And so it's a popular coffee place. But also just down the street in that same block is a is a center, a day center for adults with developmental disabilities. And that intersection has, you know, nothing just some pain on the ground. And I, as an able bodied person, always feel that I'm taking my life in my hands when I'm crossing the street to to meet someone for coffee. And so that was that's been brought up to me, I think, actually, by one of the parents of an individual who uses that center. But it's I would like to to know what's being what, if anything, is being considered there. And then I think at the Open House workshop you did at the library last year, which was great and very informative, I asked. The question is, would it be possible in a couple of intersections in our downtown area and I'm thinking especially at Park and Central and Park in Santa Clara, to do what is done in some other business district. Scott Smiley He knows what I mean to say. I know it is a scramble intersection. I think there's other terms. But just today, the city manager and I were coming back from a meeting in Oakland and we were driving down Webster Street through Oakland, Chinatown. And for years they've done a very successful and actually very beautiful with the decorative pavement scramble intersection, which means at one time pedestrians can go every which way. And they really seem to honor that and observe it in for even longer than the one in Oakland, Chinatown, in the financial district in San Francisco. There's a couple of those. And so, you know, I realize everything costs some money, but I'm wondering if that's something that could be considered in time. And then I will just close with saying I cringe when I hear about the antiquated signal boxes. And so just be sure that you're letting the city manager know because our mid-year budget cycle study is coming up. So we want to be able to to fund these necessary changes and improvements because safety is just the top priority for for everyone on this council. And I know for all of our city staff. So with that, I thank you for your time. Do you want to come and address any of the inquiries you heard or did you all you got the notes down and. Okay, so with that council, what we're being asked to do on this is to accept the update on the recently installed and ongoing traffic safety and traffic calming activities. So do I have affirmation? So we do a motion move. Okay, get a motion second. Got a second. All in favor. I okay. I think that was unanimous. Right, that was unanimous. Thank you so much. Now we're going to do a little bit of housekeeping audience. I beg your pardon? Process safety. Sure. Process. Question Can I assume that what's coming forth in March to the council is is essentially the response to the council direction in September to bring back an intersection equity access policy, street lane with how we're doing traffic calming? Uh, I can't say yes to all of those things, but several of those things will. Be. Are, are being developed right now. Things like the lane with study and what's what was referred to for March 17th is the active transportation plan. Active choices plan annual report. Okay. Okay. Got that answered. All right. So here's my my housekeeping and we are going to take a break. Let's say. Uh, yes, Mr.. That one option that we've discussed is. Since you have a lot of speakers on Sunshine. I'm getting to that. Thank you. I'm one option we have. We're going to take a break and take a ten minute break. What I would appreciate from the audience, could I get a show of hands because we have a couple more items. What do we have, madam? Quick. We've got three items. Yes. Okay. So I'm guessing that we have a lot of speakers on the last one, which is item six is about the Sunshine Ordinance five. So it is there. Raise your hand if you intend to speak on item six. E Okay. So that looks like one, two, three, four, five. Okay. So that is five. Okay. And what about we've got item six. C is looking at four weak requests for qualifications for West Midway Project. Two speakers, any more than two, raise your hand if you wanna speak for Ms. on West Midway. And then there is the one about the personal wireless service facilities in public right away zero which. Is in one speaker on. 9a9a Okay. So Counsel, I would suggest that we take that in with the most speakers first, but I am but one person. What does everyone think? I'll move for that to change the agenda to do so. Second. Okay, so then that would be should we go in the order of the speakers? So we do the Sunshine Ordinance, the West Midway and then the small cell. So just move 60 next. Yeah. Okay. Does that work? All right, so we have a motion. We have a second all in favor. I, i okay. That is, that carries four to nothing. I miss village. Just had to step out, bitch. So she didn't vote. Okay, ten minute break. We'll be back and we'll start with such an ordinance. Yes. When? Just take their seats, please. We will get started. The staff hangs on my every word. We all. We all do. Yeah. I have children. I'm used to being ignored. It became. So high. Audience I apologize for the delay. Usually when I say a ten minute break, it's 10 minutes. But just we had some housekeeping details that couldn't be avoided. So. Counsel, you're not going far, right? Vice Mayor Okay, you and we have had a little agenda, possible agenda change come up. But I want to just take your temperature, as it were. So on the West Midway item, that's item six. See, there are some couple of possible ways we could proceed. We could continue this to a date certain, uh, we could. Mr. City Attorney, help me out. We could move forward tonight. You could. The Council could choose to move forward tonight. Or you could choose to take a vote to continue the item to a date certain you have flexibility in how you could choose to proceed. Okay. So, um, well, we have two speakers, but we're not going to hear from them if we're going to continue. So first, I want to do the housekeeping from the council. So counsel, your thoughts. Just go down the line. Now, I won't start with the prison history on my right, Councilman Brody. I just moved my seat. I'd actually like to hear it and then figure out why we might want to continue it or not. Councilmember dissuaded Councilmember Desai. Well, you know, if if it's a matter of crossing our T's and dotting the I's, then I'm all in favor of continuing it to a later time.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the management of the South Fork Tolt River Municipal Watershed; authorizing ecological forest thinning projects in accordance with the South Fork Tolt River Watershed Management Plan in Sections 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 35, Township 26 North, Range 9 East, W.M.; declaring the logs resulting from said projects to be surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of such logs pursuant to applicable City contracting and surplus property sale procedures; and directing use of the proceeds therefrom to fund Plan implementation.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118485

Agenda Item 39 Council Bill 118485 relating to the management of the South Fork River Municipal Watershed. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you. This is almost exactly like the previous bit of legislation, although it applies to the South told River. The ordinance again is designed to authorize force thinning projects. For the ecological benefits, it's a five year contract. Timber revenues again are about $40,000 and would be deposited in the water fund. And the committee recommends that this contract as well be approved. And unanimously it came out of our committee. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Harrell McCotter. By O'Brien Okamoto. By Rasmussen Sergeant. Bagshaw. Gordon. I am President Burgess. Nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 40 through the first semicolon. Agenda Item 40 Council Bill 118486 relating to Seattle Public Utilities declaring certain real property rights relating to a sewer facility easement. Within a portion of property located at 14027 Lake City, way northeast, as being surplus to the city's utility needs.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFQ AP15-093 and award a contract to the HNTB Corporation, of Los Angeles, CA, for planning and engineering consulting services for the Airfield Geometry Study Phase 2 at the Long Beach Airport, in an amount not to exceed $873,497, for an initial 12-month term; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any amendments to extend the term for up to one additional year, authorize additional services within the provisions of the contract; and Increase appropriations in the Airport Fund (EF 320) in the Airport Department (AP) by $834,072. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_10202015_15-1084

All right. Thank you. Thank you. I am 21. Report from Long Beach Airport Recommendation to Award a contract to A.B. Corporation for Planning and Engineering Consulting Services for the Airfield Geometry Study Phase two at the Long Beach Airport in an amount not to exceed $873,000 District five. Through Staff Report. Yes, Mr. Brian Francis can give a staff report. Good evening, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, members of City Council. Before you this evening is the request to approve the airport to enter into a contract with H. A.B. Corporation for Planning and Engineering Consulting Services for Phase two of the Airfield Geometry Study at Long Beach Airport. In December 2014, Council authorized the city manager to apply for FAA grant funds to continue with the Airfield Geometry Study Phase two, which will develop a new airport layout plan or alpi and association associated official maps and documents required to maintain the Long Beach Airport's critical operating functions. Grant funding was awarded by the FAA at the end of fiscal year 2015. The new ALPI, which is expected to be completed within 12 months, does not involve any physical expansion of the airport. The work will result in official airport planning documents to include the recommendations provided in the preferred alternative three A of the airport geometry study , an airport strategic plan which the City Council approved on December 2nd, 2014. This includes the decommissioning of two parallel runways, the shortening of a runway in length and width, and the creation of multiple new taxiways, all in an effort to enhance the efficiency of the airfield. The primary funding source for this contract expense will utilize an FAA airport improvement program grant. The balance will be covered through airport operating funds and passenger facility charges. And that completes my report. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. Actually, I'm sorry. Let me go to the maker of the motion comes Mungo. I think that the airport director did an excellent job of communicating phase two of the plan to ensure that the airport and the restructuring of these runways provides for additional economic development opportunities on the exterior edges of the airport. Once this is completed. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. You're okay. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Yes, thank you, Mr. Francis. I just wanted some clarification on the actual runways that are going to be studied for for the benefit for those for obviously the council, but those watching at home. Yes, sir. Councilman Austin, the two runways which will be decommissioned are our north south runways, which have not been in use for several years. And the remaining runways will be our seven left to five right parallel runways, as well as the primary runway one, two, three zero. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Is there any public comment on item 21? Seeing nonmembers cast your vote. Motion carries. Item 22 report from Long Beach Airport Recommendation to award a contract to Sully Miller Contracting Company for the perimeter security improvements at the Long Beach Airport. For a total contract amount not to exceed $7.4 million. District five.

Public Hearing to Consider An Appeal Filed by Brian Tremper of the May 28 and July 22, 2019 Planning Board Decisions for a 172-Room Hotel and Restaurant at 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway (PLN 18-0381) and Adoption of Related Resolution. (Planning and Building 481005)

AlamedaCC_09172019_2019-7204

Right. So really, the city's discretion here is simply the design of the building. The planning board had a study session in October of 2018 to just to review the overall design of the building, the size, its compliance with the zoning code to make sure it met all of our zoning requirements. And then two months later, they had another public hearing and approved the project in December of 2018. That decision was then appealed by the neighbors of the project. The City Council held a hearing on February 5th, considered the appeal, considered the Planning Board's decision, and upheld the Planning Board's decision. That decision that the Planning Board made to approve the project had two remaining items that the Planning Board had asked the applicant to do, which one was to come back with final architectural design elements for the building. So the scale, size, height was all approved, but they wanted to get more details and an articulation on the building . So they asked the applicant to come back with that. They also wanted more detail and some fine tuning to the landscape plan. The City Council, at your hearing after upholding the planning board, said, Yeah, we absolutely agree. Planning Board, you should keep working on those two items. And we would also like you to take one last look at the setback of the building from the water and consider pushing it back ten or 15 feet. You didn't tell them to do it. You asked them to just consider whether that was a good idea or not. Two days later, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a board of Directors Board of Commissioners, held a public hearing to discuss this very same project and determined that it was completely consistent with their guidelines, standards and rules, and that it met their set back requirements and provided an appropriate set back to the water from Bccdc perspective. We then followed that up with two neighborhood meetings. Then on May 28th, the planning board held another public hearing, and at that meeting they considered the staff recommendation, which at that point was to not move the building back any further. We did not feel that we should push the building closer, push it back away from the water, because we felt the distance from the water was appropriate. And equally important, we felt that to push it back towards the neighbors would simply make the building appear even taller. So and there was at the neighborhood meetings on February 16th and May 11th that we had had prior to May 28th, there was no no support and no requests from the neighbors to pull the building back towards them. So we made that recommendation at May 28th. The planning board did not get any public speakers asking that the building get pushed back towards the neighborhood and they approved. The building setback. That decision was then appealed. And that's the one of the decisions you're considering tonight. But they did not approve the final designs and the final landscape at that at that meeting. We then had two more community meetings. And then on July 22nd, the planning board reaffirmed and re-approved the project setback and the final architectural details and lighting. So this is a project that the planning board has worked very hard on. And as I said earlier, we feel they they made the right decision. The appellant makes three arguments. One is there weren't enough community meetings. The planning board is required to have notice public hearings. They held those public hearings there. They completely fulfilled the requirements of the zoning code in terms of public meetings. All of the extra neighborhood meetings I just talked about were extra meetings. So there is no requirement for any more meetings. The other two issues related to the appeal are about the setback of the building. What this slide shows you is a couple of things. The the orange area shown is the footprint of the building in December. And if you look very closely, you'll see there's a there's another footprint sort of superimposed on the orange. You can see that is the final footprint. It was approved by the planning board. So you can see if you look very closely, the building got ever so slightly longer. It got a little narrower in places on the width, but the basic set back never changed. The reason the the configuration changed slightly is we were working with the applicant and the planning board was working on the applicant and the neighbors were working with the opinion to get more articulation into the design. So the design sort of you got some more ins and outs, more reveals the overall design of the building improved over this period. The actual square footage remained basically the same. The actual location of the building remained the same. We didn't move it back, as I said earlier. The another thing that has not changed is this relationship of the set back to to the waterfront. So we didn't move the building back. The thing that I'll just point out here is the requirement is that the project be set 35 feet back from the water, from the park edge. And there's actually a little red line on that drawing. You probably can't see it, but that's 35 feet back. The restaurant, which is shown on the left, is right on that red line, 35 feet. The pool and the pool deck, which you see just to the left of the hotel there, that is the pool that sits in front of the hotel between the hotel and the restaurant that sits right on the line. And you can see the little red line. The hotel is just pushed back, but it varies from 4 to 5 feet back from that red line, just as a little bit of a patio area. You can see in the inset that patio, these are people there's a drawing showing people sitting in chairs in front of the hotel. You can see behind them that building, that's the restaurant. It's just a little bit further and the pool is right behind them. So that line there, sitting on the 35 foot line, the hotel is just a few feet back. So throughout this project, the staff report and the staff described has been describing the project set back from the 35 foot line. That relationship of restaurant and pool and hotel has not changed from this entire period from December through July 22nd. As I said at the beginning, we're recommending that you uphold the planning board's decision. We don't believe that the planning board made any mistakes. This has been a site that has been difficult. Every single project that we have tried to move forward on this site has been appealed. This is the second appeal for the UN on this particular project. I think the we believe the planning board worked very hard. We think they interpreted and implemented your zoning code and development regulations appropriately on this site. I know they tried to make everybody happy at the end of the day. We still have some residents who are unhappy with the final design. I'm sure you'll hear from them tonight. But from staff's perspective, the planning board did their job and they did it well. So with that, I'm available to answer any questions. I know the project applicant would also like a couple of minutes. Okay. Well, I am going to see first if any councilmembers have any clarifying questions of Mr. Thomas on the staff report. Councilmember Ody Yes, I do. Thank you for that presentation. I just have a procedural question. So there were two decisions, but there's one appeal and then it was amended via email even. I mean, there's that this is I mean, that doesn't seem like that's a proper procedure. Well, here we are. These hearings are de novo. So you are able, as the council, to consider and make any changes you want related to the project. You're not limited to just the issues raised by the appellant. So what happened was we they had their they submitted their appeal after the first decision then, but the planning board wasn't even done yet. So then we basically had a conversation with them like, well, do you want to wait till the planning board finishes and then have one appeal hearing, or do we have to have two more, you know? So we decided to sort of consolidate. But under the regulations and the zoning code, they can continue to raise questions and issues. And even tonight, issues can come up in this hearing that you can address or decide. So we didn't hold it at a sort of a strict line like, oh, I can't say anything more. You have to stop here. Well, that wasn't my question. The question was the appeal was made on the first. The first. Decision. And it seems to me there should have been an appeal made on the second decision as well in order for us to consider it, because there's really no appeal of that decision. I mean, there's no official petition. There's no fee filed. They that's that's true. I mean, we could take that approach. I'm just not sure that it would make a difference if we could said, okay, well, this is appeal on May 28th, and if you overturn that decision, then the project does have to go back to the planning board because that was a decision where they set the building footprint. So I'm going to call a time out and ask to hear from our city attorney. Mr. SHINN. Councilmember Odie, it's my understanding that after the initial appeal, staff had a conversation with the appellant, and the appellant and staff reached an amicable resolution, which is to continue the appeal and collectively appeal at once. Given that courts generally review notices of appeals with a lot of latitude, my recommendation is that the council hears this appeal in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Shinn. Do we have any further clarifying questions of Mr. Thomas before we go to our public speakers and the applicant, Councilmember Desai. And I kind of submitted this earlier. So has the applicant officially gone through the process of combining the three parcels? It's a condition of approval on the project. So no, they haven't merged the property yet, but they need to do it before they can do a pull up building permit. The building permits. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further clarifying questions? Mr. Knox White Vice Mayor Lanier. Okay. So with that, I'm sure we have the applicant addresses first council or last after the public speakers. Because they usually have a we have a process laid out in our rules, don't we, on this? No, I think you do. The particular council member, I don't believe you have a written process laid out, but my recommendation is to give the appellant the last word. The last word. Okay, we will do that. So then the city clerk, how many speakers clubs do we have? We have six, including the appellant. Okay. So with six. I mean, the applicant. The applicant. Yeah. So the applicant is one and I think there's. A couple of people. I think speaking from the parents side. I'm sorry, did you say applicant or a parent should have the last word? I generally recommend giving the appellant the last word because they are appealing and they should have the final say after they heard. All the comments. I think that's fine. Okay, so shall we bookended and have the day here that the applicant wanted to speak or am I just hearing in a mumble. Okay. Wants to speak and then the appellant. Yes. Okay. Or both. I'm running this meeting. Here's what we're going to do. I. And altogether miss. Why I. That's six. Okay. So you've all got 3 minutes. Don't feel like you have to take them, but you've got him and the clerk will call your names. Be ready to come on up. It'll just keep things moving faster. But let's start with Mr. Leach and then and end with Mr. the gentleman who's the appellant jury. So. Okay, so we have Robert Leach and Singh and Michael McDonough is the first three. All right, come on up. Hi. Robert Leach. I'm the applicant. And despite my eternal optimism with the city of Alameda, I have to say that we haven't convinced everybody in the city yet that this is a great project. But I can say that we've had a strong turnout at all the different hearings and invited people to go. Tonight, I asked my fifth grade teacher she could stay home, my third grade best friend. He could stay home. A lot of the folks, because this is an appeal and not a a vote of action. Long story short is we started the project with the idea of trying to build the nicest hotel ever built in Alameda. We've complied with every rule and regulation that was presented to us in terms of height and setback and air and everything else. Any rule, we asked for no variances to build this project. We basically wanted to stay within the code because I had witnessed over the last couple of years the turmoil that creates when you ask for variances with BCP, DC and the city. So we stayed away from any variances. We designed the project to be 100% compliant with city rules and regulations. We went. There was an appeal filed or issue taken up with BCP DC. We were called to back DC. They voted 90 no in favor of the project that we were 100% compliant. It's a very nice hotel. I like to say it's the nicest hotel ever built in Alameda. I also like to say that it's the first Union Hotel built in Alameda. It's the first union operated hotel with staff. And if you want to know the difference between a union operated hotel, our housekeepers make 2850 an hour. That's not just jumping over the $15 measurement that people are trying to get to these days. It's pole vaulting over the $15 measurement. So we're building a great hotel. It contributes about $1,000,000 a year to the city in terms of total tax. We've listened to everybody in the neighborhood. I've attended every meeting they had. In addition to the meetings that were scheduled by the planning staff. I attended people's homes. I went to their houses, their businesses, wherever they wanted to talk. I went and met with them. We took every good idea that we could from those meetings and incorporated into the project. I met a planning commissioner out at the site and walked the site and looked at plants and where they were and where they were insufficient and tried to do everything we could. So at this point, I think we've we've satisfied everything we can do in terms of regulatory requirements, rebuilding a very, very nice hotel. It has tremendous benefit to the city in terms of employment and revenue. And it's just frankly, it's just the nicest hotel that's ever been built or attempted in Alameda. We also decided to go with modular, which allows us to minimize any type of dust and dirt, and we can build it quicker and faster and easier. So with less impact on the neighbors. But on I appreciate your consideration on this for the many times I appear before you and thank you very much. Take care. Thank you. Our next speaker. And did we just get another speaker added to this item? Okay. So you're still 3 minutes, folks. Okay. Ed Singh, Michael McDonough and Pat Lambourne. All right. Thank you very much. My name is Ed Singh speaking on behalf of the Freeport Away and as the appellant, we'd like to request 10 minutes to make our case. Is that a whatever? Is it? Is it? So our rules. Are rules and so give it. No, I. We did pass rules of procedure that when we have these type of appeals that we give 10 minutes to, I believe it's each side. Well that that is well and good if that's what the rule. And I know I was on that subcommittee with you. The only part that is throwing me for a loop is I thought that we had saved the appellant for last. But you're saying that you were the you're speaking on behalf of the. Yes. Okay. So Mr.. I'm sorry, I'm. Saying. No, no, no. You're Ms.. You're Mr. Singh. But Mr.. Trumper. Temper. Yes. He's not here. He is here he was. Make comments. The, the appeal was filed on behalf of by Brian. But they have. I mean. Actually, you're right ma'am. I would say the ten mineral that applies to one appellant not for each exactly. But we understand. You said okay. Yeah. Okay. I don't want to go to the end. And and you don't want to wait until you've heard the other speakers because you're welcome to speak now or. Sure I can. Yeah. Because if you if you heard what the city attorney said earlier, Eugene, we generally give the appellant the last word, which is why we had the other listed. Appellant I'm sorry, I keep going blank on this, but. Right. Okay, great. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We'll see you in a bit and we'll reset your time. So, Michael McDonough, your next and then I'm after Mr. McDonough is Pat Lamborn. Pat Lambert. Okay. Hello. Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Knox, Wyatt and the rest of the council and staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the board of the Chamber of Commerce here in Alameda. So I'm here just to reiterate what we've said in the past about our support for this project. This is an important project for a number of reasons, not to mention the jobs that they will be creating with a much higher than minimum wage. And also for the city coffers, which the the developer just mentioned would be close to $1,000,000 a year, which I think is a very important number for our budget, for the city's budget moving forward. But also from the business community standpoint, that area out there has one hotel and a lot of people fly into Alameda for business meetings in Alameda in that area and have to stay in Oakland. This is important for a lot of the visitors and family of the business people out there and they've been clamoring for this hotel. I think we're going to have another one pretty soon out there, it seems. But there's not enough hotel space in Alameda and certainly not in the Harbor Bay area. And so we as the the as representative of the Chamber of Commerce here in Alameda, we support this and believe it's a very important project for Alameda and would urge you to uphold the Planning Board's decision. Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Ms.. Lambourne, you're up. Andrew is going to speak for you. Come on up. Okay. Good evening. My name is Pat Lambourn. I've been at almost every single meeting we talked about, so I'm not going to steal the appellants thunder. I would say that if you look at the May 28 minutes, it definitely says that they approved the 35 foot setback. And I think part of what the community wants to know is do you stand by what we say in public meetings and the votes taken? So the issue I wanted to address and I'm really thrilled to hear you can address it tonight, is the parking at at this at this development. Thank you for sharing the photo. This is a this is actually a picture of the completely empty parking lot at VFR outdoors. They've moved and gone to Denver. There's hundreds of empty parking spaces now at 2701 and 2801 Harvard Parkway. So I'm asking that you reduce the parking spaces and you have the power to do that. You just heard that. So originally this was 172 room hotel restaurant that adds up. That added up to 275 parking spaces, five story hotel, 275 parking spaces. In all the community meetings, we said it's over. Parked in the exhibit for the December 10th Planning Board meeting, the consultant said to the study said it was over parked there were going to be at least 100 vacant parking spaces, which they said would be made available to three parkers. No one's ever proof that that's actually going to come to fruition. So I'm asking you to reduce it by 50 go from 275 parking spaces -50. You could do that. The plans and staff reports have all been decided throughout this process about parking. No one's presented to you. Do you know how? Any parking spaces is the final account here? I don't. And I read through all this stuff. I watched the video at one point in the May 28th minutes and I can enter them into public record, if you like. Planning board member Ellen Teague pointed out a dissonance between the staff report and the actual plans they were looking at indicate that night this didn't sail through our planning board folks. At May 28, three planning board members voted no. Why? Because the plans were so dissonant with what the developer said and the information before them. So you have the power tonight. We could be looking at hundreds of vacant parking spaces at VFR door. Maybe you're going to tell us you've got it that someone's moving in and filling them. I don't know that. I looked it up. I couldn't find it. So how many parking spaces should there be on this lot? If you reduce them, you can do something for the neighbors that appealed this. You can add landscaping between the parking lot, the hotel and their houses. You can do something for the rest of us that use the Bay Trail and that which is the Shoreline Park. You could replace the parking spaces with vegetation. Right. If you go with a 35 foot setback, it's not very much. Right. How can you mitigate that? You have the power. Thank you very much. That's what I'm. Asking. Thank you. Nice speaker is Donna Fletcher. Then it's Ed and Brian. Ed singing. All right, so right now, we're going to have Mr. Trimper go after Ms.. Fletcher. Yeah. Is this on this particular item? Okay. Yes. Just thinking ahead. Good. Good evening. Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft, members of the council and city staff. I'm here tonight to speak in support of Mr. Trampers appeal that the Council uphold the 35 foot hotel setback we believe was approved on May 28. The effort by the neighbors to improve the design of the Marriott Residence Hotel has been a long and winding road. To quote the Beatles, in retrospect, the community and the developer probably had different expectations of what they could accomplish. I know that for the community, we really wanted a hotel that fit into the established residential neighborhood and took its cues and design from that. And we figured that if it was a marriott residence in that it would look residential. And if it was an inn, maybe it would appear to be like a seaside resort in Alameda. But once the planning board approved the building footprint, the footprint, the number of rooms and the five stories, really all of the significant design decisions were made. And what we really had to work with was the facade, colors and materials and design details. We did the best we could with that, and we found the developer to be cooperative and patient and collaborative as well as the city staff. So we appreciated that opportunity. Perhaps this is a cautionary tale for other projects that get approved without having the final design approved because it really does limit the process coming to a harmonious conclusion. We now find ourselves at the end of the process and the neighbors are making just one last request, and that is to please to please uphold the 35 foot setback. Thank you. Thank you. And so now, Mr. Trimper. Followed by Mr. Singh. It. Hi, my name is Brian Trump or council members. Mayor And I'm going to be living, I guess my card, my yard's going to be behind this building. Well, wait, I don't know that. I don't know exactly where this building is going to be, because if you look at that, that was the original spot where the building was . They had little markers to chair. Sorry to interrupt you, but everyone wants to hear you. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know if I'm going to be behind the building there. As you look, as you see if you can see the plants on the right hand side there of my right, that's where my fences and that's where the building was supposed to end to the right of that fence. My house would be view if you could go to the next slide, please. But I can do it now. It's here. That's where the sticks are that indicate the end of the property. However, since then, since that time, they've said, Oh no, we needed to add a little more of the footprint because we now have changed the configuration and there's some new bars which go to the next one to there. So I was the first one to sign the appeal for this project I signed as the president of Freeport Homeowners Association. And it looks like to me that the solution to this problem was to extend this building in front of my backyard. Now, these things are obviously not exact. I don't I'm not that good at PowerPoint and things like that. But they're about that's a little I can't think of the word in English, but it's a little quick, you know, it's a little sideways of a picture. But if you go to the next slide, if you look at their own planning board, it still shows it as to the right of my house. Because if you look at where it says it's kind of like a painted in, it's the trees that are above it, sort of on the right hand side, you have four circles and then you have like a cloud. You see it says Harbor Bay Park, way up there. There's a cloud just above the three fort. So the far right, there's four trees and then there's a cloud that's the existing trees. And in the larger map that that we have, it shows where the actual trunks are. And I can count, I can look at those trunks and I can see and I can look at this map. And it this shows the building to the right of my house. So it doesn't show it just a little over from my house. It doesn't show it quite a bit over from my house. The problem is, I don't know if it's in front of my house. I don't think the city knows if it's in front of my house. I don't know if the the planning board knows where it is exactly on this map. I think that take me out of the equation. I think the city needs to know exactly where this building's footprint is. I don't think the city, the planning board staff or the developer know where the footprint of this building is. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Trump or Mr. Singh. So even being in council, the city attorney and I have kind of convinced him the rules of order would require to be suspended to give 10 minutes of time, because there wasn't an appeal process outlined in that. Perhaps the council was remembering when you did a prior appeal and talked about it because it wasn't adopted as part of the. Okay. I am. I think we should follow whatever the rules are that exist, but I am open to suggestion from my colleagues. And bear with us for just a minute, Mr. Singh, while we figure this out. Um. Uh, Vice Mayor, colleagues, what do you think? But let's not take up. I think my opinion is. Councilmember Desai My opinion is that 10 minutes ago, the expectation or more than 10 minutes ago, the expectation was that the individual was going to give a ten minute presentation. And I don't see why we should relax from that, that expectation. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Vella. But I'd be willing to suspend the rules. This one's for. But just for 10 minutes. Not for an excess of that. Councilmember O.D. Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor, are you okay with that? Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think everybody might be remembering what's in the Sunshine Ordinance about appeals, but I haven't had a chance to look. That could be that could be. Next time we do this, we'll have those rules in front of us. So we're not playing a guessing game. So with that, Mr. Singh, you have a maximum of 10 minutes. Okay. Thank you very much. Oh, sorry, sorry. We have to vote. Okay, so a motion to suspend the rules to allow 10 minutes for this. Appellant So moved moved by the council approval a second by Councilmember Odie. We're going to take a voice vote. Councilmember Mirza Yes, not quite. Yeah. Oti Yes, yes, yes. Step five race. Proceed, please. It's right there. Uh, this one right here. Uh, that's the pointer. Okay, you got it. Thank you very much. Appreciate your granting the time for this appeal. On next slide. You can advance that there with the error. Oh. Yeah. Okay. Here you go. Okay. Tonight, we're going to focus on the setback of the hotel. The purpose of this appeal is not to stop the hotel. It's not to delay the hotel. It's a matter of a process that we've been following all along and what's been purported to be the hotel setback, what was approved by the planning board, and then what suddenly appeared two months later after the approval is different from what was approved at the planning board. So, number one, uphold the hotel setback of 35 feet. And number two, I want to ensure that information used in the Planning for Planning Board design refused for this project and for future projects is complete , accurate, consistent and transparent. Next slide, please. Is it easier for you to have staff advance? Could we. Could someone do that for him then, please? You can do that. Okay. Okay. So we'll focus we'll focus on the left side of this slide. As stated previously, the hotel setback was approved at a may 28 planning board meeting. The hotel setback is 35 feet from the base property line. As stated in that meeting and 75 feet from a high water line as set by Bccdc. So measuring against my metrics is a complete, accurate, consistent, transparent, that data that was used. Yes. And I will explain why in a few minutes. However, two months later, the hotel setback was, I don't want to say revised but maybe restated at the July 22nd planning board meeting as being 40 feet from the bay side property line , whereas the pool setback is 35 feet. So I would argue, you know, is this revision info complete, accurate, consistent, transparent? I would say no to all these for the reasons that I will explain to you in a second. Next slide, please. Let's go. Oh. Okay. I'll do. It. Oh, no, no. We got it. Thanks. Okay. Well, we'll go to in February a state of previously by Andrew. The hotel setback was one of several topics in February bccdc meeting. Next slide, please. Okay. And this was a slide that was used I don't know if it was by B, C, D, C or the applicant, but this is the proposed project site. This is the adjacent McGuire Hester building. This is Stacy went back and at that meeting they talked about the project setback at 75 feet from the high water line or 35 feet from the property line, which is right here at the edge of the Bay Trail right there. And this is consistent with the information used for the design of McGuire. Hester and Stacy went back and actually they the regulatory director said in this image, you can see how the buildings are in alignment and how the setback requirements of the third settlement agreement create a uniform consistency where each development within this area is handled in the same manner. So Bccdc agreed to the 35 foot setback. There are numerous discussions with the community by the developer and the city focusing on the hotel setback. There was no discussion of pool and a separate hotel set. Public comments were received on a 35 foot hotel setback, not a pool setback, but a hotel set by the 35 foot hotel. Setback was consistent with Bccdc. Coordination and the alignment with the adjacent buildings. There was absolutely no discussion of pool setback. Next slide, please. Sorry. Okay. The pre-meeting notes for the May 28th Planning Board where the setback was approved contains no mention of the pool versus hotel setback. It does say the planning board approved the excuse me, the planning board approved the hotel with a 35 foot setback in December of 2018, which provides a setback of approximately 75 feet to the water's edge. Hotel setback, not pool. Moving the building further back would not significantly improve the quality of the Bay Trail experience. The Bccdc staff and the Board of Commissioners reviewed the hotel proposal and determined that the setback of 35 feet was appropriate. This is in the pre-meeting information provided by staff for May 28. Next slide, please. Okay. So you can see that this is a slide that was used by city staff at the May 28th meeting to show, demonstrate, hotel setback. This is the line. It goes from the waterline to the hotel, not to the pool. Next slide, please. And the minute there was a very brief mention by the city of a pool versus hotel setback, this was after the public comment period. So no public comments could be made on that difference that that was noted at that time. And number two, I don't think anybody heard it. I did not hear and I was sitting in the second row right here. So next slide, please. The motion to approve the set back was approved. As stated board member Teague Booth approval of the 35 foot setback. Board member Rothenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. The meeting minutes say 35 foot hotel setback was approved. No mention of pool setback. But then two months after the setback approval, the city restated the hotel setback as 40 feet. I think they probably realized that they misspoke at the May 28th meeting. Next slide, please. So there is no written documentation of the pool versus hotel building setback provided to the planning board or the public until the July 22nd planning board meeting. I have to say that this is not quite right. There is a mention of it in fine print at the bottom of the project plans. Now I'm going to tell you that the project plans that are provided to the planning board are the full size plans are a scale one and two cost 30 feet. The half size plans, I believe they're half size that he's holding. Right there would be about one inch equals 60 feet. So reading looking at the difference between the pool setback in the building setback would be very different. A difficult reading. A table at the bottom of the plans would be extremely difficult. And as I say, it's impossible to discern. So the pool versus hotel setback has never been explained in full and public forum. It's documented in writing that it's 35 feet. And the pool setback versus the hotel setback has never been open for comment in public forum. Next slide, please. So we based on the fact that the 35 foot hotel setback was discussed and coordinated with the public public comments received and it was approved by the planning board. We ask that you uphold the 35 foot hotel setback. And I just want to say that I don't want to impugn anyone developer, city staff, the planning board. But this is just a number of issues. And I think Patricia raised some of them, too, of inconsistencies in information that a developer brings before the planning board. Sometimes you can handle it through planning board resolutions. I understand that these are complex projects that take, you know, months to work through. But if the quality of the data that goes to the city and goes to the planning board meets the criteria that I mentioned earlier in my presentation. It would. It would not necessitate having to go back to the planning board again and again and again. And I know that there are many projects coming up on the horizon at the planning board that will be just as complex. And I urge you to work with the planning board in ensuring that the quality of the data is improved. So again, we request that you uphold the 35 hotel. Might seem trivial, but it's not. Thank you, Mr. Singh. I'm going to ask the planning director, Andrew Thomas, to help the council understand some of what we just heard. I just want to clarify just two or three quick points and then I'm available to answer any questions. I'm looking at the plans from December 10th. These are the half size set that Mr. Singh mentioned. Then there was the plans that were approved on May 28th and then there were the plans that were approved on July 22nd . Every single set of those plans had what we call a site plan with a table that says has a bunch of information and says setbacks. And every one of those plans has this description of the setbacks. And it says the exact same thing on all three sets of plans, setbacks front in parentheses against from Shoreline Park. And then it says the hotel, 35 feet excuse me, restaurant 35 feet, hotel 40 feet. That has not changed. It has not changed in a single set of plans. It's been consistent the entire way. The site plan has been consistent the entire throughout the entire process. So how it was described in staff reports, how it was described by somebody like me standing at a podium, I think there was a situation where we were thinking about the project. Does it respect the 35 foot setback requirement? Remember the 30 when they say uphold the 35 of the project, upholds the 35 because it doesn't encroach. No part of this project can encroach and be closer than 35. Things can be pushed further back, but they can't come closer. So the restaurant is right on the line. The pool is right on the line, and the hotel has always been five feet further back. So it is not a requirement that everything be right on the line. It's a requirement that everything be no closer than the 35 foot line. And I think essentially, if I understand what the appellants are asking, they're asking you to take the hotel and move it five feet closer to the park. This, from staff's perspective, is would not be a good move. The neighbors who are 200 to 300 feet away are not going to notice a five foot difference from 300 feet . The people on the Bay Trail who are only 35 feet to 40 feet away, they will definitely notice it. For us at staff, it's a little bit strange because at the last appeal, the neighbors and the appellants were telling you to push it back towards the neighborhood. Now they're telling you, bring it closer to the Bay Trail. So we think the planning board did the right thing. We think the information they had was accurate and they made the right decision. One last thing. In terms of Mr. Trampers concern about that, we didn't know where it was. There have been steaks posted. We had steaks posted the actual footprint of the building. Myself and two other staff members went out there personally with the plans after the last couple of meetings and with hundred foot tape measures and measured it ourselves to make sure that we were confident that those steaks were in the right place. So we're pretty sure that the planning board and the staff are know where the building is on the site. I'm available to answering. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Thomas, Vice Mayor? Not quite any questions. When you're not on mute. During the mute button. No. You. Okay. Um. Okay. So then we're going to go into council discussion of this item. Who wants to lead? Councilmember de Saag. Well, thank you very much. The matter that's before us can be deliberated by council member on what's called a de novo basis, which means that we are not limited to the information in our packets when making our decision. So I'm going to definitely take advantage of that. And my decision is still going to be the same that I held back in winter when council members deliberated over this matter. And the long and the short of it is I do believe that the city council and the planning board missed an opportunity to exercise the leverage that it had to get the developer to work more substantively with the nearby residents, not just the residents of the Freeport Homeowners Association, but Harvey, generally. And the leverage that I'm speaking of comes down to this is that at the December 2018 planning board meeting, one of the planning board members correctly indicated that that this project, in order to satisfy development standards, i.e. the amount of supportable square footage that it had contemplated both in December, in the December meeting and subsequently in the and the City Council meeting in February, in order to satisfy the amount of square footage contemplated at those meetings, it had to come back in, not it had to be built on not just the parcel on which it is proposed. The main parcel being 74, dash 1362, dash 49, dash eight. But it had to be combined with two other parcels because when combining the three parcels together, then, you know, you do the math. The bigger the, the amount of parcels and acreage and square footage, therefore the amount, the the increased amount of of allowable building. Square footage. So my argument then was simply this that at the December 2018 meeting and subsequently at the city council meeting at that time, the developer had not combined those parcels. So the City Council and the planning board ought to have and granted, 2020 is always you know, hindsight is always 2020. And this is what I argue back then at the time, the city council ought to have exercised their leverage and said, okay, I see you want to build this much square footage. And in order to, to, to to achieve that amount of square footage, you have to combine basically three different parcels. Now, council and planning board should have said, well, when you look at the three different parcels, one of those parcels definitely you could never build on because as I've posted on at some websites, including blogging, Bayport, one of those parcels that is just a sliver it has, it's mainly underwater and the green part is basically green area. It's, you know, just grass and and the other part is sidewalk. So that sliver of parcel should never have been included in the other two parcels. The other two parcels. Okay. The person could make a case that that those should be allowed. My point is simply this, is that those parcels were not combined. So it was at that point that the planning board and the council could have exercised its leverage and said, you know what, the residents are concerned about the massing, the building height. And so this is a way for us to to substantively discuss this with the project proponent. Now, the other reason why I also think that that the issue of the three parcels was critical was because the governing authority regarding this parcel development, this parcel is the Harbor Bay Business Park Development Agreement that was in place at that time. And when you look back at the ordinance that was in place at that time, so in March 1988, the city council had adopted an ordinance that said that, you know, if you're going to and this gets to my land boards issue, why my landlord's issue won't fly. If you're going to develop on a parcel, then the parking impacts have to be limited to that parcel except under certain conditions. And. This is what was adopted in March 1988. Well, when you look at the parking plan, a lot of the parking is not on the parcel. It is actually to the the parcel closest to the Maguire Hester. That's another parcel. And it doesn't satisfy another condition under under the March 1988 ordinance that says, well, you know, parking on other parcels than, than, than the parcel on which the development can occur under certain conditions. It didn't satisfy that condition. So I felt that at the time that the city council and the planning board could have exercised its its leverage by getting the developer, working with the developer to perhaps reduce the massing, reduce the building height. Because at the end of the day, I don't think you have to be just a Harper Bay residents or or a Freeport Homeowner's Association resident. I think at the end of the day, when you walk down the path near the hotel, it doesn't matter if the Bill Hotel is five feet this way or five feet that way . It's still going to be this large project that amounts to a monstrosity. And we had the opportunity to, I believe, exercise the leverage that we had to kind of work with the developer to take to substantively take into consideration the residents concerns. And it had all to do with the fact that at the time that the project was submitted, that the parcels were not combined. And the fact of the matter is, is to this day, the three. Parcels are still. Not combined. So I say to the council members, exercise your leverage now. And because the the governing authority that was in place in March 1988 says that that if you're going to build that, that you have to have the parking on this on the on the parcel on which the impact is occurring. And if you're going to have parking on outside of that parcel on another parcel, then it has to satisfy certain conditions. It does not satisfy the March 1988 conditions. So I would really encourage us to revisit this. So I would remain from the same point that I raised back in February of this year. Thank you. Councilmember de so Councilman Brody. Thank you. Andrew, can I just check in with you on a few things? So can you remind me how many parking places we have here? It was two originally to 75, now to two. It was in December. It was 275. And it's now 260. The planning board reduced it by 15 spaces to get more landscaping in the council. Didn't we reduce. No, no, no. What? You. What? When it came to you to 75 with the conditions for the ferry parking and what you asked them to look at, possibly moving the building back 15 feet, which would have eliminated a row of parking. Because what I thought we did discuss, I remember the vice mayor bringing up something about parking and the ferry. So how many how many spots do we have for the ferry? We have approx. I mean, our guests at 275 based on the traffic studies and all, was that we would have on most days have an extra 100 that could be leased out on a daily basis to ferry riders. Now, you know, as as we acknowledged then, like if it's a monday after a big event at the hotel that morning, there may be fewer spaces on midweek. There might be more than 100 spaces for ferry riders. So we set up that requirement that they have that sort of the the computer app and the ability for the ferry riders to sort of check in early to see how many spaces were available. So how many I mean, how many spaces does a hotel really need? Well, under the. Zoning code, the 275 is actually meets the zoning code. Right. But is how many does it really need? I mean. We think that it really needs a probably about 175. It's a 172 rooms. So, you know, it's it's probably closer to 107. I mean. 100 and. 770. So we could I mean, if it's full, you're going to have at least 117. That's what our thought. But, you know, look, this is an inexact science. We've been studying this with all these hotels. What we're seeing is demand for parking at hotels, going down with Uber and Lyft. And this is also very close to the hotel, to the. Airport. I mean, that was kind of my point with the shuttle and with Ubers. And, you know, I just wonder if that role I think it's either 30 or 32. And one of the maps that 30 to 1 said 30, you know, that whole row of parking along the street, you know, I wonder if if the place could could survive without that road parking. I mean, we passed a climate action plan, one of our goals. To get cars off the road. And one of our goals was or our guiding policies was to not let parking dictate. Our, our, our. Our plans and our planning. So. So it was at 275 originally that met the code. The planning board reduced it by ten to get in more landscaping or 15 to get into more landscaping. It's within your power to reduce it further. Okay, maybe you can check and see if the applicant is open to that if more than one council member is interested. So, I mean, that would be the the only issue that, you know, I would have based on the reasons I explained to Mr. Thomas right now that, you know, we are trying to reduce our our carbon footprint. We are trying to reduce the number of cars. We are trying to implement our climate action plan. And, you know, walk the walk and talk the talk. So I'd be open to that. I didn't hear anything in any of the presentations that convinced me that the setback was wrong or that anything was done untoward. Regarding the setback, I didn't think I didn't see anything about the colors. I don't think I didn't hear anything about landscaping material. So I'm inclined to deny the appeal. But I'd be open to a discussion on parking if if the rest of my colleagues were and you know that $1 million in total. Am I the colleague to the left? To me, I mean, that's one of his big priorities is to try to improve our total revenue. So I think this is a good step in that direction. Councilmember Vela. Sure. So the vice mayor, I'm going to go to you next, please. I'll be quick. And Andrew, I thank you for for your presentation from my perspective. We gave the planning board direction, and that direction didn't include any discussion and consideration of removing more parking to move the building to the building to move back from the water. And it's my understanding that the planning board meetings and whatnot that the neighbors really asked for. Not to me. In fact, they put currently up to about 35 or 40 feet as to whether or not, you know, going to get there. I do want to acknowledge that that it appears some people have been confused about this a lot like they've done. Like everybody is very clear tonight. And in the discussion of the confusion around my life, I haven't heard anybody actually make the case for why 40 versus 35 is compelling, but I think that we should send it back to the planning board. I guess just can't remember which question about parking. I wouldn't want to hold this up, but I would want to see if we can maybe include some sort of condition that those spaces that are not being used for the hotel at this point in time, I think if we're getting rid of it again, if we were to get rid of the spaces, we would want to provide some benefit so that we don't have to consider screening. I think that that's something that we can also address through making sure that future part of it might be able to use it as well. So instead of eliminating the spaces, I'm not sure what the tradeoff is, just not having them which which is a terrible thing at this point. It's about through that conversation and the state community planning board and federal direction to keep the spaces for the ferry. And I wouldn't want to I wouldn't want to push this project out for. The general public. Thank you both, Mayor. You ready to go now? Okay. Councilman Vella. I think, you know, part of how the evolution came relative to the parking aspect was to try to also accommodate some of the the neighbors in the area who had also had concerns about ferry parking spilling over into the neighborhood. And I think, you know, certainly hopefully that the we'll see that it's over parked. But I think that if that happens, we can the plan can be dynamic maybe you know, to account to the vice mayor's point. Maybe it's that there's certain spaces that get dealt with later on or it gets dealt with in phases and so it can become landscaping. But I don't think that it's necessarily something that we need to hold up approval for. I think it can. I think sending it back to the planning board over that issue at this point doesn't really make sense. And I think that that can be something that we can perhaps work out. You know, with the with the developer looking at the different usage of the site, I also think that we have seen a significant uptick in the usage of the ferry terminal. And I know that that you know, it's one thing we just had our groundbreaking actually for Seaplane Lagoon. And I think one of the things that we can be very proud of here is that there are a number of comedians who are using public transport to get to and from work, and especially as they leave the city . And so obviously we're still working on the the in Alameda connectors with the ferry terminal. And I think that that's coming along. But until then, I think we do have a need for those spots. And I think in terms of of the issue of the setback, I haven't heard an argument as to why we would bring this back to the planning board. At this point, I think at this point, I'm not inclined to follow my colleagues, the vice mayor and Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Councilmember Vella. Okay. So I spent six years on the planning board obviously before this project came up, and this particular project has had a lot of coverage. It's been back and back to the planning board several times. It has had a lot of interaction with neighbors. And I, I do believe all your neighbors that you you've made the Harbor Bay residents. You've made it a better project. Your input has certainly helped. I don't think everyone speaks with one voice. I know we heard it said that the neighbors just wanted a hotel that fit into the neighborhood to thoughts came to mind. Some residents didn't want a hotel there at all. And then I would just remind people that that neighborhood where this hotel is slated to go is a business park. And this is a business park that has not had enough hotel space. So what I do know from six years on the planning board and going into seven years on the city council is that you're never going to please all the people. So at the end of the day, we look at, is this good for the city, are we being fair to the neighbors? And as was brought up, our neighbors in this area have been very vocal and concerned about traffic to the ferry terminal at Harbor Bay. And I am also proud that Alameda Ferry Riders, we are the highest per capita riders of the ferry in all the wider system, which is a reason that we're one of the reasons we're getting our third ferry terminal in our city. We're an island and water transit makes perfect sense. I also know that in 2020 from the Harbor Bay Ferry terminal, instead of ferries every hour during the commute time, they will be coming every 30 minutes and there will be larger boats that take up to 300 riders. And yes, you can bring your bicycle and get there on your bicycle. But I also know, because I've worked with a lot of young families, Alameda attracts young families wanting to raise their kids here. It is a race to get children dropped off at the preschool. Children dropped off at school and our elementary schools. There's a time you cannot drop your children off earlier than a certain time. And yet the ferry, when it leaves, you've got a very narrow window there. So this is my segway to saying I do believe we have the the ability as a council tonight to designate and that of those part. I'm not here to suggest that we take away parking spaces, but I would very much like a certain number of those spaces that are beyond the number of rooms that the hotel actually dedicated to ferry riders. Is there a way to do that? Mr. Thomas I think we basically have what you're looking for in the original conditions of approval. Essentially, every morning ferry riders will be able to go on their phone and see how many spaces are available to them. Okay, well, it's. In the applicant's best interest to make them. Available. Is there a way that we make sure that there's never a time when there is no parking space available? I mean, the idea here is if the hotel is filled and they and all the hotel patrons hosting call, now, we don't see that as a scenario. I will say, talking to the applicant, because you had Councilmember Ody had asked me about this and I checked with the applicant. His concern about reducing the parking tonight is he's really concerned about the restaurant and he sees an opportunity to actually fill every space right in the evening with the restaurant, the hotels and the ferry riders. I'm concerned about changing it without the ferry riders here. We made a lot of promises to ferry riders over this area. Okay. So fair enough. But you're working on. I love the idea of the app. Okay. And as far as a missed opportunity to work with the neighbors, I think a lot of work has been done with the neighbors going out and actually meeting in their neighborhoods, in their homes. And at some point, this is a disincentive to developers to do projects in Alameda, which might be part of the motivation of some I don't know. But what I do know is that our city and our growing business community and we have a very vibrant biomedical health sciences, green tech industry, pretty exciting things coming our way in the near future. When these businesses have more visitors and overnight guests than our hotels can accommodate, they send their guests over to San Francisco or to Oakland. And with those guests go the money them they might spend in our city and the top tier, the transient occupancy tax on every hotel room. And yes, we're going to get around to increasing that one of these days. Mr. Desai But it's so so I don't want that to happen. And I want to be able to serve our business community. We need our businesses, we need our residents. We need to achieve a jobs housing balance. So for that reason, I am ready to say it's time to move forward on this and to entertain a motion to deny the appeal that we are considering tonight. Is there a motion or any further discussion? So I have a motion by Vice Mayor Knox White. Have a second. Second seconded by Councilmember Vela. Any further discussion? Let's vote, roll call. Vote. Councilmember Desai I. Am against the motion. Is that right? You help me out. To deny the appeal. As the motion is to deny the appeal. So it's no right. No, no, no. I think again some of. The negative. Councilmember not quite. High. Odie. Yes, fella. Yes mayor has the Ashcraft. Yes the the motion to deny the appeal carries 4 to 1. All right. Thank you, everyone. And with that, I'm going to call a break and that's I'll be back here in 10 minutes. Well rounded at 915. We're going to start. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Audience and speakers. One minute morning. Yeah, it's 914. I'm swallowing my Luna bar there, so I didn't talk with my mouth. But okay, now it's 915. True to our word, we are back for the council meeting and we move on to item six. Be Madam Clerk. Recommendation to approve the Transportation Commission's recommendation design concept for a two way bikeway for the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project and crossover me to trail between Grand Street and Broadway. And oh look it's one of. Those bad pennies. Just keeps coming back. Nowhere else to go I. Got nothing else better. To do. No, this is an exciting project. We call this the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project. I think you have I've been told 17 speakers, so I heard 18. I'm going to run through these slides very quickly and then be make myself available to answer any questions. Gale Payne, who is the project manager, is here today. She's really done all the heavy lifting on this on this project. And we have also an excellent consultant team from CDB Smith who have been instrumental helping us and of course are very capable. Public Works Department has been another very important partner in this project and.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 Budget (Ordinance 125475), including the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); reallocating funding from the Acquisition Category to the Opportunity Fund Category of the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy; and revising project allocations in the 2018-2023 CIP; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_08062018_CB 119321

Agenda item for constable 119 321 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation amending ordinance 125 493 The committee recommends the bill. Pass. Councilmember Bexar Good, thank you. I'm going to speak to this item number four, which is First Hill Park, and then I'm going to pass it to my colleague, Councilmember Herbold, to talk about the property at 7137 38th Avenue Southwest, since this is her district and she's been very greatly involved in it. So the first Hill Park, I want to say thank you to Alex Hudson. Thank you for coming. For all your folks that have worked so hard on this, this particular legislation would reallocate 500,000 from the Property Acquisition Fund in our Parks and Recreation Opportunity Fund reaching back to 2008 and allow these funds to be used for redevelopment and improvements to the existing park. So this particular it's a small park up on first hill, but as we all know, four still really needs more parks and this is one that is there now but will be improved. I'm also working with the First Hill Association about expanding some pedestrian connections throughout the first Hill area. But this particular area or this park area will be matched by a $500,000 contribution from Swedish Medical Center. I want to say thanks to that. I know that, Alex, that you worked hard to make sure that we got this matching fund. So redevelopment will include new walking paths in the central gathering area, lighting benches and play features. And it certainly will improve the first hill area. And I want to say thank you and recommend that we do move forward with this reallocation of funds and the improvement on the park. It's very good. We'll address it the next two gentlemen next to each an item. So any questions on this bill? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Johnson, I. Mosquito, I. O'BRIEN Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. Gonzales I traveled by President Herrell All right. You didn't favor. And unopposed. The bill passed. And chair of the Senate. Please read the agenda item number. The next agenda item in the short title.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and any necessary amendments, with the Long Beach Community College District, to provide free non-credit and certificate courses at the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library, for a period beginning February 6, 2020 through May 21, 2021. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_11192019_19-1147

Motion she carries. We're going back to item six on the consent calendar. Item six is report from Library Services Recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement and any necessary amendments with Long Beach Community College District to provide free Noncredit and certificate course at the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library for beginning for a period beginning February six, 2020 through May 21st, 2021, District nine. Thank you. Counselor Richardson, you wanted a presentation on this? Sure. This is something we, you know, we worked on for a while, and I wanted to get a staff report. Glenda Williams, our library services director, will give a brief report. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. And members of the city council. Before you tonight, there's an opportunity to have an agreement with the Long Beach City College to have some classes at the Michelle Obama Library. If approved, it will begin this coming semester, potentially in February. And we're very excited for this to move forward. Thank you. If approved. Okay, great. Customer Ranga. Anything? Customer Pearce. No. There's no public comment on this. Please cast your votes.

A resolution approving a proposed Master Purchase Order between the City and County of Denver and Jebro Incorporated for the purchase and delivery of liquid asphalt. Approves a master purchase order with Jebro, Inc. for $15 million and through 2-28-25 for the purchase and delivery of liquid asphalt to be used for asphalt manufacturing for street paving, citywide (SC-00004563). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-9-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-4-20.

DenverCityCouncil_02182020_20-0084

Under Bills for introduction, Councilmember CdeBaca and Councilmember Ortega have called out Bill 88 for questions under bills for final consideration. Councilmember CdeBaca has called out Bill 77 for questions under pending. No items have been called out. Miss anything? All right, Madam Secretary, if you please, put the first item on our screens. And Councilmember Hines, if you want to go ahead with your questions on Resolution 84. Thank you, Mr. President. I have someone from the Department of Transportation Infrastructure to answer a few questions about this. Keating counsel Pat Kennedy and the Department. Of Transportation and Infrastructure Office. Of Asset Management. Thank you, sir. Just a couple quick questions about. So this is a contract for another asphalt vendor, is that correct? What this is, is the contract to purchase the. Material, the asphalt oil that we use in the production of asphalt at our plant. Do you do you know how many Lane Miles Denver intends to? Is the goal for Denver to install in 2020? We're looking at about 570, 575 miles. Thank you. How many miles of sidewalk are we intending to install in the city of Denver? And that's out of a different program, but we're looking at between five and seven miles of sidewalk. Great. Thank you. No other questions.

A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, to create new zone districts in the Downtown context. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to establish three new Downtown Neighborhood Context zone districts and other associated amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-18.

DenverCityCouncil_12172018_18-1222

for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes and there is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. The speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 1 to 2 two on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill eight are a series of 18 but discombobulated. I move that council bill 1220 to series of 2018 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing of Council Bill 1222 is open. May we have the staff report? Thank you, Mr. President, and council members. My name is Christopher Johnson. I'm a senior city planner with community planning and Development, and I will lead you through the staff presentation this evening. My colleague, a barge will also assist. He'll fill in on a few slides specific to the affordable housing requirements that are part of this zoning text amendment. Obviously a topic of strong importance and a lot of interest on all of your mind. So we will get to that shortly. So I think it's important to start by saying that what we're talking about tonight in terms of the text amendment to establish these new zone districts for CPG area is really implementing nearly 20 years of plan guidance that we have for the downtown area. It all goes back to the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000. That speaks to the Central Plan Valley as an area that is poised to become an example of both urban environmental protection and sustainable economic development. Blueprint Denver, that's in place, currently speaks to downtown more broadly in terms of the centerpiece of the city and truly of the region with the highest intensity of uses. And then the downtown area plan from 2007 spoke to the Central Platte Valley. Again, and specific to this area about opportunities that are beginning to emerge to densify these areas as parking is becoming less important and there is mode shift towards transit resources and the downtown plan amendment and the area plan amendment that was passed earlier this year and sorry, in June of 2018 really dove into a lot of detail about this area specifically. And then the future blueprint Denver, a draft of which the next draft will be coming out here later in the early part of 2019, continues on this discussion about downtown being our area of the most intensity and greatest height. So the downtown area plan amendment, as I mentioned, focused in specifically on Central Plat Valley or area. This is the district that's bound by I-25, Speer Boulevard on the north in an area parkway to the south and east. It builds upon that 27 downtown area plan and provides very specific recommendations in the same framework as the original downtown area plan to create and support a prosperous, distinctive, walkable, diverse and green city. And specifically, it addresses and establishes a vision about this area to become a neighborhood that is more integrated with the adjacent downtown and residential areas and matures into its own diverse and dense and distinctive neighborhood that connects the city to the river and really brings enhanced amenities to the existing and future residents. One of the most important things about the plan amendment is there is a very specific implementation section towards the end of the document that speaks directly to how do we move from vision to reality through a series in a system of regulatory tools, particularly, how do we calibrate the intensity of this area appropriately to be higher near the rail stations, the existing transit stations that are there, and then lower intensities near the river and adjacent existing buildings and neighborhoods. How do we promote a variety of building height and density to create some energy and excitement? How do we support diverse and desired architectural form and streetscapes? How do we start to break down a downtown environment to something that feels more comfortable at the human scale? How do we encourage those vibrant, mixed use streets in a neighborhood that's truly mixed use? And really, most importantly, how do we promote a diverse community with incentives for affordable housing? So how do we create a mechanism in a system that rewards higher development intensity with greater affordable housing? And then finally, to get to some of the more qualitative aspects that are really challenging to address through zoning. How do we use a system of design review and design standards and guidelines to really get to that rich architectural quality that people are interested in? So the regulatory framework that we're going to cover is fairly complex. There's a number of different mechanisms that we are using, four of which we are going to be talking about this evening. So the first is the text amendment to the Denver zoning code. That's what establishes these new zone districts to apply to the CPA area location. Part and parcel with that directly related is the amendment to the Denver Revised Municipal Code, which is before you as 18 dash 1407 that was just discussed earlier. This is what creates the actual affordable housing mechanism that's directly tied to the zoning. There's also design standards, the guidelines that I mentioned that will eventually be adopted as rules and regulations through our department, and then on a project by project basis, individual properties would come forward and request a rezoning, the first of which we're going to talk about this evening. And then there's a development agreement that is associated with that rezoning that will also be discussing that puts in place a process to develop. This other item is on the screen called the Infrastructure Master Plan that gets into much, much more detail related to the actual utilities and infrastructure, roads, connectivity, those kinds of things that Councilwoman Ortega was talking about in terms of how do we address some of the capacity issues when we're talking about a large development? So we're not at that point yet, but that is part of the development agreement that that will talk about in a little bit more detail this evening. So the sponsors of this text amendment to the Denver zoning code are Councilman Brooks and Espinoza. Portions of the Central Platte Valley Area District fall both within portions of District one and District nine. The Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment itself, as I mentioned, establishes new zone districts for this particular area, implements the objectives of the plan amendments , and the individual property owners need to come forward and request that rezoning. So the text amendment itself establishes a zone district, but they are not being legislatively applied. That is the individual property owners that are approaching us to request the rezoning. And then as I mentioned before, there is the related Denver Revised Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 27 that's being sponsored by our Department Community Planning and Development and the Office of Economic Development to establish those affordable housing provisions that are related to the use of incentive height. That's all part of the zoning package. The public process for this regulatory implementation has been a robust one. We we really dovetailed right on the heels of the adoption of the plan amendment. We began right away in July with a series of planning board information items to talk about the zoning tools that we can use here. We had a series of community open houses as well, culminating then and on two months ago to the day here to our planning board public hearing where it was recommended to move forward by a vote of 9 to 1. We through the process with the ludie committee and then noticing of course in public hearing tonight just as a look forward, the design standards and guidelines are in process in our department currently. They're in draft form, they're under internal review and we're hoping that those will be completed in the early part of next year. We're targeting a March 6th hearing and planning board for that. Ideally, the public comment on the text amendment itself has been fairly limited outside of the the community open houses and discussions that we've had there. We've received seven emailed comments prior to the Planning Board public hearing. There were five speakers at that hearing, four directly in support and one in support that had a few other comments for us to consider. And then a letter of support as well has arrived into our offices. So I'm going to dove into a little bit more about what's actually in the zoning for these CPD or area districts . And I'm going to try to relate the specific design standards and items in the zoning back to those plan amendment objectives that are described and particularly address the zoning and design standards and the quality of of this area. So the first one is how do we calibrate development intensity? As we mentioned, this is a 120 to 150 acre site overall is the district. And so how do we calibrate that development intensity appropriately across that entire area? So the text amendment this evening would establish three new downtown context zone districts. That would be the downtown Central Platte Valley area. So that creates the DCP prefix, and these would be the transition river and center districts. You can see by the by the diagram here that generally those three districts then relate to an overall intensity. The two on the left, the transition and the river district are somewhat lower in intensity. And then the center district, which would be the highest intensity district, is shown there on the right. And I'm going to talk a little bit more about each of these individually, because we've approached this notion of lower intensity in two slightly different ways, according to those transition in those river districts. So the first one in the transition district is really intended to be just that, a transition from this area to existing structures that would be within the overall area of Central Valley or area or existing buildings that perhaps are on the other side of Speer Boulevard or existing neighborhoods like the Jefferson Park neighborhood that's on the west side of I-25. So here, because there is some existing context for us to respond to. There's existing structures, existing buildings. We have taken the approach that intensity should be limited through a height limit so that we create an appropriate transition and contextual relationship to those existing buildings. So here there is a building form that is allowed to go up to 12 stories, and that transition district is appropriately located within about a block of those established neighborhoods and buildings. You can see on the screen highlighted in yellow that generally the appropriate areas for that transition district would be near that intersection of Speer in an area and extending up each of those streets slightly. And then also on the western side, particularly along Water Street. The River district then is a little bit different in that it is also lower intensity. But we've addressed this through instead of a height limit, we have addressed it through restrictions on the bulk or the girth of the buildings. So basically what happens here is there's building forms that are allowed to have a much shorter street wall. So the as you're walking down the sidewalk, the building that you might experience is in that 3 to 5 story range, but then would allow for much taller buildings. But they must be very thin in relative profile and widely spaced. There was a lot of guidance from the public and from the community through the plant amendment process to preserve something like porosity or permeability, a kind of a connection to the river, both physically and visually. So we did that appropriately through allowing these taller buildings, but much, much smaller footprints as you go taller. And then finally the center district, which is the most intense district. This is really intended to have the widest variety of not only uses, but also building forms. We've introduced a third building form that allows for a slightly larger building that would accommodate a larger commercial office tenant. Typically, they need a larger footprint in terms of their architectural building to meet their requirements. And so we've introduced that here. So in the center district there, the height limits and the limitations are basically address through the various building forms. There's the general building form that has a height limit. There is what's called the standard tower, which has a little bit more flexibility, a little bit more size, but has a floor area ratio cap on it and limitation . And then there is a point tower form that has the most restrictive design requirements as you go as you go taller. So the next item here in terms of objectives that we're trying to address through the zoning is how do we promote this variety of context sensitive buildings? And I sort of alluded to that in terms of these various building forms. So these are used in combination where in different zoned districts there are different building forms that are allowed. And you can see as you move sort of from left to right on the screen, the height or the floor area that's allowed the overall intensity of those buildings increases as you move from left to right. The upper storey design requirements or the limitations on the overall size of the building also get stronger and stronger as you move from left to right. So there's a there's a connection there between the allowed floor area and the allowed intensity with the limitations and the restrictions on the architectural form. And one of the most important things I think, to note here is that all of the street level and the lower storey design requirements, the things that we as members of the public walking down the street would really experience things like street level activity, uses, transparency, those kinds of things. Those are exactly the same across all of the building forms. So this is just another summary. The general is 12 stories allow is allowed in the transition or the center district it's much shorter it's only five story high limit in the river the standard tower, which is sort of that office, commercial office building type of building form that's only allowed in the central district, our highest intensity district. And then the point tower has the highest design restrictions as as you grow taller. So this is just sort of a visual summary of how these might be applied across these various zone districts. Transition only allows the general, the river district includes that general form at a much shorter level and the point tower, but it has a much shorter street wall of five stories and then the center district allows all three of those. So then how do we support this desired architectural forum? I've talked about these limitations, these upper storey limitations. As you get taller. We've developed a series of new rules of measurement for our development services and project review teams to use as they're evaluating future projects. So really the tradeoff is as you grow taller, you must grow smaller. So we're we're really trying to shape taller buildings to make sure that we are protecting access to the sun sky, limiting the impacts of shadows and really trying to relate taller buildings to a more human scale at the street level. So there's a tower floor plate area restriction on certain building forms as the overall square footage or size of a of a floor as you go taller, a linear dimension that speaks to the relative proportion of the building. So we're trying to avoid very thin and very long blade like buildings that tend to cause really strong shadows and block views. And then also the floor separation. So if we're going to allow tall buildings, we want to make sure that there's enough space between all of those two to allow for views and sun and sky access . This is just a summary of these things, and I don't necessarily expect you to go through each of these in great detail, but I think it's important to note that you can see the on the floor plate area, which is about halfway down here on the chart. The point our allowance, the maximum floor plate allowance on the point tower is half less than half of what the standard tower would allow. And the tower separation, particularly along the river, is upwards of 120 feet. And I think it's important to note that currently in our downtown core zoning there is no separation requirement other than what would be required for fire protection, which can be as little as 20 to 30 feet. So we're talking about a very significant increase in a required tower spacing to open open this area up. I should also mention before I move on very quickly, is the standard tower, which is the middle tower form that I've mentioned that relates to more commercial office type projects. We want that tower. We want that building form to only be used for those types of projects. And so we did actually also include a use limitation so that in that tower portion you must be less than 50% residential for those. So that the so that the sort of the the largest of those buildings is used for those commercial tenants that really need it. So finally, how do we encourage active and engaging streets here? We've talked a lot about big, tall buildings. What's that going to feel like down on the on the ground floor, on the street level? So all of these lower story and street level standards apply to all the building forms and all the districts. They really attempt to create that richness and human scale that we've been talking about. So how do we use things like setbacks and reduction of mass? How do we create an enhanced setback for residential units? So when there's a residential unit that comes all the way down to the street, how do we give them a little bit of extra room so that they can there there can be a more appropriate transition between that private and public realm. There is an open space requirement on larger lots. And then how do we activate that street? So again, this mixture and these requirements for build to transparency, requiring street level active uses and also on a few key streets, we've included some standards related to requiring nonresidential uses so that we can ensure that some of those key streets that were identified in the plan amendment actually have that higher intensity of commercial retail types of uses. It's also important to note that within each of these zoned districts, all of the streets that are going to be created will be classified as primary streets, and that includes the South Platte River frontage . So if you're familiar with other areas of the zoning code, we typically have a primary street and a side street designation where the side street has lower requirements and lower standards for transparency and things like that. Here we wanted to make sure that every street was held to the highest level. Parking. Parking is a big deal. And activity, the effect of parking and particularly parking structures on the activity on the street is really dramatic. And so one of the things that is also included here is that there is a requirement for an active use to be wrapped around that parking structure for the majority of the facade along the street. So the visibility of that structure is very, very limited. We're also implementing a parking maximum. So I think that that's a very important step for the city that has not been done yet in that there's a limitation on the amount of parking that is going to be allowed as part of a project here. And so there's no minimum parking requirement that's consistent with other downtown zoning districts. But there is a parking maximum. And then just a subtle nuance here in terms of the way parking floor area is calculated that is incorporated now into the way the standard tower floor area is calculated. So in the downtown core, parking doesn't count against you in terms of in terms of your overall floor area. But here in these districts, it will finally some other quick notes on permitted uses in the parking maximums. So the permitted uses in this district are what you would imagine for a downtown type of district, a very wide range of residential and commercial and entertainment types of uses. They generally follow the current allowed uses within Arapahoe Square. We did make the additions in the center district, the most intense district of a hospital use and also the arena stadium use. We wanted to make sure that those were both available to to future projects potentially in the Central District. And then in terms of the parking maximums, most of those are based on a total floor area calculation. But in terms of residential, we based that on the number of bedrooms, we we wanted to make sure that we were not somehow disincentivizing larger residential units if we were to set a parking maximum that was strictly set on the number of units. So we we are digging in a little bit deeper and basing that on the number of bedrooms. And another key important aspect is that the bicycle parking requirements here, the minimum requirements are approximately double what we see elsewhere in the city. So we're really trying to move the needle in terms of focusing the development in this area and within the zone districts away away from the car and more towards bicycle and other active modes of transportation. I think that's excellent. Excellent. Mr. Barge. All right. So I'll shift gears for just a moment. I'm a barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development. I apologize. I wasn't able to identify myself on the earlier question. As Christopher mentioned, this is a really important aspect of the system to implement the plan for this area that the the plan amendment for CPV or area says more about affordable housing than other any other area plan that's that's been adopted, to our knowledge, in Denver. And one of the important concepts in the plan is that this this great higher density active downtown neighborhood, that the value that's created by that development potential through the through the zoning be leveraged to obtain specific community benefits. Denver has a lot of needs. The primary one, you know, that we're all talking about now is affordable housing. And so we've proposed a system that's linked to the zoning that would share the value of that increased development potential by requiring additional affordable housing for the projects that that use that use that and that they meet the plan objectives for affordable housing at low and moderate income levels and to ensure a variety of unit types and sizes and that there be affordable housing that's for sale and for rent, so that the zoning sets a five storey height threshold beyond which these special requirements would apply. And so there's no special requirements for development up to five storeys. But in at least two of the districts, there's a lot of development potential beyond five storeys. And the special requirements would would then apply. The way that it's set up is that that five storey threshold is in the in the zoning text amendment and that allows from seven stories of additional height in the transition district, which has a 12 storey height limit to potentially unlimited additional height with with a lot of design requirements in the other two districts. And then the Municipal Code Amendment, which will be before you as a separate vote, then provides the specific housing requirements that would apply when using the incentive height beyond five storeys. And the way that it's set up, the basic structure is similar to that of the thirty-eighths and Blake incentive overlay that city council approved earlier this year that ties back into the citywide linkage fee system and sets requirements a little differently depending on project type. So for residential or residential mixed use projects that are that are primarily residential, it would actually require the provision of on site affordable units, whereas the citywide system says that's just an option or you can pay a fee in this system, residential projects would actually have to provide units and then provides a higher level of unit requirement for the square footage that's in the incentive high area for primarily commercial projects. There would still be multiple options available, including the option to pay a fee or to build units. But either way, the requirement based on the square footage of height or the square footage that's above the five storey threshold would be much higher than the citywide requirements. And we'll run through some examples and then a requirement that all large phased projects that will define in just a moment that are using incentive height, height above five stories, that they actually meet those incentive requirements by preparing an affordable housing plan that would be approved. And I'll give you some details on that in just a moment. But first, some examples of how the basic incentive system would operate. So this is a really simple example. It's a it's a building that doesn't use incentive height, just a five storey building. So on the left, that building built anywhere in the city would have the option to pay a linkage fee based on the 75,000 square foot residential total. The fee would be about $116,000, or it would have the option to build units instead. In this case, the requirement would be just one unit. And so just for example, in if approved and one of the new central Flat Valley area districts, the requirement would be exactly the same because this building isn't using incentive. Fine. However, in this example, we now have a 12 storey building that is using incentive height. So if this building on the left were somewhere else in the city, let's say. See our Max 12 zone district where it was just operating under the citywide linkage fee system, would have the option to pay a linkage fee of about $280,000, or if it exercised the option to build units, that would be three units. However, in the one of the new Central Valley area districts, the special requirements would apply. Number one, it's a it's a primarily residential building. And this example, 100% residential. So the fee option doesn't exist. There would only be a unit option. And then the way the number of required units is calculated is to first take the the citywide requirement on all of the square footage in the building. So that's the three units, same as the example on the left. And then the special incentive requirements based on the square footage above the fifth floor are a multiple of six times of the citywide unit requirement that generates 11 affordable units. So that gets added to the three units for a total unit requirement of 14 units. So just to summarize on the left, if that 12 storey building were built somewhere else in the city, $280,000 or three units on the right, if it were built in a CPV zone district, there would be a requirement for units and it would be 14 units in this example. And then one more example is a big mixed use project that is in this example, primarily residential, although there's also a hotel component. So if built elsewhere in the city, this this large project would have the option to pay a linkage fee of over $1.2 million or build 15 affordable units . And in one of the DC PV zoned districts, it's primarily residential. So again, it would have to provide the affordable housing units on site or in the immediate district, and that would be calculated by taking those 15 units, the citywide requirement.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFQ AP19-133 and award contracts to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Science Consultants, of Irvine, CA and Twining, Inc., of Long Beach, CA, for as-needed construction materials testing and inspection services for various development projects at Long Beach Airport, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $2,300,000, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contracts, including any necessary amendments. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_07072020_20-0631

I'm 20. Report from Long Beach Airport. Recommendation to award two contracts for as needed construction material, materials testing and inspection services for various development projects at Long Beach Airport. An aggregate amount not to exceed 2,300,000 District five. Do you have a motion? Can I get a second, please? Okay. I have got some of your anger. Can I get a second, please? And Councilman's in Dallas is the second. Please go ahead and do a roll call vote. District one, district two. District two. District three i. District four. I. District five. District five. District six. I. District seven. By. District eight. By. District nine. I motion carries. Random quirk and I had Dave Shoe go on for that item as well. There was no other comment, right, for that item. No. There are no public speakers for that item.

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees for Fire Department Services and Permits. (Fire 10032220)

AlamedaCC_10052021_2021-1188

It is a public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending Master P Resolution 121912 Revised fees for fire department services and permits. Thank you. And who is presenting this one? Mr. Levitt. I know, but help me out. Who is. Presenting? Okay. I'm sorry. We're promoting the interim fire chief right now. Sorry. All right. Remember the fight? Got it. Okay. Okay. Ready when you are. Hello. Interim chief is on Beck. You're still there. Good morning or good. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And Council rookies on Beck Interim Fire Chief. So I don't know that there's a presentation to be had here. I'm here to answer questions, but I can certainly fill in for anything that you or any questions that you have and you have a report in front of you. There's previous history with this. As you all know, it was in front of you in July and it got you know, it got extended to this evening. Okay. Listen, my answer or what can I answer for you? Sure. Counsel, do we have any I should ask Madam Kirk, do we have public speakers on this item? Do you not? All right, then. I'm closing. Come on, just raise your hand. I'm not closing. Public comment. Let's hear a public comment and then come back to council questions and discussions, if we could. So let's go ahead and hear from our public speaker. We have two now, Beth Kenny. All right. Good evening, Speaker Kenny. How do you think? I am hoping to. Learn a little bit more about these fees. I am concerned about whether they will be. Applied to people who. Are getting services through the alternative response team that will be based out of the fire department and because that will be a real barrier to service. So I just want to make sure that. These fees are. Not being applied. Oh. Speaker Kenny, you cut out there. Madam Clerk, is she. Are they still with us? Yeah. I'm not sure. We could go to the next speaker and ring. Let's try that. Speaker, can you back? Okay. Yeah. The next speaker is Jennifer Rakowski. Good evening, Speaker Rakowski. Hi. Thank you. Counsel. I would like to echo what best was starting to say as we transition more services over to the fire. Department. And we reimagine the mission. Of the fire department. I think we need to keep in mind these and the impact of the fees. On our most vulnerable members of our community. I urge you also to look with a racial equity lens and to some of the comments about city fees that the racial equity task forces highlighted. And even as these reports highlight, there's a lack of transparency about how much of the fees are recovered he needs to pay. I've heard reports from members of the community where they initially attempted reimbursement through their health care provider and if they rejected a out of service payment. So whether it's hardship provisions, increased transparency and looking at fees as it relates to the expanded mission of the fire department, I think there is. A. Whiff that the resolution. Is silent on. That the council should take up. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. We'll try Speaker Kenney again and see if she can speak. Yeah, I think we've been having Internet issues. There you are. Hi. Hi. Thank you. Sorry, I'm not sure where I got cut off, but basically I was just saying I want to. Make sure that these fees. Don't apply to the alternative response model that's going to be based out of the fire department. And I do think that we need to look at these fees and how, as Speaker Koski was saying. They are collected. What portion are actually getting passed. On to individuals and is there. Income based. Considerations? Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Deborah mendoza. Good evening, Speaker Mendoza. Yeah. Good evening. I also want to. Share my concerns when I when I. Heard that. There potentially could be a fee to those who receive services. I'm just very opposed to that. When I worked. With victims of crime, a lot of times I've seen situations where victims are charged for an ambulance that was brought dispatched for their for their own care. And we don't need that at all. And especially when. We consider the people that are going to be. Receiving these services most likely are marginalized, our. Most vulnerable members of our community. Right now, this whole state of California has just eliminated fees for, you know, juveniles. Who are facing the criminal. Justice system. We do not need to have a share of this. Costs go. To the people who are. Receiving these services, especially with this with this national model, do not do not fit the bill to the people who will be receiving services. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Melody Montgomery. Good evening, Speaker Montgomery. Good evening again. I was going to say a lot of things, but Deborah and Jennifer pretty much said everything that I wanted to say. So I'm just going to let other people speak and ask you two to keep in mind what they said about. Our most vulnerable. Being. Charged in their most vulnerable moment. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Our final speaker is savannah chair. Good evening, speaker. Chair. Hi. I think it's also already been said, like I think Melanie brought up. I was just going to support the comments that that that then Jennifer made. And I just wonder if this is a little bit of a piece of the pilot program that may have gone overlooked. I mean, because it's a pilot and it's new, it may not have been considered. So just to put this out there that, you know, it won't make a lot of sense to ask someone in crisis to pay a fee for a program that was designed to help that person in crisis. So it's difficult, I think, just to I want to point out that the public may not understand and I didn't understand this until I looked into it a bit more, that the kind of paramedic aspect of fire service is different than like the firefighting. And so if you get like an ambulance transport or you have like a a first responder, like an EMT, you know, I don't know, help you with something like a medical situation that, you know, that is different than them coming in, like putting out a fire in your kitchen or something so that some of the fees may be attached to that. And that, I think was maybe confusing to the public and could be further confusing for people utilizing the services of the Mental Health Alternative Response Program. So yeah, I just echo what everyone said and hopefully we're not going to be charging people for that service. Thanks. Thank you. Further speakers, Madam Clerk. There are none. Okay. With that, I'm going to close public comment on item 70 and we'll take it back to council. Councilor comments, questions councilor for her. SPENCER Thank you, Mayor. So I'd like to ask. All right. Acting Chief. Interim, maybe. I'm sorry. My apologies. I get it wrong all that time. The public comments in regards to the ambulance, how that works, and any other of the comments that you like to respond to. Well, first, I think it'd be appropriate to state that this doesn't relate to the Crisis Mobile Response Unit. We're not recommending fees for that service. This is a new pilot program. And this these these fees are not related to that. These are existing fees that we're asking for just a an adjustment to the fee structure. And these are for fire prevention services. So when our fire prevention officers go out and do inspections of new buildings and, you know, systems that are being installed to ensure that they're done properly, and they're also for our ambulance transport program. And these both already have fees attached to them. So these are essentially adjustments to the fees. Go ahead, Councilor Spencer. So on the attachment, I think it's like a seven page attachment. It has multiple columns is the adopted fee. The current fee and then the initial fee. Can you explain your different columns here? Where is the current emergency adjusted fee? Sure. So I'm sorry. I can. But I just want to make sure that we're in the same in the same place in the document. So you're. Are you referring to the. The the part where we're talking about the fee change over time through year one, two, three and four. Is that what you're talking about? I was actually looking at the resolution. Oh, okay. On there, it states that staff is recommended that the percentage of the cost recovery be increased from 48 to 57% and the fully burdened hourly rate be increased from 150 to 180. But then on the exhibit A, it has multiple columns, adopted fee, initial fee, minimum, and I don't think it has the current amount. But do you have something that shows that the current amount is then what the request is? Sure. I actually there's in the council report. There is. There are a couple of charts. So let me go back to probably the back up for just a minute and go give you a little background on this. So we, as you know, and I think you've seen it in the report, we've had a study conducted. We did that in 2000, late 2018. It was completed January of 2009, and it was forwarded and provided to council in March of 2019. And at that time, the study recommended that we enact a four year plan to raise the fees in our fire prevention office, fees for the various services that we provide from the current rate at that time in 2019 two over a four year period, so that we could go from the 28% recovery of our cost to potentially 57% over four years. So in 2018 19 budget year, the contractor estimated that we were collecting about 28% of the cost or recovering approximately 28% of the cost to provide this service. And the recommendation was to raise that over time, over four years to 57%, which still makes us one of the lowest cost recoveries in the county among the municipal or municipal fire departments. So the first step was in an act was enacted in 2019, in that budget year. And we went from the 28% that we were recovering of our costs to 48%. That was the recommendation it was in. It was enacted. And so currently we're at 48%. The second year or the second year of the proposed four year plan was due to be last year, July of 2020. And it was decided by the staff recommended that and and it was and the city manager agreed that we would not enact the the next step, which would have been to raise it from 48% cost recovery to 57% cost recovery. So now the next step would be 57% cost recovery from 48. So I know that's a little confusing, but our fees were the lowest in the county effectively. And so they recommended that over time we'd move them or into the middle. So we were at 28%. They moved up to 48%. The recommendation now is to move it to 57% of our cost. So that's the cost recovery. So it's still there is still some cost to the city for providing these services. But the recommendation is to. To charge the customer more in this case. These are typically the contractors that we provide services to to inspect other projects, including their new buildings, their fire protection systems, their plans that they put forth to be approved before they build. So related to fire the fire components of the built. So that's what we're recommending. And I appreciate that. And this is we swore in firefighters to do this to do these inspections. We do. We use both suppression personnel on on shift that some of those or those crew members go out and they do inspections during their their daily routine. But we also have specialists that work in our fire prevention office. And those folks do the more technical inspections, new buildings, the first suppression systems that are being designed into the buildings, including the the the the plans. Thank you. And my recollection, I'll ask I'm not sure who this question goes to, but my recollection was when this came just before there was discussion about using non sworn firefighters for some of these inspections and saving money for the city as well as the consumer. Can anyone answer the other cities use non sworn firefighters to do any of these inspections? Well, I can certainly answer that. So it was a recommended by council and the fire department actually looked into the prospect of doing that. We attempted to hire civilian inspectors over the last number of years, and I think we had an outreach. It was at least four different times, and we were unable to get qualified civilian inspectors. And I could you know, I could give you my opinion as to why that occurred. But the end result was we just were unable to coax civilian inspectors to come in, you know, to the fire department for these for these jobs. As far as other departments, other departments in the area do I know used some civilian inspectors when we were attempting to. Hire civilian inspectors. Several years ago, we when we were having difficulty, we talked to some of the other fire departments because, you know, they had used them and they said that they were having trouble also. And again, it was just a matter of the availability of folks that are trained to do this kind of work that are in civilian life. So we just we struck out, I think it was four different outreaches that we did. Thank you. And a lot of these charges go to businesses for the inspections. Do we have an idea of how our businesses are faring, if this would be a good time to charge them more for the inspections? Because and again, I'm not sure who should be answering this, but it's my recollection that because of COVID, the city has actually been out there trying to support our businesses and keeping them afloat. So I'm I'm not sure what feedback we've received, if any. If you've reached out to the business communities to see if they think they are in a position to pay these higher inspection costs or if they're not. As we've heard many speakers say, we're still in a pandemic and that they're really not there yet. Thank you. I'm going to refer that question, Councilmember Spencer, to the city manager, because he was certainly at the chambers presentation this last Friday about economic recovery in general and then specific to Alameda. And he and I would also add assistant city manager Jerry Bowden to the extent he wants to chime in there in pretty close touch with our business community, I guess we don't have anyone still from community development, but this is the city manager and assistant city manager. Mr. Levitt. For sure. Thank you, Mayor. As he I have to I want to say that, yes, that that's been a consideration. And so the fee that is being presented tonight was actually a fee that was increase. That was initially to go in in the summer of 2020. We actually at that time recommended deferring that fee for a year because of the pandemic. So we are bringing it back. But we would recognize if you decide not to increase, it is still below what the cost of the services we were to. Even though we'd be a year and delayed on the schedule, we were starting to try to to do the schedules. So even with this fee going in place, it would still be one year behind where where the initial schedule was on the initial study. But if you wanted to defer one more year, I'm open to that discussion to. So I appreciate that answer. But that wasn't I think really my question was I haven't heard from Robert today, for instance, or other business communities the Chamber had. Is your outreach to them specifically that they support this at this time, or would they? Are they letting city know or, you know, what is that about? Is the outreach been where where are they on this issue? We haven't done it. I don't believe the fire department's done specific outreach to those to the business community. This was on the agenda in the summer and it's been back. I think that they are they are facing stresses. I think you're correct. And we tried to look at that, but we also tried to lower the fact that we had deferred it for a year. And so so we brought it forward for consideration, but also with the option that you could defer one more year. Thank you. And then also in regards to the ambulance fees, we have had comments during prior when we were talking about, for instance, the policing issue and subcommittees of we had some people call in and speak to the victims. Someone from the public call over a victim issue and then an ambulance comes and then the victim actually receives the bill for the ambulance and they may or may not have insurance that covers that. So but how does the city handle that situation? Sit down. Mr. Levitt or our interim chief, Sabet. Because I would ask the interim chief to answer that because those bills go through the fire department. Sure, I can answer that. So first of all, I want to make sure I understand the question so we respond on an incident and someone is Bill that is a victim as opposed and perhaps they didn't call us, but so far, I understand that correctly. First of all, when the fire department responds, as, you know, the fire department provides a. A first responder service. That's our fire engine. We also have an ambulance that we provide a transport service. So that's an additional service. Most folks understand that they pay taxes to support police and fire services. The fire department provides us first responder services as part of those costs. Our ambulance is an additional service that is atypical. It's not traditional for the fire departments to provide, but the fire department, the city of our midst provided it for. I think it's 37 years now and I think it's an excellent service and we're very proud of it. So when we respond, if we can potentially transport someone and that's where we charge them an ambulance transport fee. Now, currently, the fire department transports more than 4000 people a year, and we certainly don't recover the cost of providing all of that service. But at the end, when we I guess maybe to get to the point, I would suggest that the when someone is billed, if there's an issue with the building, we're always very mindful of a person's ability to pay. We have, you know, obviously sometimes folks ask for hardships and we are currently working on a policy and it's actually going to be coming forward to you probably in about two months with the new fire chief. But we're internally working on that right now to update our hardship policy. But we always look at that and we take that into consideration. You know, a person's ability to pay. Thank you. And, Mr. Levitt, you wanted to say something, please. If I could just add that the ambulance fee is consistent with Alameda County. They set the fee cap, and we we keep our fees consistent with Alameda County. What Alameda County sets. If I'm correct. Right on that. Yes. But is this a matter of what percentage for going after collecting? Well, again, I as city manager said the county establishes the the fees that the providers can charge. So in the case of the US and the other fire departments, I can't speak for the private provider, but I do. I have close connections with the the other fire departments. And, you know, the fire departments are charged. We we charge with the county will allow us to charge and we we don't capture our costs by any means to provide the service. Okay. Councilmember Harry Spencer. So I am concerned as we had speakers today, and I know you are too in regards to figuring out this hardship, how we address the issue of the people that cannot afford to pay or cannot afford to pay as much as this bill is. So I look forward to having that policy come back. Thanks. Absolutely. And it is in the works. If I could just add one thing. You know, we do have a lot of our patients that we transport in Alameda are Medicare patients. So that's a large number of our are transport patients. And although there's a maximum amount that the county will allow us to charge those patients because their Medicare patients are under the Medicare rules. So they you know, they're not charged that same rate. It's just that's what Medicare requires. Okay. Councilmember Harry Spencer. And actually, in one minute, I'm going to need to make a motion because it's almost 11:00. But do you have something you really brief or should I? Well, just real quick. So the Medicare maybe you want to answer it later. The Medicare patients, do they still have to pay something out of pocket? I don't know what the policy is. Things. Typically, no. Okay, Counsel, we have 10 minutes before it's 11:00. 11 minutes before it's 11:00. And so we have to make a decision about how much farther after 11:00 we will continue this meeting. We will finish this item because we're on it. But whether we take anything else, whether we decide to end at a specific time, takes a motion and it must be passed this for council members. So and if not, we just end as soon as this item is over. Anybody want to make a motion? Well, even Howard wants to make a motion. I take it to mean that when this item is over, well, that counts over a day. So, fanclub, cars were designed. That did other news. Hi. Yes, I'll move that. We continue until 12 a.m. and that we just continue as we move along and wherever we land at 12 a.m. is wherever we land. Is there a second to that motion? I am not saying a second. So that motion dies for lack of a second. Is there any other emotion? I am not seeing any hands up. So I will say that we are going to finish seven D and call it a night. Okay. All right. So where were we? Counsel for her. Spencer. Well, I'd like to make a motion that we actually not adjust the fees at this time that we leave the masses. Is there something to that motion? Vice mayor of L.A.. I'll go ahead and second that. All right, let's have a discussion. Councilwoman, an expert. I think I saw your hand going up. I was simply going to make a motion, sir. Okay. All right. Well, any discussion or should we just take a vote? I will I will go ahead and say that I will support this motion. I, I was at that luncheon last week and we heard from the economist of this recovery is not a matter of flipping a switch on and off. Our businesses are recovering slowly. People's incomes are recovering slowly. There's a lot of economic uncertainty. I don't think this is the right time to take this action. Okay. Vice mayor of L.A.. So your hand up and then you. Councilmember de SAG. Yeah. I think our fees I know our fees are low relative to the rest of the county, but I think timing is really important. I'm just concerned that we're putting a lot of money out there in terms of housing, keeping people housed and helping our small businesses, helping helping them stay open. So I just want to be thoughtful about the timing of this and understanding that, yes, our fees do need to increase. I would like to have staff certainly come back with this at the appropriate time. I think especially looking at when we see indicators that that, you know, the we're through the pandemic, for one, or that that we see economic recovery happening. And I understand that there are cost implications. I'm not saying that we waive the fees. I just think that we. Should. Should hold off on increasing for right now. I agree. I don't think we should burden our small businesses any more than they already are. I'm Counselor Kalahari Desert. I think I saw your hand up. Yeah. Great. When the matter came before council in March 5th, 2019, I didn't support the matter in a range of votes that were raised. So actually, to be consistent with the March 5th, 2019, I'll be voting no. Okay. All right, Mr. Leavitt, you got your hand up. Go ahead and unmute. So I definitely understand the emotion regarding the inspection fees. I understand and appreciate that on the ambulance fees. And because some of those are tied to federal funding where such as many Medicare, what they pay, I would ask that you at least defer that I am and let us go research that further and bring that the ambulance fee, maybe segregate the two and have us bring that one back. Because Alameda County as a whole is is for the most part raising those fees. And we would be below the rest of the county at that point. So I would certainly welcome you to bring that item back. Mr. Levitt, in the the staff report, it simply says that on July 14th, 2021, the Amity County Emergency Medical Services Agency notified the city that the county had authorized an increase subject to city council approval of the city's user fee for ambulance transport services. I didn't see anything about a loss of federal funds, so by all means, when this item comes back, I know the Council would appreciate having all the information we need to make an informed decision. Anything further counts. Alex White. Can I ask a quick clarification? I believe the loss of federal funds is through the lack of collecting the full fee because we can collect them. So it's not other funds, it's just since we wouldn't be increasing the fee, we wouldn't be making that differential on Medi-Cal or Medicare. Right. As far as Medicare markup. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Vice mayor of L.A.. I'm just curious how long it'll take the city manager to review that. I'm fine bifurcating this. You know, if I'm the second or I guess the the the amendment would need to go through the maker of the motion. But perhaps we can we can bifurcate the vote so that on the on the ambulance fees we can give we can just give further direction to staff to come back with that information. Okay. So we're not approving anything tonight, but we're giving direction, okay. To come to come back with the information. I mean, if there's if we can get the full reimbursement, that's fine. I just I would want more information before making a decision about the increase. Over a course over her. Spencer, you're the maker of the motion. So. So I appreciate that. In fact. So this is coming to us to increase the rate. But if we're not going to do that at this time, I'm not sure that we actually need a motion to keep it as is. And then staff will come back at any time in regards to addressing this issue or I don't know, in regards to the Medicare, if we can have it increased for that purpose at this time so that we receive that as much as we can from that for the city. But then in regards to people that don't have Medicare and that they would then have to pay more themselves for those patients, what do you what is the proposal on that or was that all look like? Well, and I'll just chime in that I'm concerned. I appreciate the oral information we're being given. So it wasn't if it's in the staff report or somewhere and I missed it, please pointed out to me. But I, I think my feeling would be the better course is to bring it back. But Vice Mayor, you were you were proposing a kind of a compromise. Yeah, I think, you know, I. I think if we can bifurcate the vote, vote down because I don't want this the fees to come back necessarily on the inspections. Right. So I if we could separate that out. And then on the on the second part for the fees relative to the ambulance, just not take any action tonight . But that way we would allow staff, for instance, if they have the information, they could get it available for the next meeting. We could perhaps continue that conversation if time is of the essence, maybe not to the next meeting, but to the meeting after it, rather than vote it down and then have to have somebody from the majority of the council. And happy to accept that. Okay. Okay. So do you want to restate the motion just so we make sure the clerk has it and all of us are following along? Vice Mayor, if you could just restate the motion as you amended it, because I think the motion is amendable. So we would be that motion would be to not increase the fees for building inspections at this time, but that would be the first motion. The second motion, and perhaps the clerk or the city attorney. Is why interruption? I think it's inspections and plan reviews. Both. Yes, yes. Okay. And then and perhaps, you know, and this is where I think some clarity from either the city attorney or the city clerk would be welcome. But to either continue the remainder, the the fees on the ambulance to a future meeting or to just give direction to staff at this time for more information. And to have that come back to us. I think is either. Excuse me, I see. Mr. Levitt. Go ahead. Mr. Levitt. I think the first motion if you just do the first motion, then we can bring the motion back. I don't even believe we need to continue it. You could just not have a motion on the ambulances currently and then we can bring that action back. That's all it. And that's consistent with what I was requesting. Okay. I'm fine with that, if that's fine for the original maker of the motion. Yes. Okay. So motion to to not increase the permit and fair review and inspection fees. Okay. Is it, Madam Clerk, that's okay with you? Yes, definitely. That's perfect. Okay. So we had a motion by Councilmember Harry Spencer. It's been seconded by Vice Mayor Vella. Any further discussion council seeing then maybe we have a roll call cover. Please remember Jason. No. Harris. Spencer. I knocked. Right. Hi, Lola. So as the Ashcroft. I. Met Kerry supporter one. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Chief Sun back and firefighter Hern. I'm sorry. I don't know your your rank. Thank you very much. He's with. Is he? He is our fire marshal. So he's he's a division chief. But to. Visit you. Will someone provide clarification to the department for what you'd like us to bring back? That's all I ask, because so we can bring it back in the future. Because City Manager. Clare right now. City manager will be in touch. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone on this item. Okay, so then let's see. We can, Madam Clerk, we can just. You help us out the. Anything there. I think you've reached your 11:00 stop time and you've completed the item, so I think you can simply go to adjournment. Okay. So what I am going to do, though, to adjourn. Sorry. And just reaching for there. I had it. I did want to adjourn this evening's meeting in memory of a well known long time Alameda resident Ashley Jones, who passed away on September 25th of this year, just last month at the age of 90.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2530 Xavier Street in Sloan Lake. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2530 Xavier Street from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-4-20.

DenverCityCouncil_05112020_20-0106

Six eyes counts below 105 has failed councilmembers CdeBaca Tobacco, will you please put Carlsberg one of six on the floor? I move that council bill 20 dash 106 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you very much. It has been moved. Can I get a second? Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 106 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Okay. I am Libby Adams with associate planner, with community planning and Development, and I'm here to present the proposed rezoning at 2538 Xavier from USC to UCC one. The application is located in Council District one in the Swan Lake neighborhood. The property is located just north of Sloan's Lake Park, along Xavier Street, south of 26th Avenue. It's approximately 6370 square feet and is currently occupied by a single unit home. The properties in the Urban Single Unit C Zone District and the applicant is proposing to rezone to urban single units C one to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. As stated previously, the existing zoning is urban single unit C, which allows for an urban house on a minimum zone of 5500 square feet. The site is occupied by a single unit home. As mentioned, it's surrounded by mostly other single unit homes with some more two unit uses. As you get closer to Sheridan and then commercial uses along Shared Boulevard. The existing home is on the right side of the screen. And then there's another single family home that's across the street, and then a duplex a block over. So the map amendment was complete at the end of October and a postcard notifying property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on November 1st. However, staff noticed the information on notice to register. Neighborhood organizations and council members was not emailed when the postcard was mailed. So upon noticing this, staff sent an informational notice on January 13th, 2020. So today we have received one comment from from a neighboring property owner who is opposed to the request. So the Denver zoning code has five criteria, which I'll go over. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans, of which there are three. Comprehensive Plan 2040. Blueprint Denver. And then Housing and Inclusive Denver. For the comprehensive plan. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies in the Comprehensive Plan 2040, but I'll just go over to so this MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in the area. Blueprint Denver as this as urban neighborhood context. So these areas are characterized by one and two unit residential uses with multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas embedded throughout block patterns are generally regular with alley access and there's a high degree of walkability. Blueprint identifies this property as a low residential place type. These place types are predominantly single and two unit residential uses an accessory. Accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Exterior Street is designated as a local street, which are most often characterized by residential uses. The growth area and blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city and these are areas where we anticipate to see 10% of employment growth in 20% of housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Policy four recommends diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units at all residential areas. And then for housing an inclusive Denver. This encourages expanding the development of accessory dwelling units to incentivize affordable and mixed use housing and as a wealth building tool for low and moderate income homeowners. So the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint Denver and Housing and Inclusive Denver because it will expand housing options and allow the development of an accessory dwelling unit. Staff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria the rezoning. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. And the proposed rezoning or the staff finds there is a justifying circumstance for this MAP amendment with the newly adopted vision and blueprint Denver that does call for accessory dwelling units in all residential areas. And lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the USC one zoned district. Therefore, staff finds the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with the review criteria and recommends approval. That concludes staff presentation. Thank you very much for the presentation and if you stay close in case we get questions, but we do have one speaker. So if you could leave that area free for just a second. Council has not received any written comments on Council Bill 106, but we do have one speaker signed up this evening. Jesse Pearce. Go ahead. The remaining members of council. My name is Jesse Perez and I ran for city council At-Large last year, got almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running again in 2023 to be your next mayor. And I'll represent for Denver Homicide, a low black star symbol for self defense, positive action for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High North. Hmm. This one here. Okay. So I was originally against this because it's not inclusive of what this neighborhood was. This is another area of town that's been rapidly gentrified, and I don't think the culture is being preserved in the least. So based off of that, I was a no. But seeing that this is obsessed with dwelling unit, I think I can be a reluctant. Yes, possibly. I just want to know what this is going to be used for. Is this for a family member? If the asking could please answer the question, are you going to be running this space out? It's just for a family member aging or something of that extent. I would just like to know that and what the AMA level for this unit would be. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on one or six Councilmember Flint. Thank you. Hi. It's hard to tell who's speaking for masks on. Is this an owner occupied property? It is currently not. The applicant is planning to demolish, rebuild the existing home and move back on the property before the ADU is in place. Okay, so the house that's there now that we saw in the in the presentation will be scraped. Correct. And a new house will be built in. An ADA will be built in the back. I believe that is the plan. Okay. There's no requirement because one of the criteria is that 2 to 1 of our goals is to increase home ownership. There's is there a commitment that the owner will move back and occupy this as an owner occupied site? Is there a requirement to do that? Yes. So when they go for their zoning permit to get the accessory dwelling unit through development services, they will have to show that they do live on the property that is within our Denver zoning code. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I, I guess I'm misunderstanding. And maybe it's because District ten is a different district, you know, different flavor. My thought behind having it use was to protect against scrapes, was to preserve some of the historic character. And again, maybe my knowledge is skewed because there are a lot of historic buildings and districts and District ten. And so I was the lens that I've used. But is that not one of the express reasons why we should have to use or why we should allow or why we would allow it to use? Yeah. So typically in order to if you want to preserve buildings, usually our route is a conservation overlay or something of that nature. 80 use, I think are a better way to allow people to stay in their homes and that could be an existing home or stay on their property. And this applicant is actually proposing to scrap their house because it is not ADA accessible. And so that is their purpose for doing that. Well, props on accessibility. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. I don't see any other double checking questions. All right. Uh. The public hearing for House Bill 106 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilmember Sandoval, would you like to go first? This one's in your district. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. So to answer your question, Councilman Hines, we in Council District one asked that CPD direct all applicants to my office, and they're pretty good about following up. And so my land use planner, Naomi and myself met with Jeffrey, Jeff McCaffrey. He is wheelchair bound. And so he is redesigning his house to be ADA accessible. Right now, currently, he has a hard time living there because of it's not accessible to his wheelchair. So in that vein, he decided that he wanted to do Aidoo in the back where he could live. I think he's going to actually make the ADA 80 you a wheelchair accessible as well? Ada accessible. So he came to our office. We advised him to meet with this Lone Lake Citizen group, like I do everybody, and that R.A. does not take a position on rezonings. So we asked him to reach out to his neighbors. And we got one letter of opposition, because the area around Sloan's Lake has changed from one unit to two unit on the South Side, and redevelopment really occurred. So people were are nervous about accessory dwelling units going in there. Whereas I'm not I feel like accessory dwelling units are a way to preserve housing stock in northwest Denver. And I've mentioned it before, but I'll go on record again saying that I'm going to be rezoning an entire neighborhood, 1400 doors coming up soon to allow accessory dwelling units and now systematically go through all northwest Denver doing that . So we create equity instead of creating about land values higher that have Aidoo zoning and not. So I would ask that my colleagues support this. And I'll just make a comment for the next one, if I can, so that we could speed things up or that I. Think save it for that one. Just so this on the official record of that one. You. Okay. Thank you. But thanks for attempting to speed things up for Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilmember Sandoval, for your comments. Thank you, Applicant four four for commenting on ADA accessibility. I use a wheelchair obviously, for mobility. And and so I totally recognize that it is hard to find a unit that is wheelchair accessible unless it is purpose built for accessibility. So that totally is is something that is is an important consideration also to councilmember percent of walls point. If you want to go after that neighborhood in 1400 units and and legalize it use citywide I'm on board I've said that every other time that we've had any ADA discussion and I was wondering if there was something different in this discussion that was additional information. But but that doesn't affect my consideration. I believe the area should be legalized citywide. This is yet another example of where I'll be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Sandoval. Thank you staff for your work and attorney's office. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. And I miss anybody. All right. Thank you to our awesome staff for putting this report together. I think this clearly meets the criteria, and I'll be supporting it this evening. Madam Secretary. Call. Senator Black CdeBaca, a friend. All right. Gilmore. Herndon, my hands high. Cashmere High. Kenny Ortega, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I council president. All right. Madam Secretary. Police force voting. Announce the results. 3939 as comfortably a105 has passed. All right, council member to back, will you please put council 107 on the floor.

Recommendation to request City Manager to provide to the City Council a review of the City's Unlawful Harassment Complaints policy and procedures, how city employees are informed of how they can file a complaint, a breakdown of the complaints the City has received over the past 5 years, and to reexamine the existing policies and make recommendations on any possible changes to the policy to ensure it is victim friendly.

LongBeachCC_12122017_17-1139

Okay. So it'll be, it'll be item 20 then public comment and consent. I don't know, item 20. That's not the item. You wanted to name Mr. Aston, because it's not quite 19. It's just 20. It's item 20. Go ahead. What do you think? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And obviously, I want to thank all my my colleagues also for signing on to this very timely and important issue facing workplaces throughout our country today. In the past two months, the nation has seen a transformational moment and how we address the magnitude and pervasiveness of the problem of inappropriate sexual contact in the workplace. Numerous high profile reports of harassment and abuse in fields such as entertainment, media, hospitality and government as well as through the MeToo social media campaign, have prompted many organizations to reexamine their policies and procedures to make sure that we promote a safe work environment. The victims of unlawful harassment feel comfortable coming forward and reporting. This is about ensuring that we are fostering here in the city of Long Beach a work environment and that we do not. A respectful work environment. And that we do not tolerate an abuse of power or a lack of respect or professionalism. I would like to thank our Director of Human Resources, Alice BASKAS, for for being here this evening and would ask that she provide us a brief overview of our existing policy and procedures regarding unlawful harassment or sexual harassment. Thank you. All. Good evening, Mayor. And City Council members and the City of Long Beach has several policies regarding a EEO related to unlawful discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Those policies are posted online and they're also provided to city employees when they're onboarded as new employees. We also provide mandated sexual harassment training to our supervisors and managers. And also employees can file a complaint at five different places if they can file a complaint informally with their supervisors or managers, with the EEO counselor at their department, or directly with the H.R. department, EEO citywide counselor. They can also file complaints with outside agencies such as the State DFA or the federal EEOC. They can file those directly with those agencies. Employees can also file complaints or lodge a complaint with the city auditor. And if that happens, those complaints are then referred over to H.R. for investigation. I think I covered basically what is a just a high level overview. And if there are any specific questions, I'm happy to cover that. Okay. Follow up with a couple of quick questions. Does the city's. Policy currently address bullying and intimidation in the workplace, whether or not it's due to a progressed protected class? So in broad terms, our policies do cover harassment in the workplace. So if an employee came to us alleging harassment in the workplace, we would investigate it. And that also is covered in the state policies. And is our. Is your department currently looking at doing any ways to provide any sort of additional avenues for victims to report harassment, such as a. Hotline? So we are currently exploring the feasibility of of user utilizing a hotline type of avenue for individuals to file complaints. I recently came back from a H.R. conference last week and talked to my colleagues from the City of Los Angeles who are also looking at that. And we're going to be collaborating together and looking at the feasibility of having such a such a process for individuals to file complaints using a hotline or a one 800 number. And how can you explain how such complaints are investigated? Are they done internally or are they done by outside investigators? Yes. So there are various different types of investigations. We are policies called for and we prefer that complaints to the extent possible can be resolved informally with the supervisor and manager. However, if that's not possible, we will conduct a formal investigation. If someone wants to file a formal complaint. We will use either inside or outside neutral investigators to conduct an investigation, including conducting an intake with the complainant and also interviewing any witnesses, reviewing any documentation. And we also consult with the city attorney's office in conducting our investigations as we are progressing through the investigation or need assistance. Okay. Thank you. And I just. Wanted to just address some some of the comments that that were made earlier. And, you know, in case anybody wants to twist this issue into something else. As chair of the city's Personnel and Civil Service Committee, I really felt a need to have this discussion this evening and the responsibility to bring it forward along with my colleagues . So I'm and I'm really glad we have a very diverse council to have this discussion this evening. Recognizing that the employees understand the intent of this item is to discuss and reaffirm our city's policy on unlawful harassment and sexual harassment to make sure that we're sending a clear message as a council that such misbehavior will not be tolerated in any workspace in this city. We as a council also have a direct responsibility to our city's workforce, and we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of our city. And so this is why we I brought this item forward. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. I would ask that you go ahead and and and but but also I wanted to also point out that the motion tonight requests that the city manager report back to the city council, in addition to review the city's current policies and procedures. What we're doing this evening and look at how the city and how city employees are informed of how they can file a complaint. A breakdown of the complaints the city has received over the last five years, and recommendations on possible changes to the policy to ensure that it is also victim friendly. And so with that, I ask for my my councilmembers colleagues to support this item, and I look forward to hearing further their comments as well. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you. I want to thank Councilman Austin for bringing this forward. I know that there are many organizations and entities who are reevaluating their policies around the nation based on the national conversation and what what I think I hear the intent of Councilman Austin and from what I know of my colleagues to be, is that it's not just about creating a policy or revising our policy. It's about the culture. It's about the type of culture that we're setting as leaders and the type of environment that we want to create. And so to the extent that city management, the city manager and his team are listening and identifying some best practices that can be utilized to not only identify areas where our current policies can be strengthened, but also areas where we can provide additional training for our department heads and possibly even our employees of how to create spaces that are safe for the employees. One of the things that I have often said in regards to trainings that I've been involved in for with managers for H.R. related issues, is that when people come to work, most people go to work because they have to in order to support their families. And so to have to go to work and be in an environment where you are subjected to things that are offensive, the where you're being bullied, where you might be feeling uncomfortable in terms of your space every day is definitely not an environment that should be tolerated. So to the extent that city staff can develop best practices to not only make that culture known, but also provide ways to investigate corroborated claims where such policies are not followed. I think it's important for us to be able to do that. So again, I commend Councilman Austin for bringing this forward and making sure that we are keeping at pace and in some instances ahead of the national conversation regarding workplace policies designed to prevent this type of incident or. Behavior at. Workplaces. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes, I just want to say that, of course, I will absolutely support an item that looks at sexual harassment and sexual assaults. It's absolutely something I believe in. It's something I'm passionate about. And as this item starts, it actually starts with over the past two months, numerous high profile reports of inappropriate sexual conduct in the workplace that prompted a national discussion about sexual harassment. What I find a little troubling about that is that why it took high profile reports for us. Actually have a discussion about this item to actually bring this forward to this this council. And so instead of being and I don't feel and absolutely I'm going to support this and I have a question relative to what we can make do to perhaps make it stronger. But what I would like us to do when we're looking at policymaking is to be more proactive versus reactive, because now this just looks as though we're reacting to everything going on because a celebrity decided that they wanted to come out with a high profile issue. And so I don't believe in that type of policymaking. I want us to be able to get in front of something before this happens or when people start coming out in various industries, not just the municipal industry . So I will say that and I hope that we can stand committed to making sure that whatever this policy is, that we look forward, as I mentioned, to other industries and and especially as we brought forward the hotel housekeepers to ensure that that stays the topic of discussion. I will ask, though, that I believe, Alex, that the state requires sexual harassment training each year. Is that correct? That's correct. Every two years, supervisors and managers must go through a two hour training course that is meets state requirements. And we actually just completed that in 2017 for our supervisors and managers. Perfect. And so that's just supervisors and managers, though. So is there any way for us to expand that above and beyond what the state requires, to require everyone to do some sort of sexual harassment training? I do that on my private side of life. Everyone does the training, whether you're a manager or not. So that's something certainly we are looking into also expanding, providing some type of a course to all city employees, non supervisory non-management employees. We're we're right now exploring the feasibility of doing that, whether that be it on an online type of system or in classroom type coursework. So we are looking at the added ways of delivering that type of training. Great. And I was just going to ask about that because I know that video. I mean, if we can make it easier on people to take a at least a video so they can see scenarios in which they can understand what sexual harassment and assault actually mean in the workplace, I think that would be great. So other than that, I extend my support. Thank you very much. Thank you. I do want to, you know, recognize that the conversation we had several weeks back, one of the discussions was making sure that we take care of our our house first. So I want to, you know, applaud us for doing that. I have lots of thoughts and I did a PowerPoint, but I'm going to save it and I'll share it with you guys at our next meeting. What I do want to include are some talking points and some facts. So we ground ourselves. We're having a conversation about policies and procedures which sometimes can be very dry and pull us away from the reality. The reality is that over 50% of people that have said that they've experienced sexual harassment on the job do not report it for fear of losing their jobs. That 80% of those that experience sexual assault on the job are women. That we spend over $120 billion a year as a national government on workplace violence cost. And so I just want to ground us also in the fact that it's not just sexual assaults that we're talking about with the hashtag MeToo, which was cited in the item, but that there's other types of violence and bullying and yelling and threats that can happen. And we need to have an H.R. policy that understands that violence and understands the trauma that people experience, men or women, when they go through violence at home, as children, as adults, and how that trauma can be triggered in the workplace . And so while I would love for us to have a policy that is inclusive of gender and inclusive of making sure we have a one 800 hotline, which I support, making sure that we have a video training that is not just for supervisors that all of us have to take. I want my staff in my office to understand how to deal with those that have experienced sexual violence or bullying in the community and in my office. So a trauma informed policy is what I hope that you can come back with, because I know in my experience it. There are spaces that do not feel safe that are supposed to be safe. There are processes that are supposed to support victims that do not support victims. And while we say as a whole that we want that culture to be there, unless we're talking about it and doing it every single day, it falls through the cracks. And if I felt that way, then our lowest paid staff person at City Hall, I can't imagine how they feel if something happens, whether it's a offhanded comment and making sure that we're being trained. I'm not assuming because they had poor work habits, that they're just complaining and blowing something out of proportion. So I believe after a lot of conversations that this council has had, that our city attorney's office has had and directors that a trauma informed our practice is what we have to do in in the city. And so I wanted to make sure that we feel that gravity, especially with the fact that in our management we are 60% male in management and that we are 39% women. Then in Non-Management, it's 39% male and 60.8% women. And with the numbers of statistics that we have around that abuse that we have to recognize, we have to go above and beyond trauma. I just want to make. Sure I don't. And I want to also call out and recognize that as a city, I want to ensure that our legislative department is treated the same as all of our departments whenever it comes to training, cultural sensitivity and expectations for processes. If a complaint is made that that goes into someone's file, that their process is fully being run through, and that the 14th floor is not treated any differently than any other department. I'm not saying that's happened. I just want to ensure that that is a process that is there. And then again, I want to echo what my my colleagues said. Councilmember Gonzalez. It's about prevention, creating a safe culture, trauma informed practices, and exploring options around safety and health managers. In the policy that we have, I don't see, I didn't know. And so I asked my staff to give me this policy that we even have a equal opportunity office that will notify and that there is an actual counselor or designee. How do how does each department know who that designated person is? So each department has an administrative officer so that the they and that person is usually the EEO counselor for that particular department. And then there's also a city wide one. We just recently revamped our brochure that is provided to city employees, and we also translated it into Spanish and we have that available online. We're looking at disseminating that to each employee and with a piece for a pay stub staffer. And so it also, as I indicated before, employees are informed when they're onboarded initially about our policies and and provided the brochures. Thank you. I don't think I got any brochures when I came on, but, you know. Thank you. I would also like to say one thing that was in the sexual harassment piece that we were looking at for the hotels included having a third party, whether it be a nonprofit, their own attorney or the police present whenever filing complaints that when you come back with recommendations of, you could see if there's some best practices out there that allow an employee to have a third party present when they're going through the investigative process. And that's it. So thank you, colleagues, for bringing this forward. It obviously is a timely issue. Because we're going to take you there as a former manager and administrative officer in the city of Long Beach. I had instances where I had employees come to me with complaints about harassment or potential workplace violence. And I dealt with it. And it's it was at the time that I was employed here that we were the administrative officers were the individuals that employees could go to. But there's not always that level of trust, I have to say. And unfortunately, with every department, within every department that that had an employee can go to an administrative officer and lodge a complaint and feel comfortable that it's going to be taken care of, because that's not always the case. So I would I would agree with my councilmember colleagues out here that we probably do need some kind of additional way of having employees report harassment. Or intimidation or bullying or whatever it is that that bothers them in the workplace when they're working with either a colleague or us or a subordinate or a superior. Because it's not always possible to know if your item got taken care of. I mean, that one of the things that I think it's unfortunate and it's I know it's probably the law because you're not supposed to reveal that. But sometimes a police don't know if where their complaint when they might have lodged it but then it's gone and there's no feedback for them in terms of whether there was a resolution to their complaint. And they continue to work. And and the person that they may have be having an issue with is still working or still supervising them or still a colleague or still in the workplace. So we need to know, have a resolution on that and hopefully that when this comes back, there's going to be some kind of recommendation or suggestion or a policy that addresses that, because I think that's that's the most important thing is that is harassment is reported. And the reason it's not reported and we get that high percentage of individuals that don't report it is because there's a lack of trust. And we need to build it. We need to build that trust for our employees and anybody to come to us or to go to, to, to our office of h.r or a or whoever we designate to report those come to our senators. So I will support this. Adam, I want to thank Austin customer roster for bringing this forward. But at the same time, I want to address the fact that if we don't address it now, we're going to have a hard time addressing it later. So it is unfortunate that this conversation is not taking place because of what's taking place nationally and locally. But it's it's an important one. And I'm glad that we're having it now. Thank you. Thank you. In that clip this hour, Councilman Councilman Austin, I thank you and. I appreciate the comments. I want to just follow up on a couple of of items unlike any future policy and like staff to look at, including bullying and intimidation. And in this the harassment policy specifically calling out those actions because there are situations and as a employee advocate, I deal with all the time situations where people are not necessarily being sexually harassed or harassed, but they're being bullied and intimidated to the point where their their work environment is completely hostile. And that does open the door for other problems to the point that, you know, we're having this conversation today instead of being proactive about it, this and I think we're being proactive because the city has a policy. We are reviewing our policy. The city of Los Angeles is reviewing their policies right now. The county of Los Angeles are reviewing their policies right now. The state of California is reviewing their policies right now. This is what good government is all about right now. And if we don't have this conversation today, as Councilmember Jauregui said, we'll be regretting it later. This item, this issue is specific to employees in the city of Long Beach, the employees who are within our purview as a city council to to to to govern. And they they we we we vote on their they're collective bargaining contracts. This is within our house. And again, the responsibility is not only to making sure the workplace for the employees here is safe and healthy, respectful and professional, but also that the we also have a responsibility to our our taxpaying public, because there are liabilities that come with us not taking care of business in that regard. And so I'll in my comments there, I appreciate the the discussion, the fact that council my council colleagues were reading this policy and discovering new things and things that they didn't know about in terms of city operations was well worth the time spent this evening. And so thank you very much for the colleagues and look forward to voting. Thank you. Thank you. Any comment on this? Please come forward. Please come forward quickly so we can. Thank you very much. When I heard Councilman Gonzalez's comment about why suddenly because of celebrities are down being paid, they are called on the carpet about their internal behavior. I immediately thought, what difference would that make at the moment when we first heard the first celebrity, whether it be Bill Cosby or and now our president making statements that were harassing toward women. The people who follow suit. All the other. Celebrities who were found to be in conflict. They knew bringing in these men was called that they had a behavior that was adverse. They started calculating when. There are. Oh, at some point my may be uncovered. When Mr. Austin brought this up and now hearing that it was his call, I thought, okay, if the city has existing behavior now, that's going to be revealed. This is the call out now. You may hear about it next year. It may start being rolled out. Things that you didn't know. This is the call coming from Mr. Austin that, oh, we need to relook at this. Based on all the other behavior of people, we never would have thought statements such as this would have come. So I. I wasn't called to answer that. But I say. Yeah. It needed to be done now because other cities are examples, because other people are examples, because celebrities are role models to our children. Because Mr. Cosby was a role model to many black family families. So I took it. I took an aversion to that. Why now? Yes. Now, because now the city of Long Beach may give its employees the go ahead in just that statement to say, okay, now I can start talking about what has been happening to me for the last five years. Where before I wouldn't have felt free. This is why. And it doesn't matter that it took a celebrity to bring it forward. The issue is. It hadn't been done. Until all of the other individuals that affect our city, in our view, came forward. Tonya, seven, district resident. I want to applaud you for bringing forth this policy review, a policy review that you labeled as a victim friendly policy. I'm not sure what motivated you to bring this policy review forward now, other than the many victims who have recently come forward in the media to report inappropriate conduct and and who, quote , did not feel there was a safe environment in their workplace for them to come forward to report harassment. What pains me is that a couple of months ago, some of you did nothing for the many victims or more appropriately called survivors, who indicated that they, too, did not feel there was a safe environment for their in their workplace for them to come forward to report harassment. As council members, you're not elected just to put forth public policy, but you're elected to make a difference in people's lives, to make their lives better. As past director of the Sexual Assault Crisis Agency, I too agree that there is a need to ensure that all employees have a safe work environment and feel safe to report incidents. Emphasis on all employees. Yet reviewing and updating policy alone is not what will ensure that employees feel safe. Workers need to know that you understand what they are going through and how their working conditions either increases or lessens incidents of abuse. You must understand that what workers are going through. If there are no women in management positions, it can be difficult for some to understand what's going on. While working in the city 29 years ago, my water broke at work and I drove to the hospital. My boss asked me if I was going to return to work later that day. And now, an hour later, I gave birth to my youngest child. And no, I did not return to work that day. Don't get me started on pumping milk while at the city of Garden Grove. While I was working there, the public works department had all men employees. When one man who is transgender and showed up as a woman after her surgery, they worked hard to understand her circumstances and in what way work, environment and behavior need to change. First of all, you need to show you understand why some survivors do not report abuse. Three months ago, many were saying and were troubled because there was no record of reported incidents. That's not understanding. Saying that policy will result in litigation or that you see no nexus between harassment and workload. That's not understanding. Secondly, you need to engender trust. I can't see my time, Dick and I just have to talk faster. Thank you. If you engender trust, if employees don't trust you to believe their claims, or that those claims will not be investigated, no amount of policy tweaking will help. If they don't trust that, you will protect them. After reporting, no policy review will help. And finally, you need to acknowledge that working conditions play a major role in setting the stage to allow harassment to fester and continue. For example, here in the city of Long Beach, many years ago, no fire stations had separate facilities for women firefighters to shower or use the restroom. A separate restroom. I hope that has changed. When a few months ago, a couple of you were concerned about nuanced details that about treating differently. One class of employees. Please recheck next time you're dealing with public safety because they do have unique needs. Also, the employees are represented by a bargaining unit and they should have a say in this policy because it is about working conditions. I applaud your attempt at this policy review, but understand that work environment also means work conditions. And I hope that when you receive the requested breakdown of complaints the city has received over the past five years, and if there is only. A victim ensuring. That you continue to seek improvement in the policy. Thank you very much. A few more seconds for someone given eight years. That I got to treat everyone the same. Thank you so much. Mic speaker, please. My name's Nader Tushnet and I live in the third district and I am very pleased about this policy coming forward to City Council. I'm particularly pleased that we are looking at changing the culture. I worked for 50 years and in men in a largely male industry and it's not easy to change the culture. It's also important to note that the more managers there are who are women, the better it is for women to work there. I know that it's not only women who feel harassment. I am concerned, however, that you are looking only at your house. Your house is important. It sets the tone for the city. That is true. But your house and leaving other houses alone. And I'm speaking particularly about the hotel workers, leaves out the most important people in our city. And I want to say it's Hanukkah. So I can quote a rabbi. And I also was with my my extended family this weekend, and we were raised in a particular way. Rabbi Hillel said, If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself. What am I? And if not now, when? Thank you. Q Next speaker, please. I'm also closing the speakers list, so I think. That. Mr. Murchison, for the last speaker there was no other speakers. Is that correct? No other speakers besides Mr. Murchison. Okay. Great. Next speaker. Please. Thank you very much. Zoe Nicholson. I live in Rose Park, second district. I can understand that. You might think that I am writing tonight to congratulate you on agenda item number 20. In fact, I would be if this was 1999. I've been an elected leader and am the president of your local now chapter and W is the largest organization advocating for the rights of women and girls. It is celebrating its 52nd year. I find this moment absolutely astounding because you are differentiating between the workers who work for you and the workers who support the industry in this city. I want to ask those five council members. Who voted no on. September 19th to do me a favor. Should anyone in your future want to shake your hand? Over one of our. Citizens being honored as Time's Person. Of the Year. I hope you will stand tall. I hope you will square your shoulders. I hope you will look them right in the eye and tell them. You voted no. Because that is the fact. One failed panic button out of thousands. Three years isn't long enough for a study or the comment. Well, it is Grand Prix weekend. Our people deserve protections and workloads and sexual assault. All human beings deserve this. You should be leaders in this culture. This is not progressive. Progressive means that you lead. You don't wait for the hashtags to pile in and how many people you love. Can now say me to. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I'm with her. My name is Linda Calderon, and I am president of National Council of Jewish Women of Long Beach. And I represent over 400 members who live in Long Beach and in the surrounding areas. One of my priorities is to advance the well-being and status of women, which includes developing laws, policies, programs and services that protect every woman from all forms of abuse, exploitation, harassment and violence. I would say that your mandate as a city council is the same to protect all employees from all forms of abuse, exploitation, harassment and violence. And I would commend you on looking at your employee policies again. That also should include the hotel workers and others, the majority of whom are women. Although they may not be under your direct supervision, their rights to work in a safe and secure environment are in the hands of the policy makers. That means you and I would like to give you some feedback about the meeting that we had in terms of Claudia's law. We had been told that you studied this hotel issue for almost three years. Was this not enough time to pool your research and unearth every possible question and solution to the issue? Each of you had that responsibility. There should have been no excuses about coming to a conclusion. You are a leaders. You're looked to as leaders. And when you receive testimony that there were incidents and actions that created a hostile work environment such as sexual assault, you are obligated to review the facts, not your opinions. And you did, as you did at that city hall meeting that met about hotel issues. It is your responsibility to inform yourselves about the circumstances surrounding sexual harassment and sexual abuse and make informed decisions. Did you know how difficult it must have been to publicly testify to these acts of aggression? Do you recognize the testimony of a supervisor standing up and saying he was present here as one of intimidation? Do you think anyone would publicly describe their experiences that they were not true? And yet one of you said that you did not believe them. You said it again tonight as well. In addition, many of the words that the five people who voted against this were dismissive and self-serving and lacked human compassion. Your leading means to listen, study, evaluate and make a decision that is the best possible decision for all parties. You are the leaders. I might also add that I'd like you to be part of the solution. I noticed that some of you, at least one of you is on the telephone right now, gave us your back for a few minutes. This is dismissive again and it is rude. We are here to try and come together to do something for people who feel that they don't have a say. Thank you very. Much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. My name's Christine Pettit. I'm the executive director of Building Healthy Communities Long Beach, and I'm also a sixth District resident. And I'm here tonight to speak in support of the item and also to echo some of the sentiments that were said that policies are one thing. I definitely agree with Councilmember Price Price's comment that we must look at culture. And one of the things that is telling about the culture and City Hall are some of the comments that were made on September 19th and the discussion around Claudia's law. I heard hotel workers come up and share their experiences of sexual harassment and assault, and I heard council members say that there wasn't enough evidence. Why do we need to act right now? Let's make sure to get it right. Even though we've been talking about this for years, those comments from the dais actually made me sick to my stomach and it lingered throughout the week as someone who has experienced sexual harassment. And I think that. You know, if I was a city employee or council staff, I would think that maybe if I came forward with my experience of harassment, that maybe it would be dismissed. And so while you might think that this testimony is twisting this item, what you say up here on all items sets the tone for the culture in Long Beach. And I want to say to that. If anyone else had been recognized as a time person of the year in Long Beach, we would be celebrating. And I haven't heard a peep about that. Our brave silence breaker from Long Beach. So I just want to say that, you know, it's good that you're looking at your policy. I ask you to look beyond what is written. Look at the culture you are promoting here. Sure. Get your house in order. But I also encourage you to take action to protect workers in the taxpayer subsidized hospitality industry and frankly, wherever else you can. Thank you. Thank you. Next week if we. Your name's David Garcetti. It's a g r c t. I just came up here impromptu. But there's an issue with this sexual harassment that really kind of hit a nerve. The one person that made a big issue about policies and reviewing stuff is somebody who apparently is not. Has had issues at the workplace with working with or with coworkers. In the question, though, I was having is that with this new reviews that you're doing here, are you going to be looking also at workplace relationships? And both sides of the spectrum, if somebody comes to complain, whether it's a subordinate or a supervisor, and also if it's male or female, different genders, now that we have to deal with all the different genders, it can also. I'm talking about being going across the board with everything and not just looking at which is what. What's going on now where it's a female saying that, oh, I've been sexually harassed, but men aren't coming forward or even gay or lesbian or anything else. I think that when you're looking at this now, when you're looking at this now in this day and age, it's not just, oh, let's look back at something from the nineties and this update. This is new stuff that we have to go across all genders. And just like they said, if somebody doesn't feel comfortable, you might have somebody who's doesn't feel comfortable talking to this particular person because of their sexual orientation versus that one. There's age differences. But the biggest thing that was strange to me is that I've I've worked in the military, I've worked in the government. We've always had these sexual harassment classes. And for it to be something like new is kind of strange. I don't know how it's been going on Long Beach where you don't even know if you've been doing it once a month. You don't even know who to go to. That's just seems kind of weird to me that you wouldn't be able to know your chain of command and everything you're supposed to be doing. But just but just in point, the thing that the main question I'm asking is that if there's issues of workplace relationships, let's say, and it feels something is something goes wrong, and then somebody out of retaliation goes and says, well, I was harassed. Are you going to look at it just because of that person is a male or a female or subordinate or supervisor? Are you going to take it seriously and be like, okay, wait a minute, we need to look at this and we need to use this as an example for, like Dan said earlier, as an example for the rest of the city where you're not taking sides just because it's somebody in a position of power or somebody who is more favored. And that's the thing that I'm saying. If that if you're going to be looking at this, look at it, there's a big giant spectrum now. So you have to start looking at. Thank you, sir. Next week, please. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Brian McGinnis and I'm a Long Beach resident and constituent of council member supervised district. I am here to say that I commend city leaders for taking steps today to address how city staff can be protected from abuse on the job. However, I also want to point out a contradiction. Recently, the Long Beach City Council had an opportunity to help hospitality workers get much needed protection in the workplace. This council and the mayor failed them. Council Members Price, Mango, Austin and Supervisor. Well, I appreciate you bringing up this important item. The four of you, along with Councilmember Andrews, were responsible for voting down protections for hotel workers this past September. This hypocrisy lays bare one of the defining questions of our time. Will you, as empowered individuals, side with the most vulnerable members of our communities? Or will you serve moneyed interest and callously try to justify unnecessary human suffering? Long Beach bills itself as a progressive city. But it strikes me as cynical that some of you favor political expediency over workers health and safety. The time has come to protect all workers, regardless of who they work for. Thank you. Thank you. And the final speaker. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. I want to applaud Councilman Austin and the rest of you for bringing forward this item tonight. I know that we had a very robust discussion several months ago. I do want to point out a couple of things where I don't disagree with Councilman Pearce and Councilman, you're wrong in indicating that people don't come forward necessarily that have been assaulted. One of the things I did hear from our chief, our deputy chief at a public safety committee meeting, was that reported there was one incident in five years. Now, I grant you that there's a lot more that happens. I grant you that we don't want that culture in Long Beach. I get that. But statistically, there's one in five years. It's hard to focus on an industry like that more specifically, and I need remind everybody, including the audience, that proposed ordinance was focused on hotels of over 100 rooms. So it wasn't like it was going after the hospitality industry, quote unquote, in general. It was focused on a very specific group, a group that hasn't had a problem in the past. And yet, if we're all that concerned about sexual assault, why not go after the motels? Those seem to be the ones that would have bigger problems in Long Beach than the big hotels. The big hotels have H.R. policies. The big hotels have security. The motels don't. So why wouldn't you go after them? I don't see a policy in Long Beach when you're looking at your in-house stuff that says, gee, let's target this at development services, but we'll leave the IT department alone. It doesn't work that way. It's across the board. So if you're going to do a policy, take it across the board all the way and make sure that when you focus in on it, you can back it up. Now, I understand that things happen like that and people have incidences where they don't want to discuss it. Totally respect that. Totally respect the fact of the woman that mentioned don't want that culture in Long Beach. I get that. But on the other side of the coin, when you're going to propose an ordinance, let's make sure that's across the board for every industry in Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Public comment is closed. We have a there's a motion in a second on the floor. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I wasn't going to speak again, but I feel very compelled to do so because it's a shame that the item that is being brought forth by Councilman Austin tonight, an item that's being discussed all over the nation by municipalities and public entities alike to evaluate not just sexual harassment policies, but all types of harassment policies is now being somehow connected to a. A political item that came forth in September that really is being spun in a very, very unfortunate and inaccurate way. So the first thing I will say is one of the blessings of being a city council member in Long Beach is that every single one of our meetings is recorded. And one of the benefits of that is that people who want to repeat what you have said have the option to do it accurately by going back and listening and watching the video to find out what you actually said. I have been reading a lot of the social media posts, not all of them, because frankly, some of them are just garbage because they're complete alternative facts. But I've been reading a few of them, and it's absolutely unbelievable to me how blatantly they have misrepresented what happened at that meeting. Some of you were in the meetings that I had with Unite here before the item came to council. You know, you know, in your heart of hearts what my issues were with that item. If you didn't know them from being in a private meeting with me, you certainly had the opportunity to learn them by listening to me talk about the items on the council floor. The issue for me was never about panic. Buttons are providing public safety for hotel employees. Was I concerned that the proposed ordinance only protected employees? Housekeepers. Not all employees. Housekeepers in hotels of 100 or more. Yes, that was a concern to me because I think if housekeepers are vulnerable. Which they are, they should be. Protected at all size hotels. I don't believe that people who stay in hotels of 100 rooms or more are more violent or aggressive towards housekeepers than those who stay at a local motel. So I asked whether or not it was possible for us to consider an ordinance that required panic buttons for hotels of all sizes. And those of you who were in the meeting with me heard me ask, because there was a connection made between public safety and workloads. And what I said at the council floor was how is it that. Workloads will. Reduce the number of number of public safety issues in the room? Is there some correlation between the number of square feet that an individual cleans and their likelihood to be sexually assaulted? That was a simple question, and there was no correlation between the two. When I met with the organizers and I believe. But while they indicated that they had authored most of the ordinance, what I was told is that sometimes the hotel rooms in today's day and age are harder to clean. The mattresses are heavier. There is more glass on the surfaces. And so the question that I asked was, well, then why is it that we're including other types of rooms in the work load limitations, like a conference room or a dining area? And they said, no, no, no, that shouldn't be in the ordinance. And I said, No, no, that is in the ordinance. And they said, Well, we'd be okay with that if you want to make that change. And my response was, You'll be okay with it. What about the councilperson who brought the item? Shouldn't that be the person who's making the decision about what's okay and what's not? It was very, very clear to me, as it was to everyone, that the the item that was brought to council was a package deal that included many different elements, not related specifically to public safety. And my public safety, I mean, an attack on an individual when they're vulnerable with another human being. There were several items that were included, including the opportunity. For the housekeepers, if they are. In a union, to be able to. Completely waive. Those protections by vote of the union. So if there's only let's say there's. 100 people in the union and 30 of them are housekeepers and 70 of them are not. They could vote to. Completely do away with those protections. By vote of the. Union. That to me didn't make sense, and that is what I said. I started off my comments that night, as I did, as I know many of my colleagues did, saying that we should absolutely protect public safety, safety, and that I would do anything possible to figure out a way to change that ordinance, to make it public safety. It was very, very clear to me that the ordinance was a package deal. There was no room for compromise, and that's why it failed. So let me just be clear. It is okay. If you want to summarize people's arguments, it's okay if you want to give their arguments a certain meaning, but it is not okay to falsify people's statements. It is not okay to say that someone said something they did not say. It is not okay. It's absolutely improper, unethical and in some circumstances. Illegal to attribute words. To an individual who did not state those, especially when those words are on video and can be evaluated. And so I hear what everyone is saying. But please, the problem that we have in many situations with women and there there are opportunities for advancement is women not supporting other women. And I think it's very, very important that if we're going to criticize one another, that we do it fairly. But we do it fairly and honestly. We all know we're all educated enough to understand the nuances of policy that's presented to council. If one aspect of policy is something that's objectionable, that doesn't mean it's okay to walk away and accuse someone of disagreeing with every aspect of the policy. That's just wrong. It's just wrong. So let's call it what it is. If you feel compelled to summarize what happened at that September meeting, what you should be saying is that the five people who voted against the proposed ordinance completely agreed with the public safety aspects. They had trouble with the other aspects because that is what was repeatedly stated. And in fact, what you should be saying is, for the first time ever in the region, the Long Beach City Council passed a resolution supporting collective bargaining for an industry, a private industry. That is not something you see every day. For that, my colleague, Councilman Austin, should be commended. And there is no other way to spin that. And I know let's talk about adding bullying to our policy here. Bullying comes in many, many forms. I know bullies. If you're going to criticize someone, criticize them for what they actually did, not what you want to sell to the people. Thank you. But the councilwoman. Councilmember Pearce. I wasn't going to queue up again either. I respected the voices that came to speak. They had a right to speak. They had a right to voice the pain that a lot of us felt after that day. I felt. Like a certain day in November for good month after that vote, and we can debate what happened that night to clarify. Mr. Marginson For the 100 rooms. I made an offer on the floor that night to make it cover everybody. I made an offer for us to have several months to do the work and those offers were denied the opportunity to work on this long term, whether or not that's what the union wanted, that's what I, as a council member behind the dais offered, and it was denied. And so that's that's what hurt the residents and the workers. They didn't care about the politics of what happens up here. Five, four, nine person vote. It takes courage to speak up. You guys know, for me, it takes courage to speak up. And the reason why I spoke so passionately about this is because I know what the process is like in the city. And I know that to have a council that says, we heard you for 3 hours and we weren't willing to do something out of the box, whether or not our union partner wanted it or not is it is painful for the other people that work in the city. It does send that message whether or not that was the intent, that was what happened and that's the action. However, we set our words or spun those words or how passionately we got. The fact is, there was a vote that said, we're not going to work on this anymore. And that's why it's so hard because hashtag me, too, takes courage. And it is you know, I disagree with the idea that this is the wrong time to do it. I agree with my council colleagues. This is the right time to do it. I saw the item and said, Dang, I wish I would have done that first. You know, so I applaud them on that. But we can we have to recognize that the culture in this city is is by all of us. And so I don't like when we school, the people that come up here to have courage to speak up, correcting the record, I agree with, but there's a lot of assumptions and it just demonstrates how difficult it is to talk about assault. It demonstrates how hard this item is and how much we could commit to it and not just make it a policy review like we did in 2015. So I urge us to really dig in and do this the right way and change our culture. I worked for a nonprofit who is. All about. Culture first, and our leadership development is there. It's not a question of whether we offer a department head some opportunity for a grant for leadership development. It's a given lane. I had every two weeks, an hour with a personal coach to talk about any issues that that's the type of organization that has leadership, that says we care about you and your partner. So I just want us to ground ourselves. And this is passionate for a reason. It's very personal and politics is personal and sexual assault is political. And we have to make sure that we do the right thing by everybody in our city. This is the right first step and I look forward to more steps in the future. But you to continue. Gonzalez I would just like to say to that, you know, it's it's unfortunate this took a turn. Absolutely. Support this item. Absolutely. I do a 150%. But relative to what Councilmember Price was saying, which I feel is really unfortunate, but we have to reprimand the public for coming forward, I don't feel that that is respectful in any sense of the word for us to be talking to the public in that sense for coming forward and speaking how they feel. We should never dictate how they should feel and we should just accept it. And sometimes as council members and elected officials, we have to take it. Trust me, we have to take it day in and day out. And that's what we do and that's part of our daily routine, is being able to hear things that maybe are not comfortable regardless of the situation. And clearly we're on different ends of the spectrum and on what we feel about the item that came forward in September. I don't think it's an item that will go away, and I'm glad that this will not go away within the city inner workings. But when we say a resolution, it's almost like saying nothing is going to happen. And so while highlighting that there's an issue, unfortunately, I don't believe a resolution did anything. And then to talk about, you know, that this last item was a package deal, I feel was also disrespectful. It's not a package deal. There was a lot of work that went into that policy. I write my own policies myself, personally. I do the work and the research myself. Yeah, somebody may give me an idea for a policy, but I put every ounce of energy and I research quite a bit to make sure that it's the right policy for Long Beach . So while we said that, I again appreciate the the public being here and speaking about this issue and supporting this issue as much as possible for men, for women, for all of us. And I hope. We can get it right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I appreciate, Councilman Gonzales, that you do your own research. I would also like to say that when this does come back, that in the meetings that I had before that policy was brought, I, too, proposed several changes that would have made it a policy that could have been a huge success for Long Beach and hotel workers. And my meeting ended with and I wish it could have been recorded like council meetings are because you could go back and check the tape. But it ended with that's not something we're open to taking out of the policy at this time. At a time when I was told that the policy had not been written yet, a version of that policy was circulated in the community. And I went to community meetings and I went to meet and talk to and hear from the hotel workers. I appreciate that, my colleagues. Councilman, at the time, both Mayor Richardson and Councilmember Durango were very welcoming to me at these meetings. And many of you know that in downtown Long Beach, my mother was assaulted at work, but nobody's stepping up to protect her or her rights. And she had a panic button and nobody came for 47 minutes. And so when I write a policy, I'm going to write one that's actually going to make a difference. I've gone and spoken to hotel workers and worked with hotel management to provide self-defense classes and trainers, the same providers, the same trainers. That provided me defensive tactics training after I was assaulted on Vermont Avenue in my workplace as a county employee. The reason I am a deputy sheriff today is because I didn't want to be defenseless. And there's no better empowerment for any woman. Continue. How to protect herself because it takes a long time to call 911 and it takes a long time when you press that panic button. And so I want to thank. Those that are in the community that are doing the hard work and making the compromises. It's not about Facebook posts. It's about the actual work on the ground and talking to the people who are actually cleaning their rooms and walking to their cars because the likelihood that these people are attacked is actually most when they are leaving or going to a place of business, not not significant which type of business it is . And so I want to thank all the hotel jams who paid for free courses for defensive tactics training provided by the same trainers that L.A. County Sheriff's Department uses at their own cost and on their employees paid time. Because I believe that makes a difference. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. I just want to say one thing, and that's really we have yes, we're public servants. We put ourselves out there, but we also have the right and, in my opinion, the obligation to defend ourselves. And when we hear comment after comment, that is a complete misinterpretation of something that we said. It's important. And it's I have a duty to my constituents to make sure I set the record straight. I would do that in a court of law, and I will do that in here. I will not allow someone to misstate something I said. I will always defend myself and stand up for myself. And we talk about a culture of support. We really should be starting with our city council, because for whatever motivation any of us have for bringing an item forward, if someone accuses us of doing something that our colleague knows we didn't do because we had a private conversation with them, we shared with them what our concerns were. And if they stand there idly while someone accuses us of having an intent they know we didn't have, we should be supporting each other. We should be saying, you know what, I hear what you're saying. But she actually didn't have an objection to this part or this part. What she did have an objection to was this part. But they're not doing that because you know what? It's really, really fun to watch a train wreck when it's not happening to you. It's fun to watch someone, one of your colleagues get attacked or something. You know, they didn't mean you know, it's not in their heart and sit quietly and allow them to get attacked. It's much, much more difficult to stand up and say, you know what, I understand your passion and your frustration, but I got to tell you , I work with this person. I may not agree with everything that they do, but that wasn't their intent. They don't want women to get attacked. They do care about public safety. We need to support each other. Just because we don't agree on every aspect of a policy doesn't mean that when someone else defames us or slanders us or says something that's inaccurate, that we shouldn't be standing up and doing the right thing and saying, You know what? I understand you're frustrated, but that's not exactly what they said. We're all educated enough to be able to do that, and it takes courage to do that. And I want to say something because I know I was hoping that this item wouldn't turn into this. But when the comments were made and and frankly, they were instigated by some of my colleagues before they went to public comment by referencing Claudia's law. This item today is not about Claudia's law, but it was made to be about Claudia's law. And at the end of the day, it is not okay for any of our colleagues, one in particular, to be taking the heat that my colleagues who voted, who were in favor of Claudia's law. No. His intent was not about. It's just not okay. People are getting bullied. And if we're going to stand by and pretend it's not happening and be part of the we're part of the problem, I think support creating a culture of support means we also support each other. Just because we don't agree on every single aspect of a policy doesn't mean we're not the enemy, doesn't mean we are. We hate whatever the topic was that was brought forward. Please, please, please. If we're going to start talking about creating a culture of support in this city, we should start with the city council. We should keep the facts straight and accurate and operate from a place of. Facts. And fashion our arguments based on facts and not emotion. Thank you. Councilmember Pierce. Hold on. Councilmember Price. So I wanted to make a comment in reference to Councilmember Price's comment. I'll give her a second. What I'm trying to make a comment with, you know, Councilmember Price, I want to recognize that your comments and feeling like you've been bullied, whether it's by the folks in the audience or I'm. One of our colleagues, has been bullying. Okay. Well, the comment that you just made made me feel like you were saying that about yourself based on the comments we made. So I wanted to apologize. I don't like the idea of bullying, and I don't like the idea that our colleagues feel bullied. And I. I just want to highlight that again. It's something that's very passionate for a lot of people and for you. And any comments that were made by the colleague, by the audience about your comments that you were defending your right, you supported all hotels, you supported the sexual assault pieces, you supported that. My frustration is that we were all told by a third party that we weren't okay with dividing it up and the vote didn't happen. And so from my record, my recollection is that people felt like there was a decision made before we came to this body to be worked out behind the dice. And that I believe in us as a group behind the dais to trust each other, to have a conversation. And so I don't want my colleagues to feel like I'm in the bullying business or that people that are passionate in the bullying business, but we owe it to ourselves to have a full process. And, you know, I hope that we can put this to rest right now and just recognize that it's something that's very emotional for a lot of folks. So. Okay. Thank you. I know you've done public comment already on this item. So there is a motion on the second floor by Councilmember Austin and Councilwoman Price members. Please cast your votes. Jimmy. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We're going to we're doing public comment now. I'm one of the first three speakers, Kenneth Roth. Jonathan Crouch and Larry Boland. Please come forward. Kenneth Roth. Jonathan Crouch. And Larry Boland. I've got to put on my prop here first.

Recommendation to adopt the Budget Oversight Committee's proposed funding recommendations, as amended, to the FY 18 Proposed Budget. (A-12)

LongBeachCC_09052017_17-0743

Senior Fellow Public Comment. Members cast your vote. Motion carries item 1.1 to recommendation to adopt the budget oversight committees proposed funding recommendations as amended to the fiscal year 18 proposed budget. And I will read those now. So as mentioned, Budget Oversight Committee, the budget process has changed considerably over the last several years. There was a time in many members recent memory that there wasn't even a budget oversight committee, and so the budget appeared and the council would pass it. I want to thank my committee. We took a great amount of time to start off our year with some thoughtfulness around fiscal policies that every few years we need to visit those and ensure that we are ensuring that the policies of this Council and the committee of this Council, as passed a few moments ago, represent our priorities. And so I think that that started with a great tone. I think we had healthy dialog throughout the process. It's difficult to do in a year where we know that we're tightening the belt, and so most of our allocations this year are one time. And so I appreciate that community who came out to council meetings, to budget oversight committee meetings, to individual budget meetings in each of our districts, and then also to approached us wherever we are, where we work in play, whether we were at concert in the park or in line at ground bakery, people had questions and they were excited to ask them. And I think that that says a lot about my colleagues, that we are approachable and open to answering those questions because we actually study the materials presented to us by the city staff and that they put countless hours into to make sure that we have the information necessary to make the tough choices. So here are our proposed tough choices. Motion to use 700,000 and general fund one time funding, including 300,000 from fiscal year weapons funds, year end funds available, and 400,000 from expected election cost savings . This funding to be appropriated for the following one time purposes. 454 Business Corridor Improvements in order to spur, enhance sales and revenue for the city in the following three business corridors at 150,000 each Pacific. Anaheim in Carson 100,000 and Health and Human Services Department to support My Brother's Keeper and limitation of 10,000 in the Health and Human Services Department to leverage grant funding and fund community health programs, furthering the 125 and ongoing funding for the 125. An ongoing funding from Proactive Homeless Initiative can also be used to support the community health programs in addition to the homeless rapid response activities. 50,000 in Parks, Recreation and Marine Department to address the results of the City Auditor's Animal Care Services audit findings with a goal of increasing adoption rates for the city of Long Beach Ocean to use special advertising and promotion funds revenues in order to show that again motion to use as AP funds, special advertising and promotion funds to appropriate 114,000 and ongoing funds in Parks, Recreation and Marine Department for the following purposes 54,000 to support nine community concerts, one in each district similar to those outlined in the two from four 20,000 to leverage matching funds for dealers, supporters and event 20,000 to leverage matching funds for Jazz Festival Annual Event 20,000 as supplemental matching funds for additional community concerts throughout the city. The entire plan for community concerts should be revisited annually based on equity and return on investment for a proposal and consideration of the Budget Oversight Committee, including, but not limited to leveraged funds, attendance, etc.. Motion for first contingent appropriation of fiscal year 17 General Fund one time year end surplus in amount of 750,000. Subject of funding availability for capital infrastructure. Existing city programing to be divided equally between the city council districts for district priorities. Any exception must go to the Council for review and approval motion for contingent appropriation for fiscal year 17 time one time year in surplus in the amount of 1 million subject to funding availability in the Public Works Department for one time improvements to the Convention Center, which will free up 1 million in measure funds. Motion for contingent appropriation of the 1 million in measure funds is freed up based on the contingent appropriation aforementioned in the Public Works Department for Sidewalks, Sidewalk Repair Replacement Rapid Response Program on a go forward basis. The city shall make city wide investments in streets and sidewalks based on need at any additional fiscal year. 17 year and surplus in the general fund should be set aside for the fund to fund the city's critical one time needs for fiscal year 19. Again, looking forward subject to the Budget Oversight Committee review and recommendation motion that the city staff return to the Budget Oversight Committee with recommendations to allocate any additional fiscal year 17 table fund one time year in surplus above the million in a manner that is fair and balanced and consistent. With the reprioritisation criteria established by City Council in 2015. Oh. Have the question for you. I guess I did not make the motion. I thought I did make of the motion. Mr. AGAGU Maybe they did a second part of the motion. Councilman Austin. Oh, thank you. And thank you for the. Very detailed rundown of. The Budget Oversight Committees recommendation. Second, in this motion, as a member of the Budget Oversight Committee. I also want to commend my colleagues on the committee, Chair Price and Chair Mungo and Vice Chair Price for their due diligence and patience and. You know, really working to. Collaborate with all of the city departments and other federal council members to get to this point. We know that as a vice mayor, Richardson would say winter is coming, and so we need to be prepared for it. And I think this budget recognizes that. But it's also one that is responsible and balanced and that. Meets the needs of. Services that we try to all of our constituents depend on. So I'll be supporting this motion. Thank you. Member Price Pierce. Thank you, Councilmember Pierce. Still a. Year. We still get confused, huh? I want to thank the BRC for all of their effort and the work that you guys have done. I think as a city we've talked a lot about equity and that shows through the commitment that we've made to our health department around community health programs, around My Brother's Keeper, and also the work around our homeless community, which I think is really important. I wanted to to clarify a couple of things and and ask a couple of questions for our homeless conversation. Can you address for me? Well, let me let me clarify this for the heart team. I know that Councilmember Price, it was a conversation that you brought up. And so I would like to know, where are we having conversations outside of the budget around that? I know I've I've met with our county supervisors and we're having some of those conversations about how can we find dollars to make sure that we make this heart team the strongest team that it can be. And so is there a plan already from the BOC on a next step for that? So the first step is that this budget includes structural funding for the heart team, which is the first time, and that's as a large one, large commitment. It also includes the one time costs associated with the vehicle and other components of the heart team. Additionally, it asks that the Finance Department bring back some information to Budget Oversight Committee for consideration so that we'll be in a better place to discuss that a few months from now. Great. Thank you for that. And on the conversation around the other funds, one time you said around the convention center. I just want to you know, I think that our convention center, the numbers I have is $300 million in economic impact in our city, that this is something that generates a lot of revenue for our city, and that any time we have a conversation around Tidelands, that we really need to make sure that we're being careful about having those conversations with the two council members that take over or that that governance in that area. I think that this is smart and I support this because we should be using Tidelands funds where available on our convention center and freeing up $1,000,000 for Measure A to go back into infrastructure I think is smart. Where I'd like to make a friendly is you have on here that it just goes to sidewalk replacement and I've heard the comments for that and that on the back it says that moving forward the city would make citywide investments on streets, alleyways and sidewalks based on need. I would only feel comfortable with freeing up those measure $8 if this is based on need, whether that's if it's sidewalks, if it's alleyways. But I think we need to give that discretion to those that have worked on the measure plan for a long time. So let me also you're not the only one to ask that question. So we have already committed to a certain set of maps and that set of maps. We want to continue that commitment. They've been presented at this council, whether it was for measure or whether it was for a measure and whatever it was, maps have been seen by the community and the public, and we don't want to ever put ourselves in a position where we promise something and then take it back. So that is why there's that there will be wording in there to ensure that the maps that have been seen are protected on a go forward basis. The city shall make citywide investments in streets, alleys and sidewalks based on need. That really speaks to funding that has not yet become available and will become available in the future. With regard to the sidewalks, the rapid response program for Sidewalks is to fund programs on a as needed basis for repairs that are a safety issue. And there are currently there used to be $9 million over the three year period that were available for allocations. There are considerable number of sidewalks within the community that have not been repaired and so they have an extensive list. I believe that the city staff will need to come back to us with a two from for on the specifics of what that would look like. ERICKSON Did you want to comment on that? Yes, Chairman, go. Traditionally, the city staff does return to city council with a timeframe for explaining how we plan to implement the city council approved changes, and we would do so in this in this regard as well. I hear your your concern. I guess my concern is I'm taking $1,000,000 out of the convention center, you know, taking that millions of dollars that was allocated to the convention center to free that up for city wide use for the measure. A The priority in my district, I don't want to set a priority for the city. That's why I would rather give it to city staff to say is is sidewalks a priority or is the dirt alleyways a priority? So alleys under this plan would be prioritized. I guess the way it reads on the front pages, it says sidewalk replacement. So if we could make a friendly to say so this as a. Are a part of motion, a component of what I mentioned. And all alleys would be paved with the $5 million in allocation that are outlaid. So all the alleyways would be paved with the 5 million. That's just a checklist stuff. I have another document on the that. Hold on. Just because I got some really bad alleyways, guys. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I guess what my point chair is just making sure that we're not saying that sidewalks are a priority for one councilmember. Therefore, we're taking that money and putting this is city wide. And specifically here it is. This is city wide. And if I wanted it, there were some recommendations that we move this money into park bathrooms. But if anyone looked at the park bathroom list, the next three park bathrooms on the list are all mine. And I was trying to be equitable as chair and ensure that all citywide priorities are managed. I want to fight for my district and city wide and make sure that when we're doing that, we're doing it equitably. And so that's why sidewalks were chosen. This council had to make a very tough decision several months ago in light of a lawsuit that drained all of our sidewalk funding for the whole city for three years. And so that was something that I made a commitment to back then, that I would go out and work hard to find some supplemental funding. It's no $9 million, but it's a small step for those that have been on less waiting for sidewalks for six and seven years. And so it is a safety concern and I wouldn't put a non safety concern over a safety concern. So I appreciate that. You know, that's that's fine. I mean, as long as it's included in there, where it's driven on what we've already said as a priority and that support that was important for me. And then moving forward that those conversations around if additional funds come up. I think Councilmember Price's suggestion at the BMC is one that I support and making sure that the two of us are having these conversations around the Tidelands funds moving forward. I think the other statement that I wanted to make is I think that it's exciting to see our city as a whole looking at community concerts in the eyes of economic development. We are excited out of our office, have worked on a couple of the entertainment items with city staff. So I would hope that outside of just working with the body on these items, that we're also including our economic development team because we will be coming back soon with some recommendations and how we talk about entertainment as a whole. And I would want this to be separate from that when I feel like there's likely some dollars that we can use out of that outcome. To support. Entertainment as a whole in our city moving forward. So noted. Thank you. Great job on a budget, guys. Councilmember Gonzalez. Yes. I want to thank you as well. I know I definitely do not envy you. You get a lot of requests. And so I just want to thank the effort from the Budget Oversight Committee for putting together what I think is a really great plan. And so thank each and every one of you as well as our city staff. I may I make them every year we conduct an English budget meeting and we conduct a Spanish one. So we have to. You know, look at all of our. Spanish language and make sure it's translated correctly. And it's really tough, let me tell you. So I want to thank staff for just being available to our residents in the first District for that. I appreciate it. Just a couple quick questions. I know. The business core. Corridor improvements, which will be divided evenly among Pacific, Anaheim and Carson. That looks to be about $150,000 each. Are we because that doesn't stretch far, but are we looking at additional funds on top of that? I know. So some of it's actually gap funding. So some of the corridors when discussing economic development opportunities. The first thing I always sit down and talk about is what can we do to increase revenues? Because if we can increase revenues, we don't have to cut costs and especially revenues in areas where we have visitors ship and likes. So the original intent was to take a SIP funds and hopefully use them in some corridors that we thought we could activate for visitors. It didn't end up working out that way, so we ended up finding this other opportunity in working with the Economic Development Department head. There are some corridors that already have funding, but there's gaps between major areas. And so to make a contiguous look and feel and to amplify the effectiveness of the money that's already been spent. Some of these are the adjacent, so every one of these has something adjacent to it that's already exciting and funded, and that's how these were funded. Great. Thank you very much. And I look forward to that. I'll also say as well, the community concerts, which I know have been a big priority in my area, but I appreciate them certainly, and making sure that we are looking at the whole city. And so I really appreciate the efforts there. And then I want to make sure with that that this is an ongoing use. So it will be structural. Correct. So what we did is we put in the plan that the community concerts as a whole would be revisited, because a component of this is that this year the mini band is funded. And perhaps looking at what that looks like and putting all the numbers together are really going to be able to provide a bigger, broader picture for consideration. I know that this dialog started late in the year and so we want to ensure that the city staff work to ensure all of these are successful and then bring back the areas for improvement in case additional funding is needed in certain gaps as we go forward. Because what we set up was matching funds. So theoretically, every council district could submit that they wanted to fund and then it would be matched. But that is unlikely to be the case. And so when we look at that, we'll know better. So this is a test pilot on the fourth component of that, which was the supplemental matching. Okay, so we'll rereview, but hopefully they're all successful like UPS in and then we'll go from there. And some of them are already independently successful without the funding. And the challenge is that they would be even more successful if the community didn't have to spend as much time fundraising and could spend more time advertising and getting out the word and bringing people in. I couldn't agree with you more on that one. So thank you. Perfect. And then the last the last question or basically comment that I have is similar to Councilmember Pearce with the sidewalks and alleys. So I'm just wondering in terms of I wasn't really clear as to how that was going to be. So there's two different items in there. There's two different sub motions and the master motion, the one related to on a go forward basis, the city shall make citywide investments in streets, alleys and sidewalks based on need. According to my dialog with Mr. Beck, that would mean that the $5 million that we as a council have set aside for alleys would first and foremost go to need based turning our dirt alleys into paved alleys. Okay. I think that was in alignment with your comments at a prior council meeting. Right. And you're saying we expended, of course, our the ADA lawsuit that happened that was expended. So this is so the convention center, just so I'm getting it clear in my head, will be used for sidewalks based on need priority as well as all of our other streets alleys which are already in the process. Okay. Just want to make sure I'm clear on that. That is it. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. But let me let me add to one one piece of matches to be very clear for for staff as well. And I know I while you were gone, but go ahead. Okay. And Councilwoman, go. I want to mention this, but I just I know I was asked by staff to clarify all of the maps that were already presented, both the measure maps, as well as the Capital Street Map overlay that this council saw about a month ago or so at the at the. All of that is already locked in. And this is for additional streets or sidewalks in this case beyond that, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you. I just wanted to echo a comment made by Council member Pearce regarding the Hart teams. I think having Hart teams in every battalion in the city would serve the city very well. Our council colleagues were not privy to the presentation that was made earlier today regarding the budget survey, but we had 485 surveys submitted as of yesterday, and among the top priorities for the residents who completed the survey are public safety concerns, response to homelessness, issues that are presented by transient activity. And I think the Hart team can really go a long way for us in terms of identifying opportunities to get people into long term services and care. And so one of the issues that I had raised at BMC, I think it's something that will come back for us to consider, is really evaluating what funding opportunities may be available for Hart teams. There was mention of of possible money from the county coming that that I'm not personally aware of. But I do know that the first responder fee is is performing better than projected. And it would be my intention as we move forward and continue to look at that source of funding to put that money back into the fire department, to have more Hart teams servicing the entire city so that each district has a Hart Team presence, so that these individuals with our fire department have the opportunity to build the relationships with folks who are homeless and build that credibility that's necessary to get them into long term sustainable programs so that they can make long term life changes. I think I think there's a lot of opportunity there for us to see meaningful change and. So I'm just putting that out there. I know it's not one of the recommendations. I wish it were, but I realize that it's not yet. And I hope that my colleagues will consider how we can find more moneys to fund additional heart teams for the entire city. So thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Chair Mungo. I wanted to chime in and just say what a what a wonderful job. You and both members, Austin and Pryce, on the Budget Oversight Committee did on making sure that there's you know, you take in consideration, you know, the city manager's budget, the mayor's budget recommendations, and now I see a whole bunch of council recommendations here. So I see a real intentional effort to really build a bridge, really build consensus. And I want to just acknowledge that. So. So good job. I do want to say, you know, we want to maintain our focus, you know, over the course of the next year on what we can do around things like expanding our our fire academy and expanding the Hart team. And so as revenues or fees are adjusted and we look at those things as a. Conversation, I'm. Certainly looking forward to having once we once we conclude this. But again, thank you to all the members of the council. This this recommendation, I think, is very balanced and has my full support. Thank you. Thank you. Any member of the public wish to comment on the proposed motion? I fully support any moneys that can. Be put into concerts that I would also like to see some money put into some opera. APRA and I hadn't heard that word all evening. What if we have to find some money? Put it into get three or four opera productions. Thank you. Honorable mayor and council members. Thank you for helping me out today. I'm Janet Powell, small. Business owner and Long Beach animal advocate. I'm here today. Because I partner. With and support several incredible Long Beach based nonprofit volunteer run animal rescues. I believe Emily Gosh has already spoken with several of you about our comprehensive report and the programs and staff support we're asking for for Long Beach Animal Services. Thank you for earmarking $50,000, which is a great start, but it cannot be won and done. We must look long term. Allow me to pose. Two questions and I'm willing to bet you don't hear them very often here. First question What can we do to bring more money to the Long Beach economy nationwide? The industry has grown by $2 billion every year for the last ten years, and it's already at $69 billion this year. How much of that is being spent in Long Beach? How much of it is growing in Long Beach? If we implement better adoption, facilitation and educational programs at the animal shelter that directly results in economic benefits, more adoptions and more responsible pet owners. I mean, more money being spent at the hundreds of businesses in this city that specialize in vet care, pet supplies, pet grooming and setting services. This is a significant market with a lot of room for revenue growth. On average, a pet owner will spend $1,000 per. Pet per year. 15 years means up to $15 million additional spending coming into the Long Beach economy. If we just get 1000 more residents to adopt, more spending means more sales tax dollars cumulatively, far more than what we're asking for to get these improvements started. Second question how can we help the city of Long Beach save money? Better spay neuter enforcement services and educational programs mean fewer unfixed animals dumped onto the street, which creates. Even more. Homeless, ill and dying animals. Already, their presence. Is lowering property values, and that means fewer property tax dollars coming in year after year. Unless you empower us to implement flood gates and might not significant savings be made if animal behavior educational programs help to prevent potential lawsuits against the city? Why wait until a police officer shoots a pet dog based on a misreading of its behavior? Just last year, the City of San Diego was sued for. A half million dollars because their dog was shot by a. Police officer who came onto their property and reacted too quickly out of fear. The dog bled slowly to death for 2 hours while the police officer failed to respond to the family's pleas to get immediate help. Also last year, two cities in Colorado and Michigan have already paid out over $360,000 combined to two families whose dogs were shot by police officers. Why wait until something like that happens in Long Beach? Education is the key to prevention. Help us make a meaningful, tangible, long term difference in animal rescue. And we will be your champions. This can be your legacy to your family and to your community. Long Beach Animal Advocates Members. Please stand up. Thank you. Thank you. Well done, Janet. Mr. Mayor. Council members. Good evening. Of course. Also. Thank you. My name is O'Reilly. Vander Hook and I have been a proud member of the Long Beach community since 2001 and an even prouder member of the rescue. Community since. 2012. I am the founder of Zoe's Place Rescue, and I would like to address my concerns over the budget consideration for the Long Beach Animal Services. Since I started to get involved in rescue five years ago, it seems that the. Shelter's need for help has not decreased. And every year we, the rescue community, feel that we are not making a dent. In 2016, Long Beach Animal Services killed 2360 animals. Or 22% of its intended. Statistics to date. Long Beach Animal Services has already killed. 896 impounded animals, knowing that 500 of. Which were cats due to kitten season. This is not a 90% live release rate. This is a staggering. Number that can be prevented if the shelter and the city can issue adequate programs and budgets. It is shocking. That adoptions only contribute to the success rates by. 6%. That is not enough. We cannot sit here and pretend these numbers are okay simply because we are lower than the Downey shelter. That should not be a. Consolation by any means. Let's also be clear that without the help of the rescue community, this these numbers would be far higher. In 2016, rescue support, 1161 animals from the shelter, or 11% of its intake. And already in 2017. We have saved. 1121 lives, or 18% of the intakes rely on us to continue. Making those statistics bearable is simply. Not fair. The rescues are full to the. Gills and completely trapped financially. As well as. Emotionally. The amount of. Debts each of us have accumulated just to weather. Keep animals from being turned into the shelter or save them from the dreaded red list is simply not sustainable. The City of Long Beach should instead look to put pressure for relief. On another contracted partner in SPCA with an annual rent of $120 to. The city. SPCA should be pulling a lot more from the shelter than the 15%. Rate it is currently holding. The Protection for animals. Their organization stands for. Good start there. Long Beach is an animal friendly city. And I believe we if we empower. Their residents. And give them the opportunity to rise to the challenge. We can come together and do significant change. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. Honorable Mayor City Council. I would like to give a special. Thanks to the BRC for listening to our concerns and making a little bit of wiggle room there. You know, it's encouraging to get $50,000. It's obviously not exactly what we need, but we're encouraged by that and we really do appreciate it. So, yes, thank you to the BBC. I can assure you that your attention to this matter means more than to just me and the animal rescue founders. It means a lot to the community members and they are watching what's happening here. Our team will wholeheartedly continue our efforts to support the city shelter and the rescues will continue to make our city look good and our mayor look good by keeping those kill rates as low as we possibly can. The shelter team, as I've. Said before, are a really dedicated. Group of people, and it's our honor to support them in this $50,000 will help us to do that more effectively. Our group are looking forward to the completion of the city. Audit at our backs. We have full confidence that the audit findings will be accurate, informative and therefore will influence further initiatives to increase funding and implement programs. Also allowing us to reach our goal. Of a 90% or greater live release rate for shelter pets. Thank you again for your support of shelter animals. I know that we're a unified city of animal lovers, and together we will continue to deepen our efforts and make Long Beach a progressive animal shelter city. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Okay. Robert, repeat once again. Represent Jesus. No organization. But one thing I have on this, I heard somebody mentioned homelessness. Now we had to $25 million. I know it wouldn't last two years. Bills or something, you know, for the homeless. Now I'm hearing about homeless in here and then people talking about dogs. I mean, I love dogs. You know, that's cool. But, you know, so many people out in the streets coming from L.A. Fitness on Carson and Terry at night, I would go late to get my workout. And as I'm leaving, I go around, I forget what restaurant there is. There's a guy right on the concrete. When it was freezing and I got pneumonia last year, I could see I could see fog coming up. That guy just had a blanket wrapped. I mean, the dogs are cool. I want to help that guy. There's so many people out there really hurting, and we need to help the people. Now, all my life, mainly, I seen minorities out there. But now in the last well, since and at Long Beach, I never seen white folks like this out in the middle of the street asking for money. We have an epidemic. We got white folks have same problem black folks do. We got to get together and stop just catering to the outside. And I mean, dogs are cool, but hey, we got to take care of people for dogs. We got too many people out there that messed up off of meth. Heroin. And this is serious, you know? Oh, I hear all the stuff talk what I heard, I see what has been passed for this money being passed everywhere. But we got to do something about it. So I'ma say I'm I'm not going to spend too much time on this, but let's do some. America for Americans is help the veterans. Let's help our citizens. And as far as these jobs and all this stuff, listen, I want to see I like to see blacks and whites working again everywhere I go. I have nothing against Latinos because I'm not Tino Cubano, you know? But damn, I want to see blacks and whites working. It was a day when blacks and whites had jobs in America. Not anymore. Every time I see anything going, I mean city jobs. I said where they only want to do it there nobody else to do it. Not want to see city jobs, want to see counter top jobs. What is the every job? It used to be back in the seventies when you got a construction job, you started out at $20. You could buy a house, look at a construction site, see if you could find a see if you could find the right guy in there, a little black guy. So 28/2 use. The rest is up. Remember that. Hey, that right? Martin Luther King said we better do black and white together. He said it back in the sixties, black and white today. That's what this nation started. I'm everybody in between to break. We're going to have this race war stuff because it ain't no nine, no Nazi KKK. I never been that. I worked Trump on me and I'm Nazi KKK. Fascist. I mean, all fascist meant to it not long ago. But thank you. Thank you for your time. Please Americans and remember you book. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Oh. Good evening, our honorable Mary Garcia and council members. My name is Patrick Goddard. I am president and board member of Action Sports Kids Foundation, also known as Ask Long Beach. Tonight, I am here as a private citizen and resident of the fifth District to request $100,000 in next year's budget to be set aside as seed funding for skate park improvements, specifically for the Michael K Green Skate Park at Pacific and 14th. After attending a few budget briefings and talking with parks, I believe that seed funding and commitment to this project from the city will help get matching funding from outside. Sources will. Be able to use this to leverage. Funding that I know is out there. The city council and staff have an incredibly difficult job allocating funds and support for an overwhelming amount of needs and interest. I fully recognize this, but I think skate park improvements are very worthy cause and urgent at the time. At this time, during last the last week, I visited several of our local skate parks, particularly in the evening hours at Osoba, Robert Gunn, Byner, Eldorado and Michael K Green. These skate park spots were the only amenities in the parks that they were located in to be fully utilized. During my visits, there were kids and scooters, adults with skateboards and bikes, all respecting each other, exercising, engaging in healthy activity. And while the basketball courts and other amenities were empty, I know that's anecdotal, but I see this again. Again, I just want to drove here past Robert Gunn Byner again. Most of the park is empty, but the skate spot was being fully, fully utilized. Skate parks helped keep our parks activated. And with the talk of parks shuffling funds for afterschool programs, keep in mind that skate parks are, in a sense, outdoor community centers that act as areas where youth can recreate, socialize after school. A well-placed, well-built, well-designed, all concrete skate park is a fiscally conservative investment that requires very little maintenance and years of benefits for the community. It's time to improve and build the next chapter of Michael K Green Skate Park, a spot that has already provided benefits, great benefits for well over ten years. Thank you for your consideration of $100,000 in seed funding for skate park improvements, and thank you for your time. I'm here with a group of other parents and skaters that are in support of this, including my son Dylan, who skates in. Long Beach every day. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, counsel. Thank you for your time. My name is Amber Sullivan. I'm a resident in the third district with Councilwoman Pryce. I've lived there for the last 12 years with my son, who is also a skateboarder and as a single mom, having a place for him to go and get actively and be social and be active and not sitting in the house saying I'm bored is priceless. He he skate for 8 to 10 hours at a time every week and every Saturday, every Friday through skateboarding. He's had opportunities to travel, to go to Minnesota, to compete to compete in the California state games. Having these opportunities available in Long Beach is I can't thank you enough. And so I'm here to show support in getting additional funding to help renovate and improve the Michael K Green Skate Park and the other skate parks within Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Hi. My name is Nicole Stewart and I live in the third district and I like really like skateboarding. It gives me something to do and there's different skate parks. But personally for me, I don't have a car and there's not a safe way for me to get to a skate park. And I feel like we should get a new skate. Park that is concrete. And have something for the community to do. And it'll be used for things. Think in a speaker, please. Hi, my name is Steffie Hans and I'm a resident of the fifth District and I'm also here in support of improving our skate parks, not only the Michael Green Skate Park, which really needs a lot of help, but also a lot of the other skate parks and that it's included in the annual budget. My son has Scooter did at the Michael K Green Skate Park when he was eight years old. And I go hang out there when my brother comes into town. He's 40 years old and he still skates that park. So I really see the skate parks as something that brings together our community, brings together our kids, brings together the parents that have the kids there. And it's it's an integral part of our community. I was here with McDonald and when he started that first skate park and how tough it was to get that one going. And now we have several. And they really do need maintenance. They do have safety issues. And I understand the challenge with that that the director of Parks and Rec has, but we would like them included in future budgets. And we appreciate the work that you have done on this budget. I know it has been very difficult and a lot of work has been put into it. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. All right. Hi. Thanks. My name is Mike Stewart, resident of the third district. I'll be really brief for as brief as I can be. I just want to reiterate, I'm also here for skate parks. A couple of things that were not mentioned. Skating is an Olympic sport. Due tour is awesome. It's brought 30,000 people as an event this year. Due tour is also used for snowboarding for an Olympic trials. It's very likely that the Dew Tour in the future will be used for that here. There's it's good visibility. It's good good opportunities. If new skateboard parks and rambling. Excuse me. Long story short, there are a bunch of us that realized recently and it's hard to organize over a long weekend to even show up on a night like this. But a lot of us leave the city in order to go take our kids to skate. I attended a meeting last week. With with. Councilmember Price and brought up the idea of working with developers to help retail retailers suffering. We've got a lot of really interesting retail projects going on in the city. Entertainment is going to be key for the success of retail. I'm sure you know this, but there's there's a lot of research out there that suggest if retail is going to survive entertainment, you needed you need a draw. You need a reason for people to go out. So I'll quit. I'll quit again. Skate parks. We'd like to see more. And I know I've missed ten things. I urge you strongly. One of the main things, main points that Pat had mentioned earlier is the utilization. It's extremely cheap versus the utilization. So it is a conservative investment that lasts for 20 years. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Instead of him into a war zone. The third district again just reiterating proposed funding for specifically the Michael K Green Skatepark. As a professional skateboarder since 98. You know, I've been there many times and the city. Has helped shape my career. That park is made of prefab material. And it's a it's at this point, it can be kind of dangerous. There's holes. You know, if they were to re-implement that, I don't think it would be that much of a budget for whatever you guys can do. It would be really appreciated just to implement a concrete park. Well designed. I did have some snow in the McBride skate park. Believe injuries as a part of that one. Anything you can do to concrete. Well this last a. Really long time and again it it. It's. Good for the kids. It gets them off the street. It teaches them perseverance, patience, so many things. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you for coming back. We appreciate you. Next, teacher, please. Good. Good evening, Vice Mayor Richardson, City Council Member, City Staff Rich Gardner, District four. I want to thank the city for approving the $125,000 for the Commission on Aging. I just got news from Karen from the Long Beach Gray Panthers that that happened. And I implore the citizens out there to get behind any efforts to increase activities with the seniors. Some people call it the silver tsunami. I don't know if you've heard of that phrase, but let's face it, a tsunami is an underground earthquake that happens all of a sudden. And basically the baby boomers are growing at such a rate that it's more appropriate to call it an iceberg. And if we look back at one of the greatest disasters in the history of mankind, which is the Titanic, basically our technology is so much better nowadays. We have the ability to see that iceberg. We know it's there. The problem is, just like with the Titanic, I don't think America or the world has really put enough lifeboats on this ship called the World. And that's the main reason that I'm sorry that 1500 people died on the Titanic because they only had 20 lifeboats and they had the capacity of 64. So I encourage the council members. I'm sure a lot of you have assisted living facilities in your own districts to go and visit and find out some of the needs and concerns and the citizens out there that are caring for the people. Let's face it, it's an overwhelming responsibility. A lot of you know, I know this firsthand because I took care of my wife who had Alzheimer's disease. And I can tell you that it's just it's more than you guys can even imagine. So with that in mind, the Gray Panthers are also going to be having a booth. They just looked it up. It's called the heart of Ida Walk, which is September 23rd. I haven't been there yet, but I hear Rosie the Riveter park is pretty nice. I'm not sure whose district it's in, but it's going to be a senior safety walk to help raise awareness. So I encourage the citizens out there to come on out, help, support and once again and I organized the Purple City Alliance, Riverside, California. We recently got the city of Corona to partner in with us. I'm inviting the city of Long Beach. Whoever can make this happen to come and share our information. Last year, we put together five symposiums on the issues of dementia and Alzheimer's. And October 22nd, San Cornelius Church. We're going to have a little throwdown from 2 to 5, get some people out there to celebrate life with those that are struggling. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Vince Poggi, and I'm a 40 year resident of the third District and an alumni of. Long Beach State Beach. I'm also an animal. Activist, and I just wanted to acknowledge. Some of my fellow activists who are here tonight in support. First of all. Thank you for allowing me an opportunity. To express my views. In a Grunion Gazette article from August 24th of this year. The writer Ashley Rule cites there have been three straight years of record low in LBS and euthanasia and at Animal Care Services. These are important and positive results. This is a result of the hard work and commitment of Ted Stevens and his staff and his willingness to work with volunteers and rescue groups. These steps are to be applauded and are a step in the right direction. But as the article mentioned, there is more work to be done. There is a national and international movement to stop killing healthy, adoptable animals in shelters. There are 35 states currently with programs to include 420 cities that have successfully achieved their target goals. They are saving taxpayer dollars, city resources and lives. There are 13 cities in California, including Palm Springs and San Francisco. This goal. Is not the. Sole responsibility or burden of animal care services. It is a city wide community endeavor requiring cooperation from residents, volunteers, foster families, adopters, donors, related nonprofits and rescue groups, fundraising endeavors and grants, spay neuter education programs. Of course, some of these require funding. Congressman sorry, Councilman Mondo's proposal for 50,000 in additional funding is truly, greatly appreciated. But realistically, it's just going to take more. Just to give me an idea of some of the cities that are doing this are really quite diverse in size and economic. But Kansas City, Missouri. Charleston, South Carolina. Jacksonville, Florida. There are quite a few. Des Moines, Iowa. They're all different, except they have an openness and a. Willingness. To try and change this antiquated belief that this cannot be solved. So again, I say Congressman Councilperson Mungo's increase is appreciated. But it's just a step in the right direction. Lastly, I would say that it's going to take a while and a lot of work and cooperation, but I personally would be very proud if we were able to add our great city to the list of compassionate communities that I had mentioned. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, everybody. Can we say to us that is not the first district and a proud member of. The Long Beach Gray. Panthers? Budget processes are hard. We have to make hard choices about. Where our money is. Going to go and balance all the needs in the community. And there's always more needs than there is money available to address all the needs within a community. I want to commend Stacie Mongeau for chairing the Budget Oversight Committee. I've gone through a lot of budget processes. She did an amazing job and the people comments and discussions that Susie Price in Austin. The questions you brought really made me feel that this is a shift in the way we do our budget in our community, that we're going to consider the needs of all of our community going forward. Personally, I want to address and. Thank you all. For including the money for the establishment of the Office of Aging within our. Community. As Richard said, we have this huge tsunami coming of seniors and. 10,000 nationally every day and not a large number in. Our. Community. We don't get the acknowledgment of what we contribute to the community. We're huge economic engines for the community. Seniors own 80%. Of the United States. Wealth. Something that we need to think about. We're often discounted, but we feel that this office and aging is the first. Step to. Really, truly engaging seniors in the processes of our community. And some of you. Are on the council are seniors. Just barely. But we look forward. We always think that we're the age that we will at some point in time. And we want to be. Great Panthers look forward to working with the Office of Aging to make our community truly an age friendly community. And Mayor, we accept your. Challenge at the you did at the aging in. Mount Maginnis event to make Long Beach the best community for seniors in the U.S.. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate everyone for coming out. There are some really amazing things in this budget, $2.65 billion. And here we are at the end discussing the final 20,000, 50,000, 70,000. If we could get a quick answer to a question from Ms.. Marie Knight. I know that the comments made here tonight related to skate parks are something that I have experienced. I'm very fortunate. I have a concrete skate park in the fifth District, Eldorado Park. I was at Michelle Obama Library the other day and in route I passed a skate park in the ninth district. Then it was 9:00 at night and leaving the event it was still activated. So I do appreciate that they are a activated component of our city. Ms. Night What are the repairs needed and or conversion process to concrete that is being discussed by the community today? So, Chairman Go Members of the council, the 14th Street Skate Park is a combination of concrete elements and as one of the gentleman mentioned. Prefabricated. Elements. The prefabricated. Prefabricated elements do not last, obviously, as long as concrete, concrete is ideal. So although I was not here at the time that that skate park was constructed, I can't tell you the logic behind that. But we just recently spent about $12,000 doing some. Repairs to the. Prefabricated elements, and they take a lot of wear and tear. That is a very highly utilized skate park as all of our skate parks in the city are. And so without the conversion to concrete, those elements will continue to need repair. As a matter of fact, we. Were unable to convince the original manufacturer to make those repairs, and we had to find an alternative contractor to do that. So I don't see that. We will. Be able to continue to have such success with that in the future. I have talked to some of the skate park advocates as well. As far as you know, depending on funding that's available, we have looked at grant funding. There isn't a lot of grant funding available. For skate parks. They're generally in the realm of 5000, 10,000, 25,000 at the most. But potentially, as funding is made available, we can phase in the replacement of the prefab elements. I appreciate that. I see that two councilmembers are queued up from that area of town. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you, Marie. And thank you to Councilwoman Mongo for bringing that forward. And I want to thank the parents and Patrick for being here and the kids. I know Michael Kay Green is a big park in the first district and for the area. And so I just want to thank you for bringing light to the fact that, you know, I remember when Mrs. King was out and we put it all together in the very beginning stages when it was Vice Mayor Robert Garcia then at the time and now being the councilmember, I know how important this is for the Washington neighborhood. I actually have a meeting coming up with both Pat West and Marie very soon to talk specifically about parks in general, but just also about Michael K Green and what we can do there. I'm wondering, though, and knowing that we have this contingent appropriation, I'm wondering if we can even just take a third 100,000. I think the figures for Michael K Green may have been around 300,000 or so. We're not give or take quite a bit, but if we're able to expand on 100,000 and provide that as part of the contingent appropriation, if we should have surplus for Measure A, if that is a friendly amendment, I would. Actually not be for Measure eight. So what what we could potentially look at is so contingent appropriation. What that means is if we come in under budget and there's money available, it goes to a set of priorities in a priority order. And so we've started to outline what those priorities are. I think 100,000 is a stretch. But I think that if we have a commitment that we use it in partially to match and or phase in an approach I see nods on that side of the table. It's also important to know, though, that you won't know if that money is there for quite some time. It's not available October one. It's not available until the budget closes. And we actually know there is money. We can't spend money that we don't have. And so you're not the first in the list, but I think that it is important to send this message. And I think that. The city staff can work even harder to come in under budget. Yes, they're nodding as well. So I'll accept a friendly for 100,000 towards matching and moving towards a concrete skate park at 14th. Thank you. And I know a second. Want to accept that friendly as well. Well, as one of the I think the few districts without a skate park. Aren't you getting one soon, though? I don't know. Is anyone coming to a park near. You those days? Of course I do. Those funds have not been identified. And I would just. Just say that I know that we also have a firm in the the General Fund. For Capital Infrastructure or existing city program to be divided equally for the city council districts. That one could be used for for that purpose as well. It could that would only amount to 70. The 78,000. 83,000 only. That's all. Could get you. Almost there. I understand if we can't do it at this time. But then I would ask that the IOC look at it again in our. Are you in close? Is that. That works? I just want to start. Let's do that. That would be great. Then let's put that at the top of our agenda for the b0c when we come back. Okay. That helps us. I know that it's an important need. I want you guys to know that you're heard and that it's in a a list. I think that part of it is that we're here at the last minute. And I appreciate you all coming out. And the process of the budget takes several, several weeks. And so I think that as numbers firm up and we have a better plan and where some of those matching funds could come from, I think that at prior community meetings there was a talk of matching funds that would come in in larger quantities. So the research needs to be passed on to our Parks and Rec department because part the report, they're coming in a little bit lower. So let's talk through that over the next several weeks and when we come back mid-year. And let's look to find a positive way to make that happen. Wonderful. See? No further comment. I have one more, Councilwoman Pierce. Thank you. I just wanted to say, you know, someone that has a skate park in her district and have talked to a couple of you guys, I couldn't think of a better program. That we can add. To parks that don't require too much staff time, but have a lasting impact. I recently had a conversation with our assistant city manager and Marie Knight, our parks director, around how to how do we partner better with community organizations to invest in our parks, in areas that we might not have the funds to do so. And so I would encourage you guys to have a conversation both with the council member and our Parks and Rec around our Peps program and possibly drafting a proposal for what that skate park would look like and possibly reaching out to, you know, the Mountain Dew event that happens and saying, can we get some funds that would help us have a program? Maybe it's a Mountain Dew program in the in the community that helps fund our skate parks because as I think the PSC chair mentioned, we all have those projects and I think that an area that people like to put money. To is investing in youth and. That there's a lot of corporate opportunity and professional skaters out there that say, I want to invest back in. That's an opportunity that you guys can help us partner with where we might not have direct access. So I encourage you guys to have that conversation. Likely you could get something done faster than waiting to see if we have some extra money in that aspect. So I just wanted to put that out there for you guys. Absolutely. Councilman Price. Thank you. I do want to say I want to thank Mike is still here. He was at my community meeting the other night and it prompted me to reach out to a developer who is working on the second and PCH project in my district about bringing in a Vans type private facility like they have at the block over at the second PCH site. I think that actually would be a really great offering to have at that development. I think it would like Mike said, it's got to be an experiential retail experience for people to go and for it to sustain. So I'm hoping that that's a possibility. If we are allocating money citywide for skate parks, I would love one as well. I don't have one and our district doesn't have one. We get a lot of requests for them and I actually think Rec Park would be a beautiful site for a skate park facility because there's no homes around it. And so we're not going to have concerns from residents. I think we could build a fantastic one there. And it's a place where we've seen a lot of recent transient activity, so it would really activate that space in a positive way. So I think the idea of looking at this for future funding would be great. It would be fantastic to have skate parks all throughout the city because I agree it's a great way to get the youth engaged. So thank you. Thank you to all my colleagues for your club. This process. I know it's not easy, and I appreciate so many members of all the communities and constituencies coming out. I think that what we've put together today is fiscally responsible and very collaborative, and I'm appreciative to everyone who was a part of it, especially the staff who have gone through many iterations with me, I think run like iterations 74 or something of of different multipliers of where we could put different things. So thank you to everyone and I urge everyone to support this motion. Motion case.

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the Los Angeles Region Safe, Clean Water Program, a potential countywide ballot measure that may be considered by all Los Angeles County voters on November 6, 2018, and give direction to City staff on the Measure as appropriate. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07242018_18-0622

Great. Thank you. Okay. We're moving on to item 616, which is the L.A. County Stormwater Measure presentation that I know our staff is going to make. And so I'm going to have the clerk read the item, please. Item 16 is report from City Manager Recommendation to receive and file a report on the L.A. region's Safe Clean Water Program, a potential county. Country, Callaway County wide. Ballot measure that may be on the November six, 2018 ballot and give directions to city staff on the measure as appropriate. I thank you. And I just wanna make sure I know that it's that it is late and there's been a lot on our agenda. I just want to make sure that this is a pretty large, county wide effort that our staff has actually been working a lot on. And so I just want to make sure that we're all kind of aware of what's happening. And so hopefully this presentation will do that. So. Mr. MODICA Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate that. Yes, this has been an effort that's actually been going on for many, many years with a restart in the last 18 months to two years that has culminated in the county supervisors putting on a measure. They just voted 4 to 1 recently to put it on for November. So we'd like to give you a chance to understand that a little bit better to ask some questions. We'll have a presentation. We also have a member from from Janice Hahn's office, who is also here as well. And we've been working very closely with her office on this measure. So with that, I will turn it over to Alvin, Papa, who will walk us through the presentation. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Members of City Council. My name is Alvin Papa, Assistant City Engineer. So I'm here to talk about the Safe Clean Water Program. This is an initiative that was approved last week by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. The vote was 4 to 1, and so it will be on the November ballot this fall. So currently about 100 billion gallons worth of stormwater flows to the ocean every year through L.A. County. That brings about 4200 tons of trash and pollutants to our ocean. So this program would help capture about 42 billion gallons of that stormwater. So currently there's about 88 cities in L.A. County that do not have a dedicated source of funding to address stormwater challenges in Long Beach. We have about a 600 to $900 million estimated need for stormwater over the next 30 years. So as Tom had mentioned, we have been involved with the development of this initiative since the beginning. We're one of 27 stakeholders that were part of the formal stakeholder advisory committee. And so we've provided our comments and most of our comments have been addressed through the final version of this document. So what is the safe clean water program? So in essence, it will be a tool, two and a half cent sales tax, I'm sorry, parcel tax for every square foot of impermeable space on private property and permeable spaces defined as concrete rooftops. Any sort of space that cannot be infiltrated into the ground, such as grass or dirt. There will be an exemption for government buildings, public schools and nonprofit organizations. The current average tax is estimated to be about $83 per year for the standard single family home. There will be a credit to parcel owners who can show that they're currently capturing stormwater and are already reducing the amount of stormwater that's running out from their property. To do this, they'll have to certify it and then they'll have to recertify every two years. The total estimate that this measure will collect will be about 300 million per year. So Assembly Bill 1180 by Holden in 2017 authorized the L.A. County Fleet Control District to levy a tax, and it establishes distribution that you see above. There will be 40% dedicated towards a municipal program, 50% towards a regional program, and 10% towards a district program. And I'm briefly going to talk about each of these funding allocations. For the municipal program. This is the 40% portion. Long Beach is estimated to receive about $5 million per year. This program does offer a lot of local control. The funding collected will be used to administer our stormwater program, which includes activities such as monitoring and recording of pollutants, inspection of industrial and commercial facilities, public education and outreach, and most importantly, implementation of local stormwater quality projects such as the Eastern San Pedro Bay. Restoration. Rehabilitation of our existing pump stations still under some train projects within the city and trash capture projects. For the 50% regional portion. This is a distribution to the nine watershed areas in L.A. County. The distribution is proportional by area of the watershed. It is important to note that this regional program is a competitive program. There will be call for projects and multi benefit projects will are the only projects that will be eligible. So in addition to stormwater quality, the project will have to offer a nature based solution, community benefits or water supply in addition to water quality. These projects will be oversaw by a watershed area steering committee, and we in Long Beach would be competitive because we have two watersheds and we're also at the bottom of the L.A. River . So, in essence, the bottom of the kitchen sink. So we're impacted by all of the the pollutants that come down streams from the cities upstream. Ultimately, any city that is upstream of us that gets funds, funding for this project provides a benefit to us because that will equal less pollutant, less pollutants coming down to our watershed. And this is just a table just showing that we're in two of the nine watersheds, and that's the lower San Gabriel River watershed and the lower Los Angeles River watershed. Overall, what you see above is a distribution of the funding that will go to each of the watersheds. One thing to note is that less developed areas will receive less funding than more developed areas, primarily being a result of the more developed areas having more concrete and more permeable surfaces. These are just some bullet points on the regional product, the regional program. One thing to point out is, in addition to municipal agencies, nonprofit organizations, businesses and water suppliers will be eligible to submit their projects as part of this program. But they will have to partner with an agency and an agency as part of the watershed for which the project they're applying to. We'll have to support them on that effort. And in addition, projects must be a part of an approved water quality management plan and the regional program. There are three main components. There's the infrastructure program, the technical resource program and the scientific studies program. The infrastructure program funds primarily the projects. The Technical Resources Program will fund planning efforts to ensure that these projects are feasible. And then there will be a scientific study program that will look into third party research and analysis to help guide the program. And the last part of the program is the district program. This is 10% of the funds will go to the L.A. County Flood Control District for administration of the program. And this primarily will go towards review and scoring of the program, project applications, making sure that the projects are feasible and ensuring that the audits are conducted and ensuring that the funding is used correctly. And also, if you look at the last bullet, it shows the district is required to spend $25 million in investment towards stormwater, education and workforce every five years. So just to recap for this municipal program, Long Beach anticipates to collect about $5 million annually for the regional program. It's a competitive program for which multi benefit projects will be eligible. And overall, this program will have to be reevaluated after 30 years. And there is no sunset for this measure. And just a reminder, it's going on the ballot and it needs to third votes to pass. So that concludes my presentation, and I'm here to answer any questions. So thank you, Avon. I wanted to give the council a little bit of history here, too, is when this first came up, I believe in 2014 and I have the number, the date wrong language was a supporter. So we spent time at the table really crafting this measure and the council ended up voting to support that. But there were some practical implications that were very difficult to move that forward, to get it to the voters. It was a fee instead of a tax. And so things or groups like governments had to pay it. So that meant all the school districts had to pay it. It also meant that churches and institutions that are normally not exempt would have to pay it. And there really wasn't a lot of outreach done. The county really took that to heart. They went back. They went back to the stakeholders. They pulled that last item off the ballot. And now we're back here today. So after about 18 months of really intense negotiations and discussions with all the environmental groups, with a number of different stakeholders throughout the county and cities as well, what they've come up with is a program that puts about 40% of that money directly back to cities so that we would have a dedicated revenue stream, $5 million every year to help us with stormwater. There would then be 50% that we can apply for, which is that every year about 30 million from our region, give or take, that we could apply for, for projects. And even more excitingly, at least for from a staff perspective, that it gives the other upstream cities ability to apply for projects because we're at the bottom of two rivers. So any dollars that gets invested in any project is going to help Long Beach. So our role as staff was really to take what's in your state legislative agenda to try to get the best deal possible for Long Beach. But we have stopped short of endorsing this measure. That's really up to the council. If you want to do that tonight or at a different venue or if you want to take, you know, or not have any position that's really up to the council. But we feel very confident that we've gotten the best deal that we can for voters if they do approve this, that we would that we would get a lot of benefit from this measure. And with that, we'll turn it back to you for any questions. The one thing I want to just add, Mr. Watkins, I think was missing and I think has been the main impetus for so many cities getting involved in the measure is were we have we are required we have requirements that we have to meet on stormwater management that have been essentially mandated to us by the state. And so Long Beach. I can't recall what our our number is, but with the cost that it's going to cost us to actually meet the state mandate. And so in some cases, for many municipalities, the requirement is is is large. And so in our case, we have no, you know, dedicated pool of money that we're going to be able to use or have to shift from other areas or other projects to meet our stormwater requirements. So can you talk about that? Because I think that's actually the whole impetus is why the county's been having this discussion. It is we call those team deals are total maximum daily loads and they are requirements from the state to reduce pollutants. And those come in the forms of metals, for example. They can be very fine metals you can't even see that are in the water. They're bacteria, they're trash. And so there's a number of these different regulations. Long Beach has actually been one of the only cities that has supported many of those regulations to be put in place, because, you know, that's how we really get some of the clean water quality that we're seeing today is our upstream cities have to have those regulations, but it's very, very expensive and we do not have a funding source in Long Beach for our portion. It's several hundred million dollars, if not even upwards of $1,000,000,000 that we would have to do over a long time. And other cities are facing incredibly high compliance rates or compliance costs with no funding source. It's dedicated. So the mayor is absolutely right. These funds would provide a dedicated funding source to begin to address those and help clean our water. And let me and we just could take it one step further, because if I remember the conversations around around this in the past, one of the one of the big issues has been that Long Beach has been engaged with our state partners for for many years on encouraging this type of legislation and kind of this type of requirements, because we end up with all of the stormwater that comes down the L.A. River. And so I know that we have been active in supporting the state mandates on essentially all of the upstream rivers across the county. And so because of the support of these these mandates, which obviously are clean the clean water are good for the environment, are sustainable, and a variety of other issues, the cities all including all of our neighbors upstream, are having to meet these new requirements and really don't have funding. And so I think part of the county's interest in this and there are other interests, of course, to do some some big larger projects, but part of their interest is to give cities the ability to meet these mandates so that the city of Long Beach is not cleaning up all of their trash. That's absolutely correct. And the mandates are so enormous over the next, you know, 20, 30 years that without, you know, one thing is to put in a mandate and the other is to actually find a strategy to address it. And right now, cities do not have a strategy to address those long term mandates. And so what we predict is without some type of funding source, it will likely end up in just litigation and then the water doesn't get any cleaner. So we have I think you said it very well. We've been pushing for those mandates and then also trying to find an identified funding source that everybody in the county can draw from to be able to to meet those costs and the water cleaner. Great. And I just want to make sure I pointed those out, because I think that there's there's kind of history as to kind of what what our involvement has been in the past. And I want to make sure that that that was clear as we can have this discussion. And I imagine that the councilmembers will have some good questions on this. So let me turn this back. So, Councilman Ringa. Thank you very much. And I thank you for bringing this forward as a I'm also a member of the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, as you probably know. And so I've seen some of the effects that the upper cities said to us in terms of their debris and dirty water. But we're also in the process of building our Long Beach Mass project, the Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment Plan. I didn't see any mention of that here. And it's in this presentation that all is there and is there going to be some connection with this bond issue as well as with the with our with our project? Are we going to be able to get some funding for that as well? Yes. So we have if you remember, they'll be must is in about a six phase project. And we're making really good progress on phase one that's very close to being funded, completely funded mostly by Caltrans. But for us to basically expand that, to bring additional water to the facility, to be able to do reclaimed water lines and irrigate our parks on the west side. That would all be projects that we would be looking for because any of those projects are going to be eligible because you're taking water, treating it and then reusing it. They would square, we would think. Very highly in the in the grant applications. And as well as this these funds were being used for are there are other drainage issues that we have around the city as well, I take it? Yeah. So the $5 million would be both for operations and for infrastructure. You know, they want to make sure that we're not just doing stormwater conveyance, but also treatment and multi benefit wherever we can. So would it be appropriate at this time maybe to make that motion that the city council support the initiative? Is that what you said earlier? So that's up to the city council. We wanted to provide a report. So you have the option to give us a number of different direction. You can support it. You can ask for more information. We can come back later at a different time. You know, it is the property agenda and it's up to you. Well, I'll wait to see what my my colleagues say, but I strongly support this issue. Thank you. Before I go to Vice Mayor Andrew, I should announce the Councilmember Pearce has recused herself from this from this item. And so she is not with us for that. City attorney. Is that enough? That's correct. In their recusal is based upon her employment of working with a company that is lobbying for this event, for this tax. Thank you. Next up is vice mayor. Everything okay? Councilmember Richardson. Thanks. I just think as a city as large as Long Beach and for we should acknowledge the long process that we've we've come through from the initial fee that we considered back in 2014. There's been a lot of work done on this, and I think that's already been stated. And and the reality is this creates, you know, some great opportunities in terms of infrastructure investment, job creation, good opportunities in terms of, you know, sort of a strong quality public sector. And our water departments are in all these other sort of L.A. County flood control areas. So I think there's a lot of good things here. I know. I know it's going to be a challenge looking at the fact that it's a it's a potential parcel tax. But our return in Long Beach, we we're going to benefit, you know, more benefits than any other city. And I think we have to really consider that. So, you know, I want to hear how the council goes, but I'm in support of this already. I've already publicly stated I'm in support of this. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I appreciate the a pretty comprehensive presentation and appreciate the comments from my colleagues as well. I did have a couple of questions. I just wanted to if this is to to make it on to the ballot and on November 6th. What is the vote threshold again? It's parcel tax. So it's two thirds. Two thirds. And I did have a question regarding the the how will impermeable space for properties be assessed? And obviously not no two properties are exactly the same. And so how how will the county assess that? So their methodology look like. Okay, so there is a technology they're using called glide lighter. So they have aerial photography that's going to identify the locations and there's a computer program that will identify that and put forth the calculations. So the the I want to say I don't even know what the number is, but I would venture to guess we have a few thousand lawn and garden homes in our in our city. Will that be taken into consideration with this methodology? Just yes, it will be. On so every parcel they will evaluate and evaluate the tax individually per parcel. So and there's also a credit program to have somebody put permeable pavers or some way of infiltration to go into the ground, then the homeowner could apply for a credit being that they've installed something that may look like concrete , but it lets water go on to the ground. So for example, I. Have a large patio in my backyard and water runs off, but I have a lawn garden or drought tolerant garden in my front yard yard that runs off into that. Or I may have a rain barrel. I hope all of that is being taken into consideration because there's been a lot of emphasis on on sustainability and and responsibility, responsible conservation of water over the last several years here. And I think our city should be commended for our efforts to do that. It just though those are questions, I think critical questions that are going to have to be answered and we're going to have to educate voters on particularly here in our city if we're going to support something like this. Thank you very much for your presentation. No. Thank you. Thank you, councilman. A Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I appreciate the presentation. So thank you very much. I would not be willing to vote in support of this item tonight. I've done very little outreach on this particular issue with my residents, and I think it's an important topic to speak with my residents about before weighing in on their behalf. I will say I think it would be a very valuable information to third district residents and those living along the coast that we do have a significant issue with trash on the beaches. So I'm wondering if maybe staff could speak to that a little bit, because in recent in recent weeks, we've received a lot of concern from residents who either use the beach or live near the beach regarding, you know, public health hazards on the beach. And one of the things I've shared with them is the lack of trash capture devices or methodologies to control the amount of trash that flows is certainly an impact. It's not just encampments on the beach. Which a lot of residents are attributing to the public health hazards they're finding on the beach. But rather a lot of the issues we see are from trash that's actually landing here from other jurisdictions. Is that something you could speak to a little bit and how something like this might help alleviate some of those problems that our residents are seeing? Because I think that would help, at least with me in talking to residents and for any of them watching. Absolutely. So. You know, recently it's been reported in the paper and we've been pretty upfront that, you know, we had some incidents on the beach where we've had needles show up on the beach. We immediately went out and we have a whole team that's out there that is raking the beach every single day to to be able to ameliorate that situation. But it's not just a Long Beach situation. We have been talking up and down to other coastal cities. They also have needles on the beach. And the general convention is that they're coming from the ocean, they're coming down the rivers, they float and they get out in the ocean and they get washed up on the beaches. So, you know, one of the regulations of the mayor had mentioned is there's a trash team deal that says no city shall be putting any trash at all into the ocean. And that's one of the state requirements. And that would be anything coming from. And it's not just dumping trash, it's coming from any storm drain. They're supposed to be captured devices. And so that's the type of thing that this would fund would be able to do that. We've made success over the last several years in reducing that trash. In 16 cities north of us, we've got grants to put in full capture trash devices so that that trash is not hitting the L.A. River. It doesn't capture everything. But we have seen a big reduction over the last several years, and we can do more. And, you know, one of the to that point, one of the recent clean up efforts on the beach, one of the police officers who was involved was sharing with me that a needle was found and it was at the high tide line and there was no encampment anywhere in sight in regards to that particular needle that was found. That's not obviously going to count for everything, but that to me was pretty important corroboration that in fact, this is this is a situation where it's washing up onto shore, where it washed up from, we don't know. But if this were to pass, is it going to be a competitive grant funding type situation for cities to get grants? And how do we ensure that the cities that we have no control over in terms of where their trash is being placed, are applying for the grants and are sometimes even being awarded grants over us because they might need it more than we do to control our own problem. So the answer to both those questions is yes, we do get a dedicated funding source, so 40% will come to us and 40% of all the money will go back to those other entities too. So every city will get dedicated funding to be able to to implement their programs. Additionally, you can apply for funding by watershed so that that we think makes it very fair that, you know, the cities that are paying in can get it back from their watershed. And it really encourages a comprehensive watershed approach so that there's plans that have come up with saying these are the most effective ways to capture water and to prevent, you know, water from entering into the storm drains and either be treated. And so the water management plans are going to get funded. And so the groups, the cities will come together and they'll be able to make determinations on which ones of those are the most competitive and which ones deserve the funding. So honestly, there might be a year or two where Long Beach doesn't get any funding because the better way to address the trash issue would be to fund our upstream neighbors. And we're very we're very supportive of that because that makes a lot of sense. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you for that information. I appreciate it. And again, this is something that I hope staff will assist at least our council office with in terms of educating our residents. Because I do want to do some more outreach on this. I know we'll get a lot of questions, and I think it's important for me personally to have input from the community before I weigh in. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Councilmember Sabrina. Thank you. I did receive a briefing from our city engineer on this topic, so I guess this will be directed to Tom Modica. Just a little different approach. So the goal of this is not stormwater conveyance, it has a different purpose. But could could I work like a byproduct of this would be that we would have maintenance or re-engineering done on our stormwater conveyance systems. So the intent of the measure is to really is to divert or treat or somehow other, you know, clean the water. But I think it also recognizes that storm drains also need to be maintained. So the projects that could be funded is, for example, A, if we needed to do an enhancement in some way for stormwater capacity , also making sure that at the same time we're doing, you know, bio filtration or we're doing, you know, sanitary sewer connection or some other way to treat. So we believe we can do multi benefit. X2 to solve multiple issues. Okay. So I think the point I would make is that because of our needs for ongoing maintenance and whatnot, if we don't do this, we're going to have to come up with a different funding source to to maintain those systems. Yes. When we presented the infrastructure report to you back two years ago, there was a big, big Category four storm water infrastructure. So we have storm drains and pumps that need to be replaced. Some of those are getting done through major aid, the most critical ones. But we do not have a plan for the rest. And those do need to get addressed either with city dollars if we don't have these or by reprioritizing or additional funding sources. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Tauranga. Thank you, Mayor. So based on the discussion and I know it was a little not a surprise, but it's come upon us now that this ballot measure is was approved by the by the county. And I think that we being a beach beach city that's also impacted by by the L.A. River, because the deadly river runs through it. We should look at supporting this measure. So I would move that. We get the city attorney to draft a resolution in favor of this ballot measure and maybe bring it back at a later date for us to consider for the city council to consider, so that we could also take it to our to our voters to see if a to for voter education in this measure, because it is going to be on the ballot. So that's my emotion. Well, let me while I take public comment first, so please public comment. Second. I can't say I miss these nights. Hello. My name is Andrew Winter Hannah. And I'm here tonight as a staff member of Long Beach. Forward throughout the spring. Long Beach Forward, a conducted educational outreach and community input for the Safe, Clean Water Program. Our goal was to ensure broad participation from residents throughout the city, with an emphasis in north, central and west Long Beach, the areas of our city facing the greatest economic and health disparities. For four months, we conducted door to door outreach, gathered 518 surveys, presented and gathered feedback at 28 community meetings and events, and hosted our own Community Fair and Forum, which was attended by nearly 50 community members. I must admit that when I started this project, I did not foresee the amount of passion I would encounter surrounding the topic of stormwater capture. However, to my surprise, people are more affected by this issue that I initially thought youth, seniors and those living with ambulatory disabilities are disproportionately affected by severe storms and are hoping to see infrastructure improvements aimed at lessening their impact. People in the community are capturing their own water, using self-made. Systems to. Water their own food. And residents understand the importance of stormwater capture as a means to combat the severe drought. We continue to experience residents and attendees of our forum pinpointed where they would like to see. Various stormwater. Capture projects in their neighborhoods. And several themes arose from our outreach, including the desire for projects with targeted job training for low income and formerly incarcerated people, accountability and mitigation measures for industries that heavily pollute and waste water. Extending the scope of the municipal program to include storm drain improvements to reduce the negative effects of flooding for elderly populations, those living with ambulatory disabilities and children who walk to and from school, and the importance of greening alleys and sidewalks. We also heard about the importance of cleaning, including maintenance for projects in planning and budgeting. Our main purpose for coming tonight is to let you know that Long Beach was well represented in the information the county received and Long Beach Forward is happy to make ourselves a resource to you as you look closely, closely at this issue . Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next public speaker, please. Hello again, Lauren Kim. And this time on behalf of the Our Water Lily Coalition, a group of diverse organizations working together for local, reliable and affordable water for all Angelinos. We've been working closely in support and to inform this county measure and with organizations from ranging from really local organizations here in Long Beach, like the Little Cerritos , Wetlands, Land Trust and the Great Panthers, as well as national environmental organizations like NRDC and the Nature Conservancy, as well as other labor and community allies, and have collected over 1000 pledge cards in support of this measure and over 2000 petition signatures in support. And so we've been working to make sure that this measure opportunities are realized. Thank you to the staff for the really thorough presentation on all that is encompassed in this measure. But it could just to underscore that it can bring more projects, both like helping support the Long Beach must, as well as helping to expand and maintain projects like the DeForest Wetlands or the Willow Springs Wetlands, the bio swales and street trees, and other kinds of projects that are already going up around Long Beach. And to really underscore that piece that is able to help fund the maintenance of those projects, which we know a lot of times is one of the hardest things to fund. These projects can not only help clean the stormwater, but also capture water for use locally and Long Beach. We know that that's an important issue for the city, given the given the drought conditions mentioned, the need of the Parks Department to have their water budget raised because the we're just not getting enough rain to be able to properly water all of the green spaces in Long Beach. And we're also really excited about the jobs possible, both building and maintaining these projects. We estimate it could create over 6000 construction jobs and over 1000 maintenance jobs over a 30 year funding cycle. And we've been working to make sure that those are good jobs and jobs that are accessible to the populations previously mentioned people with criminal backgrounds, formerly homeless, people with, with or without high school diplomas. And just to reiterate, as I mentioned, that Long Beach would both be able to get these get these local returns, that $0.40 of every dollar that a Long Beach resident pays in would come back directly to the city of Long Beach, as well as the regional grant funds. And that a late addition to this program is that the grant funds over time that they would be proportional to the city. So Long Beach, being the second largest city, would would really stand to get a lot from those grant programs and also is very well-represented on the decision making bodies for those grant programs. And that's really wonky, but I think it's exciting for you. And I just want to really underscore that the appreciation for all the work that staff have done and that the mayor and council for considering this, but also to underscore that there is no real alternative to this. We're facing drought, water quality issues and increased heat and this can help address all of those. Thank you. Thank you so much. And last speaker. I didn't see you out there. Good evening. Good to see you. I'm Jimmy Wilson. I'm the economic development and beaches and harbors. Deputy for supervisor, hon. Have about 14 pages of comments, but I think your staff report was so thorough. I'm going to make it two paragraphs. This is a very important thing. I'm a I'm a longtime, lifelong resident of Alamitos Bay. So I see the San Gabriel watershed and what it does during storms. And I and in the Army Bay, I have a family business at Rainbow Harbor. So I see what the L.A. River does. Every dime spent upriver from Long Beach is going to benefit Long Beach. So I need to remember that this measure will provide the. Funding from stormwater projects. That will create local jobs, replenish. Our underground aquifers. Keep our beaches clean, and ensure clean, safe water flows for generations to come. Supervisor Hahn and the entire in the Los Angeles County, she wants. She wants this area to be healthier and more sustainable. And she urges Long Beach to take a position of support for this measure. And that's my summary. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jamie. Always good to see you. Thank you. Absolutely. Let me go back to Councilor Moringa. So just to get some clarification. Obviously, there's a lot of questions regarding this ballot measure. There's still some more that need to be vetted out in the sense. So I guess this would be more toward the city attorney. What would it be like I mentioned earlier, at an appropriate time, maybe a couple of weeks, three weeks time, certain for us to come back with a resolution or or support. Mayor and members of the council councilmember irrigate. You have pretty much all of those options are available to you this evening. You could receive and file the report tonight and direct staff to bring it back at a later date again for your consideration again so that you're not making any determination. You can direct the city attorney to prepare a resolution and have me bring it back at a at a future date to be determined. You could give me a date certain. So really, you can do what you would like to do with this item at this time. Let me let me jump in, Mr. City Attorney. So I think I think what I what I heard. Correct me if I'm wrong from anyone, but I think there's obviously some general support from a lot of members that have that are supportive of this and want to support this. But we also heard that there is a need for some council members to do some outreach and to work with the residents and get some information to their residents. And so I think that there that you've heard both of that tonight. And so I think that sort of with it was probably best is that we come back bring this issue in in a couple of weeks or a few weeks. So there's enough time for those members to do the outreach that they want to do and need to do. And then we can come back at that point and and take that vote to to support the measure or whatever the Council would like to do at that point. Yeah, I think that's what I heard from from the body. What council. Member. Would a August 14th three weeks be sufficient time. That okay. So the August 14th Council meeting. This will get a chance for a vote to support. Theater. Yes, we could certainly put it on for recommendation to request me to prepare a resolution in support on August 14. I would then prepare the resolution and bring it back the following week for your approval. Okay. Great. That would be my motion. Okay. So that is the motion comes from any other seeing no other comments. So this motion at a second to take a position on this issue on August 14th, after some additional outreach, please cast your votes. Motion carries.

A resolution approving a proposed Fourth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Argus Event Staffing, LLC for extension of the term and funds for additional expenses. Amends a contract to add one month to the agreement with Argus Event Staffing, LLC and to add $4 million for a new total contract in the amount of $27 million through 12-31-17 for security and safety services in various city venues including the Denver Performing Arts Complex, the Denver Coliseum, and Red Rocks Amphitheatre (THTRS-CE03107 04). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-18-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-15-17.

DenverCityCouncil_11272017_17-1233

No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please bring up 1233 for Councilwoman Black's question. Go ahead, Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Is there someone here who can answer a question about this? Oh, okay. Hey. I know this is an important contract. It's for security at some of our venues, like Red Rocks and Coliseum. But I thought originally the contract we were approving was for a longer period, but this is just for a month. So this is an extension to the current agreement. It's an extension of one month, but it's really adding capacity to the contract itself because we have a number of payables that are due and we're just trying to play catch up. By the way, my name is Mark Heizer. I'm CEO over our two venues. So at the end of this period, which is. December. Is there going to be another request for proposal for there. Is in the pipeline an RFP for these services? Yes, already. But we weren't sure if we were going to meet the deadline before that RFP was awarded. So we decided to have this bridge agreement. Okay. And I know that there's someone who submitted a proposal, was protesting. And have you already chosen the contractor for that? I wasn't involved in the selection. The selection committee, as far as I know, has awarded the contract. I think they followed. I know I'm confident they followed the procedures laid out by the purchasing folks, but I think that's where it stands. Okay. Thank you. That it can swing black. All right. Let's see. This concludes all of the items that have been called out. All of the bills for introductions have now been ordered published. We're now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills for fine consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or black vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, we please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration on final passage on the floor. Yes, Mr.. Yes, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted. Resolution 12 all of 2017 1233, 1274, 1275, 1276, seven, 64, 1267, 1279, 12, 80, 12, 37, 1245, 1246, 1247, oh. Know whenever to build. Sorry. The last the last resolution is 1280, the next four bills. Do you want me to put them on a one time? I think we. Yep. Yep. Okay. Let me just recap then. 1237 Bill. Bill 1237 Bill 1245 Bill 1246 1247 1248 1250 1251 1232 1255. And I move that all of these be passed. All right. It's been moved in second amount. Secretary roll call. Black Eye Clark Eye Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore, I and I. Cashman, I can eat. Lopez All right. Ortega I. Assessment. I. Mr. president. I. Political officers voting in that the results. 11 eyes. All right. 11 eyes. Resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed on final consideration. Final consideration and do pass. Madam Secretary, you have 12 eyes up there. Espinosa left. Yeah. So we're going to have to fix that. Okay. He's not a part of that vote. Yeah. Let let the record reflect. Only 11 council members voted, not 12. All right. There are no public hearings tonight, and so we are going to close it down. Thank you, guys, for being here today. And we stand adjourned.

A proclamation celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 2016 annual National Lights on Afterschool Day.

DenverCityCouncil_10172016_16-0989

Experience. We good. We coordinated tonight. That was awesome. All right. Thank you all. Thank you all. The perfect segway into Councilman Clark, will you now please read Proclamation 99? Thank you, Mr. President. I have proclamation number 16, dash 0989 celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 2016 Annual National Lights on after school day. Whereas the Denver City Council recognizes that afterschool programs make a lifelong difference for kids and their parents. And. WHEREAS, students who regularly attend high quality afterschool programs benefit in terms of academic performance, social and emotional learning and health and wellness. And. WHEREAS, quality afterschool programs provide students with access to academic support. Music, arts, sports, leadership, development. Conflict resolution and more. Building many important 21st century skills that inspire, increase confidence, and make connections to future education and career opportunities. And. Whereas, research finds that parents miss an average of eight days of work per year due to the lack of after school care for their children. Underscoring the importance of these programs in supporting working families and the economic strength of our great city. And. Whereas, the Denver Afterschool Alliance connects and unites providers, schools and city officials, families, funders and youth to create a long term collaborative plan for high quality afterschool programs citywide. And. WHEREAS, The Denver City Council pledges to support afterschool programs so that Denver's children and families have access to programs that support their success and strengthen our city. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognizes the outstanding leadership of the Denver Afterschool Alliance and bringing together all stakeholders to create a collaborative, long term plan for our city's afterschool system and recognizes. Thursday, October 20th, 2016, as National Lights on Afterschool Day Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the CEO of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit it to the Office of Children's Affairs. Thank you. Councilman. Clerk, your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the proclamation. Nine, eight, nine. Be adopted. It has been moved. And second, it comes from Clark. Your comments. Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's always a good. Night when. We have the opportunity to bring young people into the chamber. And I know that this sitting here for all of you is way less exciting than what you do after school every day. And that's a good thing because you. All benefit from these programs. And I love your shirts. For those who can't see, it says After school matters because I matter and you do matter. You are the future of our city. You're the future of everything for us. And so making sure that we're providing. You. Young people with all the tools and all of the programs that you need to be successful. Because, you know, I'm wearing this hat tonight and I'm a CSC Ram and there are a lot. Of SIU buffs up here. But we will all agree that what we want is for you to be a RAM or a buff or wherever. You want, and to keep learning and go to college and be successful. And I think that these afterschool programs, as a dad with two kids who are in afterschool programs every day, well, my wife and I are working. I know just how valuable they are for my family and I know just how valuable they are for so many families. And so I'm very excited to have this proclamation and have so many awesome young people in the chamber tonight to celebrate this and just want to give another shout out to the after the Denver Afterschool Alliance for all the awesome work they do. Making sure that we're not just doing afterschool programing, but that afterschool programing is high quality and providing everything that our kids need. So I would encourage all my colleagues to please. Help me support these young people in this proclamation tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. So you know the comments. I'll say this for actual. Actual. Both proclamations. Kids, young people. We love you. We're glad that you're in city council. Sorry. It's so boring, but. But one day you'll find this to be significant work. And I really actually just want to talk to the. The youth leaders, the folks who spend their time being with these young people. For eight years of my life, that's all I did. And it is such a rewarding experience. Now, looking back and seeing the young people who are now gainfully employed, taking care of their families and know that it was because of my investment into their lives. And so please keep loving on these young folks and thank you for what you do. Even when they talk back and get all crazy with you. Just. Just see them and who they're going to be in the future, because they're they're incredible. And I just want to echo Councilman Clark's sentiments. This is our future. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Clarke, I. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez I. Knew. Sussman Hi. Black Hi. Mr. President. I close the voting, announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Proclamation 989 has been adopted. Councilman Clark. Is there anybody you want to bring up? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to invite Christina Saccone, who represents the Denver After School Alliance, and Elvis de Barney, an eighth grader from the bridge project of this. Hi there. Thank you so much tonight for recognizing after school and also for funding after school and systems work through the Denver Afterschool Alliance, which is a program of the Office of Children's Affairs in the mayor's office. Really briefly, so that we can get straight to Elvis. The Denver Afterschool Alliance connects providers and the school district and city officials and the broader community to ensure quality. And together, our impact is greater. Last year, 50 sites worked on the A's quality program, impacting more than 15,000 students across the city. And in addition, we also have a program locator with 600 program so the parents can go online onto the city website and look for afterschool and summer programs for their kids. So I'm really interested in talking to you guys more about this, but don't want to steal the show from Elvis here. I'll be reaching out to each of you to chat a little bit more about after school in your district and across the city. And besides all this, though, I also would like to ask all the students to rise since they came today and just to celebrate them. We have between 30 and 40 kids from the Bridge Project YMCA and also Boys and Girls Club around the city. So just want to recognize them as well. And now this is Elvis Devaney. Yeah. For all units. The shirt. All right. Hi. My name is Oliver Devaney. I'm a part of the bridge project, and I've been going there since I was in the first grade. It has helped me in more ways than one academically. The bridge project has helped me with homework, guided me to the places I need in school. It also provides tutors for all their students, was provided by DU and volunteers to give kids the health the help they need, but the call to give kids the help they need. But let's not talk about academics. Not only does a bridge give me an academic chances, it also gives me friendships that could last a lifetime. Right now, I can name at least ten friends. I bridge that I know and they know me. But also I have relationships with the staff too. I have known for a long time I love my mom and she loved me as a kid. When I was in first grade, I came home from school and like any kid, I would not do homework or read just straight to the TV. But honestly I think overdid it because one day when I was watching Arthur, the next day while I was here, Bridget helped me with me and my mom. Over the years since you've been work from 6 to 6, my life is awesome and bridges are reason why. Thank you. Good job, Elvis. Well done. Nice name, too. Okay. All right. For our last proclamation of the evening. Councilman Cashman, will you please read 990?

Recommendation to receive and file a report from the Mayor on the City's involvement in the Long Beach College Promise.

LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1073

Yeah. Item number 12, communication for Mayor Robert Garcia. Recommendation to receive and file a report from the mayor on the city's involvement in the Long Beach College promise. Thank you. Just briefly, I know we have a long night. I just wanted to check in with the council and obviously let them know that the city has been working actively working with our education partners on the Long Beach College promise. There has been a lot of interest. Education, as most know, is at the top of the priority list of issues that I'm pursuing and ensuring that we are working with our school district as much as possible. With us today, we do have two of our school board members. I see Dr. Feld Williams is in the audience, as is Megan Kerr. I know that Chris Steinhauser is at another meeting. He was going to try to swing by. I'm not sure if he'll be able to make it or not. But I want to just say that the city has been active and becoming a full partner as part of the college promise, which we all know, which is very exciting. I also want everyone to know that the college promise continues to be a national model. Recently, a members of the heads of all of our institutions were in Washington, D.C., receiving awards and and accolades about the success of our Long Beach program. And what we're excited about here in Long Beach is not just supporting the current work the College Promise does, which is clearly focused on student success, which is focused on retention , which is focus on ensuring that Long Beach Unified School students have access to a community college or a Cal State University education. But we're also focused on ensuring that those institutions have a support from the city. In addition to that, we had discussions with all of our university and school school partners about additional goals as part of the college promise. One of them is a goal of trying to trying to attain universal preschool enrollment for Long Beach. We all know that research shows that there's no better investment than a preschool education for young for young people. And we want to ensure that every family in Long Beach, regardless of their socioeconomic status or where they live, have access to preschool. In addition, as we all know, when a family is able to enroll a young child in preschool, the family also has the ability then to have child care and then possibly go to work or pick up that second job or work with other members of their family and spend time. So it really is an economic benefit as well. The second major initiative, which we're all working on very aggressively, is to double the amount of internships in the city for Long Beach High School and college students. We are actively pursuing this goal. We think we will be able to double them in this first year, hopefully, certainly by the first or second year. But our goal is this first year. And that is something that the unit that the university, the community college and Lambert Unified are all actively, actively working on. And so we're incredibly excited about this process. We expect that sometime in the spring, we'll be able to come to the council with a very detailed report on on how everything is moving forward. And tonight, there's two items on the agenda tonight. So this so this item is just a a brief report that I wanted to give. And then there's a second item, which is actually the city council passing a resolution in support of the promise. And so with that, I want to get a motion to first receive and filed this report. Is there any public comment on this report? KC Nunn I'd like to ask. I know there's some members queued up. Did you all want to wait for the second item to speak? Okay, so why don't we do that? Is that's the resolution? And I also am going to call up r our two school board members at the start of the next item for public comment. And so with that, if we can get a motion, we can cast their votes for the receive and file item before we move on to the resolution. Motion carries six zero. Thank you. And, Madam Court, can you read the next item? Item number 13 Communications from Council Member Robert Ringer, Vice Mayor Susie Lowenthal, Councilwoman Susie Price and Councilman Rex Richardson. Recommendation and request. Request City Attorney to draft a resolution in support of joining the Long Beach College Promise as a formal partner with Obie, USD, IPCC and CSU.

Consider Revising the City Council Call for Review Process to Appeal Board and Commission Decisions by Requiring that Two, Rather Than Just One, City Council Members Initiate a Call for Review and State a Reason for the Appeal. (Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft)

AlamedaCC_03072017_2017-3971

Thank you, Ms.. Spencer. So I brought this call for review. If you've had a chance to read the staff report, I think it's fairly straightforward. A call for review by the C o. It's my counsel referral concerning the call for review process. Those words are just too similar in my mind anyway. My council referral asks that the council consider revising the City Council call for review process to appeal board and commission decisions by requiring that two rather than just one. City Council member members initiate a call for review and state a reason for that appeal. And just by way of brief background. Currently, a single council member can ask that a decision of a city border commission be appealed, and it's been taking place sometimes without even stating a reason to do so. Now there is always the appeal process that any member of the public can engage in, but that does require the payment of a monetary deposit to the city because there is a cost in additional staff time for preparing for this appeal process. The financial requirement doesn't apply to council members, and my reason for bringing this is that I think it's always good to get a second opinion, if you will, just validating that, yeah, this is this is something that we need to look at as a council. You would have to get three votes to gain that majority to approve an appeal anyway. And it just might be that those two heads are better than one and might say, for instance, just taking the case of the most recent call for review appeal that we had at the last council meeting of a planning board decision that had been approved unanimously by the planning board, and it was called for review by one council member. And this was it involved a private private property owners in some work they were trying to do on their property. I asked them to go back and tell me how much did it cost you if you'd add up all your costs to prepare for the Planning Board's call for review? Because the planning board did say, we want more information on this particular item that had to do with making sure that heritage oak trees were preserved in this project where some work was being done in the proximity of their roots. That was, I think, well and good. And it was a very detailed, well documented appeal and response to it. Those homeowners spent $28,000 getting their experts together, getting engineers, analysis, landscape architects, arborists. They have engaged an attorney, so they paid that and they got the approval. But then within the prescribed time period, this appeal was brought. They ended up spending another $4,500 just to prepare for the council. The appeal before the Council and the council upheld the planning board decision on a 4 to 1 vote. So this is money that these applicants are spending before they even get to the point of of doing the work. And I'm just concerned that we need to be mindful of the time and the cost to both members of the public, to our business community, and also staff time and expenses. So I think this is a reasonable approach, and I believe there's probably some public speakers on this item. Thank you. Did any other councilors want to speak at this time before I call the speakers? All right. There are six speakers on this one. If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit yourself. Kerry Thompson. Thomas Ellerby, then Janet Gibson. Hello again. As the Chairperson for the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee for the Chamber of the Chamber of Commerce, we felt that it was a really unfair burden that is placed on particularly the business, because that is generally the one area that seems to be called for review more often than on a residential basis. However, it's inconvenient for both residential and business people to have to go through this process. The costs are prohibitive, it adds. It delays projects. There is a fair process for going through all of these projects that people are given ample opportunity to speak at any one of the various planning board meetings, city council meetings. However, the process has to go through and to have them go back after everything is done and approved is just unfair and unnecessary. And I do like the idea of having a second pair of eyes, another thought process, and think that that should be a requirement. They're not happy. The city council is not having to bear that cost. So they're not really having to think about it like someone who a private citizen who is having to really weigh that budget item for themselves to, you know, call that project for review. If. The. Applicant has to go through all of that cost. That is also a deterrent to business. Businesses think, you know, they're not going to want to come and do business with the city if they're afraid that they're going to have to then have this project called for review. Their investors are not going to want to invest in a project, and it's just not a good use of time, of staff's time of the council's time. I mean, there are a lot of other important things that they could be doing. So I urge you to approve Council Member Ashcroft's call for a review referral. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Thomas LV. Good evening. At the last council meeting, my wife and I were called to defend a project that we have trouble with St Charles Street. We own that property and the call was made in spite of having. A unanimous approval by the planning board. Having four or five months of vetting being done. By the planning staff. Just to give you a little bit about my background, I'm a retired executive. One of a three person council that was responsible for $6 billion business with $24 million overall business. My responsibility is worldwide. I understand what the decision means and the impact that it has, and I don't feel that as I work tonight. The due diligence you gave to everything that you review tonight was applied to me with regard to my project. A simple phone call to any member of the body representing the planning board or the staff would reveal that the city arborist as well had approved a plan that was revealed to our mayor who made the call for me during the during the session. The people that she made the call. On behalf of my neighbors, I'm sure they had an expectation that when they came here that they would receive a different outcome. That it would be repealed. But our mirror only represents 20% of what needs to be done to get it overturn it. Just based on my observations in the meeting, I didn't see where she made contact with any other council member. To have you understand why she had made that call. I think my wife and I have been injured. You talked about it financially. Of course that's a part of it. But this process has been tedious for us. And that call impacted us in a way that caused more mental anguish than I've suffered in a very long time. So I think what you're doing tonight is something that's necessary. We need to rein it in. We need to have. We need to have the same kind of due diligence applied to what happens to me and others in this community that you did when you looked at what has to happen with the homeless in the seniors community. Thank you. Janet Gibson. And Janet Gibson. And then Dorothy Freeman and then Gretchen Lebow. And Michael McDonough. So in Janet Gibson, I know all of you in just hearing this gentleman's comments, I am very sympathetic to that. I think that, however, my experience with the referral process is quite different, and I think that this was an unusual exception. I go back. Ten, 12 years on my street, on Morton Street, across from the Trinity Lutheran Church to the a small Victorian cottage that was there since it was kind of rundown when we moved in in 1973. But by the nineties and in year to probably 2000, they were the people had been there, sold it, and there was an owner who let it run down. It was a rental with several illegal apartments and the shingles were falling off the roof. And and he you know, he didn't fix it up. He just rented it. Navy was still here at that time. Well, eventually he wanted to tear it down and. And build a duplex. Yeah, we all know that tearing down Victorians is not too profitable because you can't build more than a duplex in Alameda. But it was a small house and he thought he could do it. And the neighbors on our street were just we have a lot of nice Victorians. Several have were torn down in the fifties and sixties and we have apartment houses but but it generally is a Victorian street. And so we, we got together and we went to the planning board and it wasn't planning board, it was the Historical Advisory Committee. And we presented our you know, we thought that this House had a lot of assets to it and help the neighborhood and could be restored. But they didn't they voted to were to let it be torn down. At that point. We were able to use the referral process as neighbors in Alameda to to have a second hearing. And it was at at that time that I became acquainted with the Alameda Victorian Society then and Chris Buckley and he did research on it and indeed it was a historical home. The bigger home next to it was the original home. This had been built, built for a family member. It was built by an architect that was famous. And anyway, the council voted to to change that decision. And and now it's it's it was purchased by a young man who's been working all these years and continues to and it looks quite nice now and will continue to even get better and better. It has been a real asset. That type of possibility won't be available to people who don't have the money to spend it. I think we're really talking. Finish up your comment. Yeah. That if you want to be responsible to citizens in Alameda, they need this process to be covered unencumbered. Dorothy Freeman. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members and staff and public. I'm Dorothy Freeman. Some staff and business people have objected to the call for a review process as causing unnecessary delays and overload of staff. Time for business. The rules associated with the referral process are designed to keep action on the process short. Within ten days after the decision, another major objection about the referral process is from the Planning Board regarding council referrals for decisions the Planning Board has made. The public has a right to request a review without adding layers against them. When the 2100 Clement development was before the Planning Board, there was a very important issue for a homeowners association rule requiring garages to be used for parking and not filled up with storage. The city staff, the developer and the community all agreed on language that would be included in the homeowner's association rules. Parking in our neighborhood, as in all of Alameda, is difficult. So this rule was very important to the community. During the planning board meeting, when the rule was discussed. One planning board member remarked that she agreed or disagreed with the rule because she liked being able to use her garage for storage. There was no further discussion on the rule and it was, as it was known, the project had to come back to the planning board the next time 21 came before the Planning Board. The staff report still contained the recommendation to the homeowners association to require that garages be kept available to park the number of cars the garages are designed for. There was no discussion about the rule until the last 5 minutes when the planning board members were formulating their vote. Then a different planning board member stated that the proposed rule should be removed because it would be a first for Alameda as no present homeowner's associations in Alameda had that rule. At that time, it was too late for public comment or staff comments, and the text was removed from the highway rules. The community members requested a Karl Rove call for a review, but it was determined that a call for review was not necessary because the project had to come to City Council for approval and the Planning Board decision could be heard at that time. The council voted correctly to return the restrictions on parking and garages to the highway rules. There has been a lot of discussion about the time and effort that has to be has to be spent by the developers and the staff to call for a review. The community also spends time researching the information they bring to the council. Our community group spent the entire month of August researching, searching condo and town homeowners association rules. What we found out is all and I repeat all, condo and townhome owner association contracts contain restrictions on the use of garages for parking cars. This includes all the homeowners associations here in Alameda and in fact that planning board members should have and the planning board members should have been familiar with this, at least they should not be making decisions without knowing the rules. Thank you, Gretchen Lipow. Okay. I'm Gretchen Lipo. Welcome. You know, my team and I did some research on this, and I'm going to. And I we sent you a letter, and I'm going to just summarize it. We're in opposition to this referral, and one of our goals is to make city government open and responsive to our citizens as possible. Okay. Such a constriction of citizen access to the council should not be enacted unless there is clear and convincing evidence that supports the conclusion that the present procedure unduly burdens council and staff and has some other demonstrable, significant adverse impact on the city. Councilmember Ashcraft Primarily our primary argument is for requiring two council members to initiate a call for review. Is that an individual council member might feel pressure to accommodate the wishes of constituents regardless of the merits or cost and time burden. However, no data is presented to substantiate this claim. Our letter includes an analysis of eight matters which have been call for review from 2015 through the current date. Seven of the eight calls. For review were either high public interest items or matters that impacted a much broader sector of the community that the property that was the focus of the call. The high public interest items were Harbor Bay, Hotel, Park Street, shipping, container development, mixed use development at the corner of Webster and Taylor and the Harbor Bay Assisted Living Development . All four of these property projects were approved by the Planning Board. The calls for review resulted in three of these projects being rejected or amended by the council, with the fourth project being rejected by a regional agency, BCD. What our citizens should have free and easy access to the appeal process rather than requiring them to lobby multiple council members to call for review or pay the substantial fee required for a citizen initiated appeal. In these four instances, a fee of what 850 to $220 would have been required. So we're asking you to reject this referral. And I feel like I gave a little bit of that as I gave a speech about a year ago on the container thing where I said a committee of people in Alameda spent in the city spent about $100,000 on this job to come up with a. Plan for. The area that they were going to build these containers. That plan was didn't have anything to do with the proposal that finally came out. And so we said, wait a minute. You know, does the planning board know that the city had a committee that worked on this, came up with a plan? Oh, I don't think so. And so that particular project was rejected. Anyway, I just want to end by saying, you know, this is a time when we need to open up things and be much more user friendly to our citizens and not close the door on them. Thank you. Michael McDonough. Good evening, Madam Mayor and the rest of the council. I want to thank. I'm Michael McDonagh, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to thank Marilyn as the Ashcraft for bringing this as a referral. And this is an issue that we have great despair over. And if we want to have some some facts, since 2012, up to 2006, beginning of 2016, I believe there were something around six call for reviews between 2016 and I guess it was middle of 2015 and the end of 2016 there were almost a dozen. And it's interesting that some time ago this wasn't a problem, but now that it has become a problem, I'm glad that you brought this up because it's important to bring a referral. The council needs more than one person to bring a referral like this, is my understanding. I don't see why this calling for a review. Is that not true? Not true? Oh, that was my understanding. My fault, Valerie. I'm the only one who brought this one. Okay. All right, then. And I'm glad you brought up the dollar amount that the young man had last last council meeting. 32,000 or so to get that. But the business community has spent millions. And it really has hurt our reputation as a business. Business environment. This is something we're trying to achieve here in Alameda, especially at some of the areas, for instance, Alameda point where we want to attract business. But if the business can go through the process that's established through the planning board that is appointed by you guys and that to do their job and it's approved and then after spending millions more because they think they have an approval, have the rug jerked out from under them, just does not do well for our reputation. And, you know, there is a process, so all the public has to do is participate in the existing process, which is the planning board. And then when they do come to the council member council here for final approval, in many cases participate in that process. And if they don't if they're so interested in these projects, then there is a process for them to have easy access to show their opinions, not after the fact, when they don't like the decision. And if they are so interested in the decision, it should be possible that they would pay the money that's that's necessary to pay to do that. And it's been shown in the last year and a half, many times that that the one council member rule has been abused a bit and not necessarily by you guys, but it has been something that's been called to our attention. The business community doesn't like it and we would really support this. I would I would recommend three, but I will accept the two because I think that's better than one in this case. So we support this and urge you to pass it on behalf of the business community. Thank you. He's our last speaker on this item. And so if I can just reply to some of the comments and I appreciate the members of the public coming out and speaking. So in the examples that were cited by a couple of of our speakers about projects that were indeed called for review, and there was some modification made. There is still no proof that they couldn't have garnered a second opinion from a second council member, and it wouldn't have prevented that project from, you know, coming back to the council. But I'm just saying that sometimes I think even as elected officials, we need to police ourselves and that it is not unreasonable for us to just have the opportunity to stop and think of what all the implications are. And I think that this is a time when we're we're moving forward. We have, you know, hopefully we're attracting new business. We want to create jobs. And there are all kinds of reasons that someone might want a project called For Review. The addition of that second opinion and that the the person bringing or people bringing the appeal state the basis for that appeal, I think is just fair and reasonable. So those are my comments and I'm happy to hear from my colleague. I thought each one. Of. Them wrote me. Thank you, madam. I said a quick question of staff. So we did a referral on this last year and it's in the queue and, you know, kind of at the tail end of. Of the timeline. I mean, if we pass this, we would still have that referral. Come back with some other substantive reform ideas or. We have a referral that wasn't this specific for two. So we would and that ranks in the middle, um, priority of the council goal setting workshop. And so when we bring that back. The Council could add this as a part of that to say look at the referral process, but also specifically look at this request. And again, hypothetically, if we pass it, I mean, we get this is a change to the municipal code. That's where we're. Where we have that authority. It would require a change to the municipal code. So what you would be voting on now is basically what the city manager just explained. You would be telling staff to go back and look at modifying the municipal code to accommodate this, and I think it could be done in connection with staff's already work in progress on it . Meanwhile, we would have if hypothetically it's passed, it wouldn't be implemented until whenever that is on the schedule. So we could have council direction that we want to be able to call for review, but. It may take 6 to 10 months to implement. So. That may be something we should talk about. I mean, I am kind of sympathetic to the fact that. Folks can have this happen with no skin in the game. I mean, the couple that had the. The garage. I mean, they had a lot of money invested and. I understand the business issue, too, but it, you know, kind of hit home to me more with a residents because residents don't have. Is unlimited amount of funds. As you know, we all like to think businesses have. And yet, you know, they had to expend their money. But those that wanted to call for review had no skin in the game. They could just all one of us, we could put it in there and then they get a free, free ticket. And if you get a free ticket, I mean, you're you may think twice about calling something if you have to pay $2,000. And I mean, I don't know how much I mean, I can't engage in a dialog with you, but I'm not quite sure how much you had to spend for that extra that extra time to bring it to the council. 3500 or 4500. So those that were against the project. Which, by the way. Passed 4 to 1. How to spend nothing. So I think there's an inequity there. And if just like I think I said this when we did the referral, the Supreme Court, it takes four of the judges nine. Now there's eight, but four to hear something because in their mind, if they're not going to overturn it, why should they spend their time? So in my mind, if we're not going to overturn something and you can't attract two people, I think you should have three. By the way, I agree with Mike, but Brown, if you can't. But. There should be some reasonable likelihood that the planning board is going to have their decision overturned. If there's no skin in the game and I mean, I had a problem with then I have a problem with it now and I'd like to see this referral get implemented sooner rather than later if it passes. And member matter. S.E.. I looked at this and I looked at it also in context of the. It's no longer a referral. It's counsel direction because it passed here and it's on the priority list. The first thing that caught me was the requirement that a stated reason for and justification for the review has to be included. And I think the one on the floor that I saw in the oak tree situation is that that wasn't there. That being said, some of the other calls for review did have the justification, but it was hit and miss. And I think that needs to be tightened up and I think we have the opportunity to do that when the priority. The priority set brings that ordinance back here as far as having two members. It means that and this is I don't agree with that. I think any appointed body, there has to be an appeal, a mechanism to appeal to the elected body and there has to be a ability to do that. That's not cost contained. And I think in the act of going to another council member to lobby that council member to get your review on the council. I think what causes the problem or the appearance of problem, because we're going to sit as a quasi judicial body when the matter comes to review a planning board decision here. And we have very strict guidance from our training from the city attorney that we have to be careful not to prejudge evidence that comes during that review . And I think I'd rather preserve that and continue having the ability to have one council member call something for review. And then when the comment was made, well, it should be three. Well, if it's three, it's going to be a council meeting and we're going to do it anyway. And it's already time metered and it's ten, ten days. It has to be within ten days of the decision is when the review has to happen just like the appeal and as far as. I think we need to do a really good job in letting people know the entire process because I heard comments that, well, you should have participated in the process. While the process includes an appeal process and currently and includes a call for a review process. And that's the that's the way it works now. And that won't change. Even if it's one or two people, you'll still have to land that in your project that you you could have it either appealed to call for review. And if I could just respond to Mr. Rogers, his comments, particularly on the problem of the two council members prejudging an issue if that were the requirement. So currently on our council referral process, we could have two members bringing a council referral. In fact, the next one is. And then if you go back to the Supreme Court analogy that Council Member Oti offered, I am quite sure that if you looked at the history of the Supreme Court decisions, just because four justices voted to hear an item doesn't mean that all four of those voted to, you know, in a certain way, it's what you would be saying is, yeah, I think this deserves a second look. And it might be that it comes back and the second look yields a different result or it might yield. Again, I'll go back to the planning board review. I think it did make it a better process when it came back, but it doesn't mean we're prejudging. It just means that someone else thinks, yeah, this is worth taking a second look. And as far as making the appeal process financially available to our citizens, I quite strongly believe that if there were neighbors who came to a council member and said, Hey, we're really opposed to this project, it's been approved in our neighborhood, but we don't have the wherewithal to get that $750 appeal fee. What can we do that a council member could recruit a second council member, assuming it wasn't just something that was really just arbitrary and capricious. So I think those are certainly reasonable questions to raise. I think they have reasonable answers. Thank you. Thank you, vice mayor. You know, I think that there's a lot of presumption that that either you have to, you know, get another council member on board or speak to another council member. And that that's some sort of extreme exercise. You know, we. Presumably if it's going to council. We do hear from all of you who are concerned when it is agenda ized as it when it is brought for review. And so for the projects that like the one at the last meeting, you know, I heard both from both sides prior to that meeting. And I and and so I don't think it's a huge lift to send the same requests to multiple council members. And that's something that's fully within, you know, your ability and certainly could be done via email or phone call doesn't necessarily mean a face to face meeting with every council member. But as part of the due diligence, when when you are involved in a project or you oppose a project and have strong feelings about it, it's certainly an option to go to the council. And I think that to dismiss that as saying it's really cumbersome to do to talk to two council members and get support, I just don't see that because that happens leading up to the meeting. And I think ultimately at the end of the day, we're still having the process it still allows for and in fact, I think it helps to to reach out to the council members. You going to reach out to them at the meeting, reaching, you know, presumably you've been paying attention to the project. If you've got feelings, you know, strong feelings about it. I don't think it's you know, like I said, I don't think it's cumbersome to reach out for the call for a review. And I think, frankly, it'll strengthen the cases that we do here because somebody has to make a decision to call for a review. And I don't think when we look at whether or not you're adjudicating ahead of time, certainly the person making the decision to call for a review has based that on something, whether it's an ask or they disagree with the the factors that were looked at by the board in making the decision. So I think, you know, for that reason, I'm inclined to support the change just because I think it's in line with everything that we're looking to achieve. And it's it's certainly feasible. And I think it's going to make our it's going to strengthen our process in terms of the cases and making sure that there's merit to them and that there really is something that we're looking for. So I will not be supporting this. I think it is important to look at the facts. In 2015, there were four or five, depending upon how you count. It calls for review by council. In the entire year. In 2016, there were four calls for review. At this point, there has been one call for review in 2017. And so you think or calls for review in one year, the planning board makes a minimum and I don't know how many reviewable decisions they make in a year, but they meet 22 times a year, twice a month. And I would just say, okay, let's say they only make two reviewable decisions a year and that's 44 decisions that they make a year. Four out of that would be approximately 10% of the cases. The decisions at a minimum, I mean, it could actually be a much smaller percentage than that. And I am concerned about the Brown Act. We are allowed to only speak with one other council member before something is called for review. And then when you look at the items that are have that let's look at some of these items. And I appreciate I'm going to say assets, research and efforts in regards to speaking in regards to the facts of the decision in regards to the cell phone towers, the school district had taken action to remove those. That was that. Many people in our community think that it is not safe to have cell phone towers on top of our apartment buildings. And that was something that I think was worthy for council to weigh in on. I also think it's important to take note planning board members are appointed by council. They are not elected by the people and council does not speak. It does not go to planning board meetings and weigh in on the issues. There are opportunity to weigh in on decisions of planning board is to call it for review. That is the process. And in regards to, for instance, the due diligence of the only way for council to exercise due diligence is actually to have it come to council. That is where we get to ask our questions and weigh in. We do not do that at the planning board meeting, so it must come to council for us to exercise our due diligence that that is the place where it takes place. But if you look at the cell phone towers, I think it was a legitimate concern for council to weigh in on that issue. When you look at the hotel at Harbor Bay, I call that for review. And and yes, I a council level. It failed. It was a there was a compromise that I would actually say it did not fail. There were accommodate changes that were made in the parking on the Harbor Bay at this level. And in fact, it was member Odie that made the motion that made those changes. Now, if I had had to reach out to say that, say, I would have thought, okay, which one council member am I going to choose to work with on this? Then maybe I would have chosen a different council member when in fact it was member that came up with, I think, a legitimate solution of how. To do it. I thought he would have done that. And. I don't think. Yes. Remark. No. No. Yeah. So we have to guess which is the one. And he, I think he made a good suggestion and that's where we went forward however and I and I did not support that though it was a leave a 3 to 1 vote, one member had to recuse himself, member matter, S.E. And then when that project went to Bccdc recently, again, we had many community members attend those hearings and Bccdc shut it down. So to me that actually validates our concerns that it was within the 100 feet of the bay and that it was not a good project and that's rare for B DC to shut it down. So I think that does mean something. The Shipping Containers project that was also called for review, that was on 1926 Park Street. And in fact our council voted to not allow that project to proceed. So again, by having it come here and that was brought by a member of De SOG, one member. Then we weighed in as a council and we, we sent it back and it had to completely modify the use permit member already. And I brought regards to 1716 Webster so that when there were two of us that would have been allowed, but I again I would not have known. Oh member Oh, you're the one out of all of us that I should be asking about moving forward. And that is because we can only speak with one. So. To me that that is the problem we lost and everything is correct. We failed on that one. But but but again, to me, it was worthy to have it come here. Okay. And then the other, the assisted living project that when I called for review and it was rejected by council, three council members agreed. And, and also when we call something for review. I do attend as many planning board meetings as possible. However, we do not get into the depth and detail of any project that we do when it comes to council. And the council level is where we really then spend time. Exam. That's where we do our due diligence here. And on that project it did fail. And then, of course, there's the structure recently at Saint Charles that came up that I brought. I called for review and that one also failed. However, when you look back at all of them for a year has been the pattern, which is not that many. My opinion, and when you look at each one, I would think at least half of them have either been have been modified in some manner by council when they come here. And I think that really is council's job. We are the elected officials. We are exercising our due diligence when we examine projects and I don't think it is done haphazardly. I did receive an email suggesting that these calls for review, the term haphazard was used. And I and I don't think that that's appropriate. I think that each of us, before we call anything for a review, we do take it seriously. And we are actually and there was also a suggestion that by calling something for review, you are reducing transparency in the process, which to me is absolutely the opposite. We are there are many more people overall that attend council meetings. And in fact, I was on a bus going to to Sacramento today and I asked the gentleman who was very informed if he could name the planning board members and no, he could not. He can name every council member. So in regards to who does our who do our residents expect to make the decisions? Who do they know? Who do they have the relationships with? It's council. And as much as I appreciate the work of the planning board, I do think it is important for council to protect this ability for us to do our job and be accountable to the people. So I will not be supporting this. Thank you, Mary Spencer. And so I just want to reiterate for my colleagues in the audience that I'm not suggesting that we eliminate the appeal process. I'm just suggesting that we put a little more thought and deliberation into it and also that we be mindful that there is a cost. Nothing is free. We talk about wanting a free shuttle around the island. It's a great idea and a number of us are scrambling to figure out how to pay for that free shuttle. It was interesting to hear the example of the cell phone towers decision cited as an example, because in that particular case, it is the state of California that promulgates the regulations that apply to the placement of cell phone towers. And the planning director had certainly made that very clear, that the city city law does not. It was the word trap, but it's a local law. A local law doesn't overcome city law. We were bound by state of California regulations. So it was an exercise in a lot of time spent. A lot of speakers came up and voiced their opinions. At the end of the day, there was nothing the council could have done. And so might that have been a case where that second opinion would have said, you know, we've got a lot of items and issues before this council. Let's make sure that what we're doing really counts is really meaningful and within our within our ability to influence. So, again, I'm not saying do away with it. I'm just saying make it fairer all around. And in regards to the cell phone towers, we gave direction of prioritizing location so that when cell phone companies want to add them within the city that we have, prioritize what we think are safer, better places than on top of apartment buildings, for instance. So we did give direction to staff that they were able to use moving. Forward in. A progress that. Situation because we realized we can give direction without calling an item for appeal. But it has to be in front of us. So that's how that item came. In many ways to that issue in front of us. But anyway, I think we've probably said all we need to say. Does anyone else want to comment? Okay with that? Well, I already have a motion. I will make a motion that this council will consider revising. The city council call for a review process to appeal boarding commission decisions by requiring that two rather than just one, city council members initiate a call for review and state reason for the appeal. You have a second? I guess I'll second it then. All those in favor. I. Oppose. No. Oppose. Motion carries 3 to 2. Next Item nine be. Consider adoption resolution in support of a Congressional investigation regarding the impeachment of President Donald Trump. This item was put on the agenda at the request of Vice Mayor Vella and Council member Odie.

AN ORDINANCE relating to King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds; authorizing the Mayor to enter into a new Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between The City of Seattle and King County to allow for the acceptance of Conservation Futures Levy funds; authorizing the deposit of 2020 and 2021 allocations from King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds into The City of Seattle’s Parks Fund.

SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120194

Council Bill 120193 Agenda item 15 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the title of item 16 into the record? Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 120194 An ordinance relating to King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds authorizing the mayor to enter into a new Interlocal cooperation agreement between the City of Seattle and King County to allow for the acceptance of Conservation Futures Levy funds authorizing the deposit of 2020 and 2021. Allocations from King County Conservation Futures Levy proceeds into the city of Seattle's park funds. The committee recommends the city council passed bill. Councilmembers Mesquita, Herbold, Gonzalez, Suarez, Lewis, Morales and Strauss in favor. And Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120194 Agenda Item 16. You're now on agenda item 16. Any comments on Council Bill 120194. Hearing no comments. Will the police play the role on the passage of Council Bill 1 to 0 one nine for Agenda Item 16 to 1? Yes. Strauss Yes. Her bold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquera. I. Peterson. I. Council President Gonzalez. High nine in favor and unopposed. Thanks so much. Council Bill 120194. Agenda item 16 passes and the chair will sign. It will please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Will the clerk please read the title of agenda item 17 into the record?

Recommendation to receive a Charter Commission appointment pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

LongBeachCC_10232018_18-0948

27. Okay, fine. We'll move up. Number 27. Please read the item. Item 27 is a communication from the Mira Garcia recommendation to confirm charter commission appointment by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee. Any public plan in place? Excuse. No further comment. We don't have any. What about. The chair of the Personnel Select Service Committee that you. Might. Choose that Bernie? Julian, would you please come up? Just we just want to call you up and just let you know that you've been appointed, that's all. And you want to come down to a few words. Just let us say a few words. Yeah. We love you. Yes. Thank you. I look forward to serving my city. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. This is my recommendation. Thank you very much. Okay. Could you please have your. Okay. I just want to congratulate John for her appointment to the Civil Service Commission. It's a very big, big deal. It's a charter commission with great responsibility in the city. And I know you're up to it, so congratulations. Councilmember Price. Bush and Kerry's six zero. It's. The basement. He can.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to amend Agreement No. 28344 with Waste Management, Inc., to provide residential recycling collection operations on a month-to-month basis, not to exceed one year, at an estimated cost of $350,000 per month, on an interim basis, pending completion of a procurement process. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1053

Item number 27. Report from Public Works. Recommendation to Amend Agreement with Waste Management to provide residential recycling collection operations on a month to month basis citywide. There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item saying none. Please cast your vote. Oh, Councilman Longo. I'd like who made the motion. I think it was Andrews. And I asked him. D, would you be open to a friendly amendment to move the period of the extension from 12 months to six months so that we can make the RFP quicker? And then if city management wasn't able to get the RFP done within six months, they'd have to come back to this body. Yes. Okay. Okay. That's been and that's been approved by the maker of the motion steps. You've any comment on that or. We certainly have no problem with come back in six months. We're not sure we can get it in six months, but we certainly will try. Okay. So there is no public comment on that. We call for public comment saying none. Please cast your votes. Actually, Councilwoman, did you have a comment on this, too, or just another item? Okay. Please cast your votes. Bush and Kerry. Six zero. 28. Item number 28 Report from Public Works Recommendation to Request City Attorney to prepare amendments to the line between is football code relating to excavations within the adjacent to public roadways citywide.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $1,500, offset by the $500 of Fifth Council District One-time District Priority Funds, $500 of Eighth Council District One-time District Priority Funds, and $500 of Third Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide donations to the Long Beach City College Foundation to support the citywide Long Beach Reads One Book event held on March 19, 2020, at the Long Beach City College Liberal Arts Campus; and Decrease appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $1,500 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_03102020_20-0211

3640. That's ZIP 32 or 36, which was 36. Item number 36 Communication from Councilwoman Mongeau. Councilman Austin Councilwoman Price Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Special Advertising and Promotion Fund Group in the City Manager Department by 1500 to provide donations to the Long Beach City College Foundation to support the citywide Long Beach Reads one book event held on March 19th, 2020. Councilman Mangum Thank you. I'm very blessed to hand over the microphone for just a few minutes to two of the committee members who have worked so diligently on this project, and the new appointed executive director of the Long Beach Community College Foundation. Thank you, Councilman. Council member. Sorry, Honorable Vice Mayor. My name is Susan Redfield, and many of you may remember Long Beach reads one book that ran out of the Long Beach Public Library Foundation. It stopped six years ago. I wanted to bring it back. And Long Beach City College agreed to sponsor it. And we are doing that this year. Long Beach reads. One book is back. The program is to encourage everyone to read the same book. This year's book is George Takei's graphic novel memoir about his experiences as a young boy in the Japanese-American internment camp and later his experiences as an actor on the movie the TV show Star Trek. And later as a gay Asian man and how difficult that challenge was. The book is appropriate for middle school and up. It's been vetted by our Long Beach Unified School District. My ten year old granddaughter read it in 2 hours, absolutely loved it, and sent a video to Mr. Takei about how good it is. It touches many values and themes that are important to us. We have five high schools reading the book right now and we have it. I wanted to confirm that I'm doing this right. Five high schools, librarians, librarian book clubs. Our city is known to have 145 book clubs, and they've been told about this program. The goal is to get everybody to read the book and then to come and hear Mr. Takei speak at a free an event that will be free for all students with a small suggested donation. But it's really a free event for Mr. Takei to speak on the campus of Long Beach City College a week from Thursday, March 19th. I think that's it. Thank you so much, I. This agenda item under advisement of the city attorney commits three councilmembers to each, giving you a $500 commitment from each of our sappi funds. And I would ask any other council member that is open to joining me. I would be happy to take a friendly amendment if you're open to making such a donation as well. Anyone else. Okay. Mr. Armstrong. Which? Usain Bolt. So prices next. Oh. That's one place. I wholeheartedly support this item and thank you for everything that you do and I'm happy to be contributing to the allocation. So thank you. As well. Thank you, Vice Mayor, Councilwoman Mongo, thank you for the invitation to join in. And Susan, I know we spoken about this. And, you know, I'm a big fan from, you know, I wasn't alive when the Star Trek show was out. But I do know Mr. Sulu and I know about this book. So you can count me in. So you can accept this as a mr. Sulu else's name on Star Trek. Anyway, thanks. Come on. I'm so thankful. I know my stuff. I'm thankful to the Trekkie in the ninth District and your commitment. Oh, this is a you know, I'm offering. Absolutely. I'm happy to support it. And like we talked about, the more we can make sure that we advertise this at the Obama library so people know about it, this free event of the better. Library and all the other libraries as well. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you, council members for bringing this item forward. We wholeheartedly believe in reading across every single age group and sharing and participating in as many book clubs as possible. So you can count us in for 500 as well. And again, a great book. I mean, I think it's a great book on so many levels and I really look forward to to finishing this. So thank you so much. Thank you, Councilwoman. And there's. Thank you. Ditto with all of my colleagues have said congratulations and I'm very happy to support this. I encourage everyone to participate and everybody, you know, reads a book because I think it also builds community. And I think that that's very important, especially when you have a shared common interests like this, and especially if you have a fun act for live action kind of book in all different levels. So thank you and I look forward to supporting you and spreading the word about this as well. Thank you. Do I hear a friendly amendment for the council colleagues not mentioned on the agenda? Item two also commit 500 from their SFP. Is that the friendly? Yes. Yes. She each said they they each said they supported you. I just want to make sure it was heard. Yes. Yes. Okay. So that makes it 30 $500 on. You guys got that? I move that we include Supernanny ranga to. I second that. Okay. I'm I'm happy to. I'm not going to do that. Okay. Way to go, Rick. I mean. You know, to the, you know, that motion that was drawn. I was going to say, when's the next time Rex is absent from council? That's what's. Thank you for your support. And I appreciate those who are able to come together. I mean, it's very tricky to be able to get council members to agree in advance because of the Brown Act requirements. I met with County Council, our city. See? Now look at me. I'm at my work job, the city attorney to figure out how that works. And so hopefully in the future there'll be a mechanism where we wouldn't have to gain compliance in advance, but there has to be a mechanism where if we all wanted to pitch in on something, that that would be possible . So thank you for opening the door to figuring out what that looks like in the future. For those of you who didn't know, today's recognition of the women's suffrage was a case in which there was originally an intent by one or two council members that were looking to donate. And then we said, let's bring it to the full budget oversight committee and find a way to give as a whole to the organization. So that worked out. But this is seed money and so we look forward to being self-sustaining next year. Thank you. May I ask a quick question? May we say that this is a partnership with the city of Long Beach then? Okay. Thank you. We're your sponsor. Thank you, Mr. Parker. The recognition that comes with a donation of that magnitude. Thank you. And before you leave, Mr. Perkins, you want to. I just clarifying that it was 30 $500. We have CD 1 to 3. Five, six and nine. Eight, nine? Yes. Okay, fine. Thank you. Thank you. That was the quickest money I've ever seen. Oh, that's not true. I remember the Budget Committee meeting this year. It was a last minute swap in your district. She's good. I don't forget. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we hope to see you all there on March 19th. Fine, thank you. I'm fine now. Could we have any further comment on this item? CNN. Cast your vote. Motion carries. I think, you know, we're comfortable in Mongo. Did you want to move up 3 to 5.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record regarding the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act public hearing; and adopt resolution approving the issuance of multi-family housing revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority, to benefit a partnership to be formed by Mercy Housing California, a nonprofit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $40,000,000. (District 6)

LongBeachCC_02022016_16-0084

Report firm Financial Management and Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation and to the record regarding the Equity, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act. Public Hearing and adopt resolution approving the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds. District six. Is there any public comment on the item? Mr. Greer. I. Part of my comments echo what I told the council in Andrews last Saturday and so forth. I took Atlantic up to the to the meeting and I generally don't go up that route because it's not close to the Marine. I'm not around that area very much, but I was very impressed, very impressed with the housing that starts at Atlantic and PCH, then going north for about 8 to 10 blocks. It looked like a housing section that you would see any place in Belmont Shore or any other mills or any other place and so forth. And if this mirrors that, I think it's well worthwhile. However, however, I still have the same concerns relative to this is a bond measure. Period. And your exposure is tremendous given the kleptocracy, the corruption. Not only in the state of California that flows down into this city, which is there's a few fountain heads of that here, period . And if you didn't notice, the FBI has now moved into the city of San Francisco relative to the sheriff's department. And that, of course, is the the stomping grounds of she that the United States Circuit Court and the U.S. Ninth Circuit. Opined, was responsible for an epidemic of corruption. Right now, the nexus between that and our mayor is something you're going to have to post on those bonds, if not your individual financial liability, that of your spouse. Is in jeopardy. So I would suggest that you check and the smile from the Peter Principle of city manager will not protect you. I would suggest you seek your own counsel, period. For the protection of your family as well as the cities. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Members, please cast your votes. Krispy Kreme. Motion carries. Next item, please.

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc. (ACI) for Rate Period 14 (July 2015 to June 2016). (Public Works 274)

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1571

I like hearing to consider adoption of resolution establishing an integrated waste collection, ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period. 14th July 2015 to June 2016. Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, I am Liam Garland with the Public Works Department. It is good to be back in front of you on the issue of balancing our interest in protecting ratepayers from rate increases, along with fair wages and benefits for the sorters at Alameda County Industries facility. As you may remember, we were discussing this issue on April 7th in an informational report. I'm back here with the options clarified and ready to walk through them. And this time there is a staff recommendation around option number three. So let me lay those options out right now. The first option is the indexed increase. This is the requirement of the franchise, essentially a series of cost of living indices applied to to the franchise, and that would be for 2.8%. The second option is HCI Alameda County Industries or ACS original application for 10.58%. And the third option is the negotiated compromise that was achieved within about a week of before the information report I shared on April 7th. That compromise brought the initial rate increase for next year down to 7.7%. One of the questions that was raised in the last council meeting was to really dig in to the issue of Alamy to his fair share of the rate increase. So I want you to take a look at this picture you have in front of you. These are sorters from Alameda County Industries facility. The material going along that sorting line. You've got material from Alameda. You've got material from Livermore and also San Leandro. Interestingly, San Leandro, even though it's the home city for the facility, actually has the least amount of tons going into it. That's about a little bit over 7000 tons. The most are coming from Livermore and that's over 16,000 tons. And Alameda is right in the middle there, although that arrow is unfortunately placed toward that Saunders head. The it's over 10,000 tons. And they're this is where the the portion of Alameda is recycling going in the facility is about 31.1%. Now, the next few slides are going to walk through how we turn that percent into a number. And that number is the 8000 $849,012. That is the incremental wage and benefit increases to the orders. And so that's what I'm going to do in the next few slides here. You can see a similar table to what you've seen before, but updated and the first or the second column that says staffing agency remember that was the temporary staffing agency of formerly contracted with by Alameda County industries and they're the burdened rate essentially the all in costs for HCI were about 1391 under that I just give me one moment. It's about 1391 under the state staffing agency. And the actual rate being paid to the sorter was roughly $9 by the staffing agency. Then the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance occurred and there was a jump. So we went from 1391 per hour on that burn rate to 1783 per hour. And importantly, that jump mostly represents a jump in hourly rate. So that jumped from $9 per hour to $14.50 per hour. So that's what's happening currently. And essentially San Leandro is rate payers are paying this incremental difference as we speak. The question in front of us is what to do on July 1st moving forward. And there the jump. There's another jump and that's the $25.60 as a burned rate per hour, although this is a little bit different in the sense that most of that jump relates to additional benefits. This is about affordable health care, sick vacation time, etc.. And you so you see the jump from 326 per hour and benefits, taxes, insurance up to $9.92 per hour. Now, in addition, on this table, you see that the the agreement that's been reached by the ILWU, International Longshore and Warehouse Union and ECI, it's not just for the next year, it's for the next four years. And so you will see increases that are not as steep for the next four years, but still increases nonetheless. Now we're going to take that, that and turn it into numbers upon which our rates are based. And so essentially what we've done here is we can project the cost of having the two shifts of orders with the new wage and benefit increases. That's about $4.8 million. We then back out those staffing agency costs. So those are subtracted out. You're left with a total incremental labor cost of about 2.7 million. However, almeida's portion of that is only 31.1%. That's where the $849,012 figure comes. Next we move. Through and now we've got to turn this into our rates. And here we started. If next year we were to start with our current rates, what was the revenue would be at the end of the year? It's 17.3 million or so. And so then we do some division to say, well, if we want to raise that additional $849,012, we need a 4.9% increase in rates. One more step, and that is to do the essentially that the indexed increase on top of that and with that you get the across the board 7.7% increase. So I'm hoping that that slide is clearer than the slide that was presented on on April 7th. Very clear. Thank you. Of course. And next, I want to talk a little bit about the how the stakeholders involved in this process all made significant concessions in order to help offset the increases on Almeida's rate payers. So if you take a look here, you can see that the ILWU deferred wage rate increases. They delayed employer contributions to the 4a1k plan until year three in order to help offset the rate increases, Alameda County and the industries agreed to forego 10% of its profit on the wage increase. So this is something that's built into our franchises the that 10% profit and they agreed to forego it for that 835,000 plus dollars. They also agreed to add an additional service or pilot, an additional service for a multi-family residence and annual boppy pickup program. Finally, the city or city staff had proposed to agree to forego the 10% city franchise fee. Again, just on the incremental wage increase and on that, I'm actually going to pause. Our assistant city attorney, Andrew Gopnik has a comment to share on that. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm Enrico Panik. Assistant city attorney. As Mr. Garland just indicated. Option three before you requires the stakeholders each to make concessions. And I want to speak to you just briefly. About the city's concession. And that is forgoing a portion of the city's franchise fee in order for the city to do that. We have to amend the franchise agreement. And under the Alameda City Charter, Section 18, dash one, that amendment to the franchise agreement can only be done by ordinance. So if you were to choose this option today, that portion that you see up there of the city's contribution to this deal, we'd come back to you at the appropriate time for an ordinance that would amend the agreement. The resolution that is before you that supports that recommendation does not include the change to the franchise agreement. It only adjust the rates, the repair rates. I'm available to answer any questions you have on that point. Thank you. So what staff has done is to talk directly with Alameda County Industries about this. And essentially Alameda County Industries, because of the urgency involved in this, you have three cities all acting in concert for all of their different portions of these additional wages and benefits and some bank confidence that Alameda County Industries is concerned about how they're willing to move forward. And what essentially that means is they'll have to pay the franchise fee. So even though the spirit of the compromise was that they would not have to pay the franchise fee, they will. And in turn, what I and RCI will figure out in the next few months is what's the mechanism to essentially offset that increased cost for them? And I'll bring that mechanism back to council for for council approval. It's an issue that I'm confident it can be worked through. And just given this issue coming up now, it's something that that can be worked through later and again brought back to council. I'm happy to answer any questions about that or I can finish the presentation that we can talk more about it. Oh member. Ashcroft. I'll have some questions, but go ahead and finish your presentation. I'd actually like clarification if you have a dollar amount and what that equates to. Sure. The dollar amount is. Able to. So which dollar amount are we referring to this? 10% for city franchise fee. I believe it's 90. It's a little bit over $90,000. Thank you. Question Amendment. Member Jodi. We are getting a portion of the increase as well as part of our franchise fee. We're not waiving the entire amount, just the part that constitutes the 4.9 if we approve. Oh, well, there's like two components, right? There's exactly. There's two commands, essentially. What's going to happen now is ACI is paying this franchise fee on the incremental cost, which it had not planned on paying and the cities receiving it on that additional cost for that franchise fee. And I'll have the precise number in just a couple of minutes. Next, I want to just make sure it's super clear what the ratepayer impact is of this third recommended option. If you look at the blue cells in the upper right hand corner, those are in the 20 gallon and 32 gallon subscription categories. Those are the most common categories. About 95% of all Alameda residents are in one of those two categories. The option number three for the 77 7.7% increase. It essentially would increase from the existing rate about $2.19 per month. So that is right over there. So you compare that with that option two, we had talked about on April 7th, and you see the difference is about $0.80 or so. So we've been able to help offset that increase by about $0.80. And we're at that $2, an extra $2.19 per month. The annual impact for that. In other words, if you take that additional $2.19 multiplied by 12 for ratepayers and the 20 gallon subscription rate, they'll be paying an additional $26.28. Similarly, on the 32 gallon, the additional $2 and 76 per month has an annual impact of about $33.12. So those are the rate impacts. And remember, it's not just the jump in this coming year, it's also the rate impacts over the next few years. And so on this slide, what we've done is lined up the three options and then compared what the projected future rate impacts are among the options, option number one is the indexed increase. So there there's no there's no further negotiated wage increases under that option. Option number two is AC's original application. There you see that the the increases are between about 11 and $0.17 per per month over the next four years. Option three, remember, it's an attempt to smooth out some of those the increase. So there's not a big of a ratepayer impact that first year the the increases in future years is a little higher it's between 27 and $0.39 per month. Again, to annualize that, that means not starting this year but the following year, that as a result of this agreement between ACA and AMW, the annual impact for a 32 gallon rate subscriber would be $3.24. So with that. Oh, I just want to go over the three options staff is recommending the negotiated compromise as it's a balance of protecting that rate payer interest. Want to make sure that you know rate payers are struggling want to make sure that we're we're protecting against rate increases. At the same time is ensuring that disorders at Alameda County Industries receive fair wage and benefits. With that, I'm here for questions also. We've got folks from Allegheny County Industries and ILWU as well to answer any questions you may have. Or find questions. Member Ashcraft. Thank you, Amir Spencer. So thank you for coming back with more information in this current staff report. The. I'm on page four of your staff report you refer to. Yes. One minute. Okay. So on April 27th and May 4th, respectively, the city councils of Livermore and San Leandro are set to address whether their rates should account for their portions of Asia as increased labor costs in 20 1516. So do you have the outcome of those votes? I have some, yes. So the city of Livermore voted, I believe on April 20, the 30th. They directed their staff to bring back a proposal that is very similar to our number third option, essentially forgoing the their franchise fee for going as high as profit on the 10% same schedule of hourly rate and benefits that ASI and I LW have agreed to. San Leandro is up later on this month. OC not not May 4th. They they've pushed it back. Okay. And then. Okay. Going on to the. This is an attachment. Hm. Okay. This is exhibit one, the IOW use letter of understanding. That is anyway dated April 2nd in the last paragraph, paragraph number four at the bottom of the page there says that ECI and the union agree that if any of the rate increases proved to be insufficient to support the agreement memorialized in Attachment A, then the parties will continue bargaining in good faith towards a mutually acceptable initial collective bargaining agreement. So. At what point will we, the city, know if these proposed rate increases are going to be sufficient or not to support this agreement? Sure. I'm actually going to have comment from ECI and Fred from the ILWU. Answer that question. Appreciate it. Mayor. Council members can't connect with HCI with the MRU. What we're trying to do is set a structure to go forward for the next five years. We knew we wouldn't get we had some elements left in the agreement to still do. However, we're bound by NORAD and all that we have to to finish out. The bigger issue for C.I. is our credit facilities with our banks are up in June. We have to have city votes on this in order for the banks to believe that we can move forward, for them to restructure our debt and for us to go forward. So it's eminent that we had to show some things, cooperation with with the union, with labor, that we basically have a deal. The intent is we get the votes from the cities. All cities agree we're going to move forward July 1st on this, and that's a commitment from us. I appreciate that. I'm not sure. I've had my question answered, and maybe this is where the union rep comes in, but. He did the wording that they agree. If any of the rate increases proved to be insufficient to support the agreement, then the parties were continuing bargaining in good faith toward a mutually acceptable initial collective bargaining agreement . But if the rates are going up, doesn't that. Yeah, the rates going up this hour. Yes. What we've presented should be adequate to do what we need to do here. For how long? Or maybe. This year. For this year. But aren't we looking at an agreement that goes. Back five years? Yes. And there's slight increases involved in this presentation each year, the small incremental increases in future years. And is it Ace's position that those small incremental increases will. Be just the initial? Yeah. Once we're done, we will be signed with a bargaining agreement shortly. We're almost we're almost complete. And I think Mr. Packer would agree. I have been speaking to the microphone, please. Thank you. Absolutely. Oh, we I would agree with Kent that with that, we are very close to an agreement. What you see there is similar to what we did in other cities, because basically the the although we're bargaining with a private employer, the outcome of that bargaining depends on their major contracts, which are public contracts. So when those public contracts are, you know, come and it's one of the things that Alameda County overall has lacked, it's recognized that for the holding, but it has in recognize that for delivering the recycling services. And so what we what we put in all the agreements that come before a vote, there's one that came after the vote, but the ones that come before a vote of any of any civic body have included that that if if we don't get the support of the civic body, the city council or the garbage district in other cases, then we're in a position where we're going to have to keep bargaining and. Because we look because the underlying economics shift. But. Okay. So just to be clear, so it is ILWU U's position that the proposed rate increases over the next five years as as outlined in option three are sufficient to meet your needs. Yes. All right. And just to be clear, at the you know, right now we're in this process that you're contemplating in which is going forward through the county, will create a standard where there won't be the kind of of of of ups and downs that there are right now in the value of the labor of the people sitting here to sort through the recyclables. So it's there. We're coming to a point of an even standard or a for recycling contract, which will shift. And the, you know, you see smaller increases because it's the lift in the beginning that goes with the medical benefits, the really big. Okay. Thank thank you both for those explanations. Remember, they sag. So it's just a question. So just a. A burnish the point even more. So it's your both of your sense that the rate increases contemplated tonight are sufficient, but that if there are not, you can go back. You are both committed to having some kind of continuing dialog. And did I hear right that what's drive possibly driving any uncertainty that can lead to some shortfall in the revenue? Am I hearing it right that that was driving that is the the medical portion of the. No, it's it's the cities. It's having all three cities participate. Okay. It's really and right now, as it stands, Livermore came back with, you know, they voted unanimously to follow up on the recommendation that staff gave, which is essentially the exactly the same program. They just got to go back for a second vote, just like. Just like we did. Last time where, you know, you give direction. They gave the direction to go with the recommendation. San Leandro will take place on the 18th. And the reason they wanted to go last is to make sure everyone else did their part and then they're going to do their part. And if there was any shortcomings, potentially make up any little differences. But obviously, we want it to be fair across the board. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other clarifying questions or I'd like to ask Steph real quick? So it was my understanding that there were annual reviews, but that still take place in outside of. So could you explain what could happen that then? Oh, yes. So the our franchise requires an annual adjustment. So every year I will be in front of you whether maybe whether. You like it or not. And those reviews, they happen in essentially you go two years with an indexed rate review, which is essentially applying those cost of living indicators. And then in the third year, there's a detailed rate review where they're we get to open up Alameda County Industries books, look at and more nitty gritty, detailed their expenses and reconcile those and come back to council with a recommendation for an adjustment for the next year. So in regards to member Ashcraft questions earlier, could there be a difference in these numbers on an annual basis for the next between now and 2020? Sure. These are definitely project projections. And let me just make sure we're all talking about the same thing in terms of those projected future rate impacts. So for option three, we're looking at that $0.27 to $0.39 per month. Those are indeed projections. I can't say with certainty that they will be exactly that. Thank you. Then, Brody. I want to be clear. The slide you just showed. Is that the impact of the just the wage component and or. I thought the slide before was the actual total impact of I mean, the stage six. I'm sorry. Slide five. The $2 in 19. That's that's what we're being asked to pay for exactly for this adjustment that would be in effect as of July 1st, 2015. And of that, $2 in $0.19 for, well, let's choose 276 for the 32 gallon. And of that, $0.27 is what's attributable to paying the increased wages to the recycle workers. I know a little different. So the, the I think you're going to the next chart. Ah yes. Yes. And that is that came out the following year. If you look at ASI and I'll use agreement in terms of wages and benefits, those go for multiple years. So if you take those assumptions and build that into, oh, what will our rates probably adjust by based on those increases we're talking in that 27 to 39 cent per month range. Does that answer your question? Yeah, I was trying to see if we could hone in on of the of the annual impact to the rate payer or what portion is actually attributable to bringing these these workers up to a living wage? It's a dollar 76. All right. So an annualized, that's a 12 plus whatever. Okay. It was like $15 a year. Approximately, if you're going to pay that at 2.8% on top anyway. Right. So it's that was a number I was looking for. Thank you. Thank you. What member asked Mr. Garland. In your staff report, you also mentioned something near and dear to my heart, which is the multifamily pickup. HCA has also agreed to a pilot to pilot a multifamily and your bulky pickup by July one, 2015. Are you going to report back to us or are you just going to start it on a date? So our plan is, if we have if this recommendation is approved, then Kent and I will sit down. We'll figure out the what the requirements and the structure of that program will be. I'm happy to bring back there's an information report or something else to the Council on on that. I probably would be more interested in how we're going to inform the public, because we certainly hear those complaints about driving down the street and seeing couches and whatnot, you know, discarded on the sidewalks. And this is something that this program is meant to to address. So I just want to make sure that however you want to do it, it's an effective means of getting the word out to the community. Thank you. All right, speakers, thank you. We will have poet Pedro Sanchez and Mr.. Mr. Fred Pecker. Then we're with Abbe. If you can try to limit your comments to 3 minutes, that'd be appreciated. We want to start on this, Okaloosa because the car is enormous. Pedro Sanchez hit remarkable Valencia. Good evening, mayor councilmembers. My name is Pedro Sanchez and I work for HCA. Well, my mortgage on the door meant it was hard. In retrospect, I know it's not impossible. It's real. Open ended are people are also. As we have as we have mentioned in the past, working on a recycling facility is not an easy. Job. It's an honorable job. But generally as with many hazards. It believe Radhika and told the local residents the persistence was contenido. It is the Ramsey Clark what a ham blow is. When Lawrence declared I supported him because he was America's patron. No, the Positano said they'll continue to seek lucky. The Hassocks are rooted. In what the residents deposit in the recycling containers. For example, it is great to recycle hypodermic needles and other medical equipment, but not by putting them in the recycling containers. Is whether to the people this was done the scheme because there are no deposit envelopes and they'll contain a lot of them. It is great to recycle all unused chemical substances, but not by deposit them in the recycling container. Like a kettle. The silicone install escape togo local resident is the Alameda San Leandro in livermore the persistence was contenido and the classic lucky must are there nosotros lobo almost pasar por la linea this is sort of their companion sky. What I am trying to say with this is that everything that the residents of Alameda, San Leandro and Livermore deposit in the recycling containers, we later see it in the sorting belts at AC. That photograph here scheme is companeros so CNN that doesn't mean western con d'italia il trabajo can otro lado. This realism was the work on the ANC icon and material collected. It's Como resident is Ella made up of those in the photographs that my coworkers are holding them. Back of me show in detail the work that we as recyclers do at HCI day in, day out with the material that you as resident of Alameda produce. La Ciudad de Alameda Alley. Welcome Mucho Citrusy, ladies. Sam Puesto la mater the lograr los proximos anos settle this part of the issue. The city of. Alameda as well as many other cities, have set their goal in the next few years to reach zero waste. Nosotros Los K-Dramas and L.A. Classic Lucky the NCIS almost La Primera Linea produced this commercial that Lofgren submitted to settle this of the issue. Those of us. Who work in recycling and HCI are the first line so that you as a city can reach your goal of zero waste. It's companeros. Yo, estamos oya, keep it up. I will say this. Como representantes elektra's de la Ciudad de Alameda Ketamine Los Barcelona Society use barangay appointed adoption risk assessments. Not a romantic parakeet, although nosotros los trabajadores the Ramsey Clark of the NCAA Lofgren lagrimas Alexandrovich Saladino. Even if Ito's otros is yet the end in. The Alameda Mutual crisis. My coworkers and I are here today to ask the US elected representatives of the City of Alameda to take the steps necessary by supporting option three so that we, the recycling workers at ASI, can reach the now standard for wages and benefits that other Alameda County recycling workers have. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Ms.. Yes. Hi. Good evening once again. Fred Becker with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local six I. Just say that, you know, we know that there's huge support for recycling as public policy. And as we've moved forward with the campaign, which is a broad based, based campaign on including the environmental community, the religious community, the immigrant community we have. We have been very gratified to see that people realize that as you add new services, that there's a cost to them. And we look forward and appreciate the deliberations that your staff have done. And we need your support so that we can raise. The value of the work that people do in recycling to a way that people can support their families. And this is a structural change where in Alameda County, for whatever the historical reasons are, the cost of labor was was really under under bid or undervalued. And we're in the process of trying to change that. And you're part of a historic change, which is part of making recycling truly sustainable. So we appreciate your work. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. I'm Ruth Harvey with the Sierra Club. We are a part of the Alameda County Sustainable Recycling Campaign, which is a coalition of organizations, including environmental groups, labor organizations, faith based organizations, health and safety organizations, and immigrants rights groups that have been working for the last three years to raise the wages and benefits of our recycling workers in Alameda County. And we are thrilled to tell you and we are excited that the city of Alameda could be joining city of Oakland, city of Fremont, Newark, Union City to raise the wages of our recycling workers to be parity with those in San Francisco and San Jose. And so we heartily support your work and the work of your staff. We very much recommend the staff recommendations to put this tough recommendation for option three and appreciate the city of Alameda being part of the Alameda County countywide. Standard for wages and benefits for recycling workers. From Rob and I'm Bill Smith. And those are the only slips I have for this item. Rob Browder, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association. You know, some of you have not heard my my great grandfather was a founding partner in Oakland Scavenger. My grandfather was a garbage man and my dad was a garbage man. So I know a little bit about garbage. Didn't come out right. I will tell you when they were in the garbage business. The idea of recycling, as I've told you many a time, was throw the battery in the back of a truck and we'll be fine. I don't think they ever envisioned the type of recycling that we're trying to do today. And I know that they never envisioned folks working on a line, picking out hypodermic needles and all the other stuff that gets put into the recycling. And while I can assure you the membership that I represent. Would be very happy to be talking about a negotiated seven and a half percent decrease in the rates. That's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. RCI does a terrific job. From our point of view. They're very receptive to our issues that we have. They bend over backwards. They really do to provide us service in the district. They are taking the lead in putting out clear stream units and bagging the city cans for our events for the 4th of July event. And obviously, we also agree. That people deserve a living wage, especially for this type of job, that frankly. And I'll go ahead and say it. No one in this room except for those people that are doing the work would ever do this kind of work. So they deserve the increase. Asai deserves the increase, and we urge you tonight to go ahead and pass this and give Asai their 7.7% increase. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. Members of the Council and staff. I'm Bill Smith, resident of Alameda, and also happened to be president of the Society of Virtual Science Engineers. Update CWA 9119 out of Livermore Lawrence Livermore National Lab. And about a week ago I went to the Little Moore City Council meeting and introduced myself and I thought, I want to report back. And parts of the meeting relevant in earlier discussion tonight, how to get people out of the council chambers early and make the meeting shorter. They've got Livermore has a beautiful Bankhead theater. I'd love to see an arts center like that in Alameda. So they talked about that. That went pretty quickly. And they have they have a beautiful new city hall with lots of offices. All right. And for the staff. And then I went to the city hall expecting to go inside to get into the council chambers. No, you walk way back behind and the council chambers are two double wide trailers with a little antique or walking up. It don't even barely hold 100 people total. I think 102 of the fire marshals and the chairs are uncomfortable and the tables are, too. And so the meetings will not last till midnight. So there's it's my suggestion for you there to emulate your colleagues at Livermore to make commuting meeting short. But on a more serious note. Livermore is known as the Cowboy City, is a liberal rodeo every summer there. And they go by it and it's very conservative and. When I talked, told him about what it means to have a low wage worker, that that low wage is not free, that low wage requires a government term, but those times are going to make it to pitch in the food, the food stamps, the housing assistance for affordable housing. And I think some you've heard me talk about affordable housing here in town before and other other things. So it requires subsidies. And even The Wall Street Journal is beginning and featuring editorials on that these days, too, that these low wages are really not good. So I really urge you to support and follow your lead and your colleagues in Livermore and vote for unanimously for this. Thank you. Thank you. That was our last public. Speaker Member Comments. Vice Mayor I think I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the recommendation of the staff. All right. Adopt the resolution that establishes the new integrated waste collection ceiling rates in what was described as option three. I appreciate the work that's been done to get us to option. 3/2, Madam Mayor. All right. Any discussion member ASHCROFT just briefly. I think that on page four of the staff report, Mr. Garland did such a nice, well-stated description of what we're doing, why we're doing what we're doing, that this 7.7% increase balances almeida's interest in keeping rates reasonable with ensuring Ace's sorters receive fair pay and benefits. And I think that really and it was just said by our articulated by our previous speaker but that when you're when you have people who are working full time and yet they're prepared, bear with me and my finicky iPad that you have people who are working full time. And yet until this agreement was reached and by the way, I also want to congratulate ECI, because I know they came a long way, too, in the negotiations. And I read your your statement, your letter. And I do understand the financial implications of your requirements to the bank who's financing your operation. And I think for all of us who put our bins out on whatever night you put your remember to put your bins out, you're just so happy that the next morning when you come out, they're empty, they've been emptied, and you put them back where they belong. And you don't really think much about what goes on after the truck picks those those containers up. But we want to see the workers treated fairly, but we want to see the company continue in business. And I think the city ILWU and ACI all did a good job in coming together. But it means that this will this is the cost. And I think it's a modest one. But to provide fair wages and benefits, which include medical benefits, sick pay, vacation in a modest retirement fund. I think this is both reasonable and just and that, as Mr. Smith just said, there is a cost to society when workers go without these basic benefits. So I'm delighted that I think we're moving towards supporting this this option three this evening. Thank you. Member Ody I thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to echo the comments made by my colleagues previously and the Speaker's, you know, to get where, where we are today on this. It's just amazing and it's a testament to everyone that worked together. ACA, the Sierra Club, ILWU and working towards this is the third time this has been before us. I'll try to be brief, but you know, if you remember the situation that occurred just recently before the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance, these workers were employed by the staffing agency. And then there was a lawsuit because they, the staffing agency, felt they shouldn't comply with the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance. And then RCI took it upon themselves to bring those workers into ACA, comply with the living wage ordinance, give these workers a well-deserved and, you know, well overdue increase in pay, and then they collectively bargain with ILWU to, you know, bring them out of poverty and give them the respect that they need. So I think if you look at a dollar 76 a month, $21.12 a year, you know, to have all of these families now have a living wage, be health insurance, not on Medi-Cal anymore, you know, not not costing the state additional money. You know, and see, starting to put money away for retirement, which probably two years ago when they were making $9 an hour, they never dreamed of. I think that is a very small price to pay for for restoring dignity to these families. And I'm going to be supportive of this as well. Member Data, thank you. Just a minute. Continuing clarifying questions. So if we pursued option one, the increase would be 2.8%. And in general, from year to year, we adjust the wages based upon the index, which in this case is 2.8%. Now, the way that I'm reading option three is that in addition to the index, there is the adjustment to account for the wage and benefit impact stemming from the living going to a living wage, in which case the adjust. It isn't 2.8%, but in total it's 7.7%. And within that is the 2.8%. So the question that I have is so when I read table three is that makes that mean that the 7.7% from 2016 to 20 15 to 2016 is also going continuing for the next year, for the next year, or is the next year really just subject to the the the typical index adjustment that we do from year to year based upon some index? It will be a tip, actually. Let me pause and let's hear here from Marva Sheehan from age. Okay, with that answer. Good evening. I'm Marva Sheahan with HFT consultants, and we're the consulting firm that has been reviewing the numbers and putting together with staff and with ACI next year. And actually to your response, your question that. The increase that you're seeing on there, the $0.33, the 39 cent. Numbers are. Attributable to the sort of wage increase. That's just that subject. Okay. Next year is what we call a cost base. Year or a detailed review year where we will. Go in and look at the collection operations in detail and look at those cost and come up with what the rate increase will be. The sorter piece. Will. Be another element, but next year we're looking at everything in total. Okay. And that's important because I think the message that I'm trying to drive home to the community is that in this instance on here on May 5th, 2015, we're making an adjustment to reflect that the workers need a living wage, but we're also making adjustment based upon the usual way we make adjustments, which is the index and the per the way that we make adjustments. The following year, we're going to do the cost approach, which you just mentioned, but then we'll get back on track to the index approach. Then we'll do the index. I believe it. You go to two years index and then back to the cost base. Long story short, we are we are not saying that we're we're plugged in to a 7% increase all the time because because we will be we will have already baked into the cake the the the living wage effects. Now, having said that, though, there is also, you know, the fact that we will need to take into account uncertainties with regard to health benefit impacts, but that will still be dealt with in the usual way of doing things next year, which is the cost approach and the subsequent years, the index approach. Okay. I'm sorry. I think health care is actually a good one. We will in the index year, they tend to go up by the index of the 2 to 3%. But I think any of us know we've yet to see health care premiums only go up 2 to 3% in actual life. They tend to be for some reason, in double digits no matter what. Those are the things that we'll. Look at when we see what the. Actual cost of things or have incurred for the drivers. And again, the detailed review is on the collection costs. We do not get into historically, we've not gotten into the detail costs on the Murph. That will be something that we will be discussing with ACA next year. And Amir, final point. One is I appreciate the charts that you put in. There are very graphical and the way that, you know, you had your bar charts really nice. I really like that. And the second and final point is, last time I raised the point that I wanted more information with regard to San Leandro and Livermore and I and I feel like I have that information. So I'm certainly ready to move forward. And then I want to commend all the council members for your comments. I join in with you on those comments. I commend members of the community for coming forward. These are multiple meetings now. Staff great job on the report and negotiating this compromise. I think it truly does meet the needs of the workers, the ratepayers and ECI. So I really appreciate everyone working together on this. And as to the workers, thank you for showing up one more time. Do we? So we have a motion to call the question. All those in favor. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Item six Public Hearing to consider adoption of the Community Development BLOCK Grant Fiscal Year 2015 through 2025 year strategic plan in the Fiscal Year 20 1516 Action Plan and authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications.

Rezone 2765 South Colorado Boulevard from B-3 with waivers and conditions to S-CC-3x in Council District 4. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezone 2765 South Colorado Boulevard from B-3 with waivers and conditions (Former Chapter 59) to S-CC-3x (suburban, commercial corridor, 3 stories, less intense use) in Council District 4. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-16-16.

DenverCityCouncil_05022016_16-0174

The property is just over 21,000 square feet and the owner is requesting zoning that would allow for possible repurposing of commercial property fronting Colorado Boulevard. The current zoning is B3 or shopping center district with waivers and conditions. The Shopping Center District allows for a 1 to 1 floor to area ratio. The waiver specific to the current zoning include restrictions on more intensive commercial uses and those have been attached in to the staff report. And then conditions include a requirement for fencing between the commercial property and the budding residential to the rear street trees and then a restriction on retail uses before 6 a.m. and after 9 p.m.. The surrounding zoning include B three with waivers to the north and south as well as FCC three X or a commercial corridor, three story maximum height zoning to north and south with some limitations and s or suburban issue single unit D which allows for 6000 square foot minimum lot size. The requested zone district is s suburban context commercial corridor the CC and three storey maximum height with use limitations in these zone districts is intended to balance pedestrian and automobile access and provides for commercial mixed use development along auto dominated corridors, but allows for less intensive mixed use as commercial uses to serve as a transition between the more intensive commercial corridor or more auto intensive arterial streets and nearby residential. Look at the existing land use contact shows commercial fronting Colorado. Current use today is office and there's the lighter red color commercial retail along the corridor as well. And then immediately to the west you see the abutting single family residential land use. The center image is the subject property and you see it. A two storey office building on the site to the north. You also seek office and commercial uses fronting Colorado Boulevard as well as to the south, to the east. On the opposing side of Colorado, you see a larger retail complex and to the west fronting Harrison Street, a single family residential. The rezoning process to present has included neighborhood outreach by CPD and the applicant to the registered neighborhood organizations listed here. All of the written and posted notice requirements have been met leading up to the council hearing this evening. And despite this outreach effort and some communication with Wilshire Homeowners Association presidency, there has not been any submitted public comments specific to this rezoning. Let's look at the review criteria, beginning with plan consistency. The applicable plans are plan 2000, which encourages infill development that is consistent with neighborhood character, also encourages mixed use development and a range of housing types and services. Blueprint Denver shows a land use concept of single family residential, and we should take a careful look at the definition of single family residential as it is somewhat varied. It allows, while it encourages predominant single family homes or single family homes as the predominant development type or use type, there can be a variety of housing types and there can even be complementary land uses such as stores, parks and schools. And this is a citywide plan. And sometimes when we look at specific sites, we we need to carefully consider the definition of a land use as well as the land use context and other factors that we'll look at. This is also in Blueprint Denver, an area of stability defined as mean, intending to maintain the character of an area, but allowing and accommodating some new development and redevelopment. And also in single family land use areas, there can be a small employment base or a significantly smaller employment base. So between complementary stores and other uses and an employment base, we know that there can be more than single family, residential and in fact some commercial uses in single family. Mentioned. We look at other factors when determining how to best interpret a land use such as concept land use such as Blueprint Single-Family Residential in Blueprint Denver. As we looked at the street classification in this case Colorado Boulevard, that the property fronts is a mixed use arterial. This is a high capacity street carrying many vehicles, but also intended to carry bicycle and pedestrian trips that very much automobile dominated and the purpose of connecting neighborhoods to major employment and commercial centers throughout the city in the region. And here's an image of Colorado Boulevard, all six lanes plus that a diesel acceleration lane and center turning lanes. Very much a high capacity vehicle corridor. But we also see accommodations for bike and impaired. The next review criteria is would be met by SCC three X as it would result in a uniform application of the district building form, use and design regulations. Third criteria would be met as the would this district would further public health and safety and welfare by implementing recommendations from these adopted plans. The justifying circumstance would be a changed or changing condition to the property and its surroundings. Specifically, there was after this property was developed along Colorado Boulevard later in the 19 late nineties, we see the saw the development of commercial retail on the east side of Colorado. And then in 2010 there was comprehensive citywide rezoning where SCC three X zoned districts were applied to the north and south of this. Could it be three with waivers and conditions? And then in general, there is an aging condition. Each year, decade that passes these properties. Many were built in the early 1960s are aging and in need of some reinvestment. The fifth and final review criteria would be the consistency with the neighborhood context and the zone district purpose and intent . And in particular the Berman context can be defined as single unit residential uses located away from arterial streets, but also single and some multi-unit residential, as well as commercial strips and centers and office parks, especially located on these these arterial streets. And SCC three X is consistent with this with the suburban context as it would allow for development opportunities along auto dominated corridor such as Colorado Boulevard and allow for that transition between intensity to lower intensity to the adjacent residential while allowing for flexible design standards for building circulation and parking. CPD has found that all review criteria have been met and we recommend approval of this application and Planning Board recommended approval as well with a21 vote. The applicant is here this evening and prepared to respond to questions and I'd be happy to as well. And thank you for your time. Think, tim, we have one speaker for this public hearing, Dan Burkey. Evening Council members. My name is Dan Burkey and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'm happy to address any questions that may be directed to the applicant. Thank you. All right, councilmembers. That concludes our speakers now. Time for questions. Councilwoman Black. Hi. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Burkey. This project is in my very own neighborhood. And could you just explain to the rest of the council what's been done to this property and why they are seeking the rezoning? Sure. My client recently acquired the property within the last year and a half timeframe and immediately went into a remodel. More of a facelift, really. We put in, you know, all new windows. And so it is existing office space, kind of boutique office space. And so with this recent remodel that we've just completed, it's for lease now. And so our immediate intentions for the the near future is, of course, to to continue to use that as a boutique office space. Now, the reason we're requesting the rezoning is because we do know that future development is a possibility. Again, we don't have any immediate plans or designs or anything at this point, but we would like to have the the rezoning, the I'm sorry, SCC three X that's what we're looking for to allow for more flexibility in the future, either if we were to sell the property and market it, or if we ourselves would like to redevelop it in the future. But the existing 1990s ordinance that we have right now is pretty restrictive on some of the various specific uses. I mean, I don't think. We're looking to do adult. Bookstores or tobacco shops, but we know that the new zoning classification does allow for a lot more flexibility and in what we might want to do in the future. I don't have any other. Thank you. Councilman Black. Councilman Espinosa. And sort of. Oh, I know it is. It's actually probably for Tim, but I don't know. Both of you might know it. The one vote planning board against. What was the nature of that? Yes. So, Don Elliot, after voting no at the end and explaining his position, felt that complimentary commercial uses should be more neighborhood serving and perhaps less oriented to a regional arterial street. But the rest of the the board members felt that complimentary could mean neighborhood serving and serving an arterial street passing near a neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Carter. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Espinosa asked my question so I don't have to thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, could you explain what differences there are, if there are any, between the waivers that are being now waived and the new zoning classification? Will there be? It looks to me like it'll be allow for similar commercial uses, but I just want to be sure. There are some similarities and I might just begin with the some of the uses that are restricted under FCC three x. So those would include body art, outdoor service and repair firearm sales and your heavier automobile services, vehicle rentals, contractors, lab research, general manufacturing, storage, wholesale trade and vehicles. So it's these larger, more intensive uses that might have larger trucks with, you know, as they back up, they beep. And so that's generally that the types of use is restricted today. And what you'll find in the list of restricted uses or waived uses from the earlier ordinance is very, very detailed uses which reflect the former Chapter 59 use list, which prior to the early 2000s was extremely detailed down to the type of store, grocery store, tobacco store, etc. and yet in the early 2000s, those uses were consolidated to. Reduced number of categories. More of a light, medium or large, medium, small. I forget the exact classification. So it's just really gone through a series of of evolutions and changes to where there is not a 1 to 1 comparison between today's use restrictions. And I know that in the past, under the old Chapter 59, my predecessors, predecessor, Councilmen Hackworth, often was highly specific when wavers were involved in a rezoning. That's why I was wondering what the neighborhood might have bargained for when the initial B three with waivers. What were the restrict? What were the waivers in the original B three? Well, there are quite a few, and I'll just give you samples perhaps and get an idea. But automatic indoor archery. Lane's Automobile Gasoline Filling Station Billiard Parlor. Pool Table. Food Locker Plant. Fruit store. Grocery Store. Ice skating and a roller skating rink. Just doesn't seem to be a real consistent list of what. You're right. Pool table. I thought of Harold Hill and the music man does it doesn't allow in your first list you talk about the new zoning does not allow things like body art. Are you talking about tattoos? Tattoo parlor? Is that what that refers to? Correct. So the closer you look at the exact definition, but that's my understanding is that type of. Is a permit marijuana sales. So that's under the control of excise and licensing. Okay. But it would be allowed under this new general retail. Okay. So long as the spacing requirements. Correct. Excise and licensing. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Any other questions? 174 scene public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Flynn, to respond to your question about a marijuana store, there actually is one next to the property. So, no, there can't be one there. As I said, I live in this neighborhood and this rezoning is consistent with the other properties on that block. I don't see anything controversial about it. The owner has spent a great deal of money reinvesting in the property and is currently leasing it. There's no change in the structure, no change in the parking and no change in the use. So I won't be supporting it this evening. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman knew I used to buy an auto insurance from this from this building where Adrian was there, and it surely needed some improvement. So I welcome your your project to remodel and redevelop this project. I'll vote for it tonight. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. And councilman knew you must have been getting a good deal on that auto insurance. Also, I was going to say is yeah, this is even if the other not in the other now. Nonconforming marihuana facility location. Was there there's a there's a residential zone district that is across the alley or abuts this. Correct. So this location would per our new ordinance wouldn't wouldn't be eligible anyway. So that's all I wanted to point out. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. And a comment. 174 Seen none, ma'am. Secretary Roll Call. Black. Hi, Brooks Clark. Hi, Espinosa Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi, Cashin. Can each. Lopez. Hi, new Ortega Susman. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Please close a very nice results. 30 Nice nice 174 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right, the next bill we have come up is 191. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 191 on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $7,500, offset by $5,000 in Eighth Council District One-time District Priority Funds and $2,500 in Seventh Council District One-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a donation to Care Closet LBC to support their ongoing operations to assist and provide opportunities for people experiencing homelessness; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $7,500 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

LongBeachCC_06082021_21-0509

Item ten is a communication from Councilman Austin. Council Member Muranga. Recommendation to increase appropriation in the seat of Managers Department by 7500 to provide a donation to care closet OBC to support their ongoing operation to assist and provide opportunities for people experiencing homelessness. Item 11 is a communication from Councilwoman Pryce. Recommendation to increase appropriation in the city manager's department by $250. To provide a contribution to Long Beach Unified School District. To support the Woodrow Wilson High School Senior Celebration 2021. Item 16 is a communication from Vice Mayor Richardson. Councilwoman Sun has Council Member Oranga recommendation to increase appropriation in the city manager's department by $50,000 to support the Uptown Jazz Festival and item 17. Is a communication from Councilwoman Sara. Councilwoman Sun has a recommendation to increase the cooperation in the city manager's department by $5,000 to provide a contribution to city fabric for District six dialog. Item 18. Is communication from Councilwoman Sara Vice Mayor Richardson recommendation to increase appropriation in the city manager's department by $1,000 to provide a donation to Love Beyond Limit for the 2021 Juneteenth celebration at MLK Junior Park. Thank you very much. I think we got all of the items. So let me I have a motion by Councilmember Austin and the second by Vice Mayor Richardson. Councilmember Austin. Oh, yes. Well, I can speak on that item that I brought forward. Obviously, there is a a appropriation of $5,000 to a closet. They've been honored before the city council. Continue to do great works with the unhoused population doing cleanups throughout North Long Beach, my district, as well as other areas of the city. And I think it's a. Good good up by use of public funds. At this point I would ask for your support and. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm happy to be back in this and be in support of all of these transfers that I have here, in support of our annual Uptown Jazz Festival, which is a citywide, citywide, a great opportunity for people to come together, sort of a citywide event in uptown Long Beach. We're really proud of it. I want to thank Councilman Roberta Ranga for co-sponsoring it this year with me also as well as Councilmember Marys and Bay has. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman's in Dallas. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to make a friendly amendment to item 16, and that is that we will be contributing $5,000 to the Jazz Festival. Please, if you accept that friendly face, man. Absolutely. Make of emotion. Should accept it as well. Certainly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilman Ciro. Yeah. I just want to build upon last week's item around making Juneteenth a city and federal and state holiday and where it's so great that there'll be a variety of Juneteenth celebration and just happy to share that. I'll be supporting the annual Juneteenth celebration at MLK Park that will be hosted by LA Beyond Limits, as well as other sixth District residents and organizations and churches as well. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we do have some public comment and then we'll go to a vote. We have public comment, I think, on item on 18 of those items, 41 number 18 of those. Our first our. First speaker is Monique Chris. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Okay. And then in support of Councilwoman Dr. Susie Soros Agenda Item 18, a recommendation to provide a donation to live beyond limits for the 2021 Juneteenth celebration at Martin Luther King Park in partnership with Cultural Alliance. Of Long. Beach. Love your limits as a parent. Can empower. Youth and help to transform lives. For many years now, and we believe it is important for our youth and community of Long Beach to celebrate such an important holiday. In the African. American culture. Long Beach has a rich history where African American community and this event will. Allow us. To come together to celebrate it after such a isolated year due to COVID 19, I actually support agenda item 18 so that we can continue to pass on the teaching of those before us and continue to push for a better future. Thank you, guys, and have a great rest. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Roll call vote, please. Councilwoman Sun has. All right. Councilwoman Allen. I. Councilman Boehner. I swim, councilwoman mango. I. Councilwoman Sarah. I Council member Oranga. Hi, Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. I watching Kerry's. Thank you. Next step. Let's do let's have a quick votes on the UN. Well, actually, that may not be quite right to have some public comment. We have we have three votes on audiences that are, I believe, second readings or first readings that were already adopted by the council.

Recommendation to request City Auditor to conduct a review of the City's 25 parking structures and lots to verify the number that collect cash and are not automated. For those lots and structures that are on a cash basis, the City Council requests a report documenting the controls that are currently in place to ensure all cash is being deposited securely and timely into the City's treasury and to make recommendations as warranted that will benefit the ongoing operation of our parking lots and structures. The City Council is further requesting information on the timetable regarding the City's plans to convert the cash lots into automated lots and any other information the City Auditor deems necessary to ensure the City's parking operations are protected from any potential fraud, waste, or abuse during this transition period.

LongBeachCC_12052017_17-1112

Motion carries. 46. Communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Supernormal Councilwoman Mongo recommendation to request the city auditor to conduct a review of the city's 25 parking structures and lots to verify the number that collect cash and are not automated. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I'm asking for my colleagues support on this item. I'm not sure how many parking lots would actually fall into this, but based on some of our recent actions and some of the concerns that came to light, I think it's it's only prudent and responsible for us to have the city auditor take a look at what exposure we have, if there is any exposure to risk, and how we can eliminate or mitigate that. So that's really what this item is about. And I thank you in advance for your support. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I would only add that I know lots is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, and I wanted to include any type of place where you're paying for parking such as Eldorado Park or the such, that have multiple places to park, but are also very risky in terms of cash collection and potential liability. Thank you. Mike. I want to also add, I actually love this item, especially because I want to just particularly Miss Dowd because I complained about it so many times. The. Cash collection that happens at Eldorado is ridiculous. And I hope maybe since I've been complaining, I don't know if it's changed since then, but I've been complaining about it for a few years and there's still absolutely no change. It's as simple as buying a little scanner for a phone so that we can take actual credit cards and debit. But if we can please specifically, I'm especially interested in the Eldorado Park cash debacle that happens. And when and when folks don't have cash, we then produce a line that goes out the park all the way down the street, and in fact, people turn away and we lose money because they don't want to get in line and because they you know, they have no they only have a card. So we basically turn away customers every weekend. And I see it happen every time I go catch Mongo. And I would only add that I've had extensive discussions with our new parking lot company that we just approved about Eldorado Park and their potential for offering us a public private partnership opportunity where they would be willing to implement anything. So perhaps dialog with them might be also helpful in this in the course of your study. Thank you. Thank you for inviting any public comment on this. Sir. Be careful, sir. At the senior center on Orange. We pay a yearly fee and pay in park. Shit. You okay? I'm fine. All right. Okay. Okay. That's your phone. Okay, there's a yes. Just grab a seat there for a little bit, sir. Okay, mate. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. $17 fee. For the year. Motion carries. Thank you. We will now move on to the second second public comment period. Sir, are you doing okay? This is now the bad shoes. Okay, you're okay. But I know that you've been waiting all day to speak. Are you okay? It's important. It's bad. Okay. Okay. Any new business from the council? Vice Mayor Richardson.

A letter dated July 9, 2018, notifying of the Department of Finance’s intent to issue City and County of Denver Dedicated Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A-B in a par amount not to exceed $300,000,000 for the purpose of funding costs related to the development of the National Western Center and to pay costs of issuance.

DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0752

Company attachment contains a more detailed description of the financing as required by section 2093 and B of the DRC. Sincerely, Brendan J. Hanlon, Manager of Finance. Dear Council President. In keeping with the provisions of Section 20, Dash 93 of the Denver Revised Mexico DRC, I'm hereby notifying you of the Department of Finances Intent to issue City and County of Denver Dedicated Tax Revenue Bond Series 2018 A through B in a paramount not to exceed $300 million for the purpose of funding costs related to the development of the National Western Center and to pay costs of issuance. The Series 2018 through B bonds will be issued as fixed rate obligations with final maturity not to exceed 30 years. The 2018 bonds will be special and limited obligations of the city, payable solely from and secured by a pledge of portions of the city's lenders. Tax prepared food and beverage tax and auto rental tax. The bonds are not general obligations of the city, nor are they payable in whole or in part from the proceeds of general property taxes. Nor is the full faith and credit of the city pledged to pay the bonds. The accompanying attachment each contains a more detailed description of the financing as required by section 20, dash 93 and B of the DRC. Sincerely, Brendan J. Hanlon, manager of Finance.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a resolution in support of the Meatless Mondays campaign in support of comprehensive sustainability efforts, as well as, to further encourage residents to eat a more varied plant-based diet to protect their health, and to encourage restaurants and markets to offer a greater variety of healthier food options.

LongBeachCC_05192015_15-0449

Item 11 Communication from Councilman Austin, Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilwoman Price. Recommendation to request the city attorney to draft a resolution in support of the Meatless Mondays campaign. Okay. There's no motion. Councilmember Austin. Turn this over to Councilor Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'd like to thank my colleagues, Councilmember Gonzalez and Price, for joining me on this item. Before you are to consider a resolution in support of the Meatless Mondays campaign, the City Council has often had agenda items that merely seek to raise awareness about certain community issues. Just as in the past, when the City Council has passed resolutions in support or opposing propositions or in support of wearing a certain color for certain cause, it did not mean that we were expecting that everybody would necessarily vote a certain way or require that anyone wear a certain color in support of a certain cause. Tonight's agenda is merely a way to wear, raise awareness and add to the dialog about the need for healthier food options, including more fruits and vegetables to be available. And raising awareness on this issue, I believe, is important to Long Beach. A study a few years ago showed that Long Beach had the highest rate of obesity and overweight children between the ages of two and five, anywhere in California, a rate of 40%. Recent studies have indicated that nearly half of all fifth, seventh and eighth graders in Long Beach are considered overweight or obese by federal standards. Obesity, especially in children, can have lifelong health impacts, including diabetes, hypertension, heart diseases, heart disease and some types of cancer. Many cities have adopted similar resolutions in recent years. Meatless Mondays, including Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco. Many restaurants and schools have also embraced this concept and have expanded the healthy options that they offer if even for one day a week. People think a little bit more about what they're eating and consider trying new, healthier menu options. Then this resolution will have accomplished its purpose. I'm glad. I'd like to thank my constituent, Mr. Roy Drew Alexis, for helping me become aware of this campaign and bring it to the city council's attention. And I would ask for your full support of this, I think, worthwhile motion. Councilwoman Gonzales. Oh. I want to thank Councilman Austin for bringing this forward. I know that it's been a hot topic lately all of a sudden, but I signed onto the agenda item because having a different perspective, in my opinion, on eating habits is extremely important. Our eating behaviors have contributed to more than two thirds of adults and one third of children becoming overweight or obese. And I've also learned that my own alma mater, Cal State, Long Beach, their dining hall, encourages meatless Mondays, offering a variety of vegetarian options. In addition, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee also made strong recommendations. Their advice, of course, is to adopt a plant strong diet, meaning more fruits and vegetables and fewer animal products. In addition, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization stated that the meat industry generates nearly one fifth of the man made greenhouse gas emissions that are accelerating climate change worldwide. And astonishingly enough, this statistic totals more than the emissions from transportation alone. This cuts down on your meat. Cutting down on your meat intake can help conserve water as well. And an estimated 1800 to 2500 gallons of water go into a single pound of meat of beef, whereas other meat alternatives such as tofu only take 220 gallons of water per pound. So in addition to being healthy and making this merely your recommendation, it's also a global idea of ensuring we're being sustainable, that we're being more environmentally conscious and friendly, and especially in a city that is moving more towards community gardens and healthy food options. And so I welcome my council colleagues to support this. And thank you, Councilman Austin and Councilman Price. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I, too, want to thank Councilman Austin for bringing this forward. And I want to reiterate what he said, which is this is a a campaign to raise awareness. It's not a mandate by any stretch of the imagination. So I think that's important to to think about it in this context. The initiative was created in association with Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. It's a campaign to promote healthy habits, and starting the campaign on a monday really promotes good choices for the start of the week. This is the same message that I shared with my family last night when they asked me why we were not having my famous spaghetti sauce that I use that has ground beef in it. I told them that we were not having that last night, that we were going to participate in Meatless Mondays and and explain to them the benefits of using the opportunity to have more fruits, vegetables and salads in our diet. It's something that we don't do. And I think it's a really great opportunity for them to learn different alternatives in terms of their diet and making healthy choices. This initiative has been embraced by multiple school districts because they want to encourage healthy eating at a young age. In fact, it's interesting. In 2010, Fox News Sunday House Call with Dr. Isidore Rosenfeld aired a segment featuring Meatless Mondays. He cited that studies showed that meat consumption can impede weight loss and is unhealthy. Dr. Rosenfeld still presents a healthy Monday tip on his show each week. I thought that might be a relevant fact this evening. Studies have led to lots of policies and initiatives over the years that are embraced by local governments smoking laws and prohibitions , restrictions, snack offerings at school, promoting healthy snack options for children. This is just another opportunity to raise awareness within our city and to encourage our residents to think about their lifestyle, their welfare, their future health, and really to take it as an opportunity to choose if they want to try something different. On Mondays, why not give it a shot? Thank you, Councilman Austin, for bringing this forward. Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Bear. I want to commend my colleagues for bringing this forward. It's obvious that there are many studies that show that meat can be very harmful to one's health. And having one day out of the week to just stay away from eating meat products is, I think, commendable. One of the things that I always look forward to in terms of meals is that diversity and the opportunity to eat and try other things and doing it once a week, I think, is does it provide any greater harm than it than trying to do anything else and anything in in great quantities? Having great quantities is always going to hurt you. So I want to commend my council members on this. I support it and I look forward to Meatless Mondays. Maybe something less Tuesdays, too. Okay. Thank you. I have Councilwoman Mango. Thank you. I would be remiss if I didn't offer a few alternatives. How about pro veggie Monday or care about what you eat Monday or sugar free Monday? I've had calls from some businesses specifically that serve meat and steak and things like that, and it really contributes to the health of their business. And we as an organization could encourage or encourage restaurants and eateries to. Expand their selection. But if we were really passionate about meeting Meatless Monday, then maybe our own cafeteria should be meatless. I really am going to stand with the businesses today. I do support eating salads. I had a salad for dinner last night and I think it's a great thing. I just don't think that city government really should be in the business of telling people and making proclamations based on preferences. But thank you for bringing the item forward. It is important and I hope that our city and our constituents and our our children will really look at the sugar intake that they have and how that impacts obesity, because I do have diabetes in my family. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go now to public comment. So please come forward for public comment and then we will come back to council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, vice mayor and council members. My name is Drew Alexis. I'm a Long Beach resident, and I support the issuance of a Meatless Mondays proclamation. And thank you for your service to Long Beach and for allowing for this discussion. Some may fear that a proclamation is government intrusion into one's personal choices. And I want to get some background on the campaign, because the campaign is really designed to do nothing more than provide information concerning the impact of our food choices on our health and on the environment, and simply to encourage us to make healthy decisions. Meatless Monday started during World War One. It was a campaign to urge Americans to reduce their consumption of staples to aid in the war effort. Meatless days were introduced to encourage Americans to show support for the war and free resources to furnish to our European allies. The campaign was established again during World War Two to help the nation's Second World War effort. And in the immediate postwar years, the campaign was continued to help feed war ravaged Europe. In 2003, researchers at Johns Hopkins University recommended cutting meat intake by 15% to lower the risk of preventable diseases. The School of Public Health launched the Meatless Monday campaign as a public health awareness campaign, and of course, Monday was selected because research shows that Monday is the perfect day to kick start healthy weekly behavior. Since 2010, Meatless Monday proclamations have been passed in 16 cities, including five in California. Many of these cities have found that passage of a proclamation is an opportunity to involve the community in the values expressed in the campaign. In Loudoun County, Virginia, for example, one of the most conservative Republican counties in Virginia. After passing a meatless Monday proclamation, the county partnered with area restaurants to offer special dishes, discounts and a lottery for free meatless meals, not surprisingly, and to address Councilwoman Mango's comment, many restaurants and communities that have adopted these proclamations actually support the proclamations completely because Monday is traditionally not a busy day for restaurants. That's a community based campaign to promote meatless meals on Monday may serve as a very good business opportunity for many of our local restaurants. In a few moments, you will hear from individuals who will share some important environmental benefits of eating meatless on Mondays. I wanted to to share a few words as to why Meatless Monday is also beneficial to our health. To quote Dr. Lawrence Hansen, a professor at UC San Diego School of Medicine who spoke at a school district meeting in San Diego. I have five reasons why the district should adopt Meatless Mondays heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity. It is no surprise that many hospitals and 28 teams from the most prestigious U.S. public health schools support the campaign as a tool to fight these awful and often preventable diseases. It is also no surprise that well-respected organizations working to advance public interest, such as the American Public Health Association, also endorse Meatless Mondays. According to a study by UCLA, 40% of children in Long Beach are obese. The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics recommends reducing meat consumption to decrease the risk of various health problems, including obesity. And the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health concluded that by replacing meat with an equal serving of legumes, healthy grains are nuts. One day a week would reduce the risk of early mortality by as much as 11%. Given the staggering rate of obesity in Long Beach we can afford, can we afford not to take reasonable steps to influence our residents to enjoy meatless meals at least one full day per week? I encourage you to vote in favor of this resolution. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Vince Plods in. I moved to Long Beach in the late seventies while attending Long Beach State. I have watched the city grow and become a great place to live. My family and I reside in Susy Price's district. As as we all know, California is in a historic drought. Neither the short or the long term prognosis is encouraging. We are all being asked to take major steps to conserve water. Shorter and less frequent showers, brown lawns, etc.. And this is fair. This is not just a governmental issue. This is a citizen and a community problem. However, this is literally a drop in the bucket. We are ignoring the elephant in the room. The meat and dairy industry is responsible for almost half of California's water usage. Production of meat and animal products use more than half of the U.S. is freshwater supply. More of California's total water usage goes to livestock than any other cause. This is not sustainable. The estimated water to produce a pound of beef is a conservative. 1800 gallons. 700 gallons for a pound of pork, 430 gallons for a pound of eggs. Cattle need more water than any other large land mammal. Dairy cows range between 30 to 50 gallons per day. At first I found these numbers staggering, almost unbelievable. I researched it further and verified it with multiple sources. My next question was How can Ralphs or McDonald's possibly show a profit? Agro farming is very heavily government subsidized, so you are not just paying for your burger, you are paying for everyone else's. There is a very real connection between animal based diets and devastating water shortages. A vegan, meaning no meat or dairy diet, averages between three and 400 gallons daily. Vegetarian diet includes dairy jumps to approximately 1000 gallons daily. A heavy meat based diet can rise to 4000 gallons daily. Consequently, it takes less water to produce a year's food for a vegan diet than to produce a month's food for a heavy, carnivorous one. If these numbers do not seem important, I believe they will. Cutting animal products from meals one day a week would save an enormous amount of water. Change always comes with criticism and scrutiny, as it should. The perception that meat is necessary for protein is a myth. There are cultures and religions that are meatless and have and have sustained for many, many centuries. No one is going to be force fed broccoli or broccoli, only diet. This is merely a suggestion that we keep an open mind and look at all of our options. Here are some of the people already on board for Meatless Mondays. 50 school districts, 100 colleges and universities. Over 650,000 meatless meals are served in the L.A. Unified School District. And Meatless Monday resolutions have been passed in Dallas, Boston, Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco. Think of it like Taco Tuesdays, but with many, many more options and healthy benefits. On a personal note, my parents, members of the great generation, dine primarily on the American diet, meat and potatoes. My father died of heart disease. My mother passed of diabetes. I don't serve. I'm sorry. Time's up. Time's up. But I don't think you call it. I just think this is a I would respectfully encourage that. The Long Beach City Council. Thank you. Serve time. Time is over. And I thank you for this opportunity. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Genesis Butler and I'm eight years old. I go to school and Monica Elementary and I love the city of Long Beach. I'm a vegan child. And one of the main reasons I went vegan is because of the damage. Eating meat is taking not only your health but the environment too. I researched the meat industry after my mom told me some facts and that is when I found out raising cattle and killing cattle for food is taking a toll on the planet. The animal and agriculture industry is hurting our planet. 18% greenhouse gas emissions are from animal agriculture. That this is more exhaust from all transportation, from animal agriculture is also leading ocean dead zones, water pollution and habitat destruction. It is also affecting our water supply. Right now, we're in the worst drought in history. We kept being told to take shorter showers or not. What are you? But that's only 4%. California's water footprint is linked to direct household use. The water footprint for meat and dairy is 47%. It takes it makes much more sense to urge people to limit eating meat. The footprint is a lot higher than the footprint for direct household use. I'm a kid and I'm really scared about the drought. I'm afraid I won't have water near the future. We can do something about this by having Meatless Monday for our city. I really think people will accept it and want to give it a try after they learn how much water it takes to make a meat dish. Did you know it takes 2500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat? That's the same as a cup of showering. I know children will also be willing to give it a try when they learn. When I eat my lunch with my friends, they always throw away all their school lunch and only the piece of fruit or dessert. Because I see the rest of the nasty. They all they always eat all my food, my meatless lunches. My mom sent me when she even had to start sending me more food because they were eating all my food. Recently with Congressman Tony Cardenas said, We all have the tools to make a difference. Sometimes they're disguised as fortune knives. Let's put them in a good use. I agree with Mr. Cardenas. The city of Long Beach can save hundreds of millions of gallons of water each week by saving by not having me one day out of the week. Kids like me, that's their future, where they won't have to worry where they're getting the water from. Please consider Meatless Mondays. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next. Any of the public speakers, please come forward. If there's any others, please come line up so I can use our last one on the topic. Okay, then I'm going to cut off the speakers list, please. My name's Robin Hicks. I'm in the fourth District District, and. We actually make sure that we lift up your right. Just to follow with that, Justin. So I'm a 30 year vegetarian, ten year vegans, very healthy. When you're talking about personal preferences is not a personal preference issue with topsoil erosion, with the Amazon destruction, which most of it is due to cattle ranching, some of it that ends up here with dead zones in the rivers, with water , with the drought situation. This is not a personal preference issue. People's meat habits affect everyone because the environment is all of our environment. So when people are having a heavy meat diet, it is not a personal preference issue. It is affecting everyone. It's infecting the entire environment, affecting the rainforest, affecting topsoil erosion, affecting the drought. It is not a personal preference issue. It's affecting everyone. And please support Meatless Mondays. Thank you. Thank you. And oh, we do have another one. Please come forward. Okay. Hi. My name is Ashley. As a member of the Long Beach business community, I wholeheartedly support this resolution. I'm the general manager of a restaurant. In the arts district, and I believe. That a program. Promoting healthy, plant based eating will be beneficial for us as a community on two. Fronts that haven't already been mentioned. So the first one is that restaurants are notoriously slow on Mondays, whether they're a vegetarian restaurant or a steak house, whatever, because everybody goes out on the weekends. And so restaurants typically take. A big dip in sales on Mondays. So encouraging our residents to go. Out and eat healthy on this day is a great. Marketing tool that will be beneficial for all the restaurants in our city. The second thing, which is a little closer to home for me, is that I was born in Long Beach. I've lived here my whole life. I've traveled all over the world, but I've always called Long Beach my home because Long Beach is such a forward thinking and beautiful community. So Long Beach has raised me to be well educated, cultured, and simultaneously compassionate. To all living beings. And because it's so progressive and still remains to keep its integrity, I think encouraging our residents to eat a healthy, plant based diet once a week seems like the next natural evolution for our city. So thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to turn to the public. Please come forward. Is there anyone else for public comment? Please line up. If not, I'm closing the speakers list. Hi, my name is Barbara and I'm a registered dietitian for 30 years and a lot of the issues that were just addressed right now had to do with the environment and health. And this is all true, but meatless Mondays in the school district is really addressing our children. And I work in dialysis unit and when I see everybody with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and yet I asked them what you know, what are you eating? It's always a hamburger, it's always the meat. And I have to specifically say, do you eat any fruits and vegetables? So the whole idea of Meatless Mondays is that our children grow up to know about eating fruits and vegetables. Dialysis where I work is $1,000,000,000 a year strain on Medicare. We all know Medicare is running out. So let's try to prevent dialysis, diabetes, obesity and save our children in doing so. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this discussion has brought out one very critically important question, and that is, what school does this young lady attend? Yeah. So I'm going to write that down. I just want to say congratulations to whatever strategy was employed to make this happen. I think your family must be doing a great job, and raising your family is really a testament when you see your daughter and and to have her at the city council dais to talk about an issue and and really articulate it better than any of the other speakers today, I think really says a lot about Long Beach schools and a lot about your family. So I just want to chime in and say how impressed I am and best of luck. And when you're ready for an internship or a job, just just give us a call. We're hiring policy interns. Next, there's Councilwoman Mangum. I, too, want to say how impressed I am. You've made it on Twitter. You're being followed by a bunch of people in the Long Beach Post. I think you did a really good job articulating it. And I want to give a particular thank you to the members of the community who actually listen to the things that councilmembers say and address those issues instead of coming prepared with what they want to say because they want to say it because they have a point to make, but not really being able to have a dialog. I think that one of the the challenges that the process of the parliamentarian rules have is that we don't really get to have a dialog about it unless you contact our offices in advance of the meeting when the agenda is posted. And I'd wished that I'd heard some of these options in advance, I still don't know that I feel that it's a council decision to say Meatless Monday, but I am open to the ideas of pro veggie Monday. I am an owner of a community garden. I've eaten more vegetables in the last year than my whole life combined probably, and I think it is good for awareness. We're also asking the community businesses, restaurants specifically to do some farm to table. So there are other initiatives out there. I'd be interested in seeing an option where we utilize this as a promotional tool for restaurants so that they would come together. I would be supportive of something like that. The meatless part is really not not excellent for our steakhouses and others, and even if they are struggling on Mondays, I wouldn't want to contribute to that. But thank you for the alternatives. Thank you for the options and I hope that we'll do a campaign together. I'm contact my office and I'm open to helping the restaurants in my district and citywide. Thank you. We have a couple other council speakers. Councilmember Austin. Yes, I'll be short. I just wanted to say thank you for all of the speakers when I thank my council colleagues for chiming in. This has been a very healthy conversation and healthy dialog. As a city council and as elected officials, I think we do have a responsibility to promote a healthy community. And in promoting a healthy community, we are promoting a healthy workforce which is going to be a more efficient workforce and is going to help us attract the the big businesses with great jobs too. Long Beach, where Beach City and we have a lot to offer in this campaign, I think is is just a it's an awareness campaign that we should all have and I think we've all been to I really feel good about bringing this issue before us because those of you in the audience and those of you watching at home, you've been educated a little bit more about this issue. And so, again, I look forward to hopefully everybody supporting this worthwhile resolution this evening. Thank you. Councilmember Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. You know, at first I wasn't that excited because I've been getting so many negative comments at school and I love about Meatless Monday, but I thought about it because my wife, she's vegetarian. But after getting the statistics from this young lady, I know I'm not going to eat any meat on Monday. I mean, it's just you just tremendous young lady, because I didn't know anybody but you with the statistics you just gave me. How could I not? Thank you again. And everyone, listen, I don't know what to say. I just hope my little granddaughter could just go to your school, too. Thank you again. Thank you. With that, we have closed the speakers and coming from the council. So we're going to call for a vote with a motion in a second. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Earlier in the. Okay. Okay. Motion passes, seven two. Thank you. Moving on to item 12, please. Item 12 Communication from Councilwoman, Mango, Chair, Economic Development and Finance Committee Recommendation to refer the Economic Development Commission. The issue of marketing the open counter software.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement, and any necessary documents, subcontracts or subsequent amendments, including amendments to the award amount, with the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of $1,500,000 for the Futures First, Office of Youth Development, for a three-year period beginning May 1, 2022, with the option to extend for three additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; and Increase appropriations in the Health Fund Group in the Health and Human Services Department by $1,500,000 offset by grant revenues. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04192022_22-0438

Yes. The motion is Cory nine zero. Thank you, Adam 23. Item 23 Report from Health and Human Services Recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement with Conrad and Hilton Foundation to accept grant funding in the amount of 1.5 million for the future first Office of Youth Development Citywide. There's a motion for a second, Councilman Austin. Any comments? Yes, I think this is a great opportunity. $1.5 million that's going to benefit youth in our city. I did have a question regarding the grant. Did we apply for the grant with the. The nature of the grant? And is this the same Hilton, Conrad Hilton, with the hit associated with Hilton Hotels? Yes it is. And we have our homeless services manager, Paul Duncan, available to answer any questions you have. But yes, that is the same Hilton. It's their charitable foundation. Great. Good. Glad to see them giving back to our community. It's personal time by Wendell and ask and answer any questions. She's much more informed on the specific grant. Why? Or were you looking for a presentation or was there a specific question? The question was whether or not we. Saw that was okay. Thank you, Paul. I think we're good. I. Good evening, Carol. Mayor and city council people, this is. Dr.. Davis, so we can get back to you about that. I'm not 100% sure if we applied or how exactly the. The. Process went for us to receive this grant. But I can get. Back to you. On that. I thank you. I'm supportive of that. Either way, I think this is a good for the city. Are you. Thank you. Any public comment. That there are any members of the public they would like to speak on item 23 and person please, please line up at the podium in the zoom. Please use the raise hand feature podcast are nine now. We have one member in person. Your time begins now. Thank you. Dave Shukla again. It's wonderful to be in person. You can catch things in real time and wonder why they're happening. Like item 17. It's really kind of funny, you know, that we have a couple of years left. If you've read the latest APEC report on climate impacts, only a couple of years left to do anything to have a livable future for any of us. And uh, we have a couple of proposals here for half of the grant money that we're supposed to have a presentation about November 18 regarding our youth climate program, state funding for which but this is private money from the Hilton Foundation, which apparently has deep reserves after the pandemic to direct Pacific Gateway. If any of you can read or have your staff even read the staff report for either the 17 or 23, I mean, it's fucking ridiculous, you know, like, oh, we're going to take disadvantaged youth, you know, a couple hundred of them and stick them in space. The moment where you use all the last resources, we have to send a couple of balding white assholes to space. I mean, seriously, like, what is this all for? But more generally, I mean, when it comes to the fact that I mean, this is a city government and you are charged technically with the safety and security and well-being of all of your residents. Uh, it's kind of surprising that we would direct our social and public resources in this way. Um, the data collection protocols will be developed by the evaluator and the Institutional Review Board to allow for the use of data in future publications. Uh, yeah. I mean, you know who's going to read them? Thank you. That concludes public comment. Restaurants in the UK up again that. So just wanted to highlight this program. I think this is incredible. So based on the staff report and based on what I understand from the program, it's you know, the Office of Youth Development is going to start a really great program for 300 youth from, you know, different communities, disadvantaged communities across Long Beach. And half of those youth will be connected directly with the Pacific Gateway Space Beach program. So they're going to get access to the emerging aerospace jobs that are in our city. I think that's incredible. I think also just to acknowledge that this is the first year that we actually have an Office of Youth Development, the youth of these office youth development's brand new. And we already see really good things. One and a half million dollar grant. So special thanks to the Conrad Hilton Foundation for for helping, you know, provide some much needed resources to this brand new office youth development that's going to make a real difference. All of this is sort of in alignment with the initial work around youth development with the boys, Women of Color, My Brother's Keeper work, which was the roots of this years ago. So I'm excited to see this. This is great. And I look forward to seeing, you know, following this program in the years to come. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Councilman's in the house. I think you just briefly wanted to say how much I appreciate this item. The Embraer forward. Thank you. I truly believe that empowering and investing in our youth is a key driver to a strong and growing future local economy. So thank you for this program. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Let's go ahead and. The roll call. Vote on this, please. District one. I am district two. I did it. Three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. Yes. The motion is carried. Nine. Jo.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the transfer of City property located at 500 30th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington; authorizing the conveyance of the property to the Central Area Senior Center, a Washington non-profit corporation, consistent with the intent of Resolution 31856 and to provide for the continued delivery of social services; making findings of fact about the consideration for the transfer; superseding Resolution 31837 for the purposes of this ordinance; and authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services or designee to execute and deliver documents necessary to carry out the conveyance of such property on the terms and conditions of this ordinance.

SeattleCityCouncil_11022020_CB 119906

Countable. 119906 relating to the transfer of city property located at 530th Avenue, South Seattle, Washington. Authorizing the conveyance of the property to Central Area Senior Center of Washington nonprofit corporation, consistent with the intent of Resolution 31856m to provide for the continued delivery of social services. Making findings of facts of the consideration for the transfer superseding resolution 31837. For the purposes of this ordinance of upgrading the Director of Finance, Administrative Services or designee to execute and deliver documents necessary to carry out the convenience of such property on the terms and conditions of this ordinance. That was a mouthful. Thank you, Amelia, for reading that title into the record. I will move to pass Council Bill 119906. Is there a second back up? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember said you are the sponsor of this bill as well and are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam President. This ordinance, well, the short title is that it would authorize the transfer to the Central Area Senior Center, the property at 530th Avenue for the continued delivery of social services. So this is the senior center folks who have been for a long time advocating to have the ability to have the reins and be able to continue to invest in the community and provide the critical services that they offer. So a very diverse group of seniors, mostly in the black community, and really excited again about this piece of legislation. Council members will recall that last month we passed legislation transferring the birth of our place property to the organization. This transfer follows up on that as mutual offsetting benefits sites that have been occupied by community organizations for decades. And the city has been in the process of transferring to community organizations since the Nichols administration in late 2018. The council then passed a resolution asking the executive to ensure that the transfer of the properties that have a mutual and offsetting benefits lease to the organizations currently residing in those facilities be accomplished no later than March of 2019. And as we talked about last week, here we are October 2020. It's been a long process to get here, but we are here and we are celebrating. Over the last couple of years, the central area senior center has been in negotiations with an interdepartmental team and the mayor's office on this transfer. And we know that this process has not exactly went straight forward and the goalposts seem to have been moved at various points along the way. But we're excited to be able to join with them in applauding this effort today, applaud the organization for hanging in there and their continue to push to make sure that this transfer actually happens. The Central Area Senior Center has been providing vital services in the community for over 50 years, and their mission is to celebrate and serve all seniors, especially those of African-American and African immigrant backgrounds that live in King County. Last Monday, we heard about all of the great work of the organization and how this transfer one will ensure that they're able to continue this work into the future and this transfer of one able the senior center to modernize the building to accommodate for even more programs, redesign the interior, update the systems and parking, and reflect the rich, historical and cultural significant heritage associated with the central mission as associated with the center's mission, founding and vision. So we're excited about this legislation today. And congratulations again. Thank you. Council members get it? Are there any additional comments? Council members want, please. Thank you. President Gonzalez and I join Councilmember Mosquito in congratulating the community members who have for a decade, for over a decade, advocated for the central area senior center property to be transferred to the community organizations to be retained fully for public use. They have struggled through years of city hall inertia and opposition to make this happen. Just to add a few points about what the seniors did to achieve the success. On April 23rd, 2019, a nearly 100 seniors rallied at City Hall alongside Africa Town Community Land Trust and many other community members that were there supporting them. At a rally in City Hall, in the lobby and alongside my office, and many of them were enthusiastically chanting, no more delays in reference to Mayor Dawkins, stop continued stalling. And I wanted to also once again thank Diane Ferguson and others for their leadership of this community effort. Right after the rally, the day the seniors attended the Council Committee meeting, chaired by my office to hear our resolution calling on the mayor to move forward with the property transfers. And after that, the seniors along with. Staff from my office deliver dozens of letters directly to the mayor's office, calling for the transfer of the central and board place to community control so that the services can be run permanently for public benefit, run by the community and to everyone, regardless of income. Then in the week following, more than 250 other community members who also wrote letters to the mayor calling for the transparent preservation of the centers, it would it may seem like this property transfer would not make a material difference between a property owned by the city of Seattle, rented at no cost to the Central Area Senior Center, which has been the case in the past, and transferring ownership to the Seattle area Central Area Senior Center. However, it does make one important difference. This property transfer protects the central from the possibility of valuable land under their feet being sold out from under their feet whenever the political establishment might want to raise funds that way, rather than looking for raising progressive revenues. And this is very important, especially given the prime location that the central is located at. Anybody who has visited the central area senior center will know exactly what I'm talking about. It is an incredible location with unbelievable views. And no doubt many corporate developers have had their eye on it and must not forget that the Mercer Mega BLOCK sale at the end of 2019 was accepted by community organizations. Only because the block and generate I'm sorry, the money it generated was promised to go to affordable housing and to stop displacement, a promise that unfortunately the mayor has once again let down the community on in our proposed budget. The Central provides an incalculable service to the seniors in the Central District, which is my neighborhood, and I'm delighted to vote in favor of this legislation, transferring the senior center permanently to the community thinking. Thank you, Councilmember Solondz. Any other comments on the bill? Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you so much. And thank you both to Councilmember Mascara and so on for sharing the. Not not not necessarily going all the way back on the history on this, but at least the recent history. I really appreciate reading into the record elements from the resolution that the Council passed in 2018. I worked with Councilmember O'Brien on that resolution, as I know many of us on the council did, and that was a resolution that we took action on because of the community frustration on on the lack of progress on the disposition of these properties over the years. I do have a question. I don't know if council member Muscat or you might know, given your role as chair of the committee or if the District Council member might know. But I'm wondering what the status of the Greenwood Senior Center that is one of the three properties that we lifted in the 2018 resolution as as properties that had gone through many iterations under many mayors. And those three properties of, I think, seven or eight different are mutually offsetting benefit. These properties had been identified as sort of ready to go, had been been reviewed extensively about whether or not they would be appropriate to to use as land to develop housing instead. And just just wondering what the status is on on that one, because it is the last one of the three that we identified in the 2018 resolution as priorities. Eagles council member Herbold for those comments and for the question related to their goal is at the Greenwood Community Center. Oak Greenwood Senior Center, a Greenwood Senior Center. Thank you so much. So I'm just going to open it up here for either the district representative or the good chair of our housing committee who might have some additional information on that related issue. So, Councilman Mosquito, do you have anything or does the district representative have anything on this? I am happy to defer to the district representative and also we'll be looking into it on our hands as well. And always, of course, the Greenwood area kind of depends on what side of Greenwood you're on is it determines your district rep . But I think Councilmember Strauss is off mute, so perhaps he has some information or insight on this particular issue. I believe that is in District six. That would be right in my district. And I know having spoken with Miller on, we had resolved any outstanding questions at this time, although not having this on the docket for today, I did not prepare my notes and unfortunately, I did not get a response from him in these last 30 seconds. So I believe that the issue is resolved. Councilmember Herbold, we will follow up if that is not the case. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much. That's great. Thank you so much. Of course, we are always looking for opportunities to identify additional, you know, additional projects where we can replicate some of this good work. And so look forward to getting an update from council central staff when they have the capacity to do so. And certainly from Councilmember Strauss, if he learned some information from consultation with the staff, really appreciate the question. Any other comments on this bill? K hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the Bill Herbold. Yes. Juarez. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Petersen. Yes. Sir. What? Yes. Strauss. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Nine in favor. None opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Well, the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation. Okay. Items three through 21. Will the clerk please read items three through 21 into the record?

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XV of Chapter VI to Eliminate “No Cause” (Notice to Vacate) as a Grounds for Eviction from Ordinance No. 3148 (City of Alameda Rent Review, Rent Stabilization, and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance). (Rent Stabilization 265)

AlamedaCC_05212019_2019-6891

And I'll read the title really quickly. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Article 15 of Chapter six to eliminate no cause notice to vacate as a grounds for eviction from Ordinance 3148 City of Alameda Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance OC. And before Ms.. Potter begins, I'm just going to double check with our city attorney. So the Vice mayor is is a small landlord. And so he feels the need to recuse himself from part of the discussion. Is this the time when he should leave before the staff report? Yes. Yes. Okay. So if I can clarify, state law requires me to recuse myself in cases where the land that's under discussion represents less than 25% of the of the city's land as one of the alternatives that is on the agenda tonight. And some of the speakers, I believe, will be speaking to there is a recommendation to consider looking at how to treat owner occupied rentals in the city and therefore that is triggering a need for me to recuse myself. So my request of of my colleagues is that if after I will go to the back and listen to the public comment, everything else, if you might be able to take that item up first, is whether there's interest to have that conversation and deal with it first. Then I can return it, have a come and join the conversation, having heard all the public input, etc. from the back of the chamber. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we'll just wait for Mr. and. A. Point of order question for the city attorney. If so, I rent out a room, two rooms at my place. Do I follow under owner occupied. No. And so, Councilmember, if I may ask you a follow up question. When you say you rent out two rooms, are you essentially a landlord and you are renting out me? Need to be closer to the microphone. Are you renting out two rooms in your home that you occupy and then you're in essence and operating as a landlord in that capacity? I live in that that housing unit. Yes. I think we may need to make a distinction about the terms of our ordinance previously. Mayor and council and and for the benefit of Mr. Chan, who has just recently joined us. Literally. He's been here a week. A week? Yes. The way that we define a housing unit under the ordinance, the particular situation that Councilmember de SOG has is not considered a housing unit. And therefore, we have opined that the ordinance, those provisions do not apply to him and therefore he was not required to recuse himself on this matter. Okay. I agree with Mr. Rausch on this very much. To the extent that if you're renting out accessory dwelling units or separate units, that's a. Difference, not separate units. And they do not have their own kitchen rooms. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. So with that, Ms.. Potter. Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And the item before you this evening is introduction of an ordinance to eliminate no cause as grounds for eviction under the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance. And I'm just going to do a really quick housekeeping item. You may notice that for Variety, we have the projector, the height and the PowerPoint projected on the sidewall. We went through two nights of budget hearings last week when I had the lights of the projector shining straight in my eyes and I. I threatened to boycott. And so they now they came up with this solution. So I hope it's not shining in your eyes. But if it is. If it is, I'll move to the other. Oh, yeah, for sure. No, it's. If it's starting now, I wouldn't let it go too long. It's pretty awful. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Thank you. On April 2nd, the City Council held a special meeting regarding potential amendments to the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance and at that time directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would eliminate no cause evictions from our existing ordinance. The Genesis, or how the Council got to the April 2nd meeting, dates back to the spring of 2017, when the City Council actually approved the same amendment. The Council approved an amendment in 2017 authorizing the elimination of No Cause evictions. A referendum was was successfully circulated at that time, and ultimately the council repealed that ordinance. And then an initiative was also successfully qualified for the November 2018 ballot. And that initiative would have incorporated the ordinance in the city's charter, which would have precluded any changes to the ordinance without a vote of the people. That initiative failed, and therefore the Council is able to amend the ordinance as it sees fit. And that and really with that outcome of the November 2018 election that led up to the April 2nd meeting that I started this slide with. The ordinance that is before you this evening would eliminate no cause terminations. It would, however, continue to allow no fault terminations. And no fault terminations do require the payment of relocation benefits. No fault terminations include owner move ins and removal, permanent removal of a unit from the rental market. In addition, the ordinance will continue to allow for four cause evictions. For cause terminations do not require the payment of relocation benefits and for cause terminations include the failure to pay rent, breach of a lease nuisance and failure to give access. One of the things that we did hear from some folks while we were out in the community talking about proposed amendments to the ordinance was a concern regarding the temporary tenancies. And as the Council had previously approved in Ordinance 3180, the ordinance that was ultimately repealed, we do have a provision that we will be bringing forward to the Council in July that defines a temporary tenancy as a tenancy that is 12 months or less in a primary residency. And that temporary tenancy does not require at termination the payment of relocation benefits. In addition, excuse me, at the time that the Council looked at these kinds of amendments around temporary tenancies, it also agreed that military personnel renting a primary residence with a temporary tenancy for military personnel would be five years or less. So I just want to clarify that point will be coming back to the Council on July 2nd, when the Council directed staff to begin the process of amending the ordinance regarding no cause eviction protections. Staff indicated and staff concurred with the need to do community outreach. And we have been conducting community outreach over the past month and a half. We did hold a community house on a community open house on May 2nd. We had between 70 and 90 people attend that open house. We've been holding on an ongoing basis focus groups for landlords and tenant organizations. We posted the issue boards that we presented at the Open House online for one week. We had about 280 respondents. That's over 1000 comments that we received online. All of those comments, Open House and from the online survey were included as part of tonight's staff report. And we are continuing our outreach efforts. And in fact, we have scheduled the next community meeting on Thursday, June 6th at the Elks Club, the Rathskeller at 630 in the evening. The staff report did present several alternatives that the council might want to consider as part of its deliberations this evening. And one of those alternatives was a proposal to essentially do a carve out from no cause eviction protections for landlords who live on the property that they rent to tenants. So really it would be landlords living on their property in duplex triplex four plex that carve out what would staff's recommendation if the council wants to consider this would be really to keep the status quo what we have under our ordinance with which is that we permit no cause evictions with certain restrictions. You can you're limited in the number of no cause evictions you can do in a year and you can't raise the rent more than 5% for the next tenant. And you have to pay relocation benefits at. And that would if if the Council were interested in considering this carve out, it would impact just over a thousand tenants. The Council could hold off on adopting the amendment this evening and await state action. There's currently a bill, AB 1481 that is making its way through the legislative process. It was amended just yesterday. The amendments on that just cause eviction protections that would apply statewide. The two amendments yesterday were that were introduced was one to provide a termination date for that legislation of January one, 2030. And the Second Amendment was to require that a tenant live in it in their residence for six months before they would be eligible for the No Cause eviction protection. The logic being that there would be a six months would be ample time for a landlord to determine whether or not there was a good fit. The council could adopt the amendment that's before it this evening and it could commit to revisiting the ordinance a year from now so that we have an opportunity to monitor and gather data on how the No Cause eviction protections are working in the city based on the direction that staff receive from Council on April 2nd. We are recommending that the Council introduce the ordinance that's before you this evening that eliminates no cause terminations. And that concludes my staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, counsel. Do we have clarifying questions on Miss Potter's report? I think Councilmember Vela does. By the way, I'm giving lots of deference to Councilmember Vela. She gets the first crack at a question every time her hand goes up. So, just so you know, Councilmember. Um, Miss Potter, you mentioned that you met with focus groups. Can you let us know who who those groups might have been? Absolutely. We have been working with the Alameda Renters Coalition. Who represents them? The tenants here in Alameda. We have been meeting with the East Bay Realtors, has a local government relations committee. We meet with representatives from the Local Government Relations Committee. And then there is an organization that is called the Alameda Housing Providers Association. And we have met with that organization to. Uh, with regards to the third organization who's, who's the point person for that organization. So Jeff, Canberra has been working with that group. They have a board of directors and we met with Jeff and a number of his board members. Okay. Um, with regards to the carve out that's proposed, uh, was there a particular group that proposed that carve out? I think a lot of the landlords who are active in the East Bay Realtors Association have been promoting that idea. I think a lot of landlords, some of the management organizations, management agencies who represent a lot of the smaller landlords here in the city have been proposing that that potential. Accommodation or carve out. With regards to the estimate of a thousand tenants being impacted. How did we get that number? So we worked with our our consultant and asked them to take a look at the number of properties that are duplexes. Triplexes and four plex is where the property owners address matches. The ownership data. And so they came up with 810 properties and then I asked them to break that down. The vast majority of those properties out of 810 properties, about 552 of those properties are duplexes. There are very few for Plex's and then A and then there are 100 or so. Triplexes where the property owner lives on site. So it's a thousand units then as opposed to a thousand tenants because there could be a family living in a unit. Yeah. Yes. Of households. Right. Thank you. 1000 households. It's about 1100 tenants that would be impacted if the council pursued that carve out. Well, do you understand the distinction? Misspell a council member is making. If you're saying a thousand or 1100 households, a household is often more than 110. Correct. It's 1100 households. Households. So double that many tenants or. That you don't know. Yeah, I think that if we could look at that the average household size now but I don't know how many people I that's number of how could we. Safely assume that they aren't all dwellings with just one tenant in them. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Other questions? Councilmember? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Miss Potter, for your presentation. So, AB 1481, does that have any carve out for owner occupied? No. And then do we have an idea since we put our rent ordinance in place? 3148. How many? No cause evictions have been for nuisance, drug dealing or prostitution. No. No idea. Or there aren't any. We do not know because you don't have to list a cause when you submit for a no cause. Okay. Thank you. Question. Councilmember DE So. Is it correct to say that in fiscal year 2017, 2018, while we might not know how many no cause evictions were attributed to. As Councilmember Otis said, drug dealing or whatever that we do know that in that fiscal year there were altogether just 31. No cause evictions based upon this. Yes. And in the prior year fiscal year, there were altogether 26. No. Cause. Yes. And I would just point out, though, that that is the number that were reported to the to the rent program staff. Okay. For for clarification, I believe the staff report also indicated that there's no way to determine when a tenant simply leaves. A. Property because of, say, a rent increase that they can't afford or correct. The the program tracks terminations and not voluntary vacancies. Councilmember Odie, thank you. One follow up. So of those no, no cause evictions that Councilmember De Saag asked you about, do we know how many of those were for owner occupied? Well, the the majority are for single family homes. Okay. Yeah, for single family homes. I'm talking about duplex triplex. The. I guess the ones that are they're being requested for a carve out. I mean, is. This probably have that information. I just don't have it right here. Okay. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions. And then I believe that we're being asked to make a determination of whether we do want to consider the carve out, because if we don't want to consider the carve out, then we'll bring our colleague back. And council may want to take public testimony and then have that discussion. Okay. Okay. So I guess either way, Mr. White's going to miss out on public comment, but. Although I believe he said he was going to be listening from. Oh, that's true. He can do that. Okay. All right. So I take it we have some speakers. Thank you very much. Currently, we have 13 public speakers. 13. Everybody will get two minute speakers. So 1440. So when we have more than six or seven speakers and you're speaking, time goes down from 3 minutes to 2 minutes. And I think we may get more speakers as we go along. We're going to try to move this item along. So the clerk will call out like three names in a row, listen for your name, scoot over to the aisle or wherever you need to be to be next in line to speak. So 2 minutes and and remember the requests. We don't do applause booths the way what have you. We just speak and listen. Okay. We are ready. Okay. The first speaker, Sharon Oliver and then Toni Grimm and then Joanne Nader. Oh, yes. Sorry. I'm sorry. I up and use the microphone. Okay. Good evening. My name is Sharon Alva and I am the chair of the Alameda. Chapter of the based Association of Realtors. And a member of the Local Governmental Relations Committee. I'm here to encourage the City Council to exempt owner occupied in small 1 to 4 unit properties from the eviction control portion of Ordinance 3148. We recognize the need for housing stability for renters, but also we need to protect homeowners who have secondary units to rent in their primary residences and small investors who own 1 to 4 units. Homeowners with a portion of their property rented out have put their savings and sweat equity into their homes. Some evaluators older buildings have rental units, but in these older buildings, sound travels and the living arrangement is proximate, even intimate. If the relationship with the tenant is not good, it can be expensive and contentious to continue living together. If the relationship with the tenant. Is problematic, where's the owner to go? Often the very reason owners live in a duplex or triplex is because they. Could not afford a single family home. These are not wealthy owners of large apartment buildings. They are sharing their home because they need to or small investors. Owners are disincentivized. To rent when they feel they are losing control of their home. The current market conditions, coupled with more local regulations, are inspiring rental property owners to sell. Smaller rental buildings sold in the current market are often. If not always purchased by owner occupants, which reduces the supply of rental housing. Allowing owner occupied a 1 to 4 unit buildings to continue. No cause evictions would not exempt them from the limitations on rent increases when the new. Tenant moves in. The eviction would not be. For financial gain. The exemption would allow homeowners to enjoy the property. They put their savings and dreams into the same property where they are living. Or in which they count on for their retirement. We urge you to allow owners to be able to evict tenants without a costly legal process. If an unfortunate situation calls for it while protecting tenants in not allowing large rental income. To enter next speaker is. Grim. Good evening. Everybody. I believe. That there was only one bit. Of data, one document that the. Council needs to be guided by for your decision on just cause evictions. That is the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, which establishes the concept of. Due process of law before a person loses a basic human right. And that is an important guarantee of a stable democracy. If you believe that housing is a basic human necessity, then you must believe that housing is a basic human right. That right should not be taken away arbitrarily without a cause, and it should be applied to everyone equally. It doesn't matter what size building a person lives in. It's not the. Building. It's the person who matters. There should be. No carve outs, no waiting periods, no exemptions. Equal protection under the law. It says so in our Constitution. Let's live by that. Thank you. Next speaker is Nader. And then the next three. Are Lester Dixon, Karen Lithgow and Kari Johanson. Thank you. Hello. Hi. My name is Gene Nader. I'm here representing the Alameda Justice Alliance, which includes the Alameda Renters Coalition. Alameda progressives renewed hope. The Alameda firefighters, the Alameda County County Labor Council, Buena Vista United Methodist Church and the local Teamsters Union, A.J., views housing as a real justice and fairness issue. And that's why we were so involved in fighting to defeat Measure K. In the last two years, there has been a 42% increase in homelessness in Alameda, and that includes seniors, families with children and veterans. And we just don't want to see our neighbors displaced because of no cause of action. No, our neighbors should not live in constant fear of being pulled out of their homes unjustly. And we know that alameda care because two years ago or two or three years ago, there was a survey and 80% of alameda support just cause. So we know it's one of the best ways to stabilize our community. We urge you to support the just cause ordinance with no carve outs. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dixon. And then followed by Mr. Hansen. Correct. Okay. Come on. Hi. Good evening, City Council. How y'all doing? Uh, my name is Lester Dixon. I stay on the west side right over there by what used to be known as the Bebe's Now Summer House. I just want to say, hey, just cause I'm okay. Cause no cause is wrong. He can sit up here and pull somebody out when they pay the rent. They doing everything they supposed to do. They selling no drugs. Ain't hang up the apartment. Ain't doing nothing wrong with the. You just decide you want to put somebody out. That's wrong. That's. That's all you know. So look at the human side. And that's all I'm asking you to do is just, you know, like, just cause and all that carve out and all that other stuff. And waiting till 2030 and waiting until the state do whatever they know. Do do us do Alameda. We need just cause right now we don't need to wait, you know, and then, like, whatever happens gonna happen. But, you know, just cause that's all I got to say. So I just asked you all to vote for just cause. Please. Thank you, Mr. Hampton. Actually, Mr. Lithgow next. To this is that he's closer. Yeah. Hello? Good evening, Madam Mayor, and city council members. My name is Karen Lythgoe and I'm here as a landlord with a request that owner, occupants of small 1 to 4 buildings retain the right of no cause evictions. And here is why. The four unit building I live in and rent out is a 19th century Victorian home that I bought in 1990, not having the means to buy a single family home for myself without rental income. I bought a fixer upper multi-unit property to provide income support. Fixing up each of these units has allow me to provide nice homes to four families while receiving rental income, which is a win win for all. What's also true is that these older homes were never meant to house multiple families in the walls and floors. Separating units don't provide the kind of privacy found in newer properties, while careful screening of tenants is helpful in creating a good fit in these densely packed communities. Situations occasionally arise where tenants don't fit in and need to be moved on in. These situations aren't always contained within the language of the lease. So those of us that raise our families in these small buildings in a communal type setting, indeed some measure of peace and safety really do need to have ultimate control over who is living under our roof. As buildings turn over to new owners and tenants come and go. Further restrictions put onto landlords will discourage those owners from keeping spaces within their buildings as rentals. Well, the City Council looks to other towns for precedents on how to deal with no cause evictions. It's important to keep in mind the limit is unique, and that's make up of rental stock that we have so many of these older homes carved up into rentals. So special care must be given to the right solutions at what might be the politically popular thing to do isn't necessarily the right thing to do in the long term for our town. And I trust that this city council has the ability and the wisdom to do the right thing. Thank you for your time. Thank you. JOHANSEN We have Alan Teague, Chelsea Lee and Marilyn Schumacher. Thank you. You do a better job of that than I do. Hello. Good evening, Councilor. Mayor. And I'm glad to see Millie is still here. I don't think she's glad she's here. But I'm. Sherry Johansen. I represent the Alameda progressives. And my first statement is I'd like to say that. I'm very proud that we're a sanctuary city and I approve of the council supporting that. The AARP, the progressives, urge you to support tenants rights to a secure home. Free from unjust evictions. We want, without caveats or without any amendments to the proposed ordinance, with the overwhelming support for no one measure K winning every single precinct. From Bay Farm to Bayport, homeowners and. Renters alike. All of the voters of Alameda support eliminating. Just cause of eviction. Overwhelmingly. There's been sort of a paradigm change in the living patterns, especially due to the high price of homes in the Bay Area. Renters, homeowners, co-ownership is just kind of out of reach for most young families. And we need to be on the cutting edge of protecting tenants already. Alameda in Alameda, they represent half of our community and the percentage will only go up. So it's really important that we. Start the. Protections for that, for that group of people. The tenants also include. Most of our vulnerable members, seniors, disabled and those in lower income. So I strongly urge you to please do what the voters have asked you to do. And last November. And I support just cause tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Teague. And then Chelsea Lee. And then Marilyn Shoemaker. Nobody should be kicked out of their home just so the landlord can raise the rent. But equally, nobody should be able to stay in a place regardless of their bad behavior. Three strikes for cause termination is required to make this possible. Without it, we got our second hand ordinance smoke. Our second hand smoke ordinance. Without it, anti-social behavior will be permitted. Councilmember Vella asked me about due process, and due process has been brought up multiple times. Absolutely. People need due process. This has the same due process as every other. Just cause termination the state court system. It is not amateurs. We have judges and juries to adjudicate the evidence and whether or not is indeed a just cause. This is a balanced change to the ordinance. I hope that counts. The Council can balance the extremes and forge a compromise, which many, but not all both sides can live with. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Lee. And then Ms.. Schumacher. I want to compliment all the speakers. You are doing a great job. Thank you. Hello. Hi. I'm Chelsea and I am a tenants organizing intern with Filipino Advocates for Justice. And this past spring, I worked on a community survey in Alameda. And so we went door to door receiving responses from over 100 Alameda tenants. And from these efforts, we found that 88.5% of respondents oppose evictions without good cause. So a large majority of the folks we talked to believe landlords need a just reason to evict tenants. However, it is also important to note that you can't have true just cause protections without rent control and without a hard cap and limit on how high landlords can increase people's rents. And with that, we also found that 92.9% of respondents believe there should be a cap on rent increases. And 61.9% of respondents have received rent increases of 5% or more in the past 12 months. And also 50.4% are not confident. 23.9 of whom are not confident at all that they can afford where they're currently living over the next 2 to 5 years. And so Alameda tenants deserve and want just cause protections. However true, just cause cannot exist without hard limits on rent increases. And so I entered this work hearing the narrative of the 470 central apartment building, a building once housing a whole community is now empty, a community completely broken and displaced, and people are being uprooted from their homes and lives. My work here started with a narrative of absence and broken communities, and it's very obvious that tenants want and need just cause and real rent control in Alameda. It's time to start. It's time to stop breaking up communities. And it's also important to note that we really, really need just cause for a lot of the folks in Alameda. And as for our survey, our findings can also be found on our website, and then they will also be forwarded to council tomorrow morning. Thank you. Thank you. Following this, Schumacher, we have Denise Galvin, Don Cristobal and Karen Miller. Madam. Excuse me, Madame Mayor and City Council members, this is different than the. Carve out that has been referred to. Previously. The core problem is a small number of landlords. Are kicking people out just to raise the. Rents. Allowing all owner occupied rental properties to accept strict rent control. Waiving costs to Hawkins for three years. For termination for no cause. These owners can't raise the rents of tenants and they are paying relocation fees. This is a simple direct solution to the problem. And Alameda solution. This was talked about. At the community open house, but this is not the. Carve out that the staff presented. Thank you. Thank you. Next we hear. Yes, we have Ms. come in then, Chris. Mr. Chris following Ms.. Miller. One at a time, please. Oh. No. One at a time. Okay. Honorable City Council members. My name is Denise Galvin. And so now high student and youth leader with Filipino Advocates for Justice. On behalf on behalf of the Filipino community and youth of Alameda, we implore you all to say yes on just cause to stop evictions for no reason. Our own members know this harsh reality having been displaced and struggling with higher and higher rents tonight, we may just get we may get just cause, but this would only be the first step to securing our community. Without a rent cap, families are still in danger of displacement, even with just cause we cannot have rent control without a rent cap. Rent control is a huge issue in Alameda as prices are going up and everything is at stake. Whether it's your apartment, our schools or your friends and family, please prove to us that everyone does belong here and provide us with a provide us with a rent ordinance that includes a rent cap and just cause protections. Thank you for protecting our medians with your. Votes for just cause. Thank you. Next speaker, Mr. Cristobal Dennis Miller. Hello, guys. My name is Don Cristobal, and I am here to speak to support a just cause ordinance. And I would like to start with democracy is in a democracy the forefront of American ideal. How come the majority of the people living in living in Alameda are unjustly threatened with being evicted with. Sorry, sorry, sorry. With Tanner's. With Tanner's having to pay the rate, with tenants having to pay the expected amount of rent that land owners owners are demanding, which is not at all viable to the majority of the tenants here in Alameda. If we deny the plight of the people who wants a rent cap just because the land owners want to live a life abundant in profits, wouldn't that be too selfish of them to make money from our struggles on families who struggle to make ends meet and rise from hardship? That's not democracy. I stand for just cause and for the people to stay silent, fearing that they will be the next one evicted just like it had been for me and my family who used to live at the Bayview Apartments on 470 Central. We are reliant on the city council members to do what is right, not only what is right, but to create a society where everyone's where everyone thrives equally, despite US's large gap between the rich and the poor. That's democracy. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Miss Miller. And then followed by that is Doyle, Sailor Katherine calling and Laura Thomas. Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. My name is Karen Miller. I live in Alameda. I have a 16 at Victorian that was converted from a single family home. My tenants refer to themselves as housemates. The home was not built as a multi-unit building and the walls are not built with insulation and noise and odors travel between them. I believe there should be an avenue besides a legal court proceeding to evict a tenant for constantly disturbing the other tenants in the building. I was able to do that last year with no cause with a tenant who would not stop smoking and vaping marijuana at her unit. I was getting complaints from all the tenants, especially the one with a seven year old who shared a wall with his tenant and another one who suffers from asthma. I asked her the tenant repeatedly for two years to stop, but with no result, even if it is against the law in Alameda to smoke anything in a multi-unit building, I can pretty much guarantee that if this went to trial, a jury would not find in my favor. How is that fair to the other tenants? I also would ask you to allow owner occupied landlords to evict tenants with no cause they are housemates of the other tenants and should be allowed to choose with whom they live. It said their property. Some speakers are referred to Measure K being defeated to support their position about just cause. There were many folks who voted against Measure K because they were against all rent control. If you want to look at the voters will look at how one was defeated. It was defeated by a much larger margin than L when at the time there is not a one size fits all solution to keeping tenants in their homes. And I ask that you take into account the various nuances of each situation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Mr. Saylor. Your Honor, the mayor and city council members. I am Daniel Saylor with renewed hope. We have renewed hopes, strongly support adding eviction control to renters rights for Alameda. We commend the city council to take this important step to protect renters living here from unjust evictions. Thank you. I'm calling in the Miss Thomas. That was threatened. Okay. Hi. I'm Catherine calling. Thank you for bringing. On I'm bringing back this very important topic. To protect all of this city. And while I appreciate staff's many meetings and the survey they did. I also have some. Very serious concerns. About what's been. Conducted so far. Just as the numbers were fuzzy in the meeting with the Renters Coalition, the numbers presented were 810 units. Now we hear it's 1100. We heard in terms. Of a thousand people. But on closer questioning, it's many more. 1100 units would. Be all of summer. House and. 22 complexes. The size of 470 Central. This is a. Huge part of our population. I appreciate that the people here that are presenting owner occupied just me small building but we. Are talking about a massive carve out of of renters here in Alameda. I support the previous speakers and that we need equal protection it should. Be fairly applied. Across the board. No carve outs. Thank you. The last Christmas. Thomas. Laura. Thomas, your last. Did you used to have? She still had time left, didn't she? Catherine. This part? Yeah. Did you have a last point you want to make? You were. You had a little time left on your clock. Yes. The last point is. Not only was I present. With the renters and speaking with city staff. I also went to the. Open house and the second attachment on the. April 2nd meeting that. Showed a number of. Possible renter protections like relocation. Benefits. For constructive evictions when there had been so many rent increases that. People are moved out without. Any they're simply. Moved out with. With no moneys. That second page was not a poster at the open his or included on the. Surface now taking this Thomas. Good evening. Laura Thomas, vice president of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. I just thought I'd make a comment that the ordinance before you is, uh, is really a milestone in the renters struggle in Alameda and it deserves your support. Renewed hope was here in 2013 when you, Madam Mayor, were on the council and Marie Gillmor was mayor. And you heard an appeal from the RAC of a four plex where everybody was. Evicted by a woman. Who bought the property and felt it was her right to clean everybody out and raise the rents. The tenants were all elderly. Or disabled. And you were able to all you were able to do at the time was write a caustic letter to the landowner, the property owner. But I remember well, the both you and Mayor Gilmore said to the owners, representative, you both told them that if you had to hear any more heartless stories like that one, you would be ready to see rent control in Alameda. Well, it's been over five years, and we've heard a litany of terrible stories. And as Lester Dixon said, we don't need to wait anymore. You, the council, and we the people who must have the power to protect Allem Edens. And this just cause. Eviction law. Is long past due. So I think that's all I want to say. I certainly admire the youth that were here that spoke most eloquently. It's clear to them that in a democracy there has to be housing rights and people have to be protected. And that's what's fair. That's what's just. And that's what we hope you do tonight. Thank you. Thank you. And we have another speaker, Jared Wright. Mr. Wright. Hi, everyone. Thank you. Thank you so much. First of all, for considering this ordinance for the just cause protections. I hope you'll pass this ordinance without a carve out for only your owner occupied. I just wanted to point out that the Alameda County point in time count was just released by everyone home. It's available online now. The data shows that 8000 people are experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. Currently, this is an increase in 1440 3% between 2017 and 2019. And the number of people becoming homelessness, becoming homeless each year is far outpacing the number of people assisted with housing resources. So for every two people becoming homeless, only one is being returned to permanent housing. So this information shows and demonstrates the importance that we must first build as much housing as possible to relieve the growing supply shortage that is causing rampant housing price inflation in the Bay Area. And secondly, we must enact tenant protections and rent stabilization ordinances like this one that prevent Alameda residents from losing their homes just because the rent that they initially agreed to that was initially agreed to between them and their landlord no longer matches a new hyper inflated rent. That is that is now part of the market. So please consider passing this. We cannot afford to have 1100 new households that are vulnerable to being evicted. So thank you so much. Thank you, Andrea. Okay, so now quick housekeeping detail. It has been a little over an hour. I'm going to call a break. We will be back in 10 minutes, everybody. So it's it's 813, let's say 825. I'm going to start the meeting at 825. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, it is, definitely. Okay. As I said, we are coming back at at 825. And I want to now close public comment on this item and open it up for council discussion. But first, let's tackle the threshold issue that our colleague, the vice mayor, asked us to decide to determine whether he comes back or not. And that is, do we want to consider a carve out, as has been proposed for small units? Owner occupied, I think, was the proposal of perhaps a duplex triplex for Plex. What is the council's thought about that? Let's go to Councilmember Vela first, whether she had her hand up or not. Did you. Have. To? But I I'm I'm not in favor of the carve out. And frankly, the reason is, is that I think that it becomes more complicated than it needs to be in terms of at what point does the owner move in? Does that carve out, then go into play if the owner isn't living there? Can they you know, can you what if the property is owned by a trust or something like that or multiple owners? Just one of them is one of them now able to use that exemption? What if it's some sort of inheritance thing where somebody. Inherits a 20% interest or something like that. I think it becomes administratively difficult. And I would I would like to avoid that and then just pass it without the exemptions. And if if there are issues that come up, then we can address those issues. Okay. And who else? Council member, Judy. Yeah. Can I ask a couple of. Questions you may have. Attorney and city attorney. Yes. And just for transparency, I'd share this. I think it was the three strikes proposal. I'd share that with the city attorney earlier in the day and wondered if he cared to comment on the legality of those proposals. Oh. Please. Thank you. So, Councilmember Ody, I think just to make the public be aware of the questions at hand, I'll just repeat them. One of the questions that that you that you would ask was whether or not a landlord may a may seek the council to amend the ordinance so that a tenant may or may be evicted for three separate violations of terms and conditions of the lease. And then that eviction would be on a no just cost basis. And my thinking on that is that while it is legally permissible for the Council to create an explicit exemption, repeated violations, say, for example, lease terms to the judge to a just cause eviction protection if the council choose to adopt that tonight. Such an exemption. My understanding from your staff is that it's administratively difficult to implement. And in addition to that, that particular exemption would somewhat duplicate what state law currently authorizes under its nuisance theory. Civil Code 1161 four authorizes a landlord to evict a tenant for creating a nuisance and under 1161 sub for a landlord may do so upon demonstrating that the tenant has been maintaining a nuisance and a care is not required under state law. So in a way the landlord is proving the same thing but at different places, which is whether or not there has been repeated actions that deserve eviction. I don't think there was a second. Thank you. A second part of that, right. Like a three year something or other? Sure. I believe your second question was a proposal, which essentially is that the proposal? My apologies, my. Well, it's better than your. Your desktop computer. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'll adlib that since it jumped out of my my screen. I believe the the the proposal was something to the effect of the landlords would agree to not raise rents for a three year period in exchange for an owner occupied exemption. And what I've indicated to you is that the one legal concern I have is the three year period. I believe that that is a a voluntary waiver of rights under Costa Hawkins. That's not likely lawful under Costa Hawkins. What this council is able to adopt is an ordinance much like the existing ordinance, which is that if a landlord engages in a no cause eviction, that cause to Hawkins, that allows the local agency to say then the next rent can't be any higher. In this case, the council has gone beyond that to say the next rent given going beyond that by giving a little more room, by saying it's a 5% differential. But whatever that control is that the local ordinance provides, that could only govern the next tenant, not the next series of possible tenants for a period of three years . And that particular provision, we have legal concerns. Okay. I appreciate that. And your expert advice. Did you have a question or I can just go into my quick rattle off? You know, he raised his hand. Did you did you want to follow up on that? Mr. Johnson. Okay. Okay. So it's over. So the question that we're trying to get at, because whether we did bring our our colleague back or not, is having to do with the carve out. Yeah, I have some. Just really quick, please. So. The concerns I have with with such an idea would be creating two classes of tenants. And I think one of the other issues with this is I think customer value brought it up. You know, the definition of owner. You know, San Francisco has a really complicated definition of owner. And I just fear that could be manipulated in such a way that, you know, there's no predictability. You know, Oakland, I think, had some exemptions for four duplexes and they took those away. So I think that is they have a similar housing situation as us, which a lot of with a lot of older units. I you know, I was sad that, you know, we used to have a lot more folks from 470 Central that came in and spoke. But I mean, they've all been forced to leave town. So and when we came up with that original ordinance, you know, I was one of the people that defined that mathematical formula. And I apologize to tenants on that because it didn't work as it was intended. It was intended to stop mass evictions. It didn't always do that. So I do think our ordinance has an aspect of flexibility that if there's a problem that arises, I think we can have our staff come back in whatever time frame. I think it's a year and give us information on that. And I also think that if if nuisances and these owner occupied is the issue. I mean, there's other solutions, house rules, those type of things. So I at this point, I'm not I did think about it a lot so and asked for some opinions from the city attorney. But at at the bottom line, I don't want to create two classes of tenants. Okay. They were gone. Thank you. Were going to Councilmember Desai. I think the question right now before us is whether we should have a separate carve out discussion from the discussion of the updated ordinance as a whole. And I think that is something that we can do, that we can have a separate conversation on the carpet out of the hall and have each of the council members here come up with their final decisions. And then sequentially, then we could conceivably take the balance, which is 80% and 90%, the balance of the ordinance. So in an effort to allow Vice Mayor Knox White, I think that's the issue. The issue isn't for for people to opine one way or another. But but how to sequence the issue so that Knox White can take part in the latter part? Well, I believe that's what we're doing. So I think. Mr. Chen, do you want to. So it's important to point out that if the council does not make a final decision, in other words, vice mayor cannot continue to take part. So as is part. Of the the body as a whole. Exactly. If it's continuing to be considered by the council as a whole, the vice mayor could not take part because of context. Okay. So do you do you want to opine one way or the other? Mr. de SAC, council member differ. Yes, I do think that we should we should have a discussion regarding carve out and I think, you know, it it doesn't change anything, you know. Yeah. Okay. I thought that was what we were attempting to do. Am I missing something? Do you want? Do you have anything you'd like to discuss about kava? Well, here's a here's a question that I hope doesn't go against my time. So the question is, if I have a discussion about carve out now with 7 minutes, 49 seconds, does that eat away at the balance of the 749? And at then after the carve out discussion, are we going to start a whole new 9 minutes? That's a fair that's a fair point. And I and that's interesting. So I think it's the chair, given the ambiguities in the rules that the chair has the right to make a call here. Yeah. And my call is I'm going to call these two separate discussions. The carve out is what we're talking about now. The city clerk looks pained. So what you could do is you could do your discussion. And when you guys get to your time down to zero, you could just vote to suspend the rules by four votes. Well, I think if I may be entertaining this, I was thinking that councilman was asking, is this going to count against our greater discussion if when assuming we bring Councilmember Knox White in. What to. Villa? I have a. Kind of point of order question, which is how many votes are needed to have a carve out conversation if Knox White can't participate? I believe you need three votes. So. Yes. Okay. To even have a carve out discussion. Okay. Okay. So maybe I should go next. Yes. Yes. I'm happy to make a motion that after we have the kind of a discussion, we reset everyone's clock to 9 minutes. Okay. Chuck. Is that problematic, Madam Clerk? I don't think that's problematic. Good. I don't either. Okay, let's keep moving. I mean, I think we're going to. Move on that. Are you going to? I don't think. Shall we vote? Is that okay? Why don't we vote on it then? Okay. So did you want to make that motion? Yes. Okay. So set the motion. Oh, that after we had this carve out discussion, we reset the council members clocks to 9. Minutes to have a second. Okay. All in favor. I opposed. Okay. It carries 3 to 1. No, no, it doesn't. It doesn't matter. Six four. It needs. Four. It says four votes to suspend. And to suspend. Okay. All right. It's worth a try. I just don't want to. No, it doesn't. We may do the vote again if we run out of time. Let's I think it's let's just see where we are. Okay. So for right now, we're going to just talk and then we will, you know, if we've run out of time, we'll we'll take another vote and either we'll have more time or we won't. So. Okay. Okay. So here's my thought. I do not favor a carve out for reasons already stated. And on top of that, I am one of three representatives from Alameda County to the COSA Compact Legislative Policy Committee. We've been meeting every week for the last almost two months now, I think. And one of the things that the CASA Compact, it's a very ambitious set of legislation going through Sacramento right now to address our housing crisis in California. And there are three principles of the course of combat, and one of the first one is protection and protection of tenants. And the second one is preservation of the housing we already have for rental housing. And the third one is production. We need to produce even more. We have a huge imbalance in supply and demand, and so I view a carve out as one less protection at a time when it's very well needed to the point in time count numbers have been cited. We, I think, need all the all the assistance we can get. And I, I sat in on a meeting last week with Miss Potter representatives from the housing authority, with housing providers. And I'm mindful of your concerns. However, a number of the issues that were raised really had to do with for cause type behavior. And the the suggestion that, well, you know, some providers wanted to be able to do no cause evictions to save legal fees. But then the examples that were raised were of tenants who refused to leave, even when served with a notice, a valid notice, and then it got into legal fees. So that I understand those concerns. There are other ways to address the concerns of smaller landlords with their legal fees, and one of them is the real estate community might even band together and put a fund together much in the same way they offered to do something similar to help tenants. I'm not sure that anything ever came of that, but certainly that's a possibility. But in any event, my concerns are that. The tenants are put in a vulnerable position. When I've said this more than once, when I was running for mayor and walking door to door at the ferry terminals. I would meet tenants all the time who were afraid to tell their landlords about needed repairs because they didn't want to be pegged as that problem tenant and then possibly be evicted. Because right now we have a 2% vacancy rate. We don't have enough housing to go around. I've heard the arguments that, well, if you do this, then we're just going to turn our multifamily units into condominiums. And my response is we need condominiums, too. There are people who would like to be owners and that just might give them that foot in the door. If you want to turn your rental unit into a single family for sale house. There's a need for that, too. And, you know, we're trying to build as fast as we can. But right now, my concern is that we do the right thing and we cannot afford to have another 42% increase in the number of unsheltered individuals in two years. And to think that even this minor, so-called minor carve out would impact 1100 units is just, I think, more than our city can bear. So I would not support a carve out. Do we need to vote on that? Okay. So I'm council. Does someone want to make of it? Councilmember Desai. A comment. I would like to make a comment with my prepared presentation in large part because it does actually deal strike at the issue of the necessity of what I think is a carve out. The presentation will be counted against your speech time, correct? Grant Yes. So I've entitled my presentation. Let us do good based on what our heart. Which is why we're all here, based on what our hearts and our heads tell us. And this is a hopefully a data driven and a number based presentation. Okay. So back in 1993, when I was a grad student at UC Berkeley's Senior Regional Planning, I had an opportunity to work with a real estate outfit in Berkeley, Saint John Associates. And what we were doing is we were analyzing the impacts of Berkeley rent control, which was instituted in 1980. We were looking at 1980 census data, comparing it to 1990 census data. And just by chance, we were also taking a look at Santa monica's 1980 data versus 1990 data, because Santa monica also began as rent control in 1990. And by the way, our city attorney is formerly from Santa monica. And interestingly, single family rentals, just single family rentals, detached rentals from 1980 went from 3900 of basically 4000, and it dropped down to basically 3000. So it had declined. It had declined by 1000 over a spate of. Its warming up. It had declined by basically 1000 from 1980 to 1990. And when we compared it to the other rental stock in surrounding cities, both of Santa monica as well as Berkeley, you know, we didn't see the same thing happening. So what that told us was when you have Berkeley style rent control with hard caps and just cause that especially the smaller mom and pop landlords begin to go out of the the rental business. And we saw that in Berkeley in 1980, 1990, and also Santa monica. Now, I've also gathered data that allows us to track what has gone on since then. So to this day, Berkeley's single family rental stock has not come back to what was there in 1980. In 1980, there was 3980, and today there's roughly 3500. Santa monica is has has surpassed its 1980 rate. And my hypothesis is because as a percent of rental stock in Berkeley, Berkeley has a high percentage of single family, had a high percentage of single family homes as well as rental stock, whereas Santa monica had a low percent. So there was a lot of perhaps, you know, mom and pop landlords who probably weren't, you know, there weren't like the landlords or the capital. L They were more landlords, perhaps with a cap, with a small case. L But it's important, though, to, to note the difference, because when you look at Alameda, you know, when in Alameda , our rate of single family rentals, rental stock, single family homes that are rentals is roughly 26.9%, which is based upon the five year census x number. And so what that tells you is that when you when you impose a Berkeley style rent control with just cause and and also hard caps, that's going to affect most especially the single family rentals as well as the duplexes and the triplexes. And you ask yourself, well, why? Why would it affect the smaller units relative instead of not affecting as much the larger units, you know, units that have 20, 20 rental units or 50 rental units. It's because a simple math, you take a look, for example, the median asking rent that's on Craigslist today for a single family home. The median rent is roughly 30 $800 in the city of Alameda. So, okay, 30 $800 a month, times ten years. You get basically $457,800. So people then, you know, if you're operating in the context of a Berkeley style rent control with hard caps and also just cause eviction, people who could start doing the math as a say, well, why am I going to wait around for ten years to gather $475,800 when I could sell a single family home for, what, $800,000? $900,000? And on top of it, you could because of IRS rules, you could take some of that proceeds and buy another rental stock. And it's elsewhere in some other town, in some other state and not be subject to, you know, capital gains or at least be protected for capital gains for some time. So this is my message, especially to the persons who are here. If you don't do a carve out, if you don't seriously address the carve out, what you're going to do is you're not only going to have single family homes or even duplexes. The Triplexes converted either to ownership from rental stock to ownership or converted to to to which to condominium. But what that what's going to happen to people who live in buildings with ten rental units or 20 rent or use and 50 rental units? What's going to happen is as you decline, as you decrease the rental stock, you're going to begin to put pressure on the 20 rental unit buildings, on the 50 rental unit buildings. So you can't just say, oh, you know, we're we're going to impose this kind of rent control on the city of Alameda. We're going to toughen up 3148 from the compromise that it is right now. We're going it we're going to convert it into a Berkeley style rent control. You can't just do that and think that there's not going to be impacts to tenants. Let me repeat. When you put when you decrease the the rental stock as a single family duplex type X level, that's going to put more pressure on the renters. The 20 units, the 50 unit apartments. So as council members, we have to think about those implications. The other thing, I think from a big picture point of view that I'm really concerned about, this just cause imposition is I mean, the very data that we have that I asked earlier from the outset, there have been only 31, 31 no cause cases in the past fiscal year and prior to that there was only 26 no cause cases. Now think about it, 31 no cause cases from which, you know, maybe justifiably there should be some kind of just cause maybe 31 no cause cases out of 13,389 rental units. So we are about to make this incredible, profound change to our rental stock. Based upon the record of only 31, no court cases. I'm sorry, but the data does not support the type of changes, the magnitude of changes that we're seeking. If we want to help out the tenants and the small landlords. I think the and within the context of the 3148. I think tonight we really seriously have to take a look at at the carve outs for single family rentals as well as duplexes and triplexes because at the end of the day, when you start seeing the numbers decline like you did in Berkeley and in Santa monica from 1980 to 1990, you're going to see the same magnitude of declines for the reasons that I said. The math is just the math. You know, the amount of dollars that you get for rent for ten years. Why wait ten years when you could just sell it and get 800,000, $900,000 and then reinvest? Thank you. Councilmember De Saag. All right. Do I? Yes. Councilmember Avella and then Councilmember Brody. Uh, so I'd like to respond a little bit. I'm. I'm all for data. Um, in fact, I teach classes on data. I think data gets stale, and data depends on what you actually look at. And I think that there's a few problems with the hypothesis that's being presented. So first of all, single family home stock can also decline if you convert a single family home into a multi-unit rental or if you add an ADU, it's no longer a single family home. It's also not taking into account that there's been a real focus in the communities of both Santa monica and Berkeley to focus on density . And so there has been a real push to increase the number of units and to not build single family homes for that reason. And finally, the single family home numbers, even if we do take them at face value as they've been presented, are not the focus of the carve out that's being presented. The carve out being presented. As for duplexes triplexes where the owner lives on site, not for a single family home. And so I think, at least based off of those reasons, I kind of see that as being problematic. I also think that regarding the number of no cause evictions, uh, a number that we don't have is the number of tenants who did not report habitability issues like major habitability issues for fear of being retaliated against. And, uh. I think this is a really important point because renters are vulnerable in ways homeowners are not. Namely, if they pay their bills on time and they maintain the property that they live in and they're good neighbors, they can be given notice to move with no reason at all. Worse yet, if a landlord is evicting tenants for discriminatory reasons or in retaliation for asking, you know, for, say, necessary repairs to keep the property property habitable or based on a protected class. We just did a proclamation for API Heritage Month. My grandparents got into the rental business and actually became homeowners because they pulled together with other Filipino families to buy property because people wouldn't rent to them because they were Filipino. I think that's a poignant fact this month. But the point of this is both the discriminatory reason and the retaliation basis are both considered illegal under our laws, and the burden is on the tenant to prove those cases. The burden is not on the landlord. And that's something that's difficult, if not impossible to do. And I think it's very difficult if you're in a position where you don't have the resources available that, say, somebody who is a homeowner may have. And finally, I think we also need to look at trends and there's other trends. One is that there's a lot of communities in California that are passing just cause eviction protections. Namely, Santa Barbara. Recently in April, 6 to 1 voted this year to pass just cause eviction protections. And the council there, you know, really focused on the fact that it was about protecting against mass evictions and about balancing this power relation relationship so that tenants didn't need to be worried and that, you know, these cases rather rather than saying there were 31 families that were evicted for no cause that that an actual articulable cause be put forward. And under our provision as proposed, we can still do that. And I think, as the mayor pointed out, all of the cases that were raised in her meetings and certainly the ones that have been raised to me would qualify under under the proposed ordinance, as is without an exemption. So I'm not going to for those reasons, I'm not really willing at this point to consider an exemption. Thank you. Councilmember Brody. Thank you. Just a couple of quick comments on the the slides that my colleague presented. Well, first of all, I don't think there's a single family exemption or carve out being proposed. So I'm not going to really address that. I look at the numbers when I see 31 in the last fiscal year and 26 in the year before, you know, I see 57 families that have been displaced from Alameda. That's who I see. Real people. People just like you that sit out here. People just like us. People that now probably don't have an opportunity to live here anymore. And why? Because our landlord decided to take advantage of our laws, which they were freely allowed to do, and tell them, sorry, we don't. I don't want you in my property anymore. So these are 57 real families. So and the second thing, it just reminds me of my friend Mike McMahon, who says there's lies, damned lies and statistics. So, I mean, I look at this. Well, you can look at that one way. You know, we re we've had five more cases in 17, 18 and 16, 17. So you could say, well, that's a 20% jump in. No cause evictions. That's kind of a big number. Right. So we can look at it that way, but we can also look at it in a different way. You know, if on average. The landlords have a tool available to them that out of 13,400 units they only use about two two and a half times a month over a course of two years. Then it just makes you wonder why are they spending so much money and so much energy to protect a tool that they rarely use? So to me, it's not well, there's not that many tenants that are going to be impacted by it. To me, it's like this is something that's rarely used. So I just I don't know if it's worth spending all this energy and making a value judgment to protect something that, you know, it's just not taken advantage of that much. So, again, you can have lies, damn lies and statistics, so we can spin them any way we want to spin them. Okay. So do we have a motion on whether to move forward with a carve out or not? Yes. Okay. Is the motion to move forward with a carve out? Yes. Okay. It's there. I have a motion to move forward with a carve out in the ordinance. Do I have a second? I do not have a second. The motion fails for a lack of a second. To have a new motion. To not move forward with a carve out. Sure. I'd like to motion to close debate on the carve out issue and move forward discussing the just cause proposal or ordinance without a carve out. Do I have a second? Second? Okay. We have a motion to second on favor. I oppose it. Okay, so move. All right, so the motion. The motion to move forward with the ordinance without the carve out passes for do nothing. And we can bring the vice mayor back from exile. Thank you. He's just in the back room. He's 45 seconds behind this. At no. Oh, yeah. So he'll be here in 45 seconds. Great. Um. Okay. So we're going to let you do all the talking until you catch up to our time. If you get 5 minutes. Yeah. All right. So it can be. Do you want to report out just for the better? Well, he was listening. You were listening. Oh, okay. He didn't hear the last vote. So June the. Last vote was unanimous to proceed with the discussion without having a carve. Up. All right. So so now we come back to the the the item before us, which is to amend the Almaty Municipal Code, the specified article to eliminate no cause as a grounds for eviction from ordinance number 3148. Who would like to lead the discussion? Who's got the most? Well, no. I mean, anyone can start. Okay. I actually don't have very much to say. I want to thank the city attorney. The explanations that were given while I was in the back room were the same ones he and I discussed earlier today as well. And help me understand the issue as well. I think at this point in time, without belaboring this item that much longer, that everybody has actually expressed the values and the need. And the reason we have are here to talk about just cause perfectly well. And I'm ready to support a motion to support the staff recommendation as soon as somebody as soon as everybody feels they've had what they need to say. Um, does anyone else want to comment? Do we have a motion? What's your pleasure, Counsel? Councilmember To make a. Short comment, because I don't think there's a lot of suspense in my feelings on this matter, considering nobody calls me No cause. Jim or carve out Jim, I. I just want a second. I think what Tony Graham said, I mean, to me, that's that was the thing that hit home the most. I think housing is a basic human right period, end of sentence, stop. And if you're going to be that, that rights can be taken away from you and you need due process. Our Constitution demands that. And I think our values demand that. So that's all I have to say. I'm happy to support whoever makes the motion or happy to make it if someone else doesn't. Other comments. Councilmember Bella. In my piece. I'm of approval of the staff recommendation to him in 3148 to remove no cause. Second. Any discussion? All in favor. I oppose the motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you, everyone. And I do want to thank all of our speakers and thank staff and the attorneys. Now, we don't. We don't because we have another item and a lady who needs to not stay here too long. Thank you all for for being here for this discussion. Okay. We are moving then to six.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use; and, adopt resolution ordering the vacation of the alley adjacent to 4100 East Ocean Boulevard, east of Termino Avenue and south of Ocean Boulevard, also known as Belmont Avenue. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_12132016_16-1092

to conflict of interest issues yourselves for supporting the signing of this until that investigation is complete. Thank you very much for your time and I appreciate you looking out for the concerns of your residents that that live here. Thank you so much. Okay. We're moving on to the hearing. Hearing item number one, please. Hearing item one is a report from Public Works recommendations received supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use. And a resolution ordering the vacation of the alley adjacent to 4100 is Ocean Boulevard, east of Terminal Avenue and south of Ocean Boulevard , also known as Belmont Avenue District three. Staff report, please. Yes, the staff report was given by Shawn Crumby, our deputy director. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council. Item one Hearing one moves for the vacation of the Allies south of Ocean Boulevard and east of Terminal Avenue. The recommended actions tonight are to conduct a public hearing. Make a finding that the alley is not needed for public use and adopt the resolution ordering the vacation, said Alley. A summary of the actions related to this item are as follows. General Plan Consistency finding was approved July 21st. Local coastal permit appeal was heard by the Planning Commission on November 17th, and a notice of intent to vacate of this alley was approved by the City Council on November 15th. One concern that has been raised or one discussion topic is in regards to that I'd like to highlight is that the property owner for 4100 ocean will continue to work with 4110 to 4120 to find an alternate suitable location for the trash pickup in the alley. And until that time or until such time, access will be granted to the end of the alley for for existing, for trash service. So with that, I'm available to answer any questions. Okay. Any public comment on the hearing? So, you know. Is this on the for the hearing? Yes. Please come forward. Good afternoon. Good evening again, Melinda Cotton in the third district. What has been presented to you is fairly. Not terribly complete. But let's begin. This alley is between Ocean and Olympic Plaza. It's 15 feet wide. It's 120 feet long. It provides coastal access for beachgoers. It provides public access. It provides emergency access. It provides trash access for the businesses around it. And during a period of time when Yankee Doodle was not well taken care of, it was pretty much abandoned. Yankee Doodle was abandoned. The lighting went out on the alley and apparently it turned into a place where homeless people gathered. That's no longer the case. Olympic fantasies coming in there. We certainly wish them well. But this is a port and access. This is a time of transition for this location. For one thing, the city is hoping to put the Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center, the new pool there. When they do that, they're going to close Olympic Plaza. Plaza Drive will be closed so that access will no longer be available. And the alley also there got a road diet coming. So they're going to be narrowing the streets down so that portion of the access to that area is also narrowing down. And so it really does not seem a good time to turn this over to the Olympics, fitness for their private use for exercise equipment or whatever, which is what was stated in the staff report. What I would recommend is that you're not to turn over this public access at this time until you're really sure that the city doesn't need it. And there's quite a distance between the other streets, the other access to the beach area. So I really recommend that you just hold on to it, allow it to be used and by the public, it allows to be used to help the adjacent people because there's going to be traffic problems if you don't and allow people to access the beach in this way. So those are the things that I think you should know. It's a shame to give away public property and public access without consideration of all the elements, and I don't believe that they've been as carefully looked at as they should be. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment on this? Good evening. And Cantrell. And when you were. Were. Addressing this item back on November 15, I suggested that perhaps this was a procedural error because. The appeal that Melinda Cotton and others were bringing before the Planning Commission on this wasn't heard until November 17. And this appears to me to be a blatant done deal. The resolution was all written out on the 15th that this was going to be vacated. The Planning Commission as expected. Did up hold. The zoning administration's administrator's coastal permit. Today's staff report does not even mention that this is going to be gated. The alley is going to be shut off to the public at both ends. There's going to be a gate there. It not only stops public access, it interferes with views of the coastline. And this is in the coastal zone. It is becoming a private eye alley for. The gym to use for equipment that isn't in today's staff report, but it was in your November 15th. It's going to be an outdoor fitness activity and private passageway for business. We were arguing that this is access to the beach, if you will. Look at the. Sketch that's in your staff report. You. So on the back of this, you will see that this connects Ocean Boulevard to the beach area. And I know Mr. Snyder has said that he has spending $40,000 to pave this alley. It has been unpaved. And this is the reason that it isn't open for traffic. But if it's going to be paved now, then I think it should remain public access. The trash is going to be put out on the street, which takes trapped parking spaces. Thank you very much. And I would ask you to please hang on to this. Thank you. Next week, please. Hi. Laurie Smith, third district resident. Okay, so. When I hear about beach access being closed off, it makes me think I think Councilman Durango would be familiar with this. I think this week with the California Coastal Commission, there was $5 million and that they had sent out to people who were closing off access to the beach. So that's not something that I would think that the city of Long Beach would be in, interested in considering that Naples residents and that area they have had to open. We've been talking to them about making more access around their homes that that that we have not since. Looked into. So basically, I'm not sure why the city would be giving up land. So the trash cans that are currently in that alley are now going to be on the street. And it's just not something that I would think that the the council members would be interested in doing, that you're closing off the beach that you want more people to be coming to. So it just seems like a bad business practice again, that you are giving up land to someone that is having a development done. So. Well, we'll just have to look into what this gentleman who he has been talking with so and who he's been doing business with. So I'm excited to look at that at the planning commission. All right. Thank you. Okay. And you and the other have a comment. Come forward. Very good, you third district. I have a great deal of respect for Ms.. Cotton and Melinda. And and of course, I went down and I really had not paid that much attention to it. I said I was here at the hearing and I went down and scope that out and. Came to the conclusion that it is in fact. In the interest of public safety. To eliminate that coast or that alleyway as coastal access, there's ample coastal access. But that inherently leaving that there inherently it invites an accident. If you walk down that you. From the build it from the. If you're walking along the beach and then walk there. You're walking right into all the traffic, zooming down Ocean Boulevard. And there's a median in the middle. So it it really is not a coastal access route. People are, most people will go to an attractive route. An easy route where they don't have to dodge traffic. What you're doing is inviting an accident. By encouraging people if that were to be open to go to cross that street. And I invite you if you are undecided now, I invite you to hold this over and go down and put your boots on the ground. On several different days. Busy days. And see for yourself. The danger that is presented by enticing people. Down into the roadway. So far, there's ample access to the beach on either side as well as views. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go comment. Please come forward. Hey. Good evening. My name's William with Olympic Fitness. Been on the project for a little bit over a year and a half, so I'm very familiar with the location. And I want to talk about a couple of things. You talk about having a pathway to the beach and there is no real. Uh. Media where you can cross the street. I've actually seen people that try to use the alley as a pathway to the beach. And what happens is they sprint across the the street, which people you're driving 35 to 40 miles an hour and they're jaywalking across the street, about 100 feet on each direction. There's there's crosswalks which you can safely get to the beach, which would be more safer for pedestrians to actually cross. A couple other things, too. Is this this alleyways? Obviously not well lit for the last year and a half, probably on every other day, even picking up alcohol bottles. Sin Drug saw some marijuana there a couple of weeks ago, too. And it's just really an alley used for drug trafficking and just people just hide out and drink booze, unfortunately. We've hired a security guard there and her last report is there is two people in the last two days have been urinating in the alley and that's been something that's been happening last year and a half as well. And I would you take in consideration that we have a daycare close by too as well, in addition to a pool which you got tons of great kids programs going on in there as well. The facility that will have we'll have a daycare there where kids can be dropped off and their parents can work out and enjoy work out why their kids are being tended to with some fitness activities as well in the daycare. And with this Allie continue on what we have going on with drug trafficking, alcohol, it's not the right place to have that kind of stuff going on with all the kids and families. So appreciate consideration on this. We try to bring some healthy energy to this area that needs it. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker. I'd probably say goodnight, but that sounds too formal, too final. Mayor and City Council Members Lucy Johnson I live in the fifth District. However, I am frequently down in the third district at the pool area and near Olympics. I've been going there since the pool was built in 1968, and I cannot tell you that I've ever seen anybody using that out. As one of the other speakers mentioned, it's not paved. It's never been paved, to my knowledge. People really in their right mind wouldn't walk through there. And it will be much improved. If it's vacated. And Mr. Snyder and the other property owners and. It's basically it's not. Theoretically owned by the city, it's an easement to the city. And the property will revert to the. Both owners, the daycare center and the Olympics fitness center. It's not just people walking from Belmont Avenue and trying to cross the Ocean Boulevard, but it's not it's not useful for vehicle traffic. It's not useful for pedestrians. And there is plenty of access. Around either side. It's not blocking access like in Malibu, where the homeowners are adjacent to each other and completely fence. Off any access. So it's not. Going to be that kind of a detriment to public. Access. Also, one of the other speakers mentioned. Olympic Plaza will be closed to vehicle. To be closed and it will not be. Reduced to public access because it will be closed when the pool is built to vehicular traffic but still available for use by emergency. Vehicles. And so the public access along that, it'll. Be mostly, as I understand it, a walkway through there too. So it does not reduce any public access. So I encourage you to approve the vacation and let's move on with it and clean up that area. Thank you. Thank you. Final public speaker. Good evening. I'm Kurt Schneider, a developer of the property that's adjacent to the alley. Lucy was correct in stating that there's no giving of real estate here. As I stated last time before you, city council, the property owners that surround it own the land. The simple land is owned by the adjoining property owners. It's strictly an easement and the city is relinquishing that easement. So I'm just reiterating that point. So there is no giving. I'm not getting a gift. What we're looking forward to is making it a much cleaner spot in our community. Currently, when we started, when I bought this property three years ago, it was the armpit of Belmont Shore. I think you'll find it'll be a fantastic property when we're done. It already is remarkably better. I want to clarify just one point regarding Chuck's trash. We're happy to work with him as a good neighbor. We'll help him find an alternative suitable location for his trash over time. We're going to work with him. And until that time, we'll have a spot at the end of the alley for his trash can. Again, we try to be a good neighbor. I think the best way we can be a good neighbor is to improve this neighborhood and to make it so that you get more people coming down to the beach. The access to the beach on terminal as well as Bennett is much easier. And again, thank you so much. You've been here for 5 hours. I hope you all are able to go home soon. I'm going. Thank you. Thank you. Case. I want to go back to the council. Councilman Price. Thank you. So I want to just ask a few questions in regards to some of the comments that were made. Sean, you've been kind of the lead on this project since it came out, was presented to the city. Do you believe that there's any information outstanding that you would need to help you assess this request and determine whether or not this is an alley, that the city where the easement is is continuing to be needed? So when an alley is vacated, the finding that the city council makes is that it's not needed for public benefit or public use. And so through that process, all those types of public uses are investigated to see if those uses are still necessary. And in this case, they were not found to be needed for traffic, circulation, coastal access. Some of the items brought up tonight were emergency access. And for those concerns, our emergency service departments of the city are consulted with a vacation for coastal access. In this case, it did include the zoning administrator for the coastal development permit. But we also do site visits and investigations to make sure that coastal access or access in general is not necessary or public benefit for this alley. And the investigation, the staff was that public benefit is not needed for this alley. So staff conducted an investigation. Yes. In regards to this. And that's consistent with what we do any time such a request is made. That's correct. We did have a community meeting and I don't believe Miss Cotton or Ms.. Smith and or nor Ms.. Cantrell or anyone from the gym were there. It was on homelessness, and we received a lot of feedback regarding this particular area, not just at the alley, but near the pier, the businesses near the pier regarding homeless activity and syringes and things being found in this alley in particular, is this an alley that the city currently patrols or maintains in any way to ensure that there's no homeless activity taking place there? I would say. That the city responds to two calls and as they come in for service and has done so in this alley, I don't know that there's any routine, necessary patrols or anything that particularly targets this area. During your investigation, did you determine whether or not the surrounding business owners were okay with this alley vacation? So as part of the process for a vacation. Outreach is done to all of the surrounding property owners and any potential issues that arise as part of the vacation. It is encouraged that are worked out between the surrounding properties and that was done so in this case. Miss Cotton mentioned the road diet. I'm very familiar with that project, but I am unclear how that relates at all to the alley. Does it relate to the alley? So the road diet would be a change in the configuration of Ocean Avenue, but that does not alter access, particularly this. This alley has two streets that border it. Those are Termino and BURNETT. And so access to the coast is not impacted by the road diet. Thank you. I have nothing further. Councilman Gonzales. Anything? No. Councilman Supernanny. Yeah. I'd like to thank Mr. Goodhue for the invitation. As much as we'd enjoy going down and visiting the site with him. I just looked it up on Google Maps and Mr. Crumby, it looks like the the alley parallels terminal. And it's like within a couple of hundred feet, correct? That's correct. I would estimate it's probably 150 feet. Okay. So beach access is 150 feet away at Termino. And then it was also mentioned about Bennett. The other advantage there is both Termino and Bennett have crosswalks across ocean where the alley does not. Is that correct? Okay. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes.

Recommendation to consent to a request by the Grand Prix Association of Long Beach, LLC, to leave concrete blocks from the 2021 Long Beach Grand Prix in place along Seaside Way, Shoreline Drive (east of Pine Avenue), and within the Elephant Lot, for a period of seven months, through the conclusion of the 2022 race and corresponding takedown period, or May 1, 2022; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend and/or apply for California Coastal Commission approval of the same; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary for a First Amendment to Amended and Restated Operating Agreement No. 34876 with Grand Prix Association of Long Beach, LLC, to amend provisions of the agreement as necessary to facilitate the Association's request. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_10052021_21-1027

Motion is carried. Next to item 40, please. Report from Economic Development Recommendation to consent to a request by the Grand Prix Association of Long Beach to leave concrete blocks from the 22021 Long Beach Grand Prix and place along Seaside Way Shoreline Drive and within the elephant lot for a period of seven months and authorize city manager to amend and or apply for California Coastal Commission approval of the same and authorize city manager to execute a First Amendment. To amend and restated operating agreement with Grand Prix Association of Long Beach District to. Davenport police. And Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. I'm happy to present this amendment to our agreement. This is a one time amendment. We have an agreement with the Grand Prix Association to run the race between 2017 and 2023. That's the current agreement. During this time, we experienced, of course, COVID 19, which meant that we had to work with the Grand Prix Association and Jim Macmillan, who's here tonight to actually change the dates of the race. And as you all know, Jim, and the association was able to run a very successful race this past month. The association has requested a one time request to leave some of the infrastructure in place because the next race will be run in approximately seven months. And this April, at its normal time, this one time request would allow for about 1000 concrete blocks to remain in place along seaside way shoreline east of Pine and the elephant lot . And you can see an image of of where those placements would be and that would stay in place through a May 1st, which would get us through the next race. There are some estimated savings for the the work that's associated with setting those blocks up and removing those blocks again. And the association has committed to using some of that that savings for applying in oil treatment that will help to make the streets look new again and ultimately beautify the area. This will also result in three days less set up time for the April race and will reduce the amount of noise and other impacts to traffic and quality of life that occur during the setup process. One last thing is, is that this action by the City Council for a one time change to a two hour agreement would actually require consent by the Coastal Commission because this is in the coastal area. So we would have to take this request to the Coastal Commission after the City Council decision tonight. So the association will also to to ensure that this is a positive change for the community, will inspect the infrastructure bi monthly, remove all graffiti and ultimately add the city to its insurance so that while they remain in place, they're not a liability to the city or the public. And ultimately, the recommendations here to accomplish this request would be that the Council approve the city manager to amend our agreement consenting to a request by the Grand Prix Association to leave concrete blocks from the 21 Long Beach Grand Prix race in place in the areas that were identified for a period of seven months, authorize the city manager to execute all the documents necessary to amend or apply for the Coastal Commission, approval the permit, and allow the city manager or designee to execute the documents necessary for the First Amendment to the Operating Agreement with the Grand Prix to amend provisions of the agreement if necessary. So that's the end of my report. I'm happy to answer any questions. And um, Jim McCallum, you very much here tonight. To answer any questions, I would like to point out we've had a couple of questions about is this going to impact the aquarium, is going to impact Pyke or the Hyatt on that side? And the answer is no, it's only on the east side of Pine Avenue. So it was specifically set up where there is no business activity to prevent the problems with the ingress and egress. Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second public comment, Councilman Allen. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I just want to say that the Grand Prix was a great success. It was awesome to see all the activity going on in downtown Long Beach and just a huge thank you to Jim for all the work that you did. I know this wouldn't happen without you. So just a big congratulations on a very successful event. Over 180,000 people attended the Grand Prix. It definitely exceeded my expectations and was just a successful and also an extremely safe event for the association and for the city. So just thank you, Jim, for all the work that you put into that. As we know, the Grand Prix will be returning next April. So I think it makes sense, given how beneficial this event is for the city to allow the association to leave up some of the concrete blocks in place, especially in the in areas where nearby residents. I think it will cut down on the noise both right now and then significantly during start up. I think set up would start again in February or March. And so that's a big impact. And I think since it's so close around the corner that that does make sense to keep some of those concrete blocks in place and and then exchange the association will pay for the oil, emotion, treatment of the asphalt portions of the track to make sure that the streets are looking good. Also, I appreciate City Manager Modica for making sure that answering that question about the businesses and the impact of the businesses. So definitely want to reiterate that this will not impact and impact any of the businesses that live on the east side of pine. So I just want you to know that I support this item. And thank you very much, Jim. Thank you. And ditto to everything Councilwoman Allen just said to the entire Grand Prix team. And the events in this area really affect mostly Councilman Allen's district. So I'm happy to support her recommendation. And second, this motion. Councilman in the house. Thank you, Mayor. A huge thank you to Jim and the Grand Prix team on behalf of all the residents who loved the Grand Prix. Thank you. Thank you for bringing it back this year. We know that COVID has has forced many, many events to either be canceled and postponed. And I think we were so very lucky to have the Grand Prix, even though it was later in the year, but we were able to have it and that made a lot of people happy. And so however, I'm super excited that is going to be coming back in its traditional month in April. And so I think that this totally makes sense. I totally agree and I'm very supportive of this item and I'm glad to hear that it won't be affecting our businesses, which was one of the main concerns of our residents in the area. So again, thank you very much, Jim, for the exciting times that you bring to Long Beach. With emotion. In a second, please cast your votes. Ocean is carried. Thank you. The next few items here seem. I already go to item 42 through 47. None of them have staff presentations. So let's go ahead and start with item 40, 41, actually 42. And sorry, we're going to do 41 most 42.

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving an exception to the 180-day waiting period for Public Agencies pursuant to Government Code 7522.56 and 21224, to hire Stephanie Kemp for a limited duration to work in the Human Resources Department. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04062021_21-0290

Councilman Austin. I motioned Kerry's. Thank you. Next up is Adam 28. Item 28 Report from Human Resources Recommendation to adopt resolution to hire Stephanie Camp for a limited duration to work in the in the human resources department citywide. Yeah, I have emotion, but I can get emotion in a second, please. Okay. Most of my concern was in the house. And the second my councilwoman sorrow. No public comment. Please cast your votes. Councilwoman Sun has. Councilwoman City has. I. Councilwoman Ellen. I. Councilwoman Pryce. I. Councilman Sabina. Councilwoman Mongo. Hi. Councilwoman. Sara. I Council member Oranga. Hi. Councilman Austin. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes, I believe, the agenda. Madam Quirk, is there anything I think we got through every item there. Correct? Correct. So we will go to closing any closing comments or announcements from the council? Seeing none. We will go ahead and adjourn this meeting of the Lombard City Council. And thank you all for the evening.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP DV14-019 and award a contract to Melendrez Associates, of Los Angeles, CA, to develop a West Long Beach Livability Implementation Plan, for an amount not to exceed $300,000 for a period of one year; authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; and increase appropriations in the Development Services Fund (EF 337) in the Department of Development Services (DV) by $300,000. (Districts 1,2,6,7,8)

LongBeachCC_05132014_14-0350

Status report from Development Services and Financial Management with the recommendation to award a contract to Melendez Associates for the development of the West Long Beach Livability Information Implementation Plan. I'd like to move and I'd like. To second in May. Councilmember Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know that. Councilmember. Johnson was called away today and just really wanted to give credit to Councilmember Johnson for his interest in seeing this through. I think this puts the city in a better position. Where we can give community experts as a community. As well as experts an opportunity. To provide consensus. And it also provides the city an opportunity to be better positioned for grants. And so I do want to compliment Councilmember Johnson on this effort and hope that you'll join me in supporting it. Thank you, Councilmember Lowenthal. Any member of the public would just council on item number ten. Please identify yourself and see the light. You have 30 seconds left. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and friends of the Council. City Manager. West and city attorney Charles Perkins. My name is John Taylor, resident and longtime advocate at West Long Beach. And I think it's important and I would like to encourage the council and the mayor to approve and authorize this proposal. Item number ten. West Palm Beach has been waiting for a long time to have a definitive study of infrastructure needs in life's good, forward, positive, proactive conditions to live by. In addition, I'd like to add to that that the West Long Beach will also welcome inclusive with this study the Santa Fe Corridor opportunity. So I think it would be substantially important if we could utilize this opportunity to secure a study to improve the Santa Fe Corridor in conjunction with the open space that the West Long Beach residents are seeking to receive on that freeway. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any further public comments? Members cast their votes in item ten. Okay. Motion carry six votes. Yes. Item 11 Clerk.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the safe storage of and access to firearms; adding a new Chapter 10.79 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_07092018_CB 119266

Personal share of Senate. Please read the part of the gender equity safe communities new Americans and. Education Committee. The report The Gender Equity Safe Communities in New Americans and Education Committee Gender nine Council 4119 266 relating to the safe storage of and access to firearms. Adding a new Chapter 10.79 to the Center Mr. Code. The Committee recommends the bill passes amended customary. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. President. If we can have the floor, if I may ask if the clerk can also read an agenda item ten as I like to discuss these council bills together. Perfect. And you can read the short title if you like. Agenda Item ten Council Bill 119 267 Relating to the reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms. Committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Excellent customer. Overzealous. Thank you so much. This is Council Bill 119266 and Council Bill 119267. I was thinking that what I would do would be to quickly review each of the bills and then if there were any questions about the bills, I'm happy to take those questions from my colleagues and then open up the floor to any other council members who would like to provide remarks or comments on the bills before before council president calls them to vote. And then I would like to make some closing. Remarks before. Voting occurs. Very good. Very excellent. Okay. Councilman Mike orders. And so I was just going along with it. So I, I do speak in a very direct manner. So I apologize if that did not end with a question mark. It was intended to end with a question mark. Council Bill 119266 requires that guns be secured in a locked container when not in the possession or under the control of their owner or other lawfully authorized user . This legislation creates a civil infraction and fines for improperly storing a firearm when a prohibited person obtains unauthorized firearm access, or when a prohibited person uses a firearm to harm oneself or others. Council Bill 119267 increases the existing fine for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm. Just really quickly, just by way of background for those folks who did not attend a committee hearing, I wanted to just cover some high points of both of these bills. So Council Bill 119266, which we have been referring to as the safe storage bill, has some really key and important definitions that I want to review really quickly . It really centers around who is a lawfully authorized user, who's a prohibited person and who is an at risk person. And we went through the process of defining each of those categories in addition to what our container is, what a minor might be, and who a prohibited person is in the bill and at risk person under this particular bill is defined as any person who has made statements or exhibited behavior that indicates to a reasonable person that there is a likelihood that that person is at risk of attempting suicide or causing physical harm to oneself or others. A lawfully authorized user is defined under this new bill as any person who is not in unlawful possession of a firearm is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law and has expressed permission to possess and use the firearm. A prohibited person is anyone who is not a lawfully authorized user. Some little clever lawyer lawyer trickery there in the drafting a locked container is what the ordinance will require, so it doesn't specifically define what the storage device should be, but does provide the Chief of police the opportunity to do some rulemaking to be able to provide specifications of approved storage devices under this ordinance. A minor is defined as anybody who is under the age of 18, consistent with state law, and a prohibited person means any person who is not a lawfully authorized user. So essentially, this bill would impose civil penalties on individuals who who failed to store their firearms appropriately. And if there is a consequence, as defined by the bill as a result of not using Safe Storage Practices Council Bill 119267, this is the legislation related to stolen firearms. This would create an increased civil fine for those folks who violate this particular law. It's very it's an existing law at the city of Seattle, and it just simply increases the civil fine from $500 to an amount not to exceed $1,000. Both of the enforcement mechanisms for both of these laws is a civil fine. It's an it's an infraction citation that comes with a civil fine and penalty. There are no criminal consequences as a result of violating these council bills, obviously, if there is. Injury caused to someone that would be subject to an end to our ordinary criminal laws, either under state or city laws. But but. But it is not a crime to violate either one of these. Council bills. These are these are civil infractions only. So I'm happy to take powers and take questions if anybody has any and if not. Any questions or comments on this legislation. Kasper, back to you. Councilmember Gosar, thank you so much for leading the charge on this. So appreciate what you and the mayor have done. And I want to acknowledge our moms demand action. So many of you have been here and been working with us, I think, since Sandy Hook and maybe before. But unbelievably enough, it's been five and a half years since that horrible event brought such attention to our entire nation. But I think particularly here in the city of Seattle, we grouped together in ways that we hadn't before. And I want to acknowledge our prosecuting attorney, Dan Satter Berg, also our city attorney, Pete Holmes, and Chris Anderson on his team. And it mattered so much that you and your voices were out there saying, enough, this is just so impossible that we are putting up with this kind of thing that's happening across our nation. I also want to acknowledge Dr. Fred Rivera. I don't know if Dr. Rivera's here today, but he was really helping us identify what we could be doing at Harborview Hospital Medical Center to use the money that we can to help do database research. And this work that you, Councilmember Gonzales, have done really is evidence based looking for that kind of solution. So I want to acknowledge all of you who've been involved there, balancing rights and responsibilities, and also our Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. That organization has been around since the Sandy Hook event happened and much is happening across our state. I want to say thank you to all and how important this is to our city. And good for the comments or questions. I would like to say it just a few words for Councilman Gonzales, sort of close, and that is, you know, there are federal laws, state laws and local municipal laws in terms of gun safety and gun regulations. And it's a complicated world, but at the end of the day, we are doing everything possible here on a local basis that we can, given the hand we're dealt and the existing legal scheme. For me, it's very simple. We're just trying to save one life at a time when life at a time and whether this law or any laws drastically change the needs. That concerns me unless we're trying to save one life at a time. So thank you for your your advocacy for the families who've been affected by gun violence, that they understand this very well. So, Councilman Gonzales, I can't thank you enough for bringing forward this legislation and for being such a strong advocate for just reasonableness and common sense laws. And so I look forward to supporting this. And with that, you can close debate. Thank you so much. So it's my pleasure to bring these two bills for consideration by the full council. And I think that these are a suite of laws, particularly the safe storage law, that really is going to have a measurable impact in keeping our children safe and our communities safe from from gun violence and all of the research that we have been reading and hearing about and and hear and just sort of really digesting in this space really does tell us that safe storage of firearms in the home makes a huge impact in terms of keeping our communities safe. And I just wanted to highlight some of that research and some of those findings and so that we have a clear understanding of why it is we believe that this is a public health solution to a public safety crisis that is occurring within all of our communities across the country, including here in in Seattle. So according to a study conducted by the University of Washington School of Public Health, 63% of firearm owning households in Washington State do not store their firearms locked and unloaded. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, and almost half of suicide deaths involve a firearm in Washington State. In 2016, firearms were the leading method of suicide for men and the second leading method for women. According to a Spokesman-Review analysis of state death records, 4164 people in Washington ended their lives with a firearm between 2010 and 2017. That accounts for almost half of all suicides and 78% of gun deaths. A study conducted at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center found that safe storage of guns decrease the risk of accidental firearm injuries and suicides to youth by 73%. This study examined 108 cases where a child or adolescent younger than 20 years gained access to a firearm and shot himself or herself, intentionally or unintentionally, or shot another individual unintentionally. The Harborview study shows that the presence of a household firearm is associated with an increased risk of suicide among young adults and adolescents. In a related study of suicide attempts and COMPLETERS, investigators found that 75% of the guns were stored in the residence of the victim, friend or relative. Available evidence is compiled by the RAND Corporation indicates that child access prevention laws and safe storage laws reduce self-inflicted, fatal or non-fatal firearm injuries among youth and reduce unintentional firearm injuries or unintentional firearm deaths among children. The study also indicates that limiting access to individuals with mental illness appears to reduce the rates of gun violence. A Secret Service study of school shooters showed that access to guns was common to many attackers. Over two thirds of the attackers acquired the gun or guns used in their attacks from their own home or that of a relative. Stolen guns can be used to commit subsequent crimes. And the Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that at least 232,000 guns were stolen per year from 2005 through 2010. And the U.S. Department of the Treasury study revealed that nearly a quarter of ATF gun trafficking investigations involve stolen firearms and that 10% of the investigations involve guns stolen from residences. As estimated 150,000, an estimated 150,000 adults in King County reported keeping a firearm unlocked in their homes and loaded in 2015. In 2017, the Seattle Police Department reported taken into custody 3213 guns and has indicated that 250 guns were reported stolen in the same year. So we have a lot of work to do in this area to continue to keep our kids safe and our broader community safe. And I'm really just thrilled about being able to have had the opportunity to work with Mayor Durkan on this package of laws to encourage this as a as a practice. And I also want to thank our city attorney, Pete Holmes, who provided us with a lot of legal expertize in terms of threading the needle between what we can do as a city and what we cannot do as a city based on state preemption laws. And we believe that we are on good legal standing here and good footing here to defend this law should it invoke a lawsuit based on preemption. And largely that is because we are not restricting how people on their person possess firearms, but what they must do in order to store firearms when those firearms are not in their possession. And we believe that this is a balanced, reasonable approach that addresses any potential preemption arguments at the state level. And I'm really grateful for the city attorney's advice on that and for Assistant City Attorney Carlton Su's advice on that. I also want to thank Robert Feldstein, who's in the audience here with the mayor's office, who keeps trying to, I think, go to his other job. But we needed to get this done first. So I really appreciate your ongoing commitment to helping us do this work. I know you've been an advocate and a policy wonk in this area for a really long time. So appreciated all of your expertize. I also wanted to thank Greg Doss way in the back, who has given me more words than I can ever imagine being able to repeat and sound as smart as I do. So thank you for allowing me to plagiarize all of your work, Greg, as we make the case for why these laws are sensible and lawful. And then I also wanted to thank Brianna Thomas, formerly of my office, now with the Office of Inspector General and Public Safety, who really did a lot of the heavy lifting in my office in terms of the policy work. She did tremendous job making sure that this bill reflected the equity concerns that I brought by making sure that we didn't have any criminal infractions and civil infractions and also making sure that we have a education first component on this law to make sure that folks were able to understand their new responsibilities under this new rubric. And then lastly, wanted to thank Moms Demand Action, folks from the Brady Campaign and folks from the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, all whom joined us at the table in my committee on June 13th to provide us their perspective and sort of real life stories about how gun violence impacts them personally and our communities in general. And I've just really appreciated your all's commitment to continuing to show up and to continue to fight the good fight to keep us all all safe. So with that being said, I think I have covered all of. The points. And well done. Well done. Any further comments before we vote? So we're going to vote on these separately. So please call the role on the passage of Council. Bill 119266. O'Brien by Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzales, I for Bob Johnson, Juarez must gather by President Harrell High Line in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and show Senate. Please call the roll on council. Bill 119267. O'BRIEN All right. Sergeant Bagshaw. Gonzalez I. Herbold Johnson. Juarez. Mosqueda. I President Harrell. I 9 a.m. favorite unopposed. The bill passed and the chair sign. And thank you again, Katherine Gonzales. Please call the next agenda item from the Select Committee on the 2018 Seattle City Strategic Plan.

A bill for an ordinance amending Article VI of Chapter 27 (Housing) of the Revised Municipal Code relating to incentives for affordable housing to implement incentive requirements for the Downtown-Golden Triangle zone district. Amends Chapter 27, Article VI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to establish affordable housing incentives in the Downtown Golden Triangle (D-GT) zone district as revised through a concurrent text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-8-21.

DenverCityCouncil_07192021_21-0636

I move that council bill 20 10636 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council on Council Bill 636. All right, CNN, Madam Secretary, roll call on council Bill 636, please. Like I. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines, I. Cashman. I can eat. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, i. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0636 has passed. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, July 26, Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0532 Amending Section two, Dash two, four two and Section 2-243 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding the Denver Food Commission on Monday, August 16.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to establish and fund an early action Skagit Habitat Enhancement Program in anticipation of new Skagit River Hydroelectric Project license conditions to implement meaningful habitat and watershed improvements in the Skagit River watershed for Endangered Species Act listed species; authorizing the execution of necessary and convenient agreements to implement the early action habitat and watershed improvements in the Skagit River watershed; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09202021_CB 120170

Record and item seven Capital 12017 be relating to the City Department authorizing General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to establish and fund an early action Skagit Habitat Enhancement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. Just Mayor Pearson, back to you to provide the report. City Council President to honor a commitment made earlier this year by the late council of 120170 authorizes our public utility to administer a proactive Skagit habitat enhancement program that will further improve habitats in the Skagit River watershed for endangered species. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill hearing? None. Will the court please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Salina? Yes. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Suarez Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Macheda. I Petersen. All right. President Gonzalez. I know. Say and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it will a piece of affect my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title? Item eight into the record.