meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0050 | Speaker 2: Item eight.
Speaker 1: Item eight. Report from Development Services. Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Supporting President Obama's My Brother's Keeper. Community Community Challenge and Receive and File Status Report on efforts with the City of Sit with City of Long Beach in support of this initiative. City Wide.
Speaker 2: Mr. City managers are report.
Speaker 0: Yes. We have a quick report from Angela Reynolds and Tracey Ilunga.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor and City Council. On October 14th, the City Council requested that the city manager provide a report within 90 days. I think we're right there on President Obama's My Brother's Keeper Community Challenge. The MBK Community Challenge encourages cities to implement a cradle to college and career strategy for improving.
Speaker 3: The life outcomes of all young people to ensure that they can reach.
Speaker 2: Their full potential.
Speaker 3: Regardless.
Speaker 2: Of who they are or where they come from or the circumstances under which they are born. There are several city programs.
Speaker 3: That support MBK currently. These include the Long Beach.
Speaker 2: Gang.
Speaker 3: Reduction Intervention and Prevention Program. Long Beach Grip. We are already designated.
Speaker 5: A U.S. Department.
Speaker 2: Of Justice National Forum City on Youth Violence and Pacific.
Speaker 3: Gateway Investment Network, which provides internships and summer job programs for youth.
Speaker 2: Are in partnership with the Long Beach Unified School District. And of course.
Speaker 3: Many, many supporting community based organizations that work in the city of Long Beach. Currently.
Speaker 2: Staff recommends adopting the MBK resolution to support these efforts. And in terms of next steps.
Speaker 3: Within 45 days of the adoption.
Speaker 2: Of this.
Speaker 3: Resolution, we are required to have a summit of all the.
Speaker 2: Stakeholders.
Speaker 3: For this.
Speaker 2: Initiative. That concludes my report, and we're here for questions. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Vice Mayor. I'm thrilled to see this resolution come back to the city council so that our city can be placed on record in support of this important initiative. I was pleased to see that city staff stepped up to rise to the challenge. Since we placed this on the agenda a while back and I want to thank you and your work so far. I look forward to the next steps, more specifically the summit, and looking forward to working with our mayor and our fairly fellow council members, our community organizations, some of which I see here in the audience on our next steps. So that said, thank you. And it was, let's get moving.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to say thank you as well. It just really brought light to a lot of the program programs that we're already doing in the city. And I think it's amazing that, you know, we don't have to add additional funds, hopefully not. But just to be able to highlight those programs is wonderful. And thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for bringing this forward. Do we have any thoughts at this point of where the summit summit will be held? I know it's been a little back and forth, but just a preliminary question. What are we allowed to say?
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Gonzalez. No, we don't have any idea of that yet. But I'm sure after the adoption of this resolution, we'll be working together with the city council.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you for.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. There's been a motion by Councilmember Richardson and a second by Councilman Andrews. So any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item eight. Please come forward. State your name and your testimony.
Speaker 3: Good evening.
Speaker 6: My name is Pedro Jimenez. I am a youth organizer in Central Asia.
Speaker 3: I live that.
Speaker 6: Way to East Forehand. Ninth District resident. I graduated from Jordan High School in 2013, and I was a model academy youth leader with Alina Gonzalez on behalf of Central Cha sons, brothers and fathers, we service. I would like to thank the city of Long Beach for setting My Brother's Keeper challenge for Long Beach. I believe it's much needed in our community and school systems. I live in North Long Beach by Jordan. There is gang violence, drugs and poverty, and we are put in a situation where it's harder for us to be successful. There's not much guidance is normal for a young man to get jumped, not graduate and go to school, go to jail than to be successful and be guided in the right direction. I have worked with boys and men of color in making a change in our community and school system, in changing the school to prison pipeline that pushes young men of color out of the schools and into the prison system. The school climate resolution. Our youth do not. So our youth do not get kicked out of schools or suspended for willful defiance, Prop 47 so that many of our young men of color may have a second chance for past mistakes that are holding them back to a brighter future. The local control com ability plan to make sure that the students and schools with the most need receive the funds necessary in order to graduate and succeed. We have been working with the Brothers, Sons and Selves Coalition and Long Beach Youth Committee accomplishes these goals so our boys and young men of color may have a bigger and brighter future. Myself and Central appreciates and wants to reach out to you if you need any help or assistance with My Brother's Keeper challenge. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: Hi. My name is Edgar Ramirez. I live on 1023 Louis Avenue on the Lake District. And I'm Cal State, Long Beach social work student. And I am a center child case manager, mentor. And I have the honor and privilege of working with these young men right here, um, for the last couple of months. And some of them actually have worked with the last couple of years. And I've seen these young men grow in their leadership, in advocacy roles. I get encouraged every single day by the passion energy they bring in, working and making a change for themselves and other boys and young men of color like themselves in creating more equality and fairness in our community and school system. I would like to thank the Sea of Long Beach for accepting the My Brother's Keepers challenge. There is a great need for boys and young men of color. I believe we need to invest more in these young men with summer youth employment, mentoring, health, mental health, education in safe and safer neighborhoods. These young men need to know that they don't only have the support of their loved ones, but their community as well. I grew up in Long Beach on 10th in Lewes and I can personally tell you, if you don't give these young men, give these young men a good education, a good paying career, and pair them with positive mentors and role models. There are other people in the streets that can show and give them those things, but in a negative way. My hope is that the city of Long Beach and Long Beach Unified School District and the Long Beach Business invest more in our youth and find and innovate in a bit of ways that keep our boys and young men of color off the streets. Gangs in prison. I want my boys to be the model for other cities and working in create an opportunity for these boys and young men of color in the nation. My Brother's Keeper Alliance aligns with the Central Charles Mission goals and objectives in helping young men reach their full potential. Central shot and the one Long Beach Alliance has been doing this work and will be continue to do this work. We're going to have our second Boys and Women of Color Summit May 16th, 2015, and will focus on fathers and young men of color in our communities. In the past, we did it at Cal State Long Beach, and it was with. With the academy and all the youth from we had over 500 youth that came out and we all we what we did was we broke out in different sessions and they tackled issues that they're going through and things that they're fighting for. And I just want to thank you guys because for me, it's a passion. I live on 10th. And also, like I said, I know the Andrews is familiar with the area. That area is it's a hot area. And I've seen too many youth die, pass away. They need all the help that they can get, you know? And when these kids come through our doors, you know, they're broken, you know, and and they're broken. We don't fix them. They fix themselves. We all we do is give them the tools that they need necessary to build themselves at Central CHA. But it just my hope that we could help more youth in Long Beach. And I thank you guys again for all this.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 7: You know, I think you vice mayor, a message that I you know, I just want to thank Mrs. Jessica contents because the fact that she now we go at it in our own way. But I have to give I have to really commend her and the young man who just spoke because he know the area and I know it. I lived in it, raised in it. But I think you guys are doing a great job, especially with that gang situation and these these companies that we're going to have with these youth. I tell you, it's going to it's going to make a difference in all these individuals lives. Like you say, you guys don't do it. They do it. And I want to thank you again. Mr. Just continued, but really seriously work on the program and I hope the city will continue to support this financially, socially, in every other way. Thank you guys again.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 4: So I just want to chime in and say congratulations and good job to those young guys who stood up there and addressed the council. I want to see you all participate in the upcoming summit. We want to make sure you're at the table as we plan this together.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. Madam Clerk, I thought there was a maker of the motion in a secondary. It doesn't show anymore. Oh, I see. Thank you. I see it now. Thank you. All right. See? No further discussion. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 2: Item nine.
Speaker 1: Item nine. Report from Financial Management. Recommendation to Award. Contract to Chandler Asset Management to provide investment advisory and management services in an annual amount not to exceed 300,000 citywide. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution supporting President Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” Community Challenge; and receive and file a status report on efforts with the City of Long Beach in support of this initiative. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0052 | Speaker 1: Item nine. Report from Financial Management. Recommendation to Award. Contract to Chandler Asset Management to provide investment advisory and management services in an annual amount not to exceed 300,000 citywide.
Speaker 2: Set in motion. Moved by Councilmember Durango, seconded by Councilman Austin. So any member of the public that wished to address Council one, item nine. Seeing none. Members, cast your vote. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: Very good. You click as the address. I don't know the answer to this first question. Have we ever had this before? This type of management contracts and to if so. What is different between that one? If we if we had this type of contract in place when we lost the. Forgive me, I forget the figure was a 20 million through the Lehman Brothers debacle at the beginning of the decade. And how have we vetted this this company? Are they in somebody's back pocket? Do we and the council people know how many companies they've looked at. If you don't, let me suggest you hold this over and take a look at it. You know, we're not rolling in money. So you've taken some there are some positive steps and saying, hey, you're least know that you don't know what you should know. So have you looked at what the alternatives are? The barn's not on, and nothing's going to happen in the next 60 days that would impact this. So if you don't have three options presented to you and their histories. Just like you listen to options of who's going to build your city hall, you should certainly have options as to who's going to manage your money. Is it going to be Homer Simpson? Is it going to be Bob Foster? Who's going to manage your money? So you don't want your record to show the changes? I just rubber stamp this. Without looking at alternatives and just relied on the same people that got us into this situation we're in now.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Goodhue. Councilman Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you in for the public watching at home. I wanted to just address this with the city manager before we take a vote, too. Can you answer the question whether or not we've actually had this service before and how we reached the conclusion to go with this particular management company for the contract?
Speaker 0: Our city treasurer, David Nakamoto, will answer the question.
Speaker 6: Honorable Vice mayor and members of the city council. Yes, we've had this type of relationship in place before. Five years ago, we did RFP for these services and Chandler Asset Management was the winner of that RFP process. They have worked with us for five years. We are because their contract has expired at this point. We took it took upon ourselves to to redo the RFP process. And again, the they won this particular contract at the same pricing that they had in prior in the prior engagement. And have we been satisfied with their performance over the last five years? Yes, I believe we have, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. And, you know, I just I think it's important to know and to to disclose to the public that oftentimes these city council members are briefed by our city manager and staff prior to these meetings . And oftentimes it may seem as though we're rubberstamping oftentimes many of our questions have been answered and in our briefings, weekly briefings with with the city management. And so I do appreciate the public comment and I do appreciate your your response. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Alston. There's been a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Councilman Andrews. Motion carries seven zero. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP FM15-011 and award a contract to Chandler Asset Management, Inc., of San Diego, CA, to provide investment advisory and management services, in an annual amount not to exceed $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. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0053 | Speaker 2: Item ten.
Speaker 1: Item ten Report from Financial Management Recommendation to enter into into an agreement with environmental services to provide underground storage tank consulting in an annual amount not to exceed ten 40,000 citywide.
Speaker 2: Mr. City Manager.
Speaker 0: We have a brief report from our fleet manager, Dave Berlin, on. Dan sorry, Dan Vice many long time members of council. This is due to the complex nature of the underground storage tank and fuel operations program. The Fleet Bureau is an employed industry specialist to deal with specific functions within the program over the past seven years, starting in 2008, and this consultant provides additional oversight and industry expertize. TATE Environmental Services has been providing consulting services for the underground storage tank program at Fleet for the past two and a half years. And they've also been providing construction management support for the past year and a half. Their organization is well staffed with knowledgeable professionals in the management of fuel facilities and compliance with local, state and federal regulations. We are currently using state environmental to help resolve ongoing issues and manage the future construction and ongoing construction of three different underground storage tanks currently in operation right now. That's a short summary. I can take any questions.
Speaker 2: Councilman Austin. There's been a motion and a second councilmember. Councilman Andrews and Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Yes. I just want to, uh, to ask another clarifying question for for the benefit of those who may not understand why we're moving forward with this consulting agreement. What is are the risk of us not having this type of expertize and guidance for the city in regards to dealing with these underground storage tanks?
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilman, the the risks are damage to the environment. The city has an extensive fuel management system to provide fuel for city vehicles throughout the city at numerous sites throughout the city. So there is concern always to protect the environment. And then there's also compliance with the regulatory aspect that we need to ensure we are always on track with.
Speaker 6: And what happens if we're not in compliance?
Speaker 0: If we're not in compliance, we stand the risk of being fined by the state.
Speaker 6: I think you and that could be well in excess of the contract award, is that correct?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. It can be in the millions of dollars.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item ten? Please come forward. State your name.
Speaker 7: I support the comp, the contract in overall. I think that we do need that expertize and that's what gives rise to my raising this comment. I just want to make sure that there's no plans now to put in a tank in somebody's backyard or close to a neighborhood that we don't know about now. And the people that if there are any tanks going in are scheduled to be going in, that the neighbors have been thoroughly vetted on that aspect. So we don't face the situation like we do with the unfortunate bike path coming within ten feet of or even less than that, I guess, of people's front windows and so forth . So I just I commend the department for the job they do, but I just want to make sure they remain ever vigilant on that aspect and not try to slip something in because on your pressured into doing so. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Seeing no further comment. Members, please cast your vote. I.
Speaker 1: Councilman Andrews. Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 2: Item 11. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to enter into an agreement with Tait Environmental Services, Inc., of Santa Ana, CA, to provide Underground Storage Tank (UST) consulting and project management services, in an annual amount not to exceed $240,000, for a period of one year starting January 1, 2015, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0027 | Speaker 2: Item 11.
Speaker 1: Item 11. Report from Library Services and Technology and Innovation. Recommendation to Adopt Resolution to execute Second Amendment. To contract with innovative interfaces. To provide continued library management, service system services and staff training for a total amount not to exceed 590,000 citywide.
Speaker 2: City manager.
Speaker 0: Our library director, Glenn Glenn Williams.
Speaker 3: There you go. Good evening, Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Members City Council. This is a Second Amendment to continue library management services for our library system. It takes care of all of our patron records, the acquisition funds, the materials purchases. It's the gateway for our online databases, our archives, our downloadable. In addition, it also works with other services we provide to the public, including wireless, the computer time management system that we're getting ready to. Implement and self-checkout. So all these things have to work together with the library management system. This is the Second Amendment and we ask that you approve this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilmember. Your Urunga.
Speaker 0: I brought one of these issues up before in the past in terms of being a sole source type of contract. So this company was to go under. Are we prepared to provide the services or go out with someone else?
Speaker 3: There's only one other major vendor who will provide the services that we need, and we've actually had that vendor before. If we were to move to another vendor, it would be we'd have to actually pay for the system itself and the maintenance. Tonight, what is before you is just the maintenance costs and we just don't have the funding to to do that.
Speaker 0: I just want to make sure that we're not at the. Mercy of a of a sole source agency where if for some reason or another they are not able to perform the services or meet the contract that we are securing, but we are able to provide.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes, sir.
Speaker 2: There's been a motion by Councilmember Richardson and a second by Councilman Andrews. Councilwoman Mongo, yes. Would you be able to tell us.
Speaker 5: On the average if most libraries in the region.
Speaker 2: Utilize this system?
Speaker 3: Yes. Very many libraries in this region utilize innovative in embraces.
Speaker 5: Great. So there's some economies of scale that are available to us. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 11? Seeing nonmembers, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 2: Item 12. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to Contract No. 30976 with Innovative Interfaces Incorporated, to provide continued Library Management System services and staff training in the amount of $513,342, plus a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $77,001 for a total amount not to exceed $590,343 for a period of three years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods at $189,411 for year four and $198,882 for year five, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0055 | Speaker 2: Item 12.
Speaker 1: Item 12 report from Long Beach Gas and Oil. Recommendation to adopt resolution increasing the maximum allowable natural gas surcharge adjustment for electric generation customers to decrease this surcharge for natural gas services to two proposed fuel cell units to be installed at the Aquarium of the Pacific Citywide.
Speaker 2: Leicester City Managers Report.
Speaker 0: Yes, our gas and oil director, Chris Garner.
Speaker 6: Mayor and city council. What you have before you right now is an item. We were approached by the Aquarium of the Pacific to install new technology, fuel cells out the aquarium to try and lower their electric bills at during their normal operations.
Speaker 0: It's fueled by natural gas.
Speaker 6: We have a provision currently in.
Speaker 0: Our rate schedule that allows.
Speaker 6: Us to adjust a surcharge on the commodity itself by up to $0.05. I'm sorry, the surcharge is $0.05. We have the ability to adjust it by $0.03. What we're asking you tonight is the ability to adjust it up to the full $0.05 to accommodate this type of new technology.
Speaker 2: Thank you. There's been a motion by Councilman Andrews and a second by Councilmember Urunga. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 12? Seeing none. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 2: Item 13. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution increasing the maximum allowable natural gas surcharge adjustment for Electric Generation Customers (Schedule 7) to $0.05/therm; and authorize City Manager to decrease the surcharge by $0.05/therm for natural gas service to proposed fuel cell units to be installed at the Aquarium of the Pacific. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0056 | Speaker 2: Item 13.
Speaker 1: Item 13. Report from Long Beach Gas and Oil in Financial Management Recommendation to award a contract to Energy Experts International to provide consulting services related to natural gas distribution. Federal Record Regulatory Compliance to update U.S. Department of Transportation requirement manual and plans for a total amount not to exceed 569,000 citywide.
Speaker 2: There's been a motion by Councilman Andrews and a second by Councilman Austin. So any member of the public that wishes to address council on this item. Actually, Mr. City managers or staff report you'd like to provide.
Speaker 0: Yes. We have a quick one from Chris Garner again.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 6: As you know, we have 1900 miles of natural gas pipeline in the cities of Long Beach and Signal Hill.
Speaker 0: We're under constant.
Speaker 6: Regulation by the federal government, the Department of Transportation, to maintain and operate those.
Speaker 0: Pipelines professionally.
Speaker 6: And safely for our customers. And this is there's an increased focus on the federal government on these distribution pipelines across the country. And what we need help on and we're hiring this company to help us with is if you look at the scope of work, our operations and maintenance manual needs to be updated. A new program, the Distribution Integrity Management Plan, or did we need that updated?
Speaker 0: The Emergency Operations Plan, the damage prevention public awareness.
Speaker 6: Plans, the qualification plan, and then to help us with the long.
Speaker 0: Term pipeline operations plan. The idea here is.
Speaker 6: In the past, the audits that we periodically undergo with the DOT, we focused more on how we did the job with.
Speaker 0: The incident up in San.
Speaker 6: Bruno with the gas explosion. There's been increased focus on actual paperwork and the documentation that occurs that documents how you do your job.
Speaker 0: And so that's what we're hiring this company to help us with. It's a two year process. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. So any member of the public that wished to address the council on this item, item 13. SINGH None. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP GO-14-136 and award a contract to Energy Experts International of Redwood City, CA, to provide consulting services related to natural gas distribution federal regulatory compliance to update U.S. Department of Transportation required manuals and plans, in the amount of $542,526, and authorize a 5 percent contingency in the amount of $27,126, for a total contract amount not to exceed $569,652, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for one additional one-year period, and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0057 | Speaker 2: Item 14.
Speaker 1: Item 14 Recommendation two to approve submittal of the list of grant applications to potential funding agencies and to accept and expend all grant funding in connection here with city wide.
Speaker 2: There's been a motion by Councilman Andrews, a second by Councilmember Durango. Mr. City Manager.
Speaker 0: Our public works director are a million.
Speaker 6: Honorable Vice Mayor and honorable council members. I have a PowerPoint. If you're interested in a 20 minute presentation, I'm more than willing to do so. Otherwise, I have handouts. Or I can do a very short synopsis for you.
Speaker 2: I think the handout and a short synopsis will be fabulous unless you have an interpretive dance you'd like to offer with that. But.
Speaker 6: In short. Brief synopsis. Honorable Council Members Metro provides an opportunity for local jurisdictions to apply for projects that improves transportation. Pedestrian activities, bicycle activities and so forth. So this is called cold call for projects. It happens approximately every two years or three years. And it is slated for this call for projects, is slated for moneys to be awarded in 2020 or 2021. So we're looking for a five year or six year period. We have identified eight projects. Two of these projects have been previously applied for, but we were not successful. Reason being is Metro uses very complicated system to grade the agencies. So we have taken those two projects that we have previously applied and we have improved upon them. So to increase our chances of winning. So there are eight projects. One category is regional surface transportation improvement. That includes the seventh Street connectivity. Basically, we're looking for enhancing the entire seventh Street corridor between the Shoemaker Bridge towards East, and that includes bicycle, pedestrian traffic, signal modernization, synchronization and so forth. In the same category is Artesia Complete Boulevard, and that's the same vision that Councilmember Rex Richardson had through the COG. So this is going to kind of kickstart this process. And if we're this is all contingent upon if we're selected and we are where the winners of these grants, we have three bicycle improvement projects, which is one is Walnut and 52nd Street. The other one is Atherton Bridge and Campus Connection. And finally, it's the L.A. River Gap Closure. Those are the three bicycle improvement projects that we're submitting. For our pedestrian improvements. We had a downtown pedestrian improvement project, which is in Council District one and two. We also have a signal synchronization and bus bus speed improvements. This is on seventh Street, Fourth and Broadway that. It's the entire corridor. And finally, we have one last category, which was transportation demand management, which is part can, right? So and in the few following pages you will see, we have shown the estimated project cost, estimated grant request and the match. A metro requires that we have a minimum 20% match. We have shown the funding sources and none of them are the general fund. We're using transportation funds to match these and also the 20% is minimum. We haven't made a strategic decision yet. If we want to increase that to two basically by points, by increasing our match will have a higher chance of winning. But this is something that we have to do at the staff level, but it's something that's under consideration. That's my report on this. You have a specific question. I can elaborate more.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to say thanks to all the staff that put together this proposal. And I know this is not the first time Artesia Boulevard has been on this proposal. I've seen I think this is maybe the fourth time I've seen RTG be applied for either Caltrans or MTA. But I think with the team that you've put together to really, really drive this, we've got a good shot this time. So I'm really excited and thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Gonzalez?
Speaker 5: Yes, I think you are. These are great projects. I'm very excited to see a few of them in the First District. And my question is geared towards the great seventh Street, the Connectivity Project. Now, how will that be married, I guess, with our park? I mean, is that I know that's in the works.
Speaker 6: Correct. So the guy Minor Park project, if you can envision or visualize, it's between Alamitos and Atlantic. So we are trying to mimic the same kind of traffic enhancement that is west of Atlantic, all the way to Shoemaker Bridge. This is again has to marry up with the future Shoemaker Bridge and looking at more of a complete street, maybe decoupling the traffic all the way to the Shoemaker Bridge. So those are all possibilities that will be studying.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 2: There's been a motion by Councilman Andrews and seconded by Councilmember Urunga. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 14? Please come forward and state your name.
Speaker 7: Very good you cook as they dress. I have complete confidence that our director of public works as I do and the with the director of the our gas and oil department. And for the edification of the public or those who may have not followed council business that much. These type of grants are the lifeblood of the city. People think, well, gee, I pay my taxes, I should get that. The taxes don't even pay for all of our police and fire. So without grants, we're literally out of business, period. The one question I need to and I want to ask and what is to make sure? That we don't have a repetition of what we had when grant monies. From various different agencies, including those that get those transportation monies, including the people that put money in a bucket at a concert, including money from the state and the county transportation that went into political ads like this hymnal of hosannas coming out saluting extensively the mayors. Protege. Two weeks before the election. We need to fight. Sure. That the foot goes on the neck and that the city auditor stays right on top of this. With all due respect to the good director of public public works, the fact is somebody was asleep when five different departments were raided. And if this keeps up. Those agencies will put a foot on the neck and cut us off, period. No ifs, no answer. No, that's. That's even notwithstanding the fact that Garcia is going to jail, period. They will still, still be watching us as our bloom, as is, incidentally, the Bloomberg organization giving second thoughts. And I don't know the council all the council people understand who Bloomberg is, but if you get on that, they're a bad list. That's worse than getting on a moody's or any banks credit rating system and so forth. So be very, very careful that you don't try massaging the figures to suck money out into some of your pet political projects or candidates. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to approve submittal of the recommended list of grant applications to potential funding agencies, including the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); and
Authorize City Manager to administer and execute all necessary documents to accept and expend all grant funds in connection therewith, to pursue additional grant funds for the projects listed as needed, and to take all other actions necessary to implement the use of such funds. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0059 | Speaker 2: Item 15.
Speaker 1: Item 15 Report from Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the middle of a grant application council recycle for the East 55th Way Land Closure Project and to apply for the grant to install a final landfill cover system that includes a landfill, gas collection and control system.
Speaker 2: District eight. Thank you, city manager.
Speaker 0: A quick report from armel and director of Public Works.
Speaker 2: Fabulous.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Honorable Vice Mayor Low Anton and council members. I don't have a PowerPoint and it's going to take 30 seconds. Basically, we're asking your approval to submit an application to Cal Recycle, to apply for funding to be able to clean this site. It's it's a great opportunity for the city to bring in half a million dollars or so if we're successful and make this project even more successful.
Speaker 2: Thank you. There's been a motion by Councilman Austin and a second by Councilmember Richardson. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Vice Mayor and Mr. Malloy. And I will let you know that I fully support all your efforts to get this grant, and I would encourage my fellow council members to vote in support of this item. This will be a giant leap forward for us to have the opportunity to complete phase two of the Pops Davenport Park. Right now, phase one is kind of recessed off of the streets. And if you drive down Paramount Boulevard, you know most people miss it and don't know that there's a treasure there. We are really motivated and excited to to move forward to get phase two planned. And this this grant will be instrumental in helping us do that. And will I mean, it's an extra half a million dollars that we didn't see a year ago that will, like I said, be resourceful for us to want to move the process forward. And so I would ask for your full support and I think staff for identifying the grant. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Austin. Is there any member of the public that wished to address the Council on item 15 seeing none members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the submittal of a grant application to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for the Legacy Disposal Site Abatement Partial Grant Program for the East 55th Way Landfill Closure Project, as part of the Davenport Park Phase II Expansion Project; and
Authorize City Manager, or designee, to apply for the grant to install a final landfill cover system that includes a landfill gas (LFG) collection and control system, and to execute all documents necessary to accept and expend the grant funds and any other actions necessary to administer the grant. (District 8) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01202015_15-0062 | Speaker 2: We're under ordinances. Item 16.
Speaker 1: Item 16. Communication from the city attorney's office. Recommendation to declare ordinance. Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the office holder expense funds. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading City Wide.
Speaker 2: There's been a motion by Councilman Andrews and a second by Councilwoman Gonzalez. This is a first reading of an item that's been taken up already. Councilman Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I want to thank the city attorney for putting this together. I am going to be opposing this item tonight and for the very reasons and concerns I shared last week, I respect my council colleagues. And on this issue, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: I'm on the opposite side of that. So I ask you now, certainly for continued support on this. I think that, again, we've we've talked about this a multitude of times, but, you know, the the large and this of our city, but also the positive impact that I see that it could be implemented into our into our communities is really essential. So continue to ask for support. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilman Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I don't want to belabor the the debate on this, but I would just ask my colleague, Councilmember Price, is there any any is there would there be any appetite to to massaging and coming close to to to to to an agreement that that we can get 100% consensus on? Do you have any recommendations?
Speaker 5: Thank you for bringing that up. I you know, I'm concerned about the dollar amounts here that we're talking about. So if there was a will by the makers of the motion or the folks who are in support to come up with a compromise number, that lowers it a little bit. I would be in favor of that again. I don't want to belabor the issue either. And I have nothing but trust for my colleagues here. And like I said last week, my concern was more about the policy implications moving forward. You know, we we make decisions that last much longer than we're here. So that's my concern. But I don't want to belabor the point. I don't want to make, you know, make anyone feel uncomfortable if they feel very supportive of this. But if we were to lower the numbers, I think I'd feel a lot more comfortable with it.
Speaker 6: So our the recommendation on the floor and that was debated was to and I think amended by Councilmember Richardson was to triple the amount of officeholder accounts. And it's current it's currently $10,000. It would go to $30,000. And also the contribution limits would would be increased. I I'm curious to know what what would that number looks like in terms of what's acceptable would be it would be an acceptable number?
Speaker 5: Well, I think a compromise position, and I have no problem with the contribution amounts being raised. I understand the logic behind that. But maybe $20,000 would be a nice compromise position if people were open to it.
Speaker 6: Are you making a motion?
Speaker 5: Well, I'd like to make a friendly amendment. I wasn't sure that there would be a will and that would be accepted. But if the maker of the or if Councilman Andrews is open to that, I'd be making an amendment.
Speaker 2: So. So the maker of the motion has declined. And I trust that the second year of the motion. I have you, Councilman Andrews, as the maker of this motion today.
Speaker 6: So I think the maker of the original motion was was Councilmember Gonzalez or and then the amendment was Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 2: But as point of order, we have to go by the maker of the motion for the first reading and the second or that those are the two individuals and need to be consulted. And so in asking Councilman Andrews, the maker of the motion, to consider the friendly amendment, he has declined and Councilman Gonzales has as well. Okay. Councilman Austin, anything further?
Speaker 6: I'd like to make a substitute motion and I'd like to make a substitute motion to reduce the the amount of the office holder account to $20,000 for city council and $50,000 for the mayor.
Speaker 5: Second. Oh. Oh, no word of press.
Speaker 3: Oh, you moved it.
Speaker 2: Okay. The substitute motion. Did you withdraw your motion, councilwoman? Pressure. The substitute motion was made by Council member Councilman Austin. And you're free to second if you wish. So the motion to substitute is to reduce the original amount approved by the council to 20,000 for council members and 50,000 for the mayor. It was the second year of the motion.
Speaker 3: Susie G.
Speaker 2: Second by Councilwoman Pryce. I have others queued up. Councilman Austin, is there anything else?
Speaker 6: Well, I'd just like to say that currently. I was I'm an important supporter of raising the limits for our officeholder accounts for every reason that has been stated over the last couple of weeks. I think it is necessary. I think it is is time. I mean Longreach is a big city and we have great needs and great demands on our city council members over the last time these officeholder accounts were raised. I believe it was 2007. That was seven years ago. I don't think inflation has gone up, tripled in that period of time. I don't think the cost of anything has tripled except maybe health care. But I don't think we're dealing with that. And so I do think doubling the amount is a is a fair compromise to get us gets where we need to be.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Vice Mayor. So so I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this up again. I would say that I don't know that a compromise is necessary, as we had a majority of council members who vote in support of this in advance. And I thought that we had a good, healthy, lengthy discussion there. I would say that there's a lot of context here. I think we consider that city council budgets have diminished significantly over the last decade. I remember when I began as chief of staff four years ago, we were able to have four staff people and then that was moved down to three. Now we're looking at we have less staff. And absolutely no supply budget in our offices. And that's that's that's a that is a reality in our offices as we have to find outside sponsors to help sponsor community events, help provide breakfasts or meals that are community assemblies, because we don't have the capacity in-house. So I think the work that's placed into having an office holder to go out and raise dollars to support these things, it's it's necessary. Secondly, you know, a number of the committee assignments that I was given upon taking office, they require travel. I was placed on the National League of Cities and was not able to go to that to that conference, the first Fed alleged visit. My budget could not support a trip. And actually, you know, our mayor's office denied us attending because our budget did not have the availability to go. So we had you know, so we had a healthy bit of discussion about this. So I feel very strongly that considering that there's been over a six figure cut in our office budgets to talk about raising on the private side $30,000 that, you know, to negotiate it down to 20 out of the sake of not having enough discussion, I don't know that that's really a fair conversation. So that said, I'd like to offer a substitute substitute motion. So my substitute substitute motion would be to go back to $30,000 and $75,000 for me, or $30,000 for city council and $75,000 for mayor. And to add in a CPI to build in a CPI consistent with the same levels that our campaign finance limits are in the election code for elections.
Speaker 2: There's been a substitute substitute by Councilmember Richardson and seconded by Councilmember Gonzalez. Okay. And that is to go back to the original. The original ordinance with the addition of the CPI.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman Gonzalez Yeah, I would add that, you know, our committee worked very hard. I think we're a committee that has done tremendous work, both myself as the Chair, Councilmember Turanga and Councilmember Mungo. We based this off of information based on adjacent cities. So this wasn't just an arbitrary number we picked out of the sky. This was information that we we we received from various cities that are our size, are larger, and we're pretty much behind the times. We're a little bit antiquated in our policies. And our main goal here is to reform a lot of our campaign finance policies. This was something that we could do and that was attainable. We all agree that the largeness, largeness of our city, the complexity of our city would certainly make sense for us to increase our officeholder accounts, both on the mayor side, the city wide side, and the city council side. And inflation, your rate hasn't gone up. It's not based on that, but it is based on a lot of our council budgets going down with RDA gone, with the discretionary funding gone, we do have to find other facets to be able to take care of our communities. And so I see this as certainly one of them. And so that's my certainly my stance. I believe that the substitute substitute motion will take care of that, and I hope that we can move forward with that substitute substitute motion.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 5: First, I want to thank the work of the committee, the committee that.
Speaker 2: Councilmember.
Speaker 3: Yanga.
Speaker 5: And Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 2: And I have worked extensively hard on.
Speaker 5: And I was most comfortable with a number closer to 20,000 as the committee originally debated and came forward with $25,000 for council members and 75 for the mayor. And so in the spirit of collegiality and continuing what Councilmember Austin put forward, I would ask that a friendly amendment come forward, which would be to restore to the original recommendation of the committee, as debated at 25 for council members and 75 for the mayor, with an adjustment for CPI to pull in the forward thinking this of Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 4: So so as the maker of the motion, I have the ability to do that. I want to talk through your era here. I want to see if we can work this out right now. So the issue that I would take with this would be the increase to the citywide electeds would be a three times increase, whereas a citywide the increase to city council will be two and a half times increase. So would your friendly. So is your friendly. Are you interested in making it consistent at two and a half times across the board?
Speaker 2: So the reason.
Speaker 5: I remember that argument from when we first debated this at Hampton Park, the committee's research came from other comparable cities. Yes. And it wasn't to be proportional. The mayor isn't three times more demanded at events or community functions or anything like that. It came from looking at comparable cities and comparable officeholder accounts and the such. So I feel like the original intent of the committee at 2575 with an adjustment for CPI two, both would be the most logical.
Speaker 2: And a compromise.
Speaker 5: Between many people.
Speaker 4: I get that. And what I would say is, is there. So which cities and specifically more specifically, which cities of a comparable size are you comparing us to?
Speaker 5: So they pulled together a bunch of charts and brought them to the meeting. Larry Herrera brought forward documentation, which I don't have with me tonight, but I could have someone run up to the office. And Paul, do you remember Councilman? Anaheim was on the list, but I think Anaheim and I think our city attorney is up to speak as well. So maybe I.
Speaker 0: Have that.
Speaker 4: I'd like to know about Anaheim and Los Angeles, and let's just hash out this and figure it out right now.
Speaker 5: I know Anaheim is on the list for.
Speaker 2: Anaheim, almost a thousand per donation. If I might if I might weigh in. Councilmember Richardson, this is this right? Councilmember Richardson, may I address this? I know in the spirit of compromise, this is something that's been vetted by the committee for quite some time. It was vetted in a very healthy way the last time this came up on the council floor. So. There is a substitute substitute motion made by Councilmember Richardson, seconded by Councilwoman Gonzales. I have. Councilman Mongo, is there anything further?
Speaker 5: We're seeing the friendly amendment to restore to the committee's original intent of 2575, incorporating Councilmember Richardson CPI.
Speaker 4: I'm not in support of that. So no.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I appreciate everyone's comments. One thing I want to point out, and I hope it's something that we can respect as a body, not just today, but moving forward is if an idea or a concept is discussed in committee. And no doubt every single member of this board, this council works diligently on their various committees. No doubt I have full respect for the work that comes out of committee. However, it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate for council colleagues who don't sit on that committee to question certain aspects of the findings and recommendations of that committee. That's actually our job and that's what the taxpayers have elected us to do. So. So I appreciate and I think last week I said several times that I appreciated the work of the committee and and my thoughts on the issue were no reflection at all on the work of the committee. Furthermore, if an item comes before us and then we give a recommendation and we have a debate and the recommendation results in an item coming to us for a first reading and a second reading. The whole point of that gap in time is to allow an elected body to vet a particular idea, a proposal, a change with their citizenry, with their community, to study up on it, to find out what the vibe is, to see how they feel about it. Because the decisions that we make, when I press this button here, this is a decision I have to live with. It's my conscience. It's something that I have to be comfortable with. And if I express hesitation one week and do some more research and learn more about it, I'm not tied to what happened the week before. That's the whole point. That's why the system requires a first reading and a second reading. So, you know, I've heard this in the past and I've tried really hard. I know it doesn't seem like it, but I do try to bite my lip when I hear things like we already talked about this. Why are we talking about this again? The whole reason there was a first reading and a second reading is so that we can have an opportunity to further educate ourselves. And if there's an issue that we feel uncomfortable about it to to to say it. And I started off this discussion tonight by saying we can agree to disagree. I don't want to talk about it any further because I didn't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable. It's my personal belief is that fund raising and raising the limits adds noise in an area that we don't need. And I understand. I don't I'm sure the committee did their research on what other cities do. And sometimes what other cities are doing is something that we can learn from and grow from and adopt in our own city. But sometimes we can simply say, we are Long Beach. We are different. We do things differently. We reject certain things that aren't healthy in other communities. Just because other communities are doing them doesn't mean they're healthy for us. And that's my opinion. So there are many things that the City of L.A. is doing that's fantastic and great and would be great for us to incorporate. There are a lot of things that are doing that I don't want to see here in the city of Long Beach. And I've had that attitude in my job in in every in everything in my life. You do what's right at the moment, not based on what everybody else is doing. So with that, I have a feeling I'm not going to be doing what everyone else is doing tonight, and that's okay. But when we're talking about, you know, we already went through this or this already went through, you know, every single time an item comes before us, it's an opportunity to express concerns, support, hesitation, whatever the case may be. That's my right as a member of this council, and I'm going to exercise that right. I'm not going to be bullied into. We already talked about it. Why are we talking about it again? I will talk about it until I feel like I don't need to talk about it any more. And tonight I tried not to talk about it. For the record. Thank.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Pryce. I appreciate that. I think my comments were directed at Council Member Richardson in expressing my own opinion that that's where I'm coming from, that I felt that it was a thorough discussion and I'm satisfied with that. It is not to influence yours or anyone else's. But expressing my own, I oftentimes, as with everyone else, we all express our opinions differently, as you just did. And that was my way of expressing my opinion that I have great appreciation for the work of the committee as well as the discussion we had last week, and that I am satisfied with that. That is a personal opinion of mine and I hope that the remarks you just made, you will ensure that you regard everyone else's way of expressing their opinion that way. That was mine. City Attorney.
Speaker 0: Vice members of the council, just for a point of order. On the third motion, the substitute substitute motion to return the limits to 30 and 75 and add the CPI. If that motion is successful this evening, then it will come back for a first reading again on February 3rd. By adding the CPI adjustment. That's a substantial change in requires to come back two more times. So that just FYI.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Richardson, if I might ask perhaps that you can ask for a report on on the potential of adding CPI later as opposed to adding that. Would that would that keep it?
Speaker 4: That makes a lot of sense. Is that would that keep this as a first reading?
Speaker 0: The the problem with removing that as then it's not a substitute substitute. You're basically making the first motion. And so you would go to your second motion first.
Speaker 2: You know, you actually, Mr. City Attorney, it would be a substitute substitute to keep the the amounts. The same with the addition of asking for a report in 3 to 6 months, whichever the maker of the motion would like from staff or the committee on the concept of adding a CPI down the road.
Speaker 0: I would disagree with the chair. The the motion that would pass would be the item of the recommend the recommendation in your your original motion. The request for a report is is not what would be relevant for what you would pass. You would pass was actually recommended by council. So in essence it would be your original motion.
Speaker 2: Okay, what was the substitute motion? If you can remind me.
Speaker 0: The subsidy motion was to change the limits to $20,000 for city council and $50,000 citywide.
Speaker 2: Okay. We have a couple of more speakers that we can certainly take up the substitute motion and go back to the original if that is what ends up happening. Councilwoman Gonzalez. I'm sorry. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I think I think most of my concerns were were vetted out. But I wanted to just say that by no means, you know, is this discussion implying that folks shouldn't bring up certain topics. I think it's fine. Absolutely fine. And I appreciate the fact that you, Ms.. Councilmember Price stated that she didn't want to talk about it. I agree. I don't want to talk about it either.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Gonzalez. Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Thank you again. We welcome the discussion. You know, this is a really healthy discussion. I think what where you know, it may get heated at times, but I think we can all respectfully agree to disagree, like Councilman Price had mentioned. But I have to reiterate, you know, we're each representing about 50,000 constituents and $30,000 to me is but $50,000 individually in our districts, 500,000, half a million folks. And so $30,000 each to me is not really, really too much. So I'll I'll stand firm on that. And I respect the comments that have been made out there. But, you know, certainly I need to stand firm and what we originally decided.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Urunga.
Speaker 0: I totally agree with my colleague, Councilmember Gonzalez in this call for the question.
Speaker 2: Are we voting on the substitute substitute council member Richardson?
Speaker 4: I would love to get back to the original motion to vote on. So what I what I'm going to do is I'm going to withdraw my substitute substitute and I'm going to encourage my colleagues to vote no on the substitute motion.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Richardson and I will do the same. I will ask my colleagues to vote no on the substitute motion. We are taking up the substitute motion at this time. Members, cast your vote.
Speaker 0: Public comment.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 16?
Speaker 7: Very good. The clerk has the address. First, I would suggest you hold off because I don't want to embarrass anybody. But I would ask I would think that if I. Each one of you had to stand up now. Insight sentence for sentence, what you're voting on. I don't think you know what you're voting on, period. All right. At the end of this day, nothing's going to, you know, a day, another week is not going to rock the boat. What I have serious issues with this and there's no issue with having a fund. Period. It's how it is. I understand it. Unless my information is wrong. Some of these monies are all of these monies could be if you wanted get to some political dynamic within to a labor union or to the Chamber of Commerce. Is that a that needs to be clarified, because if that is the case, that should not be done, period. It should be only for legitimate parks, neighborhood association improvement projects and things like that. There's an easy way to address the funding issue, quite frankly. Is, first of all, cut travel. This is the high tech age. You don't need to travel, period. We have emails, we have Skype. We have teleconferences. We conduct wars by teleconference. Your only reason for traveling is to try to build your political career, period. So go a couple of years without any travel. Secondly, you need to put sideboards on it so we don't have this type of thing. Again, the hymnal to hold know this hymnal of hosannas using taxpayer money. Or donations to fund some political hack or pipsqueak, period. You do have a serious problem. I understand that with inflation and shortage of money, but that's very easy. Just cut out your travel. Period. And if, quite frankly, I'd even cut out your automobile, aren't I? Did you get a bus pass, period? That's the way to solve that. But again, I before you vote. Stand up and recite exactly what you're voting on. If you do know it, you will have no problem. If you don't bring it back and think about it or think about it and then bring it back. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Members. There's been a substitute motion by Councilman Austin and seconded by Councilwoman Price. Please cast your vote. And this is on the substitute.
Speaker 1: Motion fails.
Speaker 2: All right. We are now back to the original motion. Made by Councilman Andrews, seconded by Councilwoman Gonzalez. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: The motion passes was five three.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Members. Item 17. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 2.01.380 and 2.01.1020 relating to officeholder accounts, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0004 | Speaker 1: This hearing involves a recommendation from the city attorney to take three actions. First is to declare an ordinance, read the first time, and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading of amendments to the Municipal Code pertaining to the Downtown Entertainment and Dining District, as well as the definition of a nightclub . And then second, to rescind council resolution number six, 0003 and 14 0030 relating to the former ordinance. And then the third action is to adopt a resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit the amendment of Title 21 to the California Coastal Commission for finding of conformance with the local coastal plan.
Speaker 0: Mr. West, your next.
Speaker 3: Yes. This is I'm going to turn this.
Speaker 11: Over to Amy Burdick, the development services director.
Speaker 9: At this time, Mr. Mayor and members of the city council, I'm going to ask Amy Weaver to give this staff report and then Rachel Turner and I can answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 0: Perfect.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. Pursuant to the action of the City Council on December 2nd, 2014, amendments to the Long Beach Municipal Code Titles five and 21 have been prepared and are now submitted for your approval. Since one of the amendments is to the zoning code, they are required to be.
Speaker 6: Considered in a hearing.
Speaker 5: The proposed amendment to Title five incorporates changes to the downtown dining and entertainment district permitting process recommended by the Downtown Task Force. The regulations will now be included in the municipal code for ease of reference. Formerly, the ordinance set forth the regulations in two Council resolutions. The proposed amendment supersedes and replaces these resolutions, and it is therefore requested that those be.
Speaker 6: Rescinded in order to avoid confusion.
Speaker 5: The proposed amendment to Title 21 provides a definition of nightclub, which was previously not included in the zoning code. The Planning Commission considered and approved this amendment at its meeting on November 20th, 2014.
Speaker 6: In addition.
Speaker 5: It is requested that the attached resolution be adopted, forwarding the citywide.
Speaker 6: Amendment to the zoning regulations affecting the coastal zone to the California Coastal Commission as required by state law. If you have any questions.
Speaker 5: We are available to answer them.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We do have a motion on the floor about Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank the staff for the work that they've done on this round of the dining and entertainment district item. I don't see Mr. Harrison here, but Reggie Harrison, who is our deputy city manager, took up this issue. Miss Burdick, remind me, is it eight years? Ten years, when all the while a while. So his twins were much younger. My son was probably two, and I remember walking into the upstairs of one of the establishments where Reggie was holding the meeting. And I bring that up firstly because I want to thank you, Reggie, for the work that you did. You were quite a diplomat in that room. Those were not fun days. Those were days when people were very upset that the city was looking to regulate dining and entertainment districts in any way possible. Because I think the approach and attitude was for as long as it made money, it should be good for the city. We learned a very long time ago that just making money was not good enough for the city. It did not provide a balance that our residents deserved. And so Reggie was the arbiter of that diplomacy. And I want to thank you for that. That has been carried through. I learned a lot from how you manage those rooms and those tough crowds. And I wish there was a better way to approach these sorts of policies, because it seems not possible to make someone better off without making someone worse off. But what we have done in these ten years is we brought the public into the process. We brought the task force members. We created a task force over a year ago. We established a one year moratorium on Type 48 licenses known as the bars, and that was done in August of 2013. Our original intent was simply to update the ordinance in such a way to encourage good actors and discourage bad actors. And I think that has been accomplished. We had people that came together in a room that in other circumstances would not come to the kind of agreement that they did. And they did come to an agreement. They looked at the recommendations that staff and my office came up with. They worked very hard to vet these recommendations. And the city attorneys already mentioned the key recommendation that I think perhaps took the longest time was the definition of nightclub. How do you define a nightclub? You have residents who have their own definition of nightclub. You have businesses that have their own. And certainly the city attorney and and his team had their opinions. But we have come to a consensus and it's very important it truly is important to have created that certainty. We've operated under an ordinance that didn't provide as much certainty as it should have. And I think that's what we do today, is after this decades long process of watching the evolution of the downtown, watching the renaissance of the downtown, what we have created is certainty. And I think the residents for that, if it wasn't for residents that moved into Pine Avenue, created really a neighborhood sense. We wouldn't have this discussion or even initiated the discussion over a decade ago. And so with all that said, I'm very happy for the outcome and the recommendations I know we discussed quite a bit and discussed is putting it lightly. How to define ambient sound. I look at Rachel, she smiles kind of cautiously about that because ambient music is something that a lot of our establishments depend on, but its definition was vague at best and we have provided some certainty there. And so with all that, I'd like to thank the task force members. I know they were here last month, council members. You'll recall this item came before us last month and it was received very positively. You recognize many of the restaurant owners that participated and the restaurant and the residents that participated. And so my my gratitude to these members, the community, as well as city staff, many people applied to be on this task force. But I think at the end of the day, people were very confident at the members who did serve and felt. They were representative, representative of their interests and really the balance between business and residents. We are trying to create a three shift downtown, which is 24 hours. And in doing so, this is a critical piece to our step forward. These recommendations do strike a compromise between the business and residential communities. While most of the dining and entertainment district venues exist in the downtown shared by Councilmember Gonzalez and me, I do know that we have many of these establishments throughout the city. So for all the pain that the downtown has gone through, I'm thankful that the entire city will benefit. And as I mentioned before, this ordinance will make our application much more predictable. Actually, our city attorney mentioned it for new businesses, more flexible for current operators and more responsive to residents looking for enforcement of bad operators. So with that, Mr. Mayor, I know we have three motions I'd like to. Are we taking them up? One at a time.
Speaker 0: Mr. Mason, we do all three in one motion.
Speaker 9: Or I can do them separately. It's your pleasure, Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. We can take all three up at the same time, but we do need separate boats.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: So then would you.
Speaker 3: Make the most of all three?
Speaker 9: We could go ahead and read that, actually. Do you want to do that?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I thought we would do public comment for all three.
Speaker 9: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is there any public comment for the hearing? CNN by Samir Lowenthal.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to go ahead and declare the following ordinance, read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for a final reading amending Long Beach Municipal Code Section 5.72.200 relating to the regulation of the Downtown Entertainment and Dining District that it was a dining and entertainment district , but may be adding Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2115. .1855 relating to the definition of nightclub so moved.
Speaker 0: Okay there's a second by Councilman Richardson. And I have a procedural question real quick. Mr. Mays, because on the on the voting caste system, members are able to obviously second emotion. And they don't have to verbalize it. So on a second do I if I just say the motion that that covers it. Right. Who seconded it on per who who plugged in first. Or do I need to call on them for them to actually second it.
Speaker 3: But I think.
Speaker 6: Since I'm new to the system too, I think if you see it there, I don't think you necessarily have to call them. They've indicated that. They've said.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'll just announce it was. Yes. Okay. Okay. So I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lowenthal and a second from Councilman Richardson. Well, okay. Well, the first the first motion was actually see of mind has Richardson and then Gonzales did the second one. So in that way, you have Mr. Clarke. Yeah, I have Richardson. Correct. Yeah, it's it's Richardson. That's right. That's what it it's it says. Okay so the motions by Vice Marie Lowenthal. The second is by Councilman Richardson. Okay. Now, I think the confusion again that I am.
Speaker 9: Confused.
Speaker 0: Is that on the bottom motion. So at the top it is motion to approve recommendation. It is long thought. Richardson then below and black. It says Lowenthal Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: That's the next motion.
Speaker 0: Right? That one have been verbalized.
Speaker 9: So I may have struck that second motion too quickly. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: So I think we're going to build on Lowenthal Richardson, which was the first motion. So all those in favor for the first item, please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then we're going to go on to the second part.
Speaker 9: Which is the second motion which I'd like to make, is to rescind council, city council resolution numbers, resolution dash zero six, dash 0003 and resolution dash 14, dash 0030 relating to the former ordinance.
Speaker 0: And the second was by Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 9: Was correct.
Speaker 0: Please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 9: And the third motion is to adopt the attached resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit the amendment to Title 21 to the California Coastal Commission for a finding of conformance with the local coastal plan citywide. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 5.72.200; by adding Section 21.15.1855; and by repealing City Council Resolution Nos. RES-06-0003 and RES-14-0030, all relating to the Downtown Dining and Entertainment District, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0006 | Speaker 1: The next hearing. Item number two is a report from Public Works Department with the recommendation received supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use and adopt a resolution ordering the vacation of Salina Court and that portion of the east west alley north of Anaheim Street. This is in District one.
Speaker 0: Okay. Turn this over to the city manager.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff report.
Speaker 4: Will be done by our Malloy and director.
Speaker 11: Of Public Works.
Speaker 14: Under a mayor and city council members. This is the second time that you're seeing this item. Basically, on December 2nd, you adopted a resolution for vacating the set, Ali. Tonight's decision is to to vacate after the posting. This item has come to your attention on December 2nd, and also it was approved by a planning commission on December 19th.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for that. I'm going to go ahead and now turn this over to if is any public comment on the hearing. Seeing Non Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 8: Just want to say thank you to the public works department. This was, I think, the easiest vacation for an alley that we've ever done. So just thank you for that.
Speaker 0: Great. And then we have a motion and a second by Councilmember Richardson. All those in favor, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries a vote. Yes.
Speaker 0: Consent. | Resolution | 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 Solana Court and a portion of the east/west alley north of Anaheim Street. (District 1) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_14-1075 | Speaker 0: Okay. Now we are moving on to the regular agenda. We have we do have one piece of unfinished business first, which is item number 20. So I'm going to go, Mr. Kirk, January 20.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. It's a report from the Office of Council Member Rex Richardson and Council Member Alison with the recommendation receive a report from the Department of Human Services and Public Works on the status of the North Long Beach Hills own initiative and request that both departments explore a partnership with the Uptown Property and Community Association on the creation of a mobile application focused on mobility, health and local businesses as part of the North Long Beach Heal program.
Speaker 0: Councilor Richardson.
Speaker 13: I'd like to ask for a staff report first.
Speaker 11: Certainly mayor and council members. I'm going to turn this over to our Health and Human Services Director Kelly Hall to report on the heels on.
Speaker 6: Good evening, honorable mayor and Council Members. Just thank you for this opportunity to provide an update of the Hill Zone. And we've had a couple of different fitness zones go in. The College Park was completed with the Clippers event last fall and we also are in the current are currently implementing a fitness zone in Halton Park which will be in place by the end of September. At the same time, we're looking at hydration stations. It was one of those things that during the youth photo voice project, they talked about it a lot. And so hydration stations allow you to fill up your water bottles and things in the different parts. So there'll be two in Hilton Park and one in College Park that are aligned with the fitness zones. In addition, we've implemented a walking loop in Hilton Park with City Fabric. They worked with our staff from the Community Health Bureau and they finalized the route and the signage has been installed so people can walk around and read different exercises to do. We've also worked very closely with the Cal State University, Long Beach Department of Kinesiology, the Beach Wellness Program, and they're conducting fitness classes at the Hutton Park Community Center, and they've developed really a great following. A lot of neighborhood residents are there. They're doing that. They're doing the fitness classes also as part of the grant. We do have an MOU with the Department of Public Works to create an app, and this app is to encourage walking, bicycling, healthy choices by helping people find nearby events and local community resources, as well as good walking and bicycling routes. This is the app is really focused at the hills zone, but we're also focused to build it. So it's scalable to include other neighborhoods. Community resources might include nearby activities, events, opportunities for active living at local parks, um, health centers, libraries, schools, farmers markets, community gardens and other points of interest. And they also for healthier trip making that might include walking your bike routes as well as transit options with recommended routes based on the user's location and chosen destinations. The Coalition for Healthy North Long Beach will be meeting on January 21st to discuss all of the final deliverables. And the Coalition is planning to host a broader community meeting in February to ensure that the current implementation strategies incorporate all of the local resident feedback. Um, we invite the Uptown Property and Community Association to participate in these meetings with the Healthy North Long Beach and in the community meeting in February to engage in the dialog about the app to determine its functionalities moving forward. And with that, I take questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 13: Thank you. So I just want to say that in 2012, City of Long Beach received this grant from Kaiser Permanente to establish the Hill's own program. And now we're and we've just entered 2015. It was a three year commitment of $1 million over the course of three years. I think the health department has really demonstrated over this time how to squeeze blood out of a turnip, not only to do that, but how to really make a major impact here. This zone was designed to help help folks to make healthy choices about access to fresh fruits and vegetables. We've seen a lot of work, a lot of of positive outcomes as a result a direct result of this grant. The purpose of this was not only just to receive an update, but secondly, to to acknowledge that when we began this process and we set out some goals like creating a mobile app, like starting a farmer's market , the communities changed. There are a lot, lot more partners, a lot more activity here. And so what might have begun as a concept for a simple, safe, rustic school mobile app has turned into something totally different and much greater now with the potential partnership of our business community as well as other departments. So the purpose of this was really to encourage our Health Department and the Department of Public Works to work with our business district to to change this mobile app and expand to expand its potential. You know, there an opportunity for us to, you know, we've got this open streets event happening in in the spring. And I'd love to see how we can align the launch of this app with that event somehow. I'd love to see how we can integrate our businesses and and and a lot of the other excitement that's happened in the area with the new community center, so on and so forth. So that's really the gist of this. And that said, I make the motion as written.
Speaker 0: There's been a motion seconded by Councilmember Austin. Any public comment on the item? So please cast your votes. Oh, there is. Please come down. There's a comment. Okay. Make.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers My name is Lorraine Parker. I'm the property manager for the Uptown Property and Community Association. I'm here this evening to express my support to explore the partnership with the North Long Beach Hills own initiative, the Uptown Property Community Association. I wanted to say we are celebrating our one year anniversary, so we're very proud of the programs that we've accomplished over the last year. And we're really looking forward to upgrading the city in the heel zone district, as you guys have done here this evening. And looking forward to this mobile app and really ramping up the the North Long Beach area with this initiative. And we look forward to the partnership. So thank you very much and have a good evening.
Speaker 0: Next week.
Speaker 11: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members.
Speaker 4: My name is Phil Phillips. I'm here. I am in the ninth district. I'm on the board of the.
Speaker 1: Top Town Property and Community Association.
Speaker 4: I was at a CORNISH Club breakfast this morning in Bixby Knolls, and Shawn Durran, who is Lorraine's assistant manager, was the guest speaker after his presentation on the organization's accomplishments in its first year of operation. He was asked about the organization's.
Speaker 11: Cooperation with the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Associations if they engage the neighborhood associations. He said that was planned for the next for the future. His Uptown business. District is new and it's had a lot of accomplishments this year. It's one of the goals of this organization is to foster greater interest by the community in the businesses in the North Palm Beach area. And it is incumbent on these businesses to contribute to the well-being of the residents in their community. And I think this.
Speaker 1: Motion is a first step in doing that.
Speaker 4: So I urge your vote on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Seeing no other public comment, we do have a motion. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Miller. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Motion carries a protest. And.
Speaker 0: Next item, please. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive a report from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Public Works on the status of the North Long Beach HEAL Zone Initiative, with an emphasis on activities related to mobility and active living; and
Request both departments to explore a partnership with the Uptown Property and Community Association on the creation of a mobile application focused on mobility, health and local businesses as part of the North Long Beach HEAL Zone. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_14-0717 | Speaker 0: Next item, please.
Speaker 1: Item 23 is a report from the office of Councilwoman Lena Gonzales, chair of the Elections Oversight Committee. And there's a recommendation to request the city attorney to prepare amendments to the municipal code relating to office holder accounts.
Speaker 0: Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 8: Yes. So I first wanted to as the chair of the Elections Oversight Committee, I wanted to thank our committee members, Councilmember Muranga and Councilmember Mongo, for their diligence in helping to bring our election finance codes up to law. I'm sorry. Finance laws up to state code. In addition to modernizing a lot of our antiquated policies currently, such as office holder account moneys. And I believe these monies would allow council members to reach out to local nonprofits and participate in a meaningful way in their local communities, such as helping organizations to sustain and grow and bringing up the amounts for the officeholder account still puts Long Beach under the average. For instance, the city of Anaheim has about 1500 dollars contribution limit with no cap on how much to raise. Just to give you an idea. So I would. Like to make the motion, although someone else made the motion to approve. But second, I was like in that, but I'd love to move this forward.
Speaker 0: There's a motion by Councilmember Ranga and seconded by Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: That's okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: On on the item to Councilwoman Gonzalez makes the motion and Councilwoman Gonzales and Councilmember Ranga has made a second on on this item. Let me first take public comment and then I do have some council questions. Any public comment on the item saying not in closing public comment. Let me go back to Council Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm interested in a little bit of background in terms of why we think we need to raise the limit. So I'm hoping that someone on the committee can maybe educate me a little bit on why we need to change the limits at this time. Sure.
Speaker 8: Well, I know that we had lengthy discussions over 2 hours, I think, in each of our elections oversight committee meetings. But I think the the issue here was that we had still been behind relative to other cities and comparative to other cities actually have a chart, like I had mentioned, City of Anaheim, which is fairly comparative to our city, has a contribution limit of 1500 dollars per person and no spending limits at all. And the city of L.A., some something similar as well. So, you know, this allows us more opportunity to be able to fundraise, but in a way that would give back to our local communities. I mean, officeholders are intended for that. They're not intended for specific campaign purposes. It is to give back to our local communities, which many of us have done already with our officeholder accounts.
Speaker 5: And I appreciate that. Thank you so much for sharing that. I do. I. I. Respect the work that the members of the committee have done and really do defer to you in terms of the work that you've done and your recommendation that carries a lot of weight with me. My concerns are whether in terms of let me just go first to office holder, whether we really need that. $25,000 seems like a lot of money for us to be raising. And what concerns me is that our service on the council to a municipality will turn focus into fundraising and that much of our term will be committed to trying to fundraise. And that certainly is not an area that we should be focused on during our term of service. I understand that getting elected requires money, and I completely understand that having gone through the process. But I am concerned that our focus as electeds will become more emphasized on raising money that we may not necessarily need. I know that there are a lot of programs that we can do for our district, and I do know that in the past some have raised the maximum amount and some districts haven't raised any money in their officeholder account, and yet they're still able to service their client, their their constituents the best way that they can , given the resources that are available to the city without having to have fundraisers and things. So that's that's my my biggest concern is that it's going to create an environment where fundraising is going to be a priority and something that is going to be an unnecessary focus for all of us. And I just was wondering if that amount came from some some study of maybe what has happened in Long Beach in terms of people reaching the maximum and wanting more or needing more to do certain events. I know that in the third district we haven't always maxed out on the office holder, and there's a lot of pressure when that amount is raised to 25,000 too, to find the money and fundraise. To do that. I just don't want our focus to be on fundraising. I want it to be on doing what we can to serve. So having said that, I you know, that's why I wanted to know kind of what the thought process was, because I do respect the work that the committee has put into this. But some of us may not enjoy fundraising, and so we just want to do our service. And this kind of raises the limits to the point where it makes fundraising an issue.
Speaker 0: Okay. The other I know you asked a question of the committee members, so let me ask, have the other member of the committee also if there's anything else to add, and then I'll go through the speaker's list. Councilman Mongeau.
Speaker 7: So and Lina knows this very well. I, too, was concerned about potentially raising these limits. On the other hand, there are lots of things that this community needs that I am not comfortable spending our tax dollars on. And so one of the things that this does for us as council members is it empowers us to be able to fund concerts in the park and other things where general fund money that really needs to go to pay the salaries of our employees and pay for the streets and sidewalks and trees. So this this is another opportunity to help in that way. Additionally, from discussions of this fundraising opportunity, I hope to bring before the EDF sponsorship opportunities where those organizations would be able to sponsor the city directly. But recently, when approached by someone and told that they tried to sponsor something in Parks and Rec and they got a a list back that they could buy a park bench, I think that they were looking to be more generous and perhaps sponsor the entire concert in the Park series, and that mechanism does not currently exist. And so this is a tool in the meantime to be able to fund a lot of the programs that Dee does in his community, the concerts in the park that are in both of our communities. And we have a lot of single mom events in our side of town as well. And so this is an interim mechanism until the city is in a position to have greater sponsorship and partnership from nonprofits and corporate businesses.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Councilmember Ranga and then Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 2: In regards to the limits, it's that limited. Are there not enough? Basically, when we're looking at what we specifically if you look at that, I'm not getting paid for being on the city council. I am doing my community service here. So the only way that I am able to fund any activities outside of the office is through my office holder account and my office holder account. Basically, right at this point in time, I was fortunate I was able to finish my campaign with a surplus to put into an office holder account that helped me in my first initial weeks and months of office to be able to sponsor a few events. So what this does basically is provides us an avenue as elected officials to use our own officeholder accounts to provide toy giveaways, to sponsor events, in part to donate ads or buy ads or buy programs for community based organizations, for non-profits to help them in their fundraising. It's an opportunity for us to give back to the community that elected us by not using our own office accounts to do that. And like I say, and specifically me, I have no access to that account whatsoever. I'm not getting paid, and I can't use the office to pay for anything other than what I can do myself personally through my officeholder kind of candidate. The other thing you mentioned in regards to changing our focus, the focus is our focus. If we focus ourselves on providing our community service. That is our emphasis. I have not changed my focus in terms of my community in regard to service to them. I am not fundraising. I am not changing my emphasis to community service and to community fundraising. And that is not my purpose here. My purpose is to serve in the city council, to serve my constituents and end the city of Long Beach. If I were to do that, if I were to start changing my focus into solely fundraising so that I could do these other things, then I'm in here for the wrong reason . So I don't take your criticism lightly in that respect. I do respect it, but I don't you know, it's it's something that I think we have to put our emphasis on. What are we here for? And if we're here to serve our communities, we need to be given. Greer it. We have to have the tools for us to do that. And one of those tools is by having an office holder account that will provide us the avenue and the means by which to help our constituents in our non-profits around the city. The other one last item that was brought up, and that's about, you know, being more susceptible to special interests through fundraising. Again, that that that's up to the that's up to the candidate. That's up to the elected official as to who and what they they go after and what they accept. And it's a it's an issue that is personal to every candidate and to every elected official and how they spend those moneys. And I'm sure that I've talked to many potential contributors, not only to me, but to others as well, who say, you know, we're just going to give you your donation, we're going to help you with your officeholder account. But you're free to do with that money as you please. And there's no commitments to it. There's no ties into it. It's so that we can provide and do the work that we want to do for our constituents. So I just want to emphasize that that the officeholder account is ours to use in our discretion. At our discretion, and it's our funds.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 13: Thanks. So I think that the committee's done great work. And I don't want I don't want to justify the need for tremendous need that's really in our community. I think most folks understand the needs of their Viera, their respective communities were elected to represent. I think that our council and our communities, our city has come through a difficult time over recent years. I remember when council offices were hit with $20,000 budget cuts consecutive consecutive years, staff was diminished from six to 5 to 4, some offices three. And a lot of the expectations that were that our community has, based on previous experience in terms of civic engagement parades and our community involvement in community groups, in nonprofits, we've had to pass that off to the private sector. This is a direct. We cut our budgets, but we didn't live, lift our raise our ability to raise those private dollars. So I think that this is appropriate. Now, that said, I do have a few questions for the city attorney. Just what I know that we're raising the limits today, but is it appropriate for us to talk about raising contribution limits is going to be more difficult to raise the higher number with the same low contribution level.
Speaker 6: That isn't currently been discussed yet, but it would be.
Speaker 11: Appropriate. The agenda item.
Speaker 6: Contemplates looking at that entire section.
Speaker 4: Which does include the contribution limit, which I believe is currently $500 per calendar year.
Speaker 13: And it's 500 for City Council and mayor.
Speaker 3: I believe that is correct. Okay.
Speaker 13: That said, I would want to offer a friendly that. So it's 500 for both, right?
Speaker 8: Well, currently it's a 500 and then I believe 754 for City, which I don't.
Speaker 13: Think is 750.
Speaker 0: I think I think for Mr. Mays cricket from for for officeholder. I think the seven fifties is certainly for a campaign cycle. It may be 500 officeholder for everyone. Um, I'm not.
Speaker 3: I don't believe, I don't have a.
Speaker 0: It's, it's five or 750. It's one of the two.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I believe it's five. Um, based on the research I follow what the commission, what the committee did. My understanding is that it's 500 across the board. I'd like to offer a friendly to the maker of the motion to change the contribution limits for council members from 500 to 750 and change for citywide. So mayor, city attorney, so on and so forth from 500 to 1000. And then I. Last time this came to the council, I expressed I think if limits are going to raise, they should be the ratio should maintain be consistent. So if we're going to triple citywide elected officials limit, we should triple the city council limit as well. So that would take us to 30,000. So would you be agreeable to those friendlies?
Speaker 8: Sure, I'd be agreeable to that.
Speaker 13: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. So just to repeat the motion on the floor is to raise officeholder limits to for council 2000 for city wide to 75,000 and to raise the level of contribution for council to 750 and for city wide to 1000. That's the motion on the floor. Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 4: To me. Thank you, Mayor. What I'd really like to see at this point, I'd really like to thank Counsel Gonzales and the Elected Oversight Committee, you know, for the work that they put into this item. And I, like I said, I see it every day, especially with the district my size and what I'm dealing with every day . And it's really been an asset to us. But I think this is a great, great item that you brought to the floor. And and I think this will, you know, definitely be good for all of us and the changes you plan on putting together. So I want to thank you for that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank Councilmember Price for the questions that she had asked. And I think at times we forget that we have so many new council members, and these are not all issues that they've necessarily been following. There was a time not to suggest that we should go back to this time, but council members had a discretionary fund that was allocated to them. I think several of us remember this. This was Mr. Mayor's laughing. It was $100,000, I believe, if I'm not mistaken. And that was utilized to support organizations, nonprofits, schools, very good causes. And given our budget crisis, that just was not possible anymore. And so what we did is we looked to our officeholder accounts to. Compensate for the loss in that in that amount. But there was no compensation. It was not one for one what we were able to do with $100,000 a year. We now try to do with 1/10 of that, and it wasn't a 10,000 all the time. That was just a recent change as well, and I hope no council member feels pressured to fundraise. I think what this also allows is for those of us who don't have the personal financial means to send ourselves to various events, and I think of the key events which are rightfully fundraisers on their own. Sometimes we get. Com tickets, but really our staff should be there. Our staff is the one that does all the work. And so to send three staff members can cost up to $750 to do so. And these are the things that we use our officeholder accounts for is one to support these nonprofits also the schools. A lot of our schools in our neighborhood, some of our neighborhoods don't have the strong PTA fundraising capacity that some of the other schools do. And that's just a fact of life. And so a lot of us try to make up for that difference, make up for that fundraising difference in the small amounts we're able to contribute through our office holder account. So I cherish this. I don't look at it as a campaign expense. I don't look at it as a way to campaign. But really, for those of you who are out there working hard in your communities to be able to do so by recognizing the neighborhood leaders and their efforts. And so it's not that different from schools that have PTA that have strong fundraising arms. It is really to supplement what the school district is able to do. I view it in the same way, and I thank Councilmember Price for her questions. They they do raise some issues. We don't want the focus to shift, but the focus won't shift. I know each individual on this council and I'm very clear about what each of your focus is, and it really is in your public service. But you also acknowledge that you want to recognize the stakeholders and partners that are working with you and support them in their efforts. So for that, I'm thankful to you, Councilmember Gonzalez, for the hard work. Your committee and I support this motion, including the friendly amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Concern, Austin.
Speaker 12: Well, a council member or Vice Mayor Lowenthal, you said, took just about every word out of my mouth here.
Speaker 9: I read your mind.
Speaker 12: I believe if handled responsibly, these officeholder accounts allow us as council members to have a greater opportunity to serve our communities. It's no secret this isn't done in the dark, that the contributions that we would receive for these officeholders account are part of a very transparent process, that it's open, it's full disclosure to the public. It's our option to raise money or not raise money for this for or for these for officeholder accounts are currently raise money for my officeholder account once a year, and I forget about it after that. And whatever we do, we're able to serve to serve our community better with an optional pot of money to work with. I can assure you, Councilmember Price, and I can assure the entire city as a lobbyist, my focus will not change. Whether or not this passes are not going to be focused on doing a good work in my district and for the city of Long Beach. I think it's very important for us to realize and recognize that Long Beach is a big city, too. It's full of great neighborhoods. It's full of a lot of different issues. We have a lot of different community organizations and they are constantly making request of us as kids city council members to help. Can you help us fundraise? Can you help buy a ticket to our fundraiser? Can you sponsor a few children to go to camp? And we do that a lot, oftentimes out of our own pockets or with the limited resources that we are allowed to raise outside of our city budgets. And so raising these these this limit actually what I think what will help us in our ability to serve our communities, and I will support this along with the friendly amendment as well. And I want to thank the Elections Committee for for doing this great work. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 8: Well, I just want to say thank you collectively to each of you for your thoughtful comments. I know that this wasn't definitely not a fleeting thought for us. This was a really mindful decision. We wanted to make sure that we were invested in in our communities. And I think fundraising is a vital component to what we do. I mean, like Councilmember Austin said, it's not something that we take very lightly. It's it's certainly a very vital component, especially with the city of our size. And so many of us do give back and will continue to give back, and we do so through these officeholder accounts. And so thank you for the friendly amendment, and I'd like to go forward and vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. And finally, we have Councilwoman Price. I'm gonna go to a vote.
Speaker 5: I want to thank my colleagues, too, for their informative comments. I do want to I want to especially thank Councilman Richardson, because you do point out something that's first of all, thank you for your very respectful response, because I think we should have a body where we can express concerns. And just to be clear, I didn't criticize anyone. Councilmember Muranga said that with respect to my criticism, I wasn't criticizing anyone or any philosophy. I was just asking questions and raising some concerns. I have no doubt that everybody on this present body is always going to do the right thing. No issues whatsoever. My concern is we set policy moving forward and the decisions we make today stay with this body. Long after that, we are gone. So. Understanding that different districts have different needs and different concerns. I appreciate the thoughtful comments that were made. I think I've raised my concerns in regards to our focus, and Councilman Durango raised a good point about making sure that this is something that is utilized to help our communities and and not as something that is a special interest focus, that it's it's something that's really to broaden and help our communities in general. And I think I definitely believe that this body is mindful of that and would hope that future bodies would be as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify the motion, I clarified the motion, but we're also voting on all of 23, just as a reminder. And so it's it's there on your on your screen. We all have that. So, members, please go ahead and cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 0: Okay. That was a quick a quick screen. Okay. Thank you for that. Next item is 24. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare amendments to Long Beach Municipal Code Sections 2.01.380 and 2.01.1020, relating to Officeholder accounts. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_14-1081 | Speaker 0: Okay. That was a quick a quick screen. Okay. Thank you for that. Next item is 24.
Speaker 1: Adam, 24, is a report from the office of Councilwoman Stacy Mango, Chair of the Economic Development and Finance Committee, with a recommendation to approve an amendment to the Mississippi Code relative to increasing the city attorney's current settlement authority for government claims in litigation from 5000 to $50000.
Speaker 0: Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mayor. Our committee looks at and reviews a significant number of litigations annually. And. This body has asked that the city attorney continue to report to us on each and every one of those. And this motion would allow them to settle certain claims in a more timely manner, giving them a little bit more discretion. But we would still have the oversight and review of that. So I just want to be clear that we are not not looking at these anymore. We're actually going to be looking at more. We did not previously review the 1 to 5000. So with this committee we are reviewing all of them, which is a new thing for this committee. So there'll be additional oversight and we are looking for trends and other types of things as discussed in closed session today, which I cannot mention at this time, but I hope that we will have your support.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Seeing that. Councilman, your rank added You want to check out the motion that you want to comment or know.
Speaker 2: No, I basically I think the council member stated everything, but the one additional portion about this amendment amendment was the fact that it was first initiated in 1977, the something or other. So, I mean, it was long overdue.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Well, see, no public comment. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 0: In next item.
Speaker 1: Next item is the report from the from Councilwoman Stacey Mango, chair of the Economic Development Finance Committee, with a recommendation to direct the city manager to report back to the council within 30 days relative to a small business recruitment, retention and growth policy. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to approve amendment to the Long Beach Municipal Code Section 3.48.010, related to increasing the City Attorney’s current settlement authority for Government Claims and litigation from $5,000 to $50,000. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_14-1082 | Speaker 1: Next item is the report from the from Councilwoman Stacey Mango, chair of the Economic Development Finance Committee, with a recommendation to direct the city manager to report back to the council within 30 days relative to a small business recruitment, retention and growth policy.
Speaker 0: Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Mayor EDI and committee has been very active this year. We have worked with local businesses to address many of the things that may be hindering them from both locating in and growing in Long Beach. Both Councilmember Price and myself advocated for local businesses along the campaign trail, along with many of my colleagues. And this is us following through with a pilot program to see what initiative programs are most beneficial to both growing our local Long Beach businesses and encouraging others to come here. I want to say that I have great respect for my colleagues, especially in making it a priority to take care of the businesses that are in Long Beach first. And so with that, I appreciate the Economic Development Finance Committee's work and the work of our finance office and the city manager's office. These are creative solutions during hard economic times that we hope will be productive, and we will review their progress and then come back to this board with additional recommendations. Councilwoman.
Speaker 0: Is it? Is there emotion? Councilman Price, you've made the motion and then Councilman Mongo. So, Councilman Price.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I, too, want to thank John Gross's office and Amy Botox office and all the staff that were involved in coming up. Actually, I don't know if Amy's office was involved in this. The other one. That was the other item. Well, I just want to thank her anyway, because.
Speaker 3: She.
Speaker 5: Does a lot of work. Hello. And the city manager for really helping make this concept a reality. When we started off with the idea of coming up with some small business incentives, we had talked about trying to waive business license fees for the first year. And when the figures came back in terms of what that would do to our general fund, it was it was shocking that the figure was very high and definitely not something that we could incorporate into our budget given our current fiscal climate and our future fiscal climate. So when I spoke with the city manager, I asked him to really help me come up with some creative solutions where we can start with some basic preliminary steps to incentivize and encourage small businesses, business growth and opportunities within our city. And he did just that with the help of Jon GROSS. So I want to thank you for coming together with coming up with this incentive package and for allowing us an opportunity to show our business community that we are, in fact, business friendly and we are doing our very best. Given the current fiscal climate, to give them as many breaks as we can when they choose us as a partner, and hopefully in the future, as the economy gets better, we'll be able to do more. But these are some baby steps that we hope will help the businesses that fall into these four categories continue to grow and thrive in our city. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Admiral Lowenthal.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to thank both Councilmember Mongeau and the committee members, Price and Urunga, for your focus on attracting and retaining small businesses in Long Beach. These are the lifeblood of our commercial and neighborhood serving corridors, and I'm very appreciative of your work here. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 8: I, too, wanted to thank you. I got really excited when I saw this item because it's especially it includes manufacturing, which is really wonderful. Just a real quick question. Do we foresee who do we foresee taking on this responsibility? I know that would probably be in your report, but at this time, who do we foresee?
Speaker 11: Mr. West Mayor, councilmembers. This would be in the finance department under business licenses. Jason McDonnell would be the key person at this time.
Speaker 8: Okay, great. Well, great work. Councilmember Mongo and the committee, you guys did a good job at this.
Speaker 0: Great. There's a believed with you. I don't think we need public comment yet. Let me do public comment on this item. Okay. No public comment. There's a motion to approve. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 0: Great. Next item. And that is we're going to make a clerk request, I think. And just talking to some of the council members as this is moving forward, it I think it's easier to not lock in the motion. You know, how the motion moves from the black screen. I wouldn't lock that in until I'm ready to call for the vote. That way it remains on the screen for the council. Right up front. Okay. Next item, please. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to direct City Manager to report back to the City Council in 30 days to fully develop the suggested four options that the Committee has recommended as incentives to encourage small business recruitment, retention and growth. The incentive options to be developed include: [1] Incentive to relocate or expand in Long Beach; [2] Manufacturing incentive; [3] Incentive for new employees; and [4] Incentive for renovation and construction. The report should include estimated costs and details of implementation and subsequent program evaluation so that the program is ready to be implemented should that be the direction of the City Council. The program should be designed to be simple, easy to administer, and with minimum costs. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0023 | Speaker 1: I'm 28. Is a report from the Development Services Department with the recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement with California Board of State and Community Corrections for the Gang Reduction and Intervention Program in amount up to $1.5 million and to authorize an in-kind match of $330,000 per year.
Speaker 0: I got a motion by Councilman Richardson, a second second by Ringa. Is there any public comment on the item seen then? Please cast your votes. Oh, there is. Please come forward.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Members of the council, my name is Rene Castro and I'm the chair for the Long Beach Group program. And along with me, I have this young lady who's been my mentor over the years since I've been in Long Beach. When? Introduce yourself.
Speaker 6: Lena is my councilperson.
Speaker 7: Ginetta McAlpin. Lena is my.
Speaker 6: Councilperson.
Speaker 1: And Susie Price is my councilperson, proud resident of the third district.
Speaker 4: I spend most of my time in the sixth, though.
Speaker 1: So I just wanted to really congratulate staff on this city, staff that worked on this. Angela Reynolds and Teresa Gomez are the kind of staff who don't often ask for recognition. So Jeanette and I as as the chairs for the group program, we wanted to come out tonight and congratulate them. This time of fiscal constraint. They have a $1.5 million grant going to gang reduction, and specifically youth at risk. Girls at risk tend to young women at risk. 10 to 24 years of age is just an enormous value for our community and know that Jeanette and I are going to do our best to make sure that these funds are implemented and to maximize the benefit for our community. And I just also want to thank you all for your leadership and commitment to addressing this very, very touching issue in our community. And there's a lot we can do in Long Beach, and our rallying cry and our in our group meetings is zero homicides. That's really our vision and including shootings. So thank you again for your leadership. And congratulations again to city staff.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I, too, want to thank staff for pursuing opportunities like this. I am involved in my district attorney's office grip program. I've been involved for many years now, and every Friday, when GRIP is in session, I go to an elementary school with at risk youth in Costa mesa, and I work with the fourth, fifth and sixth graders, and I take on a mentor as often as I can. I'm proud to say a couple of years ago, my mentor went from being an at risk, or sometimes we call it an opportunity youth to becoming student body president of his sixth grade, which I was very proud of. But I think it's a very worthwhile effort because if you can make a difference, even in the life of one child, you're making a huge difference in society. I do love the aspect of this grant that focuses on girls. The focus on on girls. Because so often when we're doing gang education and we're talking to them about the jumping in process and the clothing and all of that, so much of it is focused on the male students and the female students get a lot of the same pressures and they have a lot of the same risks associated with getting involved in drugs and violence. And so I think it's it's great to have a grant that focuses specifically on that population. And I commend our staff for always looking at ways to enhance the opportunities that we can provide for our residents in terms of outreach through the use of grant funding. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 8: Thank you both, Jeanette and Rene. I know the work that you do is is just so tremendous for our communities and for our city, especially in the First District. I know that firsthand. I did actually do a small stint at Orange County probation, mentoring and tutoring youth. So the at risk element and I'm certainly aware of on that aspect, but also just in the district. I know tomorrow will be doing a really robust program with many of our city officials and our city staff for Washington Middle School, which a lot of those those children are are susceptible to gangs. And so this work that we're putting in now, I know, will lead to great results in the future. So thank you very much.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes. Yes. The next item is the report from Development Services and Financial Management, with the recommendation to authorize city manager to execute agreements with five companies for plan, review and inspection services in an amount not to exceed $450,000 per year with renewal options. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all necessary documents to receive and expend grant funding from the California Board of State and Community Corrections for the Gang Reduction, Intervention, and Prevention Program for an amount up to $1,500,000 over a three-year period beginning January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017;
Authorize a required in-kind match of $330,000 per year; and
Increase appropriations in the Community Development Grants Fund (SR 150) in the Department of Development Services (DV) by $500,000. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0026 | Speaker 1: Item 31 is a report from Long Beach gas and oil with the recommendation authorize city manager to create a separate line item on gas utility bills for recovery of regulatory costs associated with the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and increase appropriations in the Oil Department.
Speaker 0: Motion by Richardson second by Oranga. Any public comment on the item signal? Please cast your vote. Oh, there is a public comment and please.
Speaker 11: Look until 701 Cedar Avenue. I just had a quick question if you guys could ask this. Does this basically mean that that the moneys would go back to the gas company and that there would be an increase in rates or an increase to recover the subsidy? I know that there is a a global warming tax credit that I got on my energy bill. I'm wondering if that should.
Speaker 0: Have Mr. Gardner clarify that.
Speaker 4: What's going to happen is we're required, as of January 1st.
Speaker 1: To enter into the greenhouse gas program and purchase emission allowances.
Speaker 4: And so we have to participate in the auction, and we.
Speaker 1: Estimate that's going to cost about $1.5 million. And then through state law, we're allowed to require to charge that back to the customer so.
Speaker 3: That they realize the.
Speaker 4: Cost of that. And so you'll see a line item on your monthly gas bill.
Speaker 1: We expect it to be about $0.60 per bill.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. See no other public comment. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Next item. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to create a separate line item on gas utility bills for recovery of regulatory costs associated with Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; and increase appropriations in the Gas Fund (EF 301) in the Long Beach Gas and Oil Department (GO) by $1,500,000. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0028 | Speaker 1: Item 32 is a recommendation to adopt plans and specifications in the word of contract to all American asphalt in amount not to exceed $1.6 million for improvements on Santa Fe Avenue between Spring Street and Wardlow Road in District seven.
Speaker 0: Can I get a motion in a second? Your England Andrews. Any public comment on the item? CNN Please cast your votes. Oh, you rang a please speak.
Speaker 2: No, I just want to thank them for their diligence work. And it's been a long time project we're waiting for. For a long time. And I'm glad to see that they're going to proceed with that work. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Actually, the city attorney, did you want to say something real quick? No. Okay. See no public comment. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 0: Next item.
Speaker 1: I. Adam, 35, is a recommendation to adopt. Okay. I'm sorry, 30 3 a.m.. Item 33 is a recommendation from public works and financial management with the recommendation to adopt specifications and award a contract to five construction companies for anticipated and emergency construction repairs to various city city infrastructures and improvements performed under the method of job order contracting | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6965 for the Improvements on Santa Fe Avenue, between Spring Street and Wardlow Road; award the contract to All American Asphalt, of Corona, CA, in the amount of $1,526,407, and authorize a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $152,641, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,679,048; and authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto. (District 7) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0031 | Speaker 1: I. Adam, 35, is a recommendation to adopt. Okay. I'm sorry, 30 3 a.m.. Item 33 is a recommendation from public works and financial management with the recommendation to adopt specifications and award a contract to five construction companies for anticipated and emergency construction repairs to various city city infrastructures and improvements performed under the method of job order contracting and to adopt a resolution authorizing city manager to execute a contract with Gordon Group for an amount not to exceed $341,250 for project software and professional services.
Speaker 0: Can I get a motion? I got motion by Andrews and your Ringo. Any public comment?
Speaker 4: Very good. Clark has the address. I want to make sure that whatever project this comes forward for and what is it applied to, that it first comes before the council and has the approval of the council. So we don't run into nefarious projects such as we get out of the Tidelands group that marches forward under a blanket . And the next thing you know, they're undertaking a project that was not approved or that was publicly vetted. So again. Certainly enter into a contract, but before the contract is, any work is done in a given district. It has to come back to the council. Were the details outlined. So people know that they're not going to have a a power or a utility box placed right in their front yard or rip out something that if what is there they feel is needed, so forth. You got to put the foot on the neck. To make sure the money is well spent and consistent with the neighborhood in which the project is taking is is going forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 3: We?
Speaker 1: We have another speaker here.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 8: I just wanted to thank our public works director who skipped me, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 3: But that's a sorry.
Speaker 8: Just. We had a great discussion about this, and I understand that this will streamline the process for you, make things a lot easier for you. So thank you very much for the information you gave me.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I keep looking at the old screen with no names on it. It's lovely. Let's take a vote on this.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 0: Next item.
Speaker 1: Item 34 is from the city attorney with the recommendation to declare an ordinance amending the municipal code relating to speed limits. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. R-7004 and award contracts to New Creation Builders, of Bellflower, CA, KLD Construction, of Los Angeles, CA, BiTech Construction, of Buena Park, CA, Exbon Development, of Garden Grove, CA, and Thomasville Construction, of Fullerton, CA for both anticipated and unanticipated (emergency) construction of various City infrastructure repairs and improvements to be performed under the method of Job Order Contracting (JOC), each in an amount not to exceed $3,500,000 for a period of three years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 per renewal, at the discretion of the City Manager;
Adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with the Gordian Group, of Greenville, South Carolina, for access rights to their proprietary Pro-Gen software and to provide professional services to manage the JOC program in an amount not to exceed $341,250 for a period of three years, with the option of renewing for two additional one-year terms; and
Authorize City Manager to execute am | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1072 | Speaker 2: Item number 11, Communication from Mayor Robert Garcia. Recommendation is support. House of Representatives Bill 5624 The Economy in Motion, the National Multi-Modal Model and Sustainable Freight Infrastructure Act by Congressman Alan Lowenthal.
Speaker 1: Congressman, you have the floor.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you. First, I want to say what a pleasure it is to be back used to sit where just where everyone is sitting between Lena and Susie right there. And so just seat and second district and it is a mouthful to say that. And so I'm pleased to say it. This is called I'm Here to Talk to You About Economy in Motion, the National Multimodal and Sustainable Freight Infrastructure Act. You know, I used to say when I was on the city council that maybe this is a quick way of saying it is that, you know, we have developed here in Long Beach and this was 15 years ago, 20 years ago. And throughout that, my time in the state legislature that we have developed here in Long Beach, world class port. So does the Port of L.A. We are really we bring in 40% of the nation's cargo and then we dump these world class port into a third world infrastructure system, whether it's our old, decrepit freeways or rail systems that go through neighborhoods that what we don't have throughout our nation, although it's most critical to our nation, is any national investment strategy for freight infrastructure, how we're going to move the goods throughout this nation that are coming into the port of Long Beach, coming into the Port of L.A. how are we going to keep them here if we have a national freight infrastructure system, one that's efficient, it's connected, it's multi-modal, that throughout the nation we can figure out where to, you know, so that we have resiliency. This is an idea whose time has come. The president has now called for a a national freight program. The secretary of Transportation, Fox, has called for a national freight program for Congress to work on this. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee came out here to visit, had hearings actually in the Port of Los Angeles and called for a national freight program. And there's a national freight advisory committee, which we already had members from Long Beach and from our local community that are on it have also called for a national freight program. Well, that's what 5624 does. It starts that conversation is very complete national freight program, infrastructure program, with a dedicated funding stream. It says this is what, you know, the technical part of what it is. It's a formula that states, if they engage and set up what was first called for in map 21, very few states did it. California was one on a voluntary basis developed a state advisory committee that the that the kinds of projects that we're going to develop are going to come from the bottom up. They're going to come from the from the stakeholders here. We're going to have a state plan. And out of that state plan, based upon if you do your state plan, which also has environmental goals and talks about how this state plan is going to reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and it's also going to build infrastructure. On the formula side of that, what each if you do this, if each state does this and has their has their state plans, they will be eligible for funds from this California being having the most existing infrastructure and southern California around the port areas having the vast majority of that will receive the largest or is will be those projects will be eligible by formula to be. If they're in the state plan to be eligible California will get $330 million a year of for projects.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 5: Also in addition to these formulas they will also be competitive grants that will be grants that cities states.
Speaker 4: Together.
Speaker 5: Regions can come together and say we really need this. And of those competitive grants, there will be a certain percentage of those will be set aside for electrification and zero emission grants. And so that the kinds of things that we've talked about here and saying we'd really like to do it through our neighborhoods, but there's no money to do this. There will be money for those communities that want to create competitive grants that move us towards zero emission. Now, the largest thing is how are you going to pay for this? How are you going to have each having both a competitive grants and also formula grants? The way we're going to pay for this and what this puts out on the table is that we have to have a dedicated and a sustainable amount of revenue source. And in the revenue source, which will generate in this bill about $8 billion a year, 4 billion for formulas, 4 billion for competitive grants. Of that money, it will be a user fee. Those that that if you own the goods and you're moving goods from Long Beach to Chicago, you you pay to a carrier, whether it's the rail system or the trucking lines, you pay a certain you get you pay to move your goods. Well, a certain percentage, 1% of that will be in what is called a waybill. And that will be put in a. National Trust Fund, just as we have the Highway Trust Fund, which is your gasoline when you buy gasoline, that's what pays for the highways in the country. This will also those of the users of the highways pay for that. We will have the users of freight pay for the infrastructure that they will benefit by, because it will all go back into this into this $0.01. Secretary of transportation has been working with our office on this they want is many bills they like this bill in terms of the complexity and I'm not saying they're buying into the funding stream that's going to be done at the national debate. But if we really want to have freight infrastructure, we have to figure out how we're going to pay for it as a nation. And it is not going to come out of the general fund or the income tax. That is not going to be where it's going to come from. And with the sequester, the only way you can have money in from existing money is if you figure out who you're going to take it from and then figure out how they're going to replace it. So this is a it's going to be an exciting what we're trying to do is to map 21, which is the reauthorization of all of our Highway Trust Fund and our transit funds, which come from the highway and come from the excise tax on gasoline. They will all be running out this spring. This is the time. They, too, have a freight as part of a national highway, as part of our MAP 21 reauthorization. So that's really what I'm here for. I already have the support of the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and lots of ports throughout the nation in terms of the Coalition for American Gateways and Trade Card is want this bill to be part of the discussion. The Port of Long Beach has already endorsed it. I would hoped that the local city council will also this will be of great benefit to our region. This will enable us to not only shape our port, but to do the kinds of work that will help to shape the nations. And we in California have spent so money, so much time creating this kind of structure that what we're doing is basically taking it to the nation and saying, this is what we'd like to do , and so I hope you can have your support.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Congressman. And I, I put this on the agenda today because I'm a big supporter, obviously, of the bill that you're that you're working on. And I think you're you always represent our interests well and always have. And so with that, I'd like to get a motion for approval because there's a motion. And the second let me first if there's any public comment on the item. Okay. Seeing none that I'm going to. A couple members want to say a few words and then we'll go to the vote. Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 4: I want to thank you for coming here tonight. Since I did my first college report on you back when you were an assembly member, we met for the first time up until us working together on water issues for Long Beach. I'm thankful that you're here as many followers at home know, a few weeks ago, when we first discussed this. I was hesitant about the taxation on our trucks and our community and the businesses here, and I'm excited to hear that we're talking through those components. I'm glad that you also signed on on to Congresswoman Huntsville. I'll be supportive of your bill tonight, and I thank you for taking us to D.C. for us.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I, too, want to thank you for coming here tonight. I think a lot of people don't realize just how important of a function the port has for our city and that the various ports do for our nation as a whole, and looking for ways to be collaborative and forward thinking as the port industry changes and as the competition changes I think is very important. And I thank you for representing us and for bringing this forward. And I too will be supporting this measure.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: I, too, want to just thank you. I know we chatted about it. Yes. We and I really appreciate you just always bringing these issues forward to us and staying committed. Your dedication and leadership to Long Beach, but also just mainly to the port, is so very impactful and especially when it comes to environmental goods movement. I mean, that's always at the forefront of what you do. And we appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 4: So much. Just in what.
Speaker 5: Is a real I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you, Mayor. You know, first of all, I'd like to thank you, Congressman Lowenthal, for passing this bill. If passed, you know, this bill would allow the city and the port of Long Beach the necessary funding, you know, to pay ideas and movements, infrastructure and implement the changes needed to reduce, you know, greenhouse gas emission and local air pollution. You know, compared to the overall good it does for the economy and, you know, for the environment. And and I ask myself, is something well worth the effort that you put into this? And I hope everything goes well.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And with that, will Castro votes members, please cast your votes.
Speaker 5: Six zero. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Congratulations, freshman. We'll see you soon. And Happy Hanukkah to you. We're going to go ahead and do 11, 12 and then consent very quickly before our hour, 6 p.m. time certain. We're going to we're going to try to get through these items quickly. Since we have some time, I'm going to take up first item number 12. Actually, why don't we do consent as our friends are exiting? Can I get a motion for consent? Okay. There's been a motion and a second. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to direct City Manager to support House of Representatives Bill 5624, the "Economy in Motion: The National Multimodal and Sustainable Freight Infrastructure Act" by Congressman Alan Lowenthal. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1073 | Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 2: Motion carries six zero.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And, Madam Court, can you read the next item?
Speaker 2: 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. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file a report from the Mayor on the City's involvement in the Long Beach College Promise. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1068 | Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 1: RB okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Okay, there's a motion and a second. With that, I'm going to turn this over first to Councilmember Turanga to say a few comments, and then I'm going to open up for public comment and I'll bring it back to the council.
Speaker 9: Councilor RINGO Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for working with me on the College Promise Resolution because I think it's a very important item for not only our our kids at schools, in the universities, but for the city as a whole, because it provides an additional it closes the loop when it comes to our educational partners, when it comes to a seamless educational process where they go from the K-12 system into the community college system and into the CSU system, there was a missing item there and that was the city's involvement. And I think that pushing this forward in regards to having the city as a part, as a full partner in a college province , speaks volumes about the commitment that the city as a whole has for not only education, but for the whole economic recovery of our region. Because when we have people who are educated, when we have people who are are being trained through our internships, who are in preschool programs, who are going to the university and then going into into into the work, into the workforce really helps our economy. And and when it comes down to Long Beach, it is we are uniquely situated in terms of what we are able to do here because of the fact that we have a well renowned and well recognized school board, because our community college also has national recognition for what it's done and it is continued to do in in seamless education and in student success and in our university, as well as in providing access for success to our students. So I'm very proud to put this forward. I hope that the City Council will support this and that we can go on full board into developing a seamless education program that provides all the access for our students and for our communities to be successful in not only their their educational goals, but in their professional and and work goals as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I want to thank you also, Councilmember, you've been working on the college promise as a trustee for for over a decade. And so thank you for for your work. And you and I have worked together, I know, on this issue as well. So, Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I want to thank the mayor and Councilman Ranga for bringing this forward. I think we have to really acknowledge the efforts of our mayor to make this very natural partnership a reality. Because as a as a mother of two kids who currently go to Long Beach Unified Schools, I think it makes perfect sense to have the city be a partner with the various educational institutions. And our mayor has really pushed that forward. And as a parent in this community, I'm grateful for that and I'm happy to support it. You know, we had this conversation at the dinner table at our house last week because we're looking at middle schools and thinking about where the path is going to lead. Our family and our kids know what the college promise was. And so it felt good to explain it to them and to share with them that they have an opportunity in this city that many cities don't offer children who go to public school. So I want to thank the mayor and obviously to support this motion.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you, Mayor. You know, I just want to take the time to think about mayor, you know, on this are in and spearheading the efforts on this program, because our students really need this boost of encouragement as well as the funding of the scholarships. You know, doing the best at this moment, you know, for our youth and at least is putting us in a real good place in their future. So I really want to congratulate you, Mayor, and also Councilman Elanga, for working so hard on this project. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I like that I have Dr. Feldt Williams, who is a senior member of one unified board, to say a few words.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Members of the City Council executive staff. I'm here to support the draft resolution, the long college promise. And I do have a few remarks. As the vice president of the Board of Education for Long Beach Unified School District, I encourage the Council to approve the item asking for a draft resolution in support of the city of Long Beach, joining the Long Beach College promise as a full partner. We welcome the efforts by the City Council and the mayor to partner with us on the creation of internships for students and to expand early childhood education opportunities, particularly for families who cannot afford to pay for preschool. The college promise was first sign in 2008 by leaders from Long Beach Unified School District, Long Beach City College and Cal State Long Beach to help students prepare for and succeed in college. And I do recall being at that first signing with the council when you ranga graduating seniors from our school district can receive a tuition free semester at Long Beach City College and guaranteed admission to Cal State Long Beach if they meet minimum requirements at the university. And you should know that there are thousands of students that are turned away by law, by Cal State, Long Beach, just so they can stay committed to the promise of accommodating our students. More than 5000 high school graduates have benefited from free enrollment at Long Beach City College in the fall semester and Long Beach City College and Long Beach Unified School District students have shown that they are more likely to remain enrolled at the university than other students. Each year, the College Proms provides visits to City College and Cal State Long Beach for all fourth and fifth graders in our school district. And I was there just last week as the fifth graders descended on Cal State, Long Beach. And what a moment to see how these kids really get turned on about being in that environment and what a difference it makes for these kids as they get a chance to demystify what that environment is like. And it's not just a tour. They actually get a chance to sit in on some of the classrooms and so forth. So they really get a good understanding of what's transpiring at that at that level. The college promise was described as a national model in a case study by the Washington, D.C. based Business Higher Education Forum and the Little Hoover Commission, an independent agency that recommends ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of state programs, cited the college promise as a success as a successful model, saying more. Long Beach Unified School District Students. Graduates are enrolling postsecondary courses at the City College State University. They are better prepared than their peers from other school districts, and fewer are dropping out after their first semester. As you know. In October this year, Mayor Garcia joined the leaders of Long Beach Unified School District, Long Beach City College and Cal State Long Beach in signing a renewed and expanded Long Beach College promise. And we're pleased to see tonight's agenda item, which would provide additional support of this community wide effort. And we want to commend Councilman Urunga by supporting such a resolution. You are supporting an effort that has been two decades in the making. The Long Beach College promise is the legacy of our seamless education partnership that began in 1994 with our K-12 and higher education institutions partnering with businesses and community organizations to develop a world class education system. One of the results is that the Long Beach Unified School District has been named one of the top five school districts in the world in terms of efficiency and productivity. Our school district also has a long and proud history of partnering with the city. Our superintendent of staff would be happy to work with the city attorney. To assist with the drafting of the resolution to suggest the item is a logical extension of our ongoing collaborative work, which is why my colleagues on the board are pleased to recommend approval this evening. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Dr. Williams. And is there any other public comment on the item? Casey Anthony, thank you for for for your service. Filton and we have a motion on the floor that's been made. Members, please go to cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Motion carries six zero.
Speaker 1: Motion carries. Thank you very much. And thank you for for coming by. We are now going to move into our our other presentation that had a time certain tonight at 6:00, and that is a presentation for now. Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell, who just joined us with his beautiful other half, Jennifer O'Donnell, who is sitting next to him over | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a resolution in support of the City of Long Beach joining the Long Beach College Promise as a formal partner with Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD), Long Beach City College (LBCC), and California State University Long Beach (CSULB); expanding the College Promise to include a goal of universal preschool, expansion of internships for Long Beach students, and support for college completion; and return resolution for Council approval within 30 days. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1045 | Speaker 2: Hearing number one North required report from Public Works 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 a resolution ordering the vacation of the remaining portion of this third street, located west of Jackson Avenue.
Speaker 1: City District one.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council are a malloy and will make the presentation on behalf of staff.
Speaker 8: Honorable mayor and City Council Member. This is just a very short staff report. There's a request to vacate a portion of a previously vacated street called Esther. That is between basically west of Judson Avenue and it's south of Pacific Coast Highway. This item has gone through a planning commission. The Planning Commission has approved it as is. We are here at this moment for your consideration and approve the staff recommendation is to approve this item.
Speaker 1: Any public comment on the item? See none. Members, please cast your votes.
Speaker 4: Motion to approve.
Speaker 1: Motion to approve. Yes. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries six zero.
Speaker 1: Next item.
Speaker 0: Okay. I know.
Speaker 1: I think the unfinished business. Well, you know, just, you know, the vote on the screen didn't really come out, so I'm not sure if I. Do you want to revote? Because the vote didn't have councilmen prices vote and a couple of them. I just want to say it was recorded correctly. Was it voted correctly? Well, we're going to take a revote on the last item just to make sure the votes were counted.
Speaker 4: Yes, you may recall.
Speaker 1: Okay. So council, please recapture votes. For the last hearing.
Speaker 2: Motion carry six zero.
Speaker 1: Okay. Excellent. Next item, please.
Speaker 2: Unfinished business item number ten. | Resolution | 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 remaining portion of Esther Street, located west of Judson Avenue. (District 1) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12162014_14-0993 | Speaker 2: A report from Develop and Services recommendation to adopt resolution allowing for the initiation of a consolidated coastal development permit process in connection with the rebuild of the Leeway Sailing Center. Parent Doc District three.
Speaker 1: Can I get a motion? Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 4: This item was on mute.
Speaker 3: Mute. This item was on our schedule about two weeks ago, and I just wanted to give an update. I'm going to be recommending we support this and voting in favor of the motion tonight. But we do have some user groups from Cal State, Long Beach sailing instructors who were concerned about proposed the proposed BREEZEWAY and its impact on both storage area and wind patterns in the bay. We've committed to that group. We've met with them. We've committed to them that we will discuss the possibility of redesigning the Breezeway element with the Coastal Commission as this was a design feature intended for public access. The group is supportive of us moving forward tonight with the consolidated permit process and I want to thank city staff for meeting with the the user group. With my staff, I think that was very helpful and moving this forward. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. There's been a motion. Any public comment?
Speaker 5: Very good. Hugh Clark as the address. I've been following this project for about 20 some years when it's first when I was a windsurfer, notwithstanding the modifications to address the concerns of the sea, the Cal State crew. The building itself. Is and the design of it, the mansion ization of it. Is at war with the existence of the facility. That design will in fact shut down a large portion of sailing in that area. It's too big. Period. It was in a mansion. It was mansion. It mansion ized. It does not need to have all that room. It's been extraordinarily mismanaged, with all due respect to the problem that the Parks Department, that George Champion is and has inherited. The coaching staffs do a great job. They take those kids and they know how to teach. The problem is they've tried to mix of parodying in there that does not belong there, that it belongs rather in perhaps Mothers Beach or Colorado Lagoon. We don't need a building. Any larger than there is now there. There certainly needs to be some restroom up a restroom brought up to code, particularly with ADA. But that footprint should not expand beyond the existing footprint period. And I plan to if it's I don't like also bundling. There's too much corruption, too many problems, just like we're dealing with with the bluff. We ought to take it slow. The bar is not on fire. And again, it it's financial. We're not rolling in money, period. So I would ask that you step back, take a look at it. Get some accurate intelligence. Wednesday's the U.N. study that was produced was a wind study produced by somebody testing the air conditioner in their air conditioned air conditioning dux in their office and no professional maritime. Wind studies, period. This is further urination of money down the drain. Nothing's going to happen if you hold this one. Warren's not on fire. No. Three, no penalty in contract. So I would I would suggest, if you haven't talked with the individual that I suggested, you talk to the guy that runs the windsurfer shop. Sit down with him and you'll find him. Probably the most expert, the most knowledgeable person in the city relative to that. And he has no financial stake in it one way or another. He just has the he has a history of that and so forth. So I would hopeful, hopefully, that you will put this on hold and take a look at it. But again, we don't have the money, but it's going to be appealed. So take.
Speaker 1: This. Thank you very much. Thank you. There's been a motion on the floor. The public comment. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 2: Lucian Kerry six zero. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution allowing for the initiation of a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit process pursuant to Section 30601.3 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) in connection with the rebuild of the Leeway Sailing Center, Pier and Dock located at 5437 East Ocean Boulevard. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12162014_14-0812 | Speaker 2: Item number 16 Communication from Councilman D Andrews, Chair of Housing and Neighborhoods Committee recommendation to name the park site located at the Pacific Electric, right of way between Martin Luther King Jr Avenue and Lemon Avenue and ACP Freedom Park.
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you. I would like to also show my appreciation to both parks and commissioners and the housing neighborhood community for positive recommendations for the naming of this park. The NAACP organization Roots helped pave the way to a better quality of life for all Americans, as well as, you know, countries that are beyond our borders. I hope that you will support this item. I would like to move to approve second.
Speaker 0: Got any further comment on the item?
Speaker 2: Motion carries six zero of. Item number 17 Communication from Councilman D Andrews, Chair of Housing and Neighborhoods Committee recommendation to name the park site located on one avenue at 20th Street, Jenni Rivera Memorial Park. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to name the park site located at the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way between Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Lemon Avenue "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Freedom Park." | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1047 | Speaker 2: Item number 18, report from City Clerk Recommendation to adopt a resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of the fourth Council District. Adopt a resolution ordinance ordering, calling, providing for and giving notice of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, April 14, 2015, for the remainder of the term of office, terminating on the third Tuesday of July 2016 and adopt a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to render specified services to the city related to the conduct of a special municipal election.
Speaker 1: So well, actually, before we go there. I just want to make sure the city attorney, city attorney parking. There are three pieces or are there? There's there are two pieces to this. Right. I believe that one is declaring the vacancy, which is a separate piece. Is that correct? That's one. Do you want explain that process to the council?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mayor. Members of the council, you are correct. We have two action items before you this evening. Action item one is the declaration of the vacancy, which is required by the charter, and then items two and three can be taken together. And that's the calling for the special election, which is also required by the charter.
Speaker 1: So we actually we do have two different items. So let's let's begin with the first the first item, which is the declaring the vacancy where there has been a second in a motion to declare the vacancy. And then we'll get to the second piece in a minute. Any public comment on the declaration of the vacancy? Casing and did did Councilman Mungo, do you want to speak to this? Not the second one. Okay. Councilor Brosnan, do you want to speak to this or the second one? Okay, Members, please go and cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Motion carry six zero.
Speaker 1: Okay, now we are on the second item, which is adopting a resolution and calling for the election before we do that. Studio Kerr Did you want to make any, any staff report on this or no? Just everyone. Okay. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of: Member of the City Council for the Fourth Council District; | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1053 | Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 1: There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item saying none. Please cast your vote. Oh, Councilman Longo.
Speaker 4: I'd like who made the motion.
Speaker 1: I think it was Andrews. And I asked him.
Speaker 4: 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.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's been and that's been approved by the maker of the motion steps. You've any comment on that or.
Speaker 5: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 2: Bush and Kerry. Six zero.
Speaker 1: 28.
Speaker 2: 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. | Contract | 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 |
LongBeachCC_12162014_14-1064 | Speaker 2: Item number 30 Report from Public Works and Financial Management. Recommendation to award a contract to Hardy and Harper for the improvements on Spring Street between Magnolia Avenue and Pacific Avenue for a total contract amount not to exceed 438,918 and increase appropriations in the gas tax. Street Improvement Fund in the Public Works Department by 46,626 District six.
Speaker 1: Can I get a motion second elected? There's been a motion and a second. Councilmember Andrews?
Speaker 7: Yes. 1/2. I'd just like to take a minute to thank our director, Mr. for, you know, for public works. You know, it's always been an incredible job since he, you know, started working with our city for the last two years ago. And this item is just one example of his excellent leadership and skills. Now I want to thank him for working with me and on the projects, for taking the time to listen to the needs of our residents. And I want to thank you again, Mr..
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mayor. And I also want to provide my endorsement that I know that this stretch of street crosses the six well, its borders on the seventh and the sixth. So there was always some confusion by the residents as to who the street was. But I'm glad to see this project moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1: And Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 8: Because I'm happy to support this project. I actually travel that street quite often and we had a notice just the other day. The the some of the repairs going on on Magnolia and not on spring. And now to Mary, that that brought those projects together, I think is actually excellent. And I think I would applaud the city engineer for, for his fortuitous thought in guiding you through this process. Councilmember Andrews And you.
Speaker 1: Can see no public comment on the item. Please cast your votes. And 30.
Speaker 2: The motion carries six zero.
Speaker 1: Okay. We're going to move on to two new business now for announcements. And I want to begin by adjourning our meeting tonight in the memory of two bright, young Long Beach residents who both lost their lives recently. It's been both have been difficult for the community. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6931 for the Improvements on Spring Street between Magnolia Avenue and Pacific Avenue; award the contract to Hardy & Harper, Inc., of Santa Ana, CA, in the amount of $399,016, and authorize a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $39,902, for a total contract amount not to exceed $438,918; 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 Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund
(SR 181) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $46,626. (District 6) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12092014_14-1042 | Speaker 4: Okay. We are moving now on to item ten, which is the Civic Center. So let me begin first by going over what this this item here and this item slash hearing will entail as far as the process. And then will begin and so.
Speaker 0: What will begin with, like all.
Speaker 4: Items before us will begin with a staff report. Staff will begin and make a full report on the civic center. Also, after the staff report, we will then have civic core, which is one of the two teams. It was the team that was not selected by staff who are here who would like to address the council. They have been given 10 minutes to make to address the council. Then we will go on to plenary edge Moore, who did receive staff's recommendation to move forward. They will then address the council for 10 minutes. Then after that, it will come back to the Council for any questions or deliberation. After the council, we will open it up for a public comment. And at that point, we may or may not have a motion in place. And we'll go we'll go from there. So that's typical of most. And both teams were informed that this would be that we would have a process with the 10 minutes for each. So that's what we've set in place. So with that, of course, I'm going to go and turn this over to Mr. West and he'll begin the staff report and presentation.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mayor. Council members, this is an exciting night to us. We've got two fantastic teams that went through the RFP process. Unfortunately, we can only recommend one. At this time, I'm going to turn it over to Mike Conaway, our director of property and business services, who's going to give the primary staff report. With him is our development services director, Amy Bodak, our finance director, John GROSS. Also in the audience is Glenda Williams, our library director, all members of the team that has been meeting for 22 months to go through this. In addition, we have our two port employees that were also members of this 22 month team. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Connelly.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. West. Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council. This item furthers the visioning of the new Long Beach Civic Center, evaluates the proposals submitted in response to the RFP, and recommends certain next steps should the city council elect to proceed. As information. Last night, the Board of Harbor Commissioners elected to participate in the Civic Center project and confirmed staff's recommendation to select Plenary Edge as the city's preferred project team. The format of tonight's presentation will be as follows quick background on the history of the process. An overview of the proposals from the two project teams. A summary of the evaluation process and scoring the results of the scoring and staff's recommendation. The next steps in the process should city council look to proceed and finally recommended actions. But for a little background first. In 2006, the Civic Center revisioning process was started with concepts and ideas for a new civic center continuing through 2008. The efforts were expanded to Mr. Marshall Courthouse site.
Speaker 0: Mr. Conway said.
Speaker 9: I think we have the audio increased. I'm not able to hear you that.
Speaker 10: Well, I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: I just just.
Speaker 4: Maybe just speaking to the mic a little bit more. I'll try to or maybe if the audio. If it's still. Thank you.
Speaker 10: So in 2006, the Civic Center revisioning process was started with concepts and ideas for a new civic center, and continuing through 2008, the efforts were expanded to include the old, old courthouse site and further planning was conducted. However, the effort was delayed by an economic recession. But in February 2013, the process was reengaged. When City Council authorized the preparation and release of a request for qualifications for project teams experienced in public private partnerships and capable of delivering a design, build, finance, operate and maintain delivery model and in particular experience in delivering public facilities similar to city halls and main libraries in the context of a civic civic center was critical. The revisioning process now includes nearly 16 acres, including three blocks of downtown, along with a vacant lot at the corner of third and Cedar. This process has led to the release of an RFP, to which responses are received from two eminently qualified teams. More recently, the mayor has redirected the project timeline to ensure a more more robust public outreach process. Toward that effort, there has been three study sessions to open houses and additional community meetings held in different locations throughout the city. In the September 16th study session, considerable information was presented regarding the three alternatives available to address the seismic deficiencies of City Hall in the main library. The rebuild and alternative under a P3 dbf for one delivery model was offered as the best value and lowest risk to the city. And then November 11th study session background was provided on the P3 DB awful delivery model summarizing the DB F1 benefits. This model shifts the risks of delays, change orders, market conditions to the private partner. This model has the shortest delivery timeline. This model includes a 40 year maintenance contract and a levelized annual cost within the city's lease payment and ownership of the buildings revert to the city at the end of the term at a specified condition. To quickly highlight the significant dates related to Syria's efforts to pursue a form delivery model. On February 12th, 2013, City Council directed staff to prepare and release an RFQ for Dbf away on public private partnership. On April 1st, the Board of Harbor Commissioners agreed to participate. On October 22nd, City Council selected a short list of RFQ respondents directed staff to prepare and release an RFP to that shortlist. On January 27th, Board of Harbor Commissioners agreed to participate in the RFP. RFP was released on February 28th, 2013. Proposals were received on June 2nd, 2013 from Long Beach Civic Alliance and Plenary Edge Morris Civic Partners Staff and it's consultant ARP has been analyzing, clarifying, assessing and scoring the proposals since that time. And as mentioned earlier on December eight, 2014, the Board of Harbor Commissioners elected to participate in the Civic Center project and have confirmed the recommendation of staff to select plenary age more as the city's preferred to project team. Steering the project teams and their responses to the RFP City Council established certain guiding principles reflecting City Council's desired outcomes for the revisioning process. And these principles include redeveloping the Civic Center, including a grand civic plaza, reconnecting the Civic Center with surrounding communities, reactivating Lincoln Park, using best efforts to remain cost neutral, and promoting private development on excess property to increase density in the downtown and increase property sales and transient occupant occupancy taxes for the general fund. Similarly, City Council identified project goals that align with the objectives of the DB form procurement model, including remaining cost neutral shifting of risk for focus on lifecycle costs and require that the buildings revert to the city at the end of the term in a good or a better condition. So now we will.
Speaker 0: Take a look at.
Speaker 10: The proposals submitted by the two project teams. On the left hand side of the slider images from Civic Cause proposal. On the right hand side, images from plenary edge Morse proposal. Both teams propose locating City Hall and the Harbor Department headquarters on the former courthouse property. Both teams extended Chestnut and Cedar Avenues from Ocean Boulevard to Broadway and connected these streets by a new first Street extension through the middle block. Both teams relocated the main library to the northern end of Lincoln Park, and both teams focused private development in the middle block and the third and Cedar site. However, there are some significant differences which will be discussed later on in this presentation. From an aerial perspective of civic course proposals. This shows the significant massing and dominating scale of the public and private development and its integration with the downtown core. From an aerial perspective, a culinary headquarters proposal massing as appears more balanced and gradual, reflecting its integration and cohesion both internally and with downtown. This perspective of civic course proposal is from the future intersection of Chestnut Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, showing the shared space to be used for chambers and with the proposed 11 story port headquarters on the left and the proposed 13 storey City Hall on the right. This Prospected plenary edge March proposal is from the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, offering a pedestrian friendly entryway into the Civic Plaza with a shared chambers adjoining the public entry way and the proposed nine story port headquarters on the right and the nine story of City Hall on the left. So with this preliminary index introduction of the proposal, have to move into the evaluation process and starting out with a little bit of background. In 2013, the Project Team Selection Committee was assembled, which includes the directors of Financial Management, Development Services, Library Services and Economic and Property Development, and two members from the Harbor Department, the Chief Harbor Engineer and the Managing Director of Finance, and additionally, a Deputy City Attorney participated in every meeting. The role of the committee was to direct and fearlessly facilitate the preparation and release of the RFQ. Recommend a short list of RFQ respondents. Prepare a thorough evaluation matrix against which the RFP would be scored and which was included in the RFP. Prepare and release the RFP. Assess and score the responses relative to the requirements detailed in the RFP. Consistent with the evaluation matrix. And lastly, the committee's final role is to recommend the preferred project team to City Council for its consideration. The evaluation criteria identified specific categories of interest against which proposals would be evaluated and scored. The evaluation criteria were designed in part to reflect the guiding principles and project goals as approved by City Council and as set forth in the RFQ and the RFP. The evaluation matrix is aggregated into six categories containing 35 elements and 84 criteria. The six categories are administrative whose elements are pass fail, technical, whose elements reflect a total potential score of 118, which is 44% of the total possible score. Facilities management, whose elements reflect a potential score of 18 points. Private development reflecting a total potential score of 43 points. And Financial Proposal Public and financial proposal private whose elements reflect a potential score of 50 and 38 respectively. Total points available in the evaluation criteria is 267. And whether that's in the port in scenario, in the port out scenario, it's 259. So moving into the evaluation of the proposals. The first category is administrative. There are ten elements and ten criteria, all of which are pass fail. Both project teams passed the administration administrative evaluation. The next category of evaluations is the team's technical submittal. This category contains seven elements 41 criteria and is worth 118 points. Clearly, this category was of critical importance to the committee and to the project teams. This category accounts for 24 of the 28 points that separate civic core and plenary edge and clearly demonstrates the areas of disparity between these proposals. So considering the critical importance of this category, I'd like to spend a little bit more time presenting the aspects that served to distinguish one proposal from the other. And civic leaders lay out the civic component as assembled on the courthouse property to the left while the private development is proposed in the middle block. The main library is proposed to be shifted further north into Lincoln Park. In analyzing the cohesiveness and connectivity of the site plan. Each block appears to be independent of the others, without clear and inviting elements that link the blocks. Civic core proposals. A small forecourt in front of City Hall instead of a civic plaza. There is no area to provide public gathering, special events, peaceful protests or a civic engagement. Civic Corps proposes that First Street and therefore Chestnut Avenue would be used for a Civic Plaza. However, this would require street closures, which require permits in order to function as a civic plaza. While the inclusion of a new parking structure has beneficial attributes. Its location serves to eliminate any activity along Magnolia Avenue between Ocean and Broadway. Rather than welcoming visitors from the World Trade Center and the courthouse. The parking structure instead dissuades the pedestrian. The location of the shared chamber space is on the hard corner of ocean and Chestnut in close proximity to vehicles, which could present a safety risk. The main library is proposed to be located on the north end of Lincoln Park. However, civic core proposals to leave the vehicular ramps in place. This result in a main library that is set well back from Broadway and bifurcating Lincoln Park with the front door of the main library facing south to Lincoln Park. The main library essentially turns its back on the communities to the north. Who are the most likely to use the library? The remaining portion of Lincoln Park provides less area for large planned events. The somewhat austere landscape and disconnected hardscape do not reflect the quality anticipated for such a strategic asset. The integrating backbone of the Civic Center is not apparent for visitors and residents that arrive via the first Street Transit Mall. There is no clear, visual or pedestrian path that welcomes the visitor to the park. Instead, the park seems to be oriented toward Ocean Drive as the front yard of the main library. The proposed hotel includes a service road with a curb cut onto Ocean Boulevard delivery and refuse vehicles. Entering and exiting onto Ocean Boulevard will be a significant inconvenience to the driving public and an undesirable visual element. The private development north of First Street results in a super block that is now not allowed under the downtown plan. While Civic Aura has provided a pedestrian walkway at the surface level through this super block, the private development remains visually obtrusive and overwhelmingly massive. In contrast and in a more edge more is layout. The civic component is again assembled in the courthouse property with the main library also moved to the north end of Lincoln Park. But the plan appears more connected, integrated and cohesive, with each block related to the other. There is an inviting civic plaza, well sized for public gatherings, special events and civic engagement. The linked visual corridor through the three blocks welcomes pedestrians from the West and the pedestrian pathway through Lincoln Park invites pedestrians from the east, both of which can enjoy the retail elements along first Street. Parking for City Hall and the main library are proposed to continue to occur in the Broadway and Lincoln Park garages. Parking for the port headquarters is proposed to be below ground. Unobtrusive to the view sheds or pedestrian scale. The shared chambers is located at the focal point of the visual corridor and surrounded by the Civic Plaza. The main library is brought north to the direct Broadway frontage, eliminating the vehicular ramps and offering dual entrances to the community. And this creates a larger open park area as the park is not bifurcated. Deliveries to the proposed hotel will occur below ground access by new ramps to the Lincoln Park garage. The private development does not create a super block, which is more inviting to the pedestrian by offering physical connectivity from the east to the west. The residential development is not overwhelming and carefully steps up in mass and scale as development moves south towards Ocean Boulevard. Civic Corps is answer to a civic plaza is proposed to include First Street and therefore Chestnut Avenue. Planned events would result in street closures requiring permits, which will eliminate access to the retailers on First Street and bring civic engagement into an area proposed for residential and hotel uses. Unplanned events would result in considerable redeployment of resources. For Civic Corps. The minimal setback from Chesnut Avenue does not create a sufficient opportunity for public gathering as a destination port point or as a forecourt to City Hall. Plenary edge more is inclusion of a civic plaza, connects the civic uses and creates an entryway and gathering point for special events, pre meetings, outdoor dining and activities and civic engagement. Rather than a forecourt. The Civic Plaza and plenary edge Morse proposal creates a destination for the pedestrian that can be activated with events, music, outdoor dining venues and a rest stop for coffee and conversation. Accessing the connectivity and cohesiveness from the site plan perspective, civic core has achieved a vision where City Hall is the focal point of the interconnected blocks and establishes a certain level of cohesiveness. However, that connectivity ends somewhat abruptly at the forecourt at Chestnut Avenue and in contrast, plenary edge more achieves connectivity and cohesion from Magnolia Boulevard to Pacific Avenue and actually works to draw employees and visitors from the World Trade Center and Deukmejian courthouse to the West and from the transit mall pipeline and the promenade to the east. The Magnolia Garage proposed by Civic also presents a logistics problem for the visitor to City Hall in order to maintain sufficient security in City Hall. The City Hall visitor would need to exit the Magnolia Garage at Magnolia Avenue, travel south to Ocean Boulevard, then travel east to Chestnut Avenue and then north to First Street in order to enter City Hall. The entire path of which has no real retail component and avoids bringing the visitor through the first first street retail corridor. There is an entry from the Magnolia Garage into the shared space near the near the chambers, but that was proposed to be an ADA access and is not convenient to accessing either City Hall or the port headquarters. In Plenary Edge. Moore's proposal to Broadway Garage remains in place, which has long been the parking location for visitors to City Hall with wayfinding. The short walk to First Street, either from Chestnut or Cedar, will bring the visitor to the Civic Plaza via the first Street retail corridor with a clear visual.
Speaker 0: Path.
Speaker 10: To City Hall.
Speaker 0: Comparing the main library.
Speaker 10: Citing civic core is on the left plenary edge. More is on the right. Civic Cause main library is set back from Broadway and is inaccessible because Civic Core proposes to retain the vehicular ramps to the Lincoln Park garage. This eliminates access to the library from the north. This also results in bifurcating Lincoln Park, reducing its functionality for programing and as a gathering place. Plenary Edge more is main library is sited directly on Broadway with dual entrances to the north and south because the vehicular ramps are proposed to be removed. The park is not bifurcated and therefore becomes a more attractive area for large public events and programing. And now a few comments about the bouncing of the proposals. Civic Core has not successfully integrated the massing and scale of City Hall in the Harbor Department headquarters in relation to the public safety building and the private development. The massing of private development appears abrupt, inconsistent and somewhat overwhelming in scale. Evaluating culinary edge, Morris Massing City Hall and Harbor Department headquarters align well and offer consistent massing with the public safety building. The private development graduates in both scale and mass. As the development moves south towards Ocean Boulevard and at Ocean Boulevard, the proposed tower integrates well with the height and character of Ocean Boulevard. Now a couple of comments on floor plates and stacking. Civic Corps provides a pre function space at the entry to City Hall with high demand services on the first floor. This layout may serve to create a concentration of visitors at the entryway impeding the traffic flow. Civic. Civic Core is City Hall, located on a secondary street, has floor plates that narrow in the upper floors. From 16,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. And finally down to 10,400 square feet on the top two floors. This works to split many departments under two floors, including the Mayor and City Council. Reducing Efficiency and collaboration. Plenary Edgware is use of a pre function arcade along the Civic Plaza for high demand services, works to reduce time and frustration and provides ease of access for residents dealing with regular city business on a monthly basis or on an as needed basis. The system also works to reduce the number of people needing to enter City Hall and get process through security. The floor plates are consistent at 24,000 square feet and include raised floors that provide unlimited flexibility in relocating offices or workstations. Few departments are split onto two floors, offering greater efficiency and collaboration. Mayor and City Council occupy the top floor with an outdoor viewing area. So putting the technical category behind us, we now move forward with the next category of evaluation, which is facilities management. Facilities management contains five elements, five criteria and a potential of 18 points. Both teams achieve a full score in this area. Both teams have a first class facilities management firm. Both teams have well-defined and robust own operations and maintenance protocols with leading edge technology and building management systems that minimize energy consumption. Both teams have web based work order systems customized to levels of criticality, and both teams will employ sophisticated building maintenance systems that will monitor fire life safety, security, mechanical systems, parking services, escort services, utility monitoring, and all other major systems. The next category is the evaluation of private development. Private development category contains five elements, 14 criteria, and 43 possible points similar to the technical submittal. The urban form element where 30 of the 43 points reflects the greatest disparity between the teams submittals. Civic Corps is artist's rendering of their private development proposal reflects an inconsistent integration with the height and massing of the downtown, as previously stated. This is particularly evident in the massing of the residential development and the creation of a super block and the discontinuity of scale of the civic buildings and the hotel component. Plenary edge. More as artist's rendering of their proposal reflects a graduated integration with the height and massing of the downtown, both from the development's transition from Broadway to Ocean Boulevard and integrating a tower element along Ocean Boulevard frontage. Next category is financial models. The evaluation matrix for financial proposals related to the public elements of the project contain six elements, six criteria, three of which are pass fail and 50 possible points. The scoring was very close to a civic core. Three points ahead of plenary adds more. It is important to understand that the evaluation of civic course financial proposal is based on their inclusion of $112 million in revenues over 40 years that the city would have to pay to civic core derive from new property and transient occupancy tax. Plenary Edgware did not propose any tax sharing agreement. The committee conducted a sensitivity analysis to reflect the impact of the removal of this revenue source, which will be discussed in the next two slides. The subordinated debt, which is used as equity pledged by civic core, was 12.4% of project costs, while the plenary edge more was lower at 9.2% of project costs, both of which were below the recommended 15%. Civic core is proposed. Contingency funds for construction cost and capital expenditures were at 3%, while plenary edge more proposed higher contingencies at 5%. This results in plenary engineering providing a larger reserve to address unanticipated costs or change orders. Moving on to the stress test, a financial model stress test analyzes the flexibility of a financial plan to absorb market fluctuations and cost increases not anticipated nor built into the financial plan. A base case stress test what was conducted on the financial models as they were submitted in response to the RFP, which included tax sharing as proposed by civic law and reduced equity positions by both teams. This slide indicates that under the proposals as submitted, that both teams were similarly flexible, with plenary edge more able to absorb higher increases in project costs and civic for being more flexible from the standpoint of increasing interest rates and operating cost. As previously stated, the stress test assumes that the addition of revenues derived from new property taxes and transit occupancy taxes as submitted by civic core and reduced equity as proposed by both teams. So under this scenario, civic core was judged to have a superior financial model. But since both project teams submitted inconsistent elements in their submittals, including tax increment sharing and reduced equity levels, each project's team's proposals were adjusted to make them comparatively consistent, and the stress test was again conducted in the readjustment of the stress test. The tax increment sharing was removed. Both teams were inputted at a 15% subordinated debt.
Speaker 0: Levels.
Speaker 10: And in the adjusted case test plenary edge more as financial model appears to contain superior flexibility to withstand increased project costs, increased interest rates and increased operating cost. This flexibility reduces city risks, resulting in plenary edge more as financial model being superior to civic cause in the adjusted case. There has been some discussion that speaker's proposal offered to the city has a lower lease rate than the $12.6 million stated in the RFP. While the city's lease payment was indeed lower than the level stipulated in the RFP, when the payment of tax increment as proposed by civic law is added to the lease payment in every year of the 40 year term Civic Corps proposed. Total payment by the city was greater than the stipulated amount in the RFP and greater than plenary edge because. This slide compares the payments proposed by civic or in plenary edge more starting in year 2020, the first full year of occupancy and looking forward in five year increments when the lease payment and tech sharing payments are added, it can be seen that plenary edge more proposes a lower annual payment by the city than civic or. When looking at the city payments over the 40 year term as submitted by the project teams, city payments are $13.7 million higher under the plenary edge. More proposal. This is due to a greater investment by plenary edge more in both Linkin Park and the main library. The net present value of these payments are actually less under the plenary edge more proposal than Civic Cares proposal, and this is due to a final payment to the by the city to plenary edge more a year after the final payment by the city to civic core. When looking at total port payments over the 40 year term as submitted by the project teams, total payments are 201 million more under the plenary edge more proposal. The net present value of the difference is $51.6 million discounted at a 5.5% rate, which is the blended rate of the cost of funds for Civic. This difference is due primarily to plenary edge more as proposed underground parking for the port headquarters, greater amount of shared space, the inclusion of a civic plaza, higher grade exterior treatments and dual core building design. The Board of Harbor Commissioners have indicated their intent to revisit the building design, underground parking, financing and operations and maintenance after value engineering. It is expected that this difference will be dramatically reduced. The next category is financial proposal, private development. This category contains six elements and six criteria, with 38 possible points. Both teams achieve the same score in the port in alternative for this category. Civic Core proposes 764 residential units, 69,000 square feet of retail and 250 hotel rooms. Civic Core has received letters of interest from certain users, including a hotel, retail, grocer and fitness club. While this might appear positive, it is not clear that the market five years from now will support that level of development, and those letters of interest may no longer be valid. It is also important to recall that civic cause financial plan requires a defined level of private development in order to generate the incremental tax revenue needed to fund the project. If the market in five years cannot support the level of proposed development, civic course financial model may need to be revised. Alternatively, Plenary Edge More proposes a range of residential development between 594 and 792, depending upon the market at the time of development. Plenary more also proposes a more conservative retail component of 48,000 square feet and a hotel component of 200 rooms, while plenary edge more has not solicited letters of interest. Their proposal does not rely on incremental tax revenues to fund their project. Therefore, project development can be dictated by the market forces at the time that development comes to the market. The city's exposure to risk is reduced in plenary insurance proposal, and this brings us to the valuation results and the recommendation. So the various categories, elements and criteria are scored in this slide and in the port in alternative plenary edge more receive 232 points and civic were received 204. The committee unanimously selected plenary edge more to recommend the City Council as the preferred project team. Similarly, in the Port Out Alternative Plenary Edge More received 222 points, while civic core received 188 points. So in the port out alternative as well, the committee again unanimously selected plenary edge more to recommend the City Council as the preferred project team. So as a result of a stronger technical design, including citywide amenity, urban forum and programing, the Project Team Selection Committee unanimously unanimously selected plenary edge more to recommend to City Council as the project team that provided the best value to the city. The Committee recommends the City Council to select plenary edge more civic partners as the city's preferred project team. So if the City Council elects to proceed, the following are the anticipated next steps. There are a number of next steps that need to be quickly undertaken to maintain our aggressive schedule of occupancy in 2019. These include executing an E and A with a harbor department and the preferred project team, executing an MRU with the harbor department and executing or extending the contract and increasing the budget with North America Limited. Additionally, the city would need to enter a contract and establish a budget for legal counsel. Enter a contract and establish a budget for financial expertize for one or more special purpose entities to issue bonds. Pursue special legislation if it will benefit the project. Appropriate $4.6 million from the Civic Center Fund and pay the stipend to the non selected project team. I'll now spend a couple of minutes and go over each of these items. The Board of Harbor Commissioners, as a party to the INA, seeks to ensure that the Harbor Department retains the right to modify certain elements of their financial proposal, conduct value engineering on the building and consider alternative parking configurations. This will occur during the E and A period. Concurrently, a term sheet will be negotiated that details the terms and allocations of risk and brings the parties through the entitlement period. The Global Executory Agreement will control and implement the elements of the Dbf form and facilitate commercial and financial flows. The Global X Agreement will not be executed until such time as the project has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and has received clearance under California Environmental Quality Act. The city in the harbor department will also enter into an MCU that details the rights and obligations of the parties during the TNA period through financial close and ultimately up to the point of occupancy. It is expected that a separate MLC will be needed after occupancy to properly and appropriately allocate costs related to the shared use space. Our group has successfully supported the city through phase one and phase two of the project, which includes providing the following services support in preparing and issuing the RFP. Project management and coordination of meetings, clarification of technical information, financial modeling, market verification and construction delivery assumptions. Support and preparation in issuing the evaluation report. So for the next phase of the project, continuing support is needed to project, manage this complex project and maintain the schedule, provide technical support and expertize regarding financial, commercial, technical and risk allocation management. Refinement of the various documents needed for closing and continuation of community outreach, education and support through the entitlement period. Additionally, legal assistance and support will be needed to support the City Attorney's Office and preparation of legal documents, including the documents listed in this slide. Creating one or more special purpose entities for the purpose of issuing bonds and providing certain services relative to the bond documents. The financial consultant assistants will also be required to support the Department of Financial Management in ensuring that expectations of City Council, relative to the proper allocation of risk, the protection of city finances and the preservation of the city's cap on lease payments is achieved during this complex implementation period. There also may be an opportunity to pursue special legislation to eliminate the small risk of legal challenge, reducing this perceived risk but served to serve to reduce the bond interest rate, resulting in increased bond proceeds for the project, further strengthening the underlying financial model and offer additional flexibility to absorb market variations. If Council elects to proceed, the following actions are recommended. To proceed with the next steps of the project. Staff is recommending that City Council confirm staff's recommendation of plenary edge more as the preferred project team authorize the city manager to proceed with the actions detailed in the Council letter. Authorize the execution of an E and a Nemo, hue and term sheet, and all other documents needed to achieve clearance on the Environmental Quality Act and pursue entitlement of the project. Authorize the pursuit of special legislation if beneficial to the project. Form special purpose entities and appropriate the necessary funding. So in summary, I'd like City Council to consider the following in their deliberations. First, the teams appear to have approached the new Long Beach Civic Center project with different perspectives. Civic Core seems to have started by maximizing private development, fully developing the mid-block parcel with considerable density, sometimes at the expense of established design guidelines. The civic elements of the project seem to have taken a second priority. Plenary Edge more seems to have started with the civic elements, including the need for a civic plaza and a well-situated main library, and as a result, retained the Broadway garage and developed one third less of the mid-market mid-block parcel, even while developing one third less of the Mid-Block parcel plenary edge. More has committed to the same property value to the city as civic core for the private development. It's also important to consider that the scoring in the evaluation matrix is intended to reflect the project's team's responsiveness to the requirements of the RFP and to the committee's guidance and direction. During the all day one on one meetings, the weekly teleconference calls and the 18 addenda issued in this RFP when considering considering a project team rather than a project, the responsiveness of the team to staff's concerns is critical to project success. Considering plenary edge more as responsiveness to the requirements of the Civic Plaza, a main library whose dual front doors welcome all communities, a redeveloped and robust Lincoln Park, clear connectivity between the three blocks and balanced integration within the downtown traffic fabric from the standpoint of massing and scale. Plenary Edgware is clearly the project team that partnered with and best responded to the city. Lastly, this development model is not intended to be based on low bid that is inconsistent with a db4 m delivery model. Instead, this model seeks the best value for the city, considering the best value. I respectfully suggest that City Council reflect on the project team that provided the best amenities and highest quality for the city, its residents and visitors consistent with the city's affordability cap. Considering the best partner to consider which project team best fulfilled and achieve the City Council's guidelines and goals, best responded to the committee's suggestions and recommendations and offers the best opportunity to collaborate and cooperate over a 40 year timeline. And with that, I conclude my presentation Amy Warwick, John GROSS, Glenda Williams, myself Rich Anthony or Ryan Fulton and Sean Gohmert from the Port are available to answer your questions.
Speaker 4: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and do our have the the responses from our teams here in just a minute. Also, want to review and cheer for the council. A quick review. The what has been the public outreach process for the project and what will happen moving forward? So I think the council knows that we've had three full study sessions all scheduled throughout the city to discuss the project on a variety of levels. We've also hosted two open houses for the community to meet the project teams, as well as a handful of community meetings that were requested that staff went and presented to also the same amount of study sessions or meetings happened on the port side so that the port would also engage. I think that we're aware the port held a meeting yesterday and and took a vote on the project as well. And most importantly, I think, is what happens after the council makes a decision on whether to move forward with the staff recommendation. And that is that regardless of of the selection, a extensive community process would then begin. That would take anywhere from six months to nine months to a year, depending on on the need to get input from the community on everything from design elements to connectivity to the downtown to use to looking at ways of making this and ensuring that this is a a civic center for the whole city. In addition to that, those meetings would happen in all nine districts and throughout throughout the city as needed. So that's all will also be in the works. Obviously, regardless of the outcome staff's made their presentation. I will now give Civic Core 10 minutes to make a their presentation. And Madam Clerk, soon as they begin, we'll just set the ten minute mark. We're not going to set the 10 minutes. So you're ready to go. Okay. Let me know when you're ready.
Speaker 3: Just check that that's working.
Speaker 0: We're ready.
Speaker 4: Okay. Set the timer. Please begin.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council for this opportunity to present to you today. And thank you staff for all your. And thank you to the staff for all your hard work in bringing the project this far. What I'd like to do here today is very simple. I'd like to describe for you why we feel strongly that Long Beach Civic Alliance is the best choice for Long Beach. We bring together the largest TBP developers in the world, along with local partners with have true mixed use development experience right here in Southern California, including over 5000 square feet of private development in the LAX to Long Beach market. Our proposal generates approximately 250 million in savings compared to the competing proposal over the term of the agreement. We think that's a very substantial amount of money that can't be ignored. It's the only plan that fully resolves the seismic concerns, which were the primary reason for doing this project in the first place. And I'd like to finish by just making a couple of comments on the design. Clearly, we just heard a detailed presentation from staff on that. I think needless to say, we don't agree with a number of elements of their review of our design. Just to pick one example, the description of the path of travel from the Magnolia Garage into the two civic buildings was not described accurately. In addition, there are a number of other areas there that I think deserve further discussion. But I'm not going to go into those today. We have a limited 10 minutes, and what I'd like to spend our time on is to talk about a number of other areas that we believe deserve more consideration and are key differentiators between the two teams. We've framed this around five significant questions that we think should be asked and answered before a decision is made. First, coming back to the money, why spend the additional $247 million on a project when it's not necessary? Let's think about what else that money could go towards. Second, why was the team experience not considered or scored as part of the RFP process? Third, seismic concerns, and I'm referring here specifically to the Broadway garage and the fact that it remains and is not seismically upgraded. In the competing teams proposal. Fourth, I want to come back to the $12.6 million, which has been the starting point throughout this whole process. And just point out that within the staff report in recommending the competing proposal, they note that financing issues remain to be resolved and possibly could result in any increase in the affordability limit. This relates directly to the fifth, which is another point that I believe is critically important and needs further consideration, and that is how the staff can recommend selection of a materially nonresponsive proposal. The city's own report concluded that the PCP financial proposal does not meet the RFP requirements. To touch on that just a little bit further, the staff report and it provided the page reference here states that the PCP without port financial proposal does not meet the RFP requirements and could be considered non-responsive. The staff report goes on to describe that they have the latitude to determine that responsiveness and waive it. However, it's important to understand that under California law, a public entity may only allow deviations from the requirements of the RFP if they are inconsequential or immaterial. We don't believe that applies to the financial plan. We believe this is a critically important issue that needs to be investigated in more detail. And I've asked the city to explain the basis on which they waived this failure to meet the RFP requirements. Next. I want to come to some of the numbers. The first point that I want to make here on the slide in the prior presentation, there was a description of the numbers that included a reference to the tax revenue sharing that was presented as an alternative in our proposal. I'd like to point out that the numbers used here on this page do not do not include that tax revenue sharing. The 12.1 million that we're showing is an amount that does not include that, and it is substantially below the 12.6 million in the competing proposal. And even more importantly, the port annual payment comes in at about $4 million lower. That's a significantly lower total cost for the project, totaling 247 million over the term of the project. I'd like to go into a little more detail on what that cost difference means. According to the Press Telegram recently, a city budget crisis may be looming. In particular, there's not enough revenue to fund tidelands capital projects with some of the oil price declines. This is not the time to be spending more than is necessary on a civic center and port headquarters. Some of the things that that additional $4 million per year could go towards funding lifeguards, firefighters and police in the tidelands parks and beaches, the Belmont Plaza Pool. The last point I'd like to make on the financing, I talked a lot about cost. That's one element of it. Another element of it is risk. The our proposal, as compared to our competitors, we invest more of our own money and rely less on external debt. We believe that balance sheet and equity investment is critically important and reduces risk to the city. With that, I'd like to hand over to my colleague, Bob Darnovsky.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Elliot. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of council. My name is Bob Darnovsky.
Speaker 12: I've been a resident of the city of Long Beach for over 30 years, and I live in the third district.
Speaker 0: For those who perhaps aren't.
Speaker 12: Familiar with all the members of our team, I'd just.
Speaker 0: Like to quickly brief them. Macquarie and Lindley.
Speaker 12: Simply put, the largest three development team in the world, Continental Development Corporation, has.
Speaker 0: Developed over 5 million square feet of U.S. private.
Speaker 12: Development in the LAX to Long Beach market.
Speaker 0: Our partner, Holland Partners, has 3.6 million square feet of.
Speaker 12: Residential development in Southern California.
Speaker 0: And in downtown L.A. alone, they have delivered and have in the market pipeline.
Speaker 12: 2500 residential units.
Speaker 0: ABM, they are the only OEM operator that does not outsource core functions. They will employ hundreds of Long Beach citizens, and they are the only OEM.
Speaker 12: Operator that can.
Speaker 0: Commit to a long.
Speaker 12: Term facilities management business.
Speaker 0: PCL. Simply North America's most prolific.
Speaker 12: Design build contractor.
Speaker 0: And Fentress architects and Civitas are planners have over 100 million square feet of public projects worth over $30 billion. Due to our outreach with will be okay you know the quality of the hotel residential and retail development that will comprise the private sector piece of the civic center. It's not. Don't worry. We'll figure it out later. Why would the City of Long Beach hand over the most complicated, mixed use P3 project developed in the United States to a team with limited mixed use development experience and none in the state of California? If the city is serious about 12.6 million. Unfortunately, then private development needs to work. Otherwise.
Speaker 12: None of us will have a new civic center.
Speaker 0: How did both teams receive the same score on private development when by their own admission? Our competitors tower that you saw shining on the horizon at 35 storeys isn't financially feasible in the marketplace. Before you select a team that made a proposal to the city of Long Beach that was $247 million more expensive to the city than to the LBC proposal. Before you select the team whose proposal leaves the Broadway garage untouched without bringing the garage up to current seismic standards. When the genesis of the entire project was the seismic instability of City Hall. Before you select a team that ignored the stated needs and security concerns of the Port of Long Beach and places subterranean parking under the entire port office building. Before you select a team whose library, contrary to staff reporting, is actually 2000 square feet smaller than the ABC Library when the actual library usable square footage is measured. And before you select the team that didn't have the foresight and creativity to come up with the Innovation Village and doesn't have $8 million, it's in it and its private sector development budget to fund it. Members of council, we ask you to pause and reflect. As a 30 year resident of the city. Please don't relinquish the decision making authority entrusted to you by your constituents on the most significant city project in decades. Ask the tough questions. Demand forthright answers. And then let us come together next month as a community, continue our journey forward and bring to fruition a new civic center that will benefit all Long Beach residents. Thank you for your consideration. Our team members are available to answer any questions you may wish to ask of us.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you very much. Now we're going to be moving on to our next team, which is plenary age more. Who will also first set up. And they will. We won't start the time until they're ready to go like we did for the last one. So you just let me know when you're all ready and set up.
Speaker 3: In the first. Try this.
Speaker 0: Mr. Mayor, I believe we're waiting for the.
Speaker 4: They're switchgear in the back. So just just give them a minute and they'll. They'll get to it.
Speaker 0: Is that right? Right. Okay, great.
Speaker 4: Madam Kirk, do you have the time ready to go? Okay. Begin when you're ready. Please go ahead.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council for the record on Dale Bonner, the executive chairman of Plenary Concessions, and on behalf of Plenary Edge more civic partners, we wanted to thank you for the opportunity to be back with you this evening to talk about the Civic Center Project. As you've heard, we've been engaged in a very thorough and robust procurement process, and we want to offer very appreciative of the staff's recommendation that we proceed as your partners. All along the way, we have kept in mind that this is really about the people of Long Beach and making sure that they realize the.
Speaker 11: Social and economic benefits of a fully revitalized civic center.
Speaker 0: And so you can rest assured that if we are selected to be your partners, that will be fully committed to making sure that all of the people of Long Beach are included in the process. And what we wanted to do with the brief time that we have available this evening is to showcase some of the world class experience that we want to bring to Long Beach and explain why we believe our vision best reflects the vision of the city and the people. Thank you, Dale. Mr. Mayor, members of the city council. Good evening. My name is Paul Dana. I'm design director with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. I'm also the design leader for the plenary edge more team. Just as our process began with people. So did our design. With the goal of creating a great place for the citizens of Long Beach. The employees of the city and port and visitors. We created a great new civic plaza for people to participate in the democratic process, to celebrate and to improve the daily lives of those working in or doing business at the port headquarters or city hall. We also created efficient, collaborative, healthy and secure work environments and sustainable LEED platinum buildings. Visitors, workers and residents are all invited to the retail Paseo, where we've created opportunities for local entrepreneurs and artisans and a tree lined pedestrian scaled environment. We'll program these retail spaces based on community input and would welcome the inclusion of educational components. We'll also bring new life through new residents and hotel guests. All in support. Safe. 24 seven atmosphere. For the new Lincoln Park, our design team created a series of landscape rooms with playgrounds, dog parks and places to simply sit and enjoy Long Beach. For locals and visitors. There will be an art and history walk to display the story and culture of Long Beach and flexible event spaces to accommodate hundreds or thousands of people. For people who want to learn, we've designed a sustainable new main library with improved access technology and an expanded makerspace so that we can look forward to a day when an idea or a company is born in the Long Beach, Maine, library instead of a Harvard dorm room. City Council.
Speaker 11: Members. My name is Geoff Fullerton. I'm a director with Exmoor Infrastructure and Real Estate, and I'd like to talk a little bit about our experience. As you.
Speaker 0: Said, this project is.
Speaker 11: As much about picking the team as it is about picking the project, and our experience and our team are stellar. We've developed over 83, our 33 mixed use project, 33 projects around the country, including a mixed use project. And we've developed over 35,000 residential units, including this Pacific Beacon project here in San Diego, which is a mixed use project in California. We are resumé of our design team includes some amazing spaces, including the Millennium Park in Chicago and the draw on that experience to create a regional park draw here in Long Beach. And as a builder, we've built some of the most transformative spaces in California. These urban developments include L.A. Live, the capital area, East End, Petco Park and San Diego. So we certainly have experience in California from a development, from a building and from an ownership and management standpoint. We currently own and operate over 11 million residential units around the country, over 5 million square feet of office, industrial and retail projects. And we own four hotels and are building three more for our own account today. And with that. But I could go on and on and on about my in our experience. But I have a video here that we have from a few people who've worked with us before, and I'd like you to listen to what some of them had to say about their experience in working with our team.
Speaker 0: There's just a million decisions to be made. This was essentially the first.
Speaker 11: Major public private partnership that the U.S. system was.
Speaker 0: Taking off. We never really had a discussion that started out with, Well, I'm sorry, Clifford, we can't afford that. It was always, what do we need to do and how can we get there?
Speaker 1: They came up with ideas and solutions to things we didn't ask them for because they thought it was the right thing to do.
Speaker 0: Trustworthy group. Great group to work with. Collaborative, which is obviously a big.
Speaker 11: Part of a public private partnership. The overall experience.
Speaker 0: With Ashmore Clarke was incredibly positive. This is my fourth project.
Speaker 3: Prove it over the last 20.
Speaker 0: Years is that they always deliver the project and they always deliver the project in the manner they say they're going to deliver. I would recommend Clarke and Ashmore to my colleagues in and out of state government for this project. It's marked by calmness, creativity and cooperation, and I've been on a lot of construction projects in my career and this is the highest level of that.
Speaker 1: I think they're a fabulous team and whoever hires them and works with them will be very pleased.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And, you know, this project is also about creating jobs. And our proposal.
Speaker 11: Creates 3700 jobs, particularly in the districts that need it the most. And I want to tell you two tangible ways we're going to do that. We're committed to it. We're committed to an aggressive local hiring goal in our proposal, and we're committed to an aggressive minority and disadvantaged business outreach program.
Speaker 0: And we have another video to talk a little bit about that program.
Speaker 11: We typically exceed these goals, and I'd like you to hear from some of the people who've been a participant in that program.
Speaker 1: Rebecca Enterprises has been in business since 2006. We're small, but we've been recognized in the community and were very excited when we were chosen to participate in the Strategic Partnering Program. But since the class would have been larger jobs, both federal and local jobs, and we've built our confidence, our bonding has increased, our revenue has doubled, and we partnered with Glock on the Highland Park Project. And CLOC is actually sincere about helping smaller businesses. And the perfect examples this program, because you're spending a lot of resources in energy and helping and training smaller businesses and also their participation in the local community. We have residential areas on to other surrounding size. And then the fourth side is an elementary school of Chavez Elementary, and we really decided to plug in and support that elementary school the entire time that we were on this project. We would go to the school every week and mentor the kids and make sure that we had a consistent presence so that they knew that we were there and reliable and what an impact it was on not only us as the staff, but the kids and the principal as well. It was a great experience and I will miss them immensely. So I hope I get to have another project here in Long Beach so I can come back and serve at Chavez again.
Speaker 0: My name's Stewart Marks. I'm a senior vice president at Plenary Group and the project director representing the Plenary Age Milosevic Partners team. First of all, I want to say that we do respect our colleagues at Long Beach Civic Alliance. I can't speak to their proposal. I can understand why they would be disappointed, given all of the work and effort that's been put into the process so far. We understand the significance and importance of the project, and we also appreciate the responsibility that comes along with that. It's why from the outset we listened to the city staff and focused on the civic and public elements of this project, knowing that those were the core elements that we needed to get right and that the private development would flourish if we were able to deliver on those on those aspects. But it goes goes further than that. We understand that this is and we heard one of the council members bring this to our attention, that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to give back to this to the people of of Long Beach through the creation of jobs for all people, for all the people in Long Beach, and most importantly, for the ones that need them the most. We've built that into our plan. And as we demonstrated in the in the presentation earlier, I also wanted to point out that from day one, we've wanted to incorporate a hotel into our development. We do believe that it's feasible today. At the same time, we understand that all.
Speaker 10: Private development.
Speaker 0: Particularly a hotel, is dependent on market conditions and we don't want to preempt what the market conditions will be and what that hotel might look like in the future. Greatly respect the process that's been conducted to date, and we're here to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. That concludes the project presentations. And I just want to remind both teams that when we do go to public comment, public comment is for members of the public. And the teams have had a chance to do their to do their comment through that process. Now, we're going to take this back to the city council. Four for comment in discussion. And I have some queued up here. I start off with Vice Mayor Lowenthal, and then after this, we will go to public comment.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to go ahead and ask some follow up questions to staff. I'd like to thank the staff for the entire process, and and I'll have some remarks a little bit later. But I think it would be important to address questions right now, since both teams came before us to make their short presentation about the staff recommendation. So, Mr. City Manager, if I could just ask a couple of follow up questions based on some things that were said that were asked and said and certainly asked of our of our council team to consider. There's a considerable focus by civic board, the civic core team on on the finances and how the plenary team's proposal is more expensive. I know you have a slide and we have copies of that showing what the financial side by side is. But could you address that issue that was just raised in their ten minute challenge of staff recommendation on. The issue of the other proposal being more expensive.
Speaker 11: Vice Mayor and councilmembers. I'm going to turn these questions over to the evaluation team, whichever department head needs to respond to which question. So. Team.
Speaker 10: Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Members of City Council. Yes, I'd be happy to talk about the the $247 million that was raised in Civic Hours presentation. They actually did an estimate for that number. The actual number in the evaluation report is 215 million, but that's still a pretty large number. When you bring 215 million back to present value. Considering both the city hall and port payment schedule, it results in $40 million in present value at 5.5% discount rate, which is the appropriate London rate for Civic Corp.. That $40 million is the ports portion of that large number, $250 million that, as I indicated before in the slides , particularly on slide 53, that is the elements of the port development that were separate or different from civic core, including the underground parking, the proportionate share of the civic plaza, the higher quality of building, and the dual core building design as well as discussed before the port of looking at alternatives and value engineering. That $40 million present value number will likely reduce significantly. The other element of that $215 million is the city portion. That's about $3.75 million in present value dollars. I'm sorry, that's not a present value dollar. That's a over the 40 year term, that 13.7 million is essentially reflected in the more robust development of Lincoln Park, the additional investment of about $5 Million into the main library. And with that additional investment by plenary edge more. Our $12.6 million cap has not been breached. The focus of the RFP was to provide $12.6 million income stream to each project team and to provide us with the best value given that income stream. And so I continue and the committee continues to support planetary edge more as providing the best value with that specific income stream. Does that help respond to your question?
Speaker 9: That does help respond to the question. And so when we look at the present value of the $215 million cited, the 40 million being the ports portion, is there any any concern or consideration that that is not an adequate transfer of expenses?
Speaker 10: Well, Vice Mayor, we have both teams presented to alternative strategies and how best to allocate the costs. One was by square footage, another one was by employee, with some shared costs at equal 5050 allocation. We don't know yet if that's proper. I think we'll have to spend some time in it reviewing the design and the construction cost estimates and sit down with port staff and determine the appropriate allocations so that we can protect both General Fund and the Tidelands Fund from further scrutiny.
Speaker 9: And is it true under your estimation that that would be a flexible aspect of the project design and proposal where we could protect ourselves as well as the harbor department from any of that challenge?
Speaker 10: That's absolutely the intent of this process.
Speaker 9: Thank you. The next question I have is the contention that there are still safety concerns, seismic safety concerns with Flannery's project. Could you address that, please, as it relates to the Broadway garage?
Speaker 10: I'd be happy to do that. Vice Mayor. There's been no seismic study conducted on either the Broadway or Lincoln Garage, so there is no clear evidence that either structure is seismically deficient. I think it is safe to say that the building was built at an older and aged building code. So I expect that there could be building code upgrades that would benefit the parking structure. But at this point in time, there is no evidence to indicate that there are seismic issues with either of those structures.
Speaker 9: Okay. And in both proposals treated at the Broadway garage differently, is that correct?
Speaker 10: That's correct. So culinary edge more is retaining the garage a civic core is demolishing the garage. Okay.
Speaker 9: And it's your statement that we do not have any evidence to seismic concerns at this time regarding Broadway Garage.
Speaker 10: I can say that the city would be no worse off in the position if the Broadway garage remains in city ownership.
Speaker 9: Absolutely. I appreciate that. I think the next question you had already addressed in terms of the $12.6 million city commitment, you had indicated in your earlier statement that that the plenary proposal does not breach that $12.6 million threshold. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: That's correct. Plenary more matched the the cap every year of the 40 years. And if I could spend a couple of minutes on slide 51.
Speaker 9: Please.
Speaker 10: What's up there? Mr. Jamison indicated that one of the alternate proposals included the tax sharing arrangement, though in his in civic cause submittal to the city. And in the clarifying questions that were presented to Civic here, they stated pretty directly that our original proposal, which included the sharing of incremental tax revenue, remains our proposed response to the RFP. So as a result of that, we did spend a lot of time evaluating their submittal with that element as part of their financial model. Nonetheless, we did look at the stress care stress case analysis and on slide 51, you'll see that this is the adjusted stress test that was conducted, that stress test eliminated or pulled out the tax increment sharing out of civic cause proposal and also brought both teams up to a 15% subordinated debt level. And so when you take out and and both teams were maximized as far as the annual city payments so both teams were civic was pushed up to 12.6 plenary edge more remained at 12.6. So we increased Civic Core's revenue stream. When we eliminated the tax increment sharing. And as a result of that adjusted case, you can see that the civic core financial proposal in this stress test under project cost interest rates and operating cost is less flexible than plenaries financial model. And we quickly did a stress test today and in another adjusted case, we limited civic cause payment to 12.1 million instead of 12.6. And we looked at just project cost as that's the amount of time we had. And Project Civic is ability to withstand adjustments in project costs reduced from 4.4% to 2.7%. We expect that reduction would also be reflected in interest rates and operating costs. So I think in best case scenario, without a tax increment sharing perspective and providing civic core with the maximum amount of revenue from the city, their financial model is still less robust than plenary assurance.
Speaker 9: Does that address the indication they made that plenary hedge? Moore's proposal does not show the tax revenue sharing aspect.
Speaker 10: Vice Mayor Plenary Edge Moore did not propose any tax sharing.
Speaker 9: That was my understanding as well. If I thank you for that explanation of Slide 51, if I could go back to another aspect of affordability, there was a statement that several aspects of plenary age, Moore's proposal was not financeable. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 10: Vice Mayor I think the private development of plenary edge more as is focused more on the future uses. Five years from now what what I believe they're seeking to do which I think is a strategic move on their part, is to develop the civic center and create an interest to create a a place in downtown. And as a result, that will increase demand and increase interest in developing in the downtown. And I think at that time, they'd more appropriately seek their partners for development. It it's correct that plenary would seek partners to develop their mixed use residential and hotel. And that partner is relatively open and could even include current members of Civic as team. So it is a, an opportunity in the future and I think that future opportunity will be more viable than today's opportunity.
Speaker 9: Okay. During the challenge, there was a statement that without the port's financial proposal, plenary does not meet the RFP requirements given the given the unanimous vote that the Harbor Commission took yesterday. Would that not make that a moot point?
Speaker 10: I think perhaps I'll turn that over to Mr. Anthony.
Speaker 12: And vice mayor and mayor and members of the Council. I think that's right, but that's not exactly what civic course contention is generally, they contend. You may have received the letter earlier today in my response memo, both of which will be part of the record tomorrow morning, that that plenary should have been disqualified prior to any action taken by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. I agree that the point is moot. But with respect to speakers contention, I respectfully disagree with their analysis of the law, and I don't think that the city staff has acted improperly in going ahead and scoring the plenary proposal and in fact, recommending it to you tonight. I think everything has been above board in accordance with the law, and no one has acted improperly. That's the opinion of our office.
Speaker 9: And I know you sent that letter out by email. Do both proposers have a copy of that?
Speaker 12: No, they do not, but they will. It will be part of the public record, both civil calls, challenge letter and my response. Memo to you.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Anthony. If I could go on, Mr. Conway, with regard to the challengers I'm sorry, Civic Corps statement about the true cost to the city. I think that's always compelling, especially those of us that were part of this city government and policymaking body during our worst years. And there's a there's a statement that it's $4 million less per year that their proposal would actually result in. And I know you address some of that by going over previous slides, but if you could just reiterate the salient points, that would give confidence that this would not be a greater cost to the city.
Speaker 10: Vice Mayor. Yes. To respond to that. The $4 million is primarily a port expense, and that, again, is a result of not having restrictions, a financial cap for the port. So plenary actually, both teams approached the port alternative from the standpoint of their revised needs assessment and proposed and conceptualized buildings that were of higher quality than City Hall. Additionally, plenary edge more has a subterranean garage or parking area which significantly increased costs about $26 million. So with value engineering moving forward during the year and a process that for $1,000,000 could be dramatically reduced.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. And in terms of questions, that's all I have at this time. But I would just like to make a few remarks regarding the process, the effort, and really just my my personal delight. I have no better word for us to even be in this position to make a decision such as this. This is certainly a very difficult decision. I look at many staff members that have been a part of this process for the last probably eight years. I kept referring to it as seven years. But Mr. Conway reminded me that we started this in 2006 with a proposal for civic center re-envisioning that I was a part of when I first came on this council. And we are here today because of the. Tremendous due diligence that staff members have provided. Amy Bodak, the city manager, former assistant city manager, head of Planning and Building, Mr. Craig back during his time with redevelopment. And certainly Mr. Conway and everyone else that's been working on this and several council members and former council members and this really is a moment of privilege for someone like me to be a part of this truly once in a lifetime decision. I don't think it's even once in a generation. This is something that will impact many generations going forward, especially a project built right, done right. And I have from the beginning indicated that my greatest hope and aspiration for civic center is that it would be designed for the people that will use it. We can have iconic buildings and structures throughout the world, and there there is much talent that can deliver that for us, but truly a space that speaks to the human interaction and the human scale. First is something that I believe addresses the vision of of our council and really our city. And so when I when I think of that and I look at both proposals, they are both magnificent proposals. Truthfully, if you look at them both both teams are qualified. But when we look at the proposal for a civic center, that would have the greatest potential to achieve human scale and the human scale, purpose and goals, I do think that the staff's recommendation for the plenary team is one that delivers that I've mentioned before. At one time, civic institutions and the spaces around them were some of the most vital places in the city. That really is our aspiration and hope and ambition for this project that it will be returned to the people. I look at what Los Angeles City Hall has done in its civic center, and what it's done is it's reclaimed the space for the public, and we have an opportunity to do that here. There are many questions that have been raised with regard to proposal specifics. But when I look at the volume of of documentation and due diligence that the staff has put together with its team, I'm confident that they have made the right recommendation with financing, with design, with team composition, with experience, all of which I believe will definitely deliver a civic center and a public space. The true public living room that we look for that this city has set out as its goals. We have many goals that have been identified at what what this proposal should do, what this project should do. But woven through each of those is this commonality that it needs to be returned to the public for the public use . When you look at how you approach civic centers, not just in the United States or in California, but really anywhere, is it inviting? Is it a majestic invitation for the single human being to feel significant? And the answer has to be yes. It has to be majestic for that individual. And that is what I think we have an opportunity to do. And I am very, very pleased that we are at this position. I know council members, this is the largest decision that we will make. I put my 100% confidence behind the staff recommendation. I submit to you that I have personally worked on this for eight years, increment by increment, starting with the downtown visioning plan, with the Civic Center Visioning Plan, with the downtown plan, updating our planning and building codes with the mobility element, the bicycle master plan, the adaptive reuse ordinance that had to be done in order for us to be able to do other aspects of it. When we look at the size, height and massing of this project, it would not have been possible if none of those installments had not taken place, to which I give the stakeholders and the community and city staff a great deal of credit. We can all have great ideas, but none of this matters unless we have a team of experts that come together and pull it off. And they pulled it off installment by installment. This is a long narrative in our history, one which over the last eight years we have delivered chapter by chapter and I, in a heartfelt way, applaud everyone that's been involved. I see many members of the downtown visioning team that's been here. Steve Goodling, Larry Jackson, Caramel. Yeah, I know there are others in the audience. This is something that you help deliver. Whichever team is selected, your vision will be realized. But I asked my colleagues today to start to support the staff recommendation as I make the motion to all of those motions.
Speaker 1: How many motions here.
Speaker 9: Mr. Anthony, is it.
Speaker 1: One single motion?
Speaker 12: It's one single motion. And that's proper for you to make it one motion.
Speaker 9: Thank you. There are many pieces to it, but. I will make the motion to move the staff recommendation second.
Speaker 4: Okay. There's been a motion and a second to the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 8: I also had a few questions as well first and then I'll say what I need to say. But there had been a $44 million in construction costs that the court had brought up. Additionally, can you discuss that a little bit, Mike, please.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Gonzales. The 44 million in construction costs, if I recollect correctly, is the combination of city hall and port construction costs that 44 million being a present value number. The City Hall variation between Civic Hall and plenary age more was about nine, eight or $9 million of that. So about 30 to $32 million is related to the port. And that again goes directly back to $26 million for underground parking. You know, a higher quality building with dual core layouts, participation in the construction of the Civic Plaza. So the majority of that is a port cost, which we expect to address during with value engineering during the DNA period. So we expect that cost to go down.
Speaker 8: Great. And then I know we've gone over this quite a few times, but just so it's very clear, what are the significant differences between both teams, the library in regards to the Civic Park acreage and then also the Port Building and City Hall Synergy, if any?
Speaker 10: Councilmember Gonzalez Right. The first part I think you're referencing the library. So plenary Edgware is proposing a 93,500 square foot library, about 91,000 square foot net. Square foot. Civic Core is proposing a 78,300 square foot library. I don't have to have my head know what what the net square feet is for that. But I know a statement was made that they have 2000 more programable space. I'm not sure how that would work with 20,000 additional net square feet in plenary more as proposal. But that's something that I think the Director of Library Services can certainly work to program the library whichever way is most appropriate for the community and the neighborhood. And then the second part of your question, I didn't completely hear.
Speaker 8: The port building and city hall and how those two would I mean, if there's any synergy between those two or not and probably different each.
Speaker 10: The the. So there is a number of elements of synergy. One of them is, of course, the shared space. So there's shared chambers. There's also shared, shared meeting rooms. In sum, in one scenario, there are shared parking. And of more importance, I think, to the city is the economies of scale for concurrent construction. So the port has indicated their interest in financing separately and perhaps doing operations and maintenance separately. That has a smaller impact on the financing. But the economies of scale relative to construction is where there's a lot of savings for the city and the port, and that's our primary interest in having the port as a partner from a financial perspective is the savings in economies of scale of construction.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. And then lastly, I know plenary had discussed a little bit more in detail about a local job creation commitment. I don't know if there's anything that's been discussed. I mean, a little bit on the Civic side, but has there been anything additional for civic core in regards to local job?
Speaker 10: Anything additional? I think to go into some numbers, what's been submitted to us from civic core for construction jobs is 596 direct jobs, 628 indirect jobs, 2816 induced jobs. Similarly, on the plenary edge, moorside for construction 583 direct 694 indirect 650 for induced. And then over the term of the Project for Operational Jobs, Civic Corps has 477 direct 360 indirect 796 induced plenary edge more 726 direct 94 indirect and 127 induced. So relatively similar from a job generation standpoint. I know plenary added more in their statement today has indicated their interest and commitment to local hiring, which is a, I think a positive event for us. It's also required in the RFP to enter into a project labor agreement. Any hotel that's intended to be constructed, it needs to be a union hotel. So I think both teams are kind of on the same playing field in that regard as well.
Speaker 8: Great. Thank you. So I will just go on to say that, you know, tonight it's obviously very clear that we had to vote on a team rather than a project. And after observing each team's vision from the very beginning for Long Beach and understanding each team's foresight for our Dear City, I really personally observed basic components that truly. Represented the distinct uniqueness of our city of Long Beach. I saw that in Plenary Edge more from the very beginning, a presentation that was truly mindful of Long Beach with historic components that are very important not only to our city but to my district personally. Being the birthplace of Long Beach, I have folks here from Wilmore, but in addition to that, a presentation with uniform architecture and well-suited site planning that married the poor and our city hall together and looked beyond the bare minimum for our park space and programing, while also fitting clear and concise criteria for our city's financial boundaries, not adding any additional risks to us in the coming decades, while also talking robustly about a local jobs plan, which is certainly very important to the western parts of the city. And so it is my thought today that we move forward with this process now not to delay this impactful project, which can add costs potentially and further add complexity and perhaps add more of the same discussions, which we know now unfortunately are just not possible. So I strongly support staff's recommendation for plenary age, more civic partners, and I look forward to continuing community discussion regarding all of the important details to our City Hall. And I thank each team for their hard work and efforts. I think the city staff, as well as the Port of Long Beach and all of our community members, and I look forward to continuing discussions.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I want to begin by applauding both teams. I think both presentations would obviously give us a world class civic center. And from the first time we saw what you've come back with, both teams really demonstrated a commitment to jobs and working families, a commitment to diversity, a commitment to creativity. And a lot of work has gone into that. I want to thank staff because, I mean, this has been a great process so far from my perspective. And, you know, it's been a learning experience for me. And but more specifically, I just want to say that, you know, although there are a number of accounts of people that just came on board, including myself, there's you know, it's clear that this there has been a very robust process for a long, long time. So I want to acknowledge the council members sports, more specifically Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Vice Mayor and Councilmember Gonzales for ensuring that that input is there. I know that when projects come up in my district, I count them. You know, my colleagues count on me to be a local expert on how that impacts my local community. So I'm listening. I've intentionally held off on meeting with both teams. I met with both today and had a conversation with them. And, you know, I heard about the different concerns and high points. And so I've had been able to have some of those conversations. There are a number of questions I still have. I believe the major question was the $250 million or so disparity or claim that one is more expensive than the other. I spent the majority of the day doing my homework to see if if in fact, that's true and if that's a real number. I am I am comfortable with the response that I've gotten from city staff in terms of the majority of that is borne within the port portion. And so that brings me to the question on my first question, which is I understand that they've gone ahead and selected plenary edge more. And if this group were to for some reason select an alternative group. What what would that mean for us if we select one group and they will be the process at that point.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Richardson That might be a process question. I don't know if I can turn this over to Richard Anthony.
Speaker 12: You have.
Speaker 0: You're welcome.
Speaker 12: That's an interesting question. It's not one that we have thoroughly considered. I think the city could move forward with its selection without the port's participation, because I think what would happen is, is effectively that would be a port problem, not a city problem, because the land that is contemplated to be used for the port headquarters is city property. So the port, although it has selected a partner in that instance, it wouldn't really have anywhere to build its headquarters. So I think the city would be okay that the port would have some serious decisions to make.
Speaker 6: Okay. So if we made an alternative decision, then they would need to take some action to see if they're going to participate with us or not.
Speaker 12: I think that's.
Speaker 6: Right. So maybe they should have waited to see what we were going to do before they made a decision. But I have confidence that those harbor commissioners did do their due diligence and evaluate those claims at the cost will be significantly higher. So I don't think that that's I mean, my concerns have been answered there. But there was also a claim that the hotel tower, the 30 foot tower, as proposed by plenary, would have feasibility issues. So I want to I want to just ask about that. Are there undue was was was due process not conducted to determine the feasibility? Is one project more feasible than the other in terms of the hotel? And then if for some reason in five years, because they determined that at this point the market may not you know, may not prove to be able to support a hotel. Well, in five years, if we're not in the position where the market can support a hotel, what is our game plan? Does that mean we have to increase our monthly or monthly commitment? How would that work?
Speaker 10: Councilmember Richardson First, the hotel use is purely market driven, whether it's today or five years from now. I think has as has been mentioned earlier, I think if we create a place here to begin with by completing the civic center element and the main library and the robust Lincoln Park, we could create more of an interest for the hotel element downtown. But for each team, that element is subject to the demands created by the marketplace. So I don't think one team's hotel is any more feasible than the other as it relates to its impact on city payment. In the plenary more proposal. The private development has absolutely no influence on the $12.6 million, and in the civic core proposal as submitted, there was a tax sharing element which would of course rely upon totals for that hotel as part of their income stream.
Speaker 6: Great. So I would just say that I and I'm I'm satisfied with that response. We've said all along that we're going to evaluate the team and not the project. But I saw some good elements in both projects. And I know it's going to be difficult to, you know, marry two projects. But I really you know, I really thought that the Innovation Village was a great concept and it was in the the the team that wasn't wasn't recommended a proposal. And I know that there, you know, we've said this time and time again, we can select certain elements and integrate into the the project we finally move forward with . But my question is, I know that there were specific dollars carved out for Innovation Village. I don't remember what the number was, you know, 5 to 8 million or something. How would we how would that work if we said, hey, we like we want to move forward with plenary, but we want to, you know, introduce we want to put innovative village innovation village in the grocery store. And how would that impact our payment or the project or his finances? How would that work? Giving $8 million of the private sector element was invested in the the innovation village.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Richardson Firstly, the private development from the plenary edge more perspective will not affect the $12.6 million cap. The proposed private development by plenary edge more in the committee's opinion is a little bit more conservative as reflected in the range of residential units, as opposed to a fixed 765 units. Also, plenary edge more proposes 49,000 square feet of retail versus 60,000. So we think that's also somewhat conservative and certainly. Provides more flexibility in providing alternative uses in the plenary edge more proposal. So we think that there is room available in that conservative private development model that can accommodate a innovation village. And certainly the funding wouldn't come from city, it would come from private sources, and so that would be the partnering that plenary edge more would do great.
Speaker 6: So I want to talk about the library. I know there were a number of size claims and as I understand it and let me know if I'm correct. But as I understand it, we you know, in this we this isn't the final iteration of the library, right? This is going to be we're going to this is sort of a top line concept of the library. And we'll be able to go back and determine what is actually programable space and what is not, and if necessary, readjust the floorplan or increase space in some in some regard. Am I right in that assumption?
Speaker 10: You are correct, Councilman. We're interested in this is conceptual at this point. There's been a lot of detail on the programing and interior layout of the library. But as has been mentioned, more than once, we have 6 to 9 months of public outreach, all of which will influence the final product.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I just want to wrap it up by saying that I you know, I think comparing apples to apples, the find it seems to me that there are some creative elements in, say, core that I, I really like. But it seems split plenary Ed's more was more responsive. And in terms of the financial the financial concerns, I'm satisfied with those. I think that either team would likely be able to carry it out. So I'm going to be supporting staff's recommendation. I do want to say that when I look at the courthouse across the street, I'm really impressed by I love that courthouse. I don't necessarily know that the Civic Center design in plenary age more really complements that or challenges that. So I would say that when we get to the next level, I would love to see I mean, should should this be advanced and I would love to see us really put some design have a design discussion about that. That's Civic Center. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilmember Price.
Speaker 8: I actually am going to move the discussion a little bit in another direction just because I think there were some issues that had come up in the past that I want to talk with Mr. Conway about and kind of close the loop on. At one of our last study sessions, one of a third district resident had given you are given to me to give to you however way a thesis that had been done on the retrofit option. And one of the commitments that we receive from you was that you would review that thesis and determine whether or not there was any viability in terms of the retrofit option. Have you had a chance to do that? And if so, before we proceed with this vote, I'd like to know your thoughts on that.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Price I did read the thesis a very informed and thorough document. The two areas of particular interest that I was looking for was an engineering analysis and a cost estimate. I think it's been stated out there in a few areas that the estimated cost is $30 million in in the thesis. Actually, it's not clear in the in the thesis there is no direct statement as to where the $30 million came from. But in a subsequent email from the author, she stated that the $30 million was from a rule of thumb that she was familiar with at $100 a foot for office retrofitting. That detail is not sufficient for analysis. And in actually, I believe the other two levels of rule of thumb she had was up to $500 for a a facility that is intended to be a first responding facility. I think City Hall would follow that level of rule of thumb rather than the $100 a square foot. We would be closer to $500 a square foot if we wanted that level of retrofit. The other area was engineering. There was no reference to any engineering drawings. It was a conceptual approach to weaving a tubular structure into the the structural members of City Hall, thereby strengthening the exterior curtain walls and the interior structure of the columns and beams. But there is no detail with that as well. And so there was nothing to have reviewed other than concept statements. So while it was an interesting proposal, there is no way to verify whether or not the proposal would work in the real world and what the cost would be.
Speaker 8: Thank you. And in terms of the retrofit option, before we move on from it, is there any reasonable scenario under which the city could retrofit this building giving, given our existing financial status and reality.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Price a reasonable scenario? I. I. Yes, a reasonable scenario would be go to the residents for a tax measure that would fund the retrofit. I'm not sure if the residents would countenance that approach, but the struggle we have, even if we could find the funds to do that, is that the retrofitted City Hall would again be subject to a significant seismic event and may not be Occupy able, in which case city government essentially shuts down for a period of time until we can find more funds to lease buildings throughout the city because there isn't a building that can accommodate staff at this point. And currently City Hall is inefficient, functionally obsolete. Investing that level of funds and into the City Hall is probably not advisable. My last recollection was $194 million estimated in 20 $13 reflects about $600 a foot, far less than the cost of rebuilding the Civic Center.
Speaker 8: And you don't based on your expertize and vibe, you don't feel that the residents would want to pay a tax to build a retrofit. The City Hall.
Speaker 10: I my experience comes from measure I and that measure, though very popular for some, did not achieve the amount of votes necessary for a tax measure. So I relying upon that I think the the interest in the residents might be low.
Speaker 8: In terms of the two teams that are before us tonight, in terms of the vote that's before us tonight, I mean, I want to take a moment and thank both teams for the effort that you've put into this project. It's it's truly impressive. I was educated further on this project when I attended the Open House. I appreciate you taking the time. I did have the opportunity to meet with Civic Corps. I did not meet with plenary that that opportunity didn't arise. And I will say that there were a lot of points that were raised that were very good points. And I think that staff has addressed those points this evening. And just for clarification, I want to go back to the finances, because to me, that was the biggest concern moving into tonight's vote. And, you know, I was under the impression prior to tonight or prior to today that in fact, one proposal, the civic core proposal was a lower cost to the city or would result in a lower cost to the city. What I'm hearing you say is that that isn't necessarily true when you consider all the factors. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: Councilmember Price Yes, that's correct. And to expand on that just a little bit and not to get into excruciating detail, but in speaker's proposal, they have a single bond issue that they proposed that would fund City Hall and the port. And it's in that model that they're suggesting that they can bring the payment down to $12.1 million. We think that's an inferior model to plenary edge more. But still, if with the port financing they're building themselves, civic corps would have to relook at that model and and the bond issue as well. So my expectation is without the port as a partner to that bond issue, the interest rates could go up and then the city's payment will go up as well. So I don't think even the 12.1 is accurate at this point.
Speaker 8: I also want to ask you about that. There was some requests made earlier today that perhaps we delay this decision and think about it further, other than possibly additional lobbying efforts and things going on. Is there any substantive benefit in your mind of continuing this this decision? Is there any more work that you think the city could do to get more answers? Is there anything outstanding in your mind that you feel you would need to do to be able to address the questions that have been raised?
Speaker 10: Councilmember Price. I don't think there's any more due diligence that we can do. I think a piece of information that might be reflective of our readiness to proceed is that our preferred recommended team has already executed the INA. The other team has not. So we are prepared to move forward tomorrow.
Speaker 8: And that is that would not be the case with both teams.
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 8: In regards to delaying the project or the idea that we would delay the decision tonight, what would be the negative or detrimental impact of that?
Speaker 10: I can't remember price. We're on a path at this point that's relatively rapid to protect life safety in this building and the residents that visited on a daily basis. And I think with that schedule in place, I think we've given some level of confidence to the employees and the visitors that we're going to be providing them a seismically safe facility at some time. Forestalling that process, I think, creates doubt and concern and may expose the city to litigation. That's we're not sure of that, but certainly it could be an option if this process slowed down.
Speaker 8: Would there be any foreseeable financial impacts of delaying any further?
Speaker 10: Councilmember Price One doesn't know the direction of interest rates other than they will likely go up. And I think the Federal Reserve has indicated their intent about mid-year next year to start bringing up interest rates. That would clearly have an effect on the bond proceeds that would be issued and reduce the potential funds available for the project
Speaker 8: . I want to echo something that Councilman Richardson said regarding relying on the expertize to a large extent of our council colleagues who take the time to study the needs of their districts. And I want to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilwoman Gonzalez and Mayor Garcia, because I know that they've been intimately involved in this project for many years , far longer than the five plus months that the new council members have been on this body. And so I want to I want to thank them for the work that they've put into this project and into determining what the needs of their community is. This is a city wide asset, much like many of the projects we pass, we consider as a city council, including the Belmont Pool. But having just recently been through that experience, I know how taxing it is to get involved and get in the weeds on some of those projects and figure out what really works and what would be a positive addition to our district. So I want to thank them and and I've said this to the group I met with and to anyone who's asked. Their opinion carries a lot of weight with me. I respect their opinions and I know that they've gone into a lot of work and coming up with their recommendations. Thank you. I don't have any additional questions.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilmember Income.
Speaker 7: Thank you there. Obviously, there's still a lot of questions to be asked. I look forward to the comments from the public with that when it comes to that. But before I begin with my line of questioning, a lot of the questions that I've had, I'm just taking them off as people here. People are are asking questions that I had others a few things that I that I'd like to clarify. But both projects both had excellent projects and ideas. Both had the people in mind when they're talking about what they want to see in terms of a civic center, being welcoming, being a citizen friendly, resident friendly. Also the the educational component on it for our civic core was was a big plus with me having come from the community college into this body. And I know that also with the mayor, but in in that respect, there were also components in the in the other plan that I they could have done better as well. But the way it's been the way it's been described to me and the way I was informed about it and it's been brought up and we had we're looking at picking the best team that the best project. So I'm guessing it's a guess that there is going to be a possibility or an opportunity to incorporate both in one way or another with whichever project we pick, because I certainly hope so. Because from from the perspective that there is the one team to one project and that's it, it's set in stone. I don't really like I mean, I think that we have to be as flexible as we can. Especially if the plan is to go forward in a six to go with a 6 to 9 month vetting process, if you will, with the community in regards to getting their input. So I'm going to see somewhat of an evolution of the plan that's that's being presented or that will be adopted. One correction on the measure I a council member measure, I was a measure put forward to the people with a 66% threshold. If they had gone, I believe if they had gone to a Prop 39, which is a 55% threshold, it might have passed. The reason being that in that Prop 39 type of of measure, there is better opportunity for transparency. There is transparency in regards to creating a oversight committee that would review all the projects, all the plans and all the finances to it. That would be at a at a at a threshold where nothing could go forward without that committee's review and recommendation to go forward with that. So I think that if measure I had gone to a Prop 39, it might have had a better chance of success. That was one of the criticisms that when that was going through, I was one of those individuals saying, why are you going at a two thirds majority when you can go at Prop 39 and have lower that threshold to 55%? And at that time, as we know, there was a lot of infrastructure issues that we needed with the city streets, sidewalks. We also had a library issue there at the time and also enhancements and retrofits and fixing all of our fire department facilities as well. So it failed. And the reason I know about that is that community college back in 2002 did a bond. It passed. It was a prop, 39, 55%. And every project was clearly identified and clearly specified in terms of what it was going to cost and how that was going to be moving forward. So I think if the city had done that, we would have had a better chance. But that opportunity has now passed for the city, so we're moving forward with what we got now. One of the questions that I have is, and I was asked somewhat well was asked by a council member price in terms of the time frame on this whole thing. There was mentioned earlier that there's an energy out there already and I met with the city manager, I've met with staff, I've met with the member representatives from the both bodies in regards to what's taking place. And when the city manager advised me that there's a DNA ready to be signed. I was taken aback by that to a certain extent because I was hoping that there would not be in DNA presented or signed until there was a selection. So if you could please clarify to me what the what the sensitivity of that or the or the timeframe of that comes through to to this point here, where we're looking at a DNA being signed or presented by one and not the other.
Speaker 4: Mr. CONAWAY.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Urine, the DNA was an exhibit to the RFP and each team has commented on the DNA and we've gone through quite a few iterations of that DNA. And it's council's action tonight that would provide the authority to execute the INA. But it's important for staff from a negotiating posture to have an inch in place from the project team's perspective, so that further negotiation on the elements of the project are not subject to negotiation. Moving forward, I think we'd be at a significant disadvantage from a negotiating perspective if we didn't have that document ready to be executed upon council approval.
Speaker 7: So that was part of the requirement in the RFP is to be flexible and available to retain the DNA.
Speaker 10: The requirement of the DNA was in the RFP execution was expected much earlier, but many issues were raised. We came to a resolution much more quickly with Plenary Edge more, but both teams received the latest draft of the RFP probably three weeks ago in a I'm sorry, about three weeks ago. And there were a few comments from Plenary Edge more. A number of comments from civic core. We sent out an executable copy about a week ago and plenary plenary Edgware executed that civic or indicated that there are still items yet to be negotiated.
Speaker 7: Thank you. The next two questions are somewhat related, and perhaps you can explain more. I'm still at a at a kind of crossroads with the whole concept of the trip, the public private partnership and how that's going about in listening to both groups. One of them already had some partners lined up. What I heard tonight is that there's still some partners to be lined up. Can you explain a little bit further in terms of what does that mean in terms of for this project and how the city's commitment for the 12.6 million plays into that?
Speaker 10: Councilmember Yanga Yes, I'll be happy to do that. The public private partnership is generally between the city and a developer, so that's the public and the private. Our project is a civic center and in order to achieve that project, we've added in some land that could work for private development to fund the gap between what the 12.6 provides and what it cost to construct the Civic Center. Both teams have committed to a certain value for that land $30 million, even though plenary edge more is taking down less land. So from the standpoint of P3, we have established the partnership or will be establishing the partnership with the project team. If council acts tonight, it doesn't require all of the development partners to be at the table. It's intended to be a process for the city to shift risk associated with design, development, construction operations and maintenance to the private side of the project and the team that executed the INA that reflects that. Risk shift is our preferred project team.
Speaker 7: And the last question I have is, of course, the continuing issue with the parking garage. I had asked about this a few meetings back in regards to either knocking down or keeping it. And my concern with keeping it was the fact that there hasn't been any real seismic studies done on it. We don't know. And the verbiage that I heard today was it's unknown at night at this time in terms of what its needs may be. I'm concerned about that in that regard, because if it's if it's not going if it's going to continue to stay there and we find something during the course of construction that there is some retrofitting or a seismic event that would create a danger to the public and to us. Who's going to pay for that? I mean, how is that going to to be addressed if something like that were to happen? And then the second part, which is actually a simple yes or no, was the the comment that I heard and correct me if I'm wrong, that it remains in under the city the city ownership, but it doesn't go to the to the receiver of the contract. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: Councilmember Urania that's correct. And to follow up with your prior question in the INA, there is a due diligence period that I believe runs for 90 days. It could be 60. I'm not clear in my mind right now in that due diligence period, the project team, the selected project team would conduct their due diligence relative to the Broadway garage, identify deficiencies that may be inherent in the Broadway garage. And if there are indeed costs that cannot be accommodated within the the financial plan of plenary ngema, the city may sit down to either talk about funding those costs from a one time perspective or assuming some of the risk relative to the seismic condition of the property. But in no case would our position be any worse off than we are today.
Speaker 0: Well.
Speaker 7: I'm not sure about that, because it's still a city property and it's incumbent upon the city to maintain that its property. So I'm still unclear about that. But again, I'm ready to to hear what the public has to say on this.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next, we have Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 1: I want to start off by thanking both teams to take the time to prepare the thorough presentations and analysis and designs and financials that each of you have takes a significant amount of investment on behalf of both. On behalf of.
Speaker 8: Everyone here, and I'm sure many, many people who are back at the offices.
Speaker 1: Watching this council meeting with enthusiasm and energy to be a part of such an important and meaningful process. As Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 8: Said, probably one of.
Speaker 1: The most important votes of our 4 to 8 year terms is really remarkable.
Speaker 8: So it would not be possible without both of your teams. I was disappointed when I first started that we had lost a team, but I'm so thankful that both of you stayed in it. So just my hats off to you and thank you for your investment in and belief in us that we would follow.
Speaker 1: Through to the end and see a day where we can offer the employees of this great city a safe place to work for the residents of the.
Speaker 8: Downtown community, a vital place to live.
Speaker 1: Just a place where we can be happy and enjoying each other. To the community members. I have received a significant amount of.
Speaker 8: Community input over the last several weeks. I really appreciate the dialog that we have had.
Speaker 1: I know that under a prior regime of this council, there was a lot of back and forth related to seismic retrofitting. And I really appreciate the openness to hear and understand both proposals.
Speaker 8: The amount of detail that our.
Speaker 1: City staff was willing to provide my staff to work hand in hand with community members that had questions to move us from a place of misunderstanding to a place of open dialog is really a significant.
Speaker 8: Accomplishment, and it would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of our team.
Speaker 1: So thank you very much to the staff. When we talk about moving forward, it is a moment where we talk about the importance of both protecting our future and investing together. And one of the things that I.
Speaker 8: Had talked about earlier at a prior.
Speaker 1: Meeting was our options should negotiations stall with one.
Speaker 8: Team.
Speaker 1: And I should also take a step back and thank you to both teams. I know I got.
Speaker 8: To meet with the entire team of Leica and I got to meet with one.
Speaker 1: Member of Planetary Edge more.
Speaker 8: As my colleagues have said.
Speaker 1: This was a quick turnaround and we appreciate your ability to be flexible with us and work with us on our schedules to make sure that we had all the information.
Speaker 8: And I know several city staff took dozens of calls from my staff as we fielded.
Speaker 1: Questions from the constituents. With that. Under the exclusive negotiating agreement, Mike, would we still have the option? Should we not come to a conclusion and a resolution with the team that we decide on tonight to move and re.
Speaker 8: Negotiate with the other teams should they eventually turn in their documentation for negotiations?
Speaker 10: Councilmember Mongo under the INA there is the ability of the city should negotiations fail or come to an impasse with the existing team to approach the second team. I it's unclear to me whether or not the second team consortium would be intact at that time, but we are preserving that right in the A as a bit of impetus for the selected project team to continue towards negotiation and negotiation of a term sheet.
Speaker 8: While I hope that whichever team is decided on this evening, I will be encouraging my colleagues to support Vice Mayor.
Speaker 1: Lowenthal with her motion to move forward with plenary agenda and with that to also know that we're a tough team and we're going to negotiate hard for our constituents. So stand by and be ready and also stand by and be ready because the wind could turn at any moment because we know that.
Speaker 8: We're invested in what's good for our residents. And if you are as invested as.
Speaker 1: You say you have been.
Speaker 8: Or as you say you are, then I know we will make a great resolution together. But. But the residents come first. And thank you for both of your contributions.
Speaker 4: Okay. Now we have Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I, too, want to salute both teams for sharing their their vision and creativity with us. Both proposals were were. You know, awesome. I think in terms of just allowing us to to envision what our civic civic center can be. I had an opportunity to meet with both teams today for the first time. And you they found each group affable and capable of executing this disagreement. I want to congratulate and compliment our city staff. The team actually exercised due diligence and professionalism throughout the process. And what we have before us today is a very difficult decision. And before we get to that, I want to get some clarity on on a few of the financial questions that that are that are still very important for us. And I guess this question is for city staff. Is the city manager can you currently our operating costs for city hall, it's been been estimated to be about $12.6 million a year. Can you break down the current costs that are included in that baseline figure what that pays for?
Speaker 10: Councilmember I will try to do that for you in our latest. As of I think this is September of 2013, we have costs that total, if I can find it here, $10.5 million plus. We have offsite leases that total about $2.1 million. Those costs involve utility payments. There are a lot of personnel costs associated with occupying the civic center. There is tech support. There are.
Speaker 0: Costs for.
Speaker 10: Maintenance.
Speaker 0: Throughout the.
Speaker 10: The building itself in the main library and the Broadway garage. There is a repayment of a bond issue that is still outstanding. And there are a number of debt service being about $2.5 Million a year. So that adds up to about 10.5. We add in that 2.1 million from offsite leases that total to the 12.6. I don't know if that helped answer your question or thought it would.
Speaker 5: It would be great to see that in in text. And we're at some point.
Speaker 10: I'd be happy to provide.
Speaker 5: That. And as I understand the staff report, the city will now be moving some of the offsite leases to city hall or contracting out some of the staffing that were included in the $12.6 million total if we move forward with this proposal. These costs are potentially $3.4 million, of which $2.6 million would be unbudgeted costs to the general fund. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: Councilmember I believe you're correct. Those numbers are more than just offsite leases. Those are cost that will continue even if we move to a new civic center such as technology services, such as security. So so when we originally put this together almost two years ago, we hadn't filtered out those costs that were. That will continue. Mr. GROSS has done that within the last six months or so. So we do know that there's costs that will continue. We haven't completely determined what offsite leases will come in to city hall. And that, frankly, is a part of our negotiation with the project team and balancing that with what services are more appropriate to be in the neighborhood and in the community. So as Mr. GROSS indicated on our November 11th study session, those costs become a budget issue on an annual basis and just included within our our budget presentation.
Speaker 5: So so your staff report identifies the potential future tax revenue as the obvious offset for these costs, correct?
Speaker 10: Yes, that's correct. The since we're not clear yet to how much tax revenue we are going to receive, the maximum we expect is about $2.5 million in the first year after full buildout that we're we're in order to be conservative in that estimate were ranging anywhere from 0 to 2.5. So we're not sure where it'll come in. So I think Mr. GROSS gave you a range of what could affect the general fund.
Speaker 5: And the revenues will be actually realized from the private aspects of the development, correct?
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 5: And those that that component won't happen for two or three years after the Civic Center is actually complete?
Speaker 10: It will be. That's correct. Two or three years, probably accurate. So that's.
Speaker 5: Correct. So the question I have is how do we make up the difference in between?
Speaker 10: That will be part of the annual budget effort. And Mr. GROSS has indicated his ability to handle that within the annual budget exercise, pointing.
Speaker 8: Out all the areas.
Speaker 5: All right. So, so my my, my my concern and is that we we don't and I'll just just take you back. I was I've been on the council for now two and a half years. And my first year, the first budget, we were about 17 million plus in the hole. We were looking at cutting every type of service imaginable that that that our citizens enjoy today. Parks and rec, public safety, infrastructure, public works, everything was on the table. Libraries. We're in a much better position today because of a lot of prudent financial decisions by this council and great leadership from our city staff. However, I do not. I'm going to just be very clear. I do not want to compromise those services, the quality of life for the rest of the city to get this project done.
Speaker 10: I understand that. And it's, I guess, important to kind of keep in mind that not proceeding creates, I think, more potential liability than proceeding. So I think if if the increase general fund cost is anywhere from 500000 to $1000000, I think that would be a wise investment for the city in order to avoid the potential results of a significant seismic event or some potential litigation.
Speaker 5: So we will have to make some some some budget adjustments in the coming years to make sure that we are making good on our commitment for for this project and making up the difference before there is actually real tax revenue realized.
Speaker 10: I think that's correct, yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. There's also a something in the staff report that jumped out to me as well. It talks about the negotiating agreement. And I think Councilmember Mongo touched on that briefly. But the terms of the when when we actually reach agreement with for example plenary edge more since they are the recommended proposals group team were those those terms that him or you come back for the council for approval.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Austin There is an E8 in a with the project team and the Board of Harbor Commissioners. The more you is specifically with the Board of Harbor Commissioners. Action tonight is intended to authorize staff to actually execute the negotiated in a.
Speaker 5: So so to execute the negotiating and actually explain what the NRA actually is that okay, we're going to negotiate or is that the agreement.
Speaker 10: That the NRA council person is an exclusive negotiation agreement? So we will exclusively work with the selected project team within the broad guidelines of the NRA to come to project terms in a term sheet which will lead eventually to a project agreement. So this is the first step, very important step, but very broad in that this is just a right to negotiate. But in our DNA, we do have a lot of of of guidelines in that in a for instance, the shifting of risk, the limit of $12.6 million, certain other performance milestones that have to be met as we go through the entitlement process, just like the the due diligence period coming up with submittals for design review. That whole timeline is included as an exhibit to the INA to make sure that the process continues in a proper manner and on the correct schedule while we continue to negotiate terms and conditions of the project agreement.
Speaker 5: So my question again is will the final terms come back to the City Council for review or approval?
Speaker 10: Thank you. I must have misunderstood you. The global excretory agreement, which is kind of the culmination of all the agreements that will lead to commercial and financial close will come to city council.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I have no further questions right now. I'm looking forward to hearing from the public.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. I think now we are going to go ahead and go to the public and we'll come back for for some final deliberation. So I'm an open this up to the public and please come down and and line up.
Speaker 0: Larry. Good you clearly has the floor.
Speaker 4: 1/2, Mr.. Could you start just a minute? Okay. I'm going to have the extra 3 minutes. So, Mr. Goodyear, please begin.
Speaker 0: Very good to Clark. As the address, I think, began with taking strong disagreement with the Councilman Austin's statement that this is the most difficult decision. That a very difficult decision. Actually, one point in fact, it's one of the simplest decisions to make. The city has spent, you know, how long making and studying this coming to their conclusion. They've made a recommendation. The intelligent thing then to do is to go the alternative route. And if you have any doubt of that, look at the debacle of the Marina Rebuild plan. Look at the tobacco of the blood. Look at the debacle of the bike path. The barn really is not on fire. Another 1690 days is not going to rock the boat. This is a lifetime decision as it was suggested. One of the things that I object to and if you please keep that up there is those buildings are uninspiring. It looks like just like downtown L.A.. I would hope that when you come back, let me make a suggestion that you use as a model. One of the things I think it would be really great is the Nebraska's state capital as a centerpiece go with that type of art architecture. It's something that the city can be proud of. Its distinctive something along those lines I think would work very well here. Also, one of the reasons I don't like glass is, first of all, it would cost a fortune in Windex. All right. Period. Number two. Last the explosions two days ago when the fire in downtown L.A. and the abutting buildings demonstrate the dangers of gas, a glass is something like that happens. The glass on it. It's uninspiring. It looks like any you go to any city and you'll see that. And I think Long Beach should have the intake. You never should have the sense of pride enough to come up with something more. It's more distinctive. And let's see what else I've got. Barnes not on fire takes exceeds days of U.S. and I think I think that is it. Take it back come back to the Barnes and out on fire. I have not studied the financial aspects. I certainly don't trust the city. And that one of the reasons why we can wait, I think, is wait until the federal master comes and I think will be here before the Ides of March and let him take a a objective decision at a review of it. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Margaret Smith. I'm a resident of the third district. But I am speaking as vice president of public affairs for the Long Beach Public Library Foundation. Thank you, Mayor Garcia and City Council members, for your commitment to this open and transparent process. Thank you to city staff for your respectful and inclusive approach to concerns of library advocates. From the beginning of this process, back in February of 2013, we've asked for three things that main library remain a vital part of the Civic Center. That there be experts in library design and planning involved in the creation of a new main library, and that there would be extensive community output and input so that that can be incorporated into the final design. We are gratified to see that these three issues are being addressed. But up to this point, it's been theoretical. We've had two impressive proposals as a basis for choosing one of the teams. We feel now that the real work starts to define and design and build a main library that will serve the current and future needs of the city of Long Beach. And right now, there is just a big, pretty box on the drawings, and it's 93,000 or 78,000 square feet of space. But it's not about the box, the location of the box or the square footage. It is about what will be inside. So we will continue to ask the questions about features and services and technology and maintenance and security and staffing and parking. And we will continue to encourage the public to give us their input about what they want in a main library. So it serves the unique needs of Long Beach. And it also is flexible enough to meet the changing role of libraries in our society. We look forward to being active participants in this process to ensure that Long Beach gets the main library that it needs and it deserves. Thank you so much. We look forward to working with you.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Good evening, mayor and other council members. I'm Dale Whitney. I've lived in East Long Beach since 1971, and I've been the manager of the downtown Long Beach Certified Farmers Market since 1989. I'm going to give you a little history lesson, if you don't mind. Five points. I'm going to come right along here. The first point is a downtown lobby which has had a farmer's market of some kind for more than 100 years. There was one that lasted from 1913 to about 1973, and most of that time was around Lincoln Park, the old Lincoln Park, around the old library building. Point number two, the current farmers market in downtown, the one that I work for, has been here since 1980. That's 34 years. It's been in six different locations around town, including the current one, which is that property at Third and Pacific that looks like it's going to be developed. There have been others, I think for particular of a Tuesday market at the World Trade Center, Saturday market in district to an East Village, and just recently, another Tuesday market at the Molina building across the street. That's .3.4. I just mentioned it. The pictures that you had up before show a building on our current Friday farmer's market location. Point five Why not look at this modest proposal to include a plan for some work at farmer's market space in the in the new city city center. Recommendation maybe even in Lincoln Park, I think especially of maybe some special serve surface that would support farm trucks. And it could also be green from a distance, some driveways or that way, for instance. I did mention this to Mr. Conway the other day and I got his attention and I appreciated that. He said, If you have an opinion, go to a new website. I think it'll be civic center dot com, it'll be civic center dot com. I did that left my opinion and I thank you all for considering this modest proposal. I do have a little Christmas present for you. A current schedule card in red, green and blue for the harbor area farmers markets. Thank you. You.
Speaker 4: You can just leave it with the clerk. Thank you. Next week, complete.
Speaker 11: Jim McCabe, a resident of the third.
Speaker 0: District, 44 year resident of the city of Long Beach and retired deputy city attorney. Starting with something of a footnote. I think that. The mayor and others should get public input on whether or not the public wants to pay for a majestic city hall. I hope I trust the public wants a workable and and well-designed building, but majestic. Maybe you should ask some of the citizens and possibly some of the taxpayers in this vein. The scorn that Mr. Conway has for the taxpayers citizens is astonishing. The reason expressly the reason you shouldn't consider retrofitting. The reason you shouldn't consider.
Speaker 11: Retrofitting is because the taxpayers citizens can't be.
Speaker 0: Trusted to vote on. So you should. The council members should. Make your way around the taxpayers and the citizens. This is expressly what Mr. Conway is saying, that the last resort watch. What you don't want to do is ask the taxpayer, taxpayers of, the citizens of and the citizens of Long Beach in a letter that I emailed to the Council. I'd like to again reiterate that you're going forward with a project where the one and only the one and only financial incentive for the developer for 40 years is to spend as little as possible on maintenance. This is rife with the. Likelihood of arbitration litigation are some point in this process you're not going to be happy with how much maintenance is being carried on. We listen to Mr. Conway. Mr. Conway. Tells us about all the advantages of this financial vehicle. I warrant a wager and someone can tell me later whether I'm wrong, that he has never told you one single downside to this elaborate financial vehicle and. Project of of significance building for the city of Long Beach that this is without downside. You should look into whether or not that kind of thing is believable. I see the red light is on, Becky, and I thank you for your time.
Speaker 4: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the city council. I'm Joe Ganim. I'm a downtown resident in District two or District one. Thank you. I didn't move. And, you know, we've heard lots of accolades tonight about the the two projects that have been proposed here. The two teams. I have to say that my mindset has shifted significantly. I initially like the project from its parents standpoint that Civil War had and some components of it. And when I listened to the explanation of the staff and understand how they came to their conclusions, while at first I questioned the wisdom of getting the information out, I fully understand they had a legal requirement to do that. And I understand how they made their their decision. I don't think we could really go wrong with either team, honestly, but it looks like plenary is going to be this successful party here tonight. And yet, you know, when I hear the questions of the city council members and they're actually quite excellent, I have to tell you, you kept us so spellbound that no, hardly any members of the of the citizenry out here took a bathroom break, and that's over 3 hours. That's pretty significant, especially as you get a little older. I can tell you that for sure. And so I, I unlike previous speakers, I want to echo my my personal confidence in the city council and the staff thank the staff down an outstanding job. The more I listen to Mike Conway, I don't know how he goes to sleep at night with this compendium of knowledge in his head about all these incredible details. And I know Amy and other people have been. Oh, wait, I agree with that. They're incredible. What I really am looking forward to is, is where we're going with these next steps, because now the public gets an opportunity to weigh in with plenary and the city staff and the city council on what we want to see as the final product. Because I, like one of the speakers said before, you know, that we just got boxes we're dealing with. Now what we've got to do is turn them into the public space that we're all looking so forward to. And in terms of the speed of this, I kept wondering if we were setting up there waiting for some slight little tremor to help the vote get moved along. Fortunately, we haven't had that situation. So I urge you, with all good speed, to move ahead and approve your your project team. And let us get started with this. The downtown residential council looks forward to being a part of and encouraging the residents in particular in the first and second District and being involved. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Hello, Mr. Mayor and council. I have lived here for about 30 years and I'm planning on moving to L.A. and I'm not very happy about it. But there's a brain drain going on, and I really want to see Long Beach concentrate on some of the fundamentals of what the deeper part of the city has to offer and its in its kind of civic center, its infrastructure that'll help maintain the businesses and and other deeper aspects of the of the of the community. And I and I, I see it in planner plenary. And I don't have I don't I can't stay. But I really want to. And I really hope that Long Beach comes up and and doesn't do what it did with the pike. And then in all of that, you know.
Speaker 7: Retail stuff and offers a little more.
Speaker 0: And that's all I have to say. So thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council. I'm Douglas Domingo Forest. Stay a resident of a third district and have lived here since 1988. I'm not very good at math. I think that 16 years. But I speak tonight as president of the California Faculty Association, the union on the Long Beach campus, the union that represents the the faculty, both adjunct and tenure line at Long Beach State and as part of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs in a Healthy Environment. And as you know, the mission of the Long Beach Coalition is to address the growing inequality of our city and poverty in Long Beach generally. And we do this by promoting good jobs with living wages and responsible development and affordable housing and healthy communities. We are here today to urge you in particular to whichever team you approve of, to urge to see that they enter into negotiations quite quickly with the hotel workers union so that they may have workers voices in the process, they may hear from them, and but also that there is labor peace. Now, Mr. Connelly suggested this be a union hotel that's up for the workers to decide. But we do want you to pursue the the car check system. And I want to thank you for all your hard work. I know it's a difficult decision. Spending gazillions of dollars is not what anyone likes to do. So we want to thank you. And I particularly want to thank the staff for their diligence today. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Go to you next.
Speaker 0: Speaker Good evening. My name is Richard Lederer. I was born and raised in Long Beach. I've owned a home in Long Beach for 31 years. I own a business in Long Beach for 24 years. As a native resident and long time taxpayer, I'm primarily concerned with two factors with respect to awarding the bid for the Civic Center . Number one, quality, which is largely a function of the project teams, it seems to me from what I've heard, both groups have considerable experience. But it also appears that only one Long Beach Civic or alliance has the history of doing complex public private partnerships with hotel and retail and residential construction and private sector clients and partners. Number two, and perhaps most importantly, is the financial impact. The difference in lease payments starts at $500,000 per year and it escalates from there over the life of the 40 year project to a total over $40 million or nearly $50 million. If you consider the $8 million funding for the Innovation Village with Long Beach City College and Cal State Long Beach. As a result, the difference in the two bids works out to an average of $1 million per year without considering the difference of the financial impact on the port, which totals over $200 million, which works out to about $5 million per year. As a stewards of my taxpayer money and my fellow taxpayers money, I would hope that you would not dismiss what appears to be a difference of up to 200 to $250 million, especially given that the city is struggling to find a multitude of projects and perhaps facing a budget crisis down the road , particularly in view of the fact that the current price of oil is well below what has been budgeted not only for operations but for capital projects. I would also ask you that if you thought of this as with your own personal money, as opposed to taxpayer money, and let's say you were going to remodel your home and let's just change the zeros. So instead of being 200 to $250 million, maybe the difference was if you were building a new home, 200000 to 250000, the difference or if you're remodeling the home, it was 20 or $25,000. What would you choose? Would you pay 200000 to $50000 more with your own money? To build a new home or 20 to $25000 of your own money to remodel your home. I hope you give that some considerable thought. As a taxpayer and a lifelong resident of Long Beach, I think that really deserves a lot more attention that has been given tonight. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Thank you to the council members and staff for all the great work you did. I really appreciate how much detail.
Speaker 11: And.
Speaker 1: Due diligence was done. I'm not a financial expert, so I have to rely on your expertize. I can say that as a resident of the First District that it's very important to me how the Civic Center is. And having just spent over 200,000 and remodeling my house, I can understand why you might want to spend a lot of money on a new civic center. I think it's a really good thing that Plenary Edge More.
Speaker 0: Approached this project from a people.
Speaker 1: Standpoint. They really listened to what we wanted and what was important to us. And having lived down the street from the courthouse while it was being built, I have to say that there were no problems. It was built on time, under budget. And that's a really great accolade for them and also their management. We have not seen any problems. We've not seen graffiti, trash, nothing. They've done a great job of managing and that's what I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Kathleen, next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council. My name is Craig Koch, and I serve as the president and CEO of the downtown Long Beach Associates is the business improvement district for the business community in our downtown. I'm very excited that this project has come to this point and this realization. I think Vice Mayor has provided some excellent historical perspective on where this project has come from over the years, and it serves as an excellent foundation in resurrecting this plan to implement this project as highlighted in the past six months by the by Mayor Garcia and Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilmember Gonzalez, which clearly identify the process to ensure that this process is fair, it's it's measurable, it has transparency, there's an expeditious manner, but also, most importantly, there's community engagement to it. Dolby's role in the past year has included a number of community input meetings. We have conducted workshops as well as encouraged our stakeholders to participate in the website with comments. And it's very, very important to us and it's good to hear that the port is interested in this project and to bring that that asset back into our downtown debate will continue to work and recommend with the project developer of this team to bring the best project Long Beach deserves. It will begin discussions with a select team to be involved in becoming the best, serving as the best practice and model and provide services to activating and maintaining the public space associated with this project. I think there's some great examples throughout the country that we can look at. Bryant Park is one of them where a public private partnership is developed in the private sector, manages the the project as well as the maintenance to it.
Speaker 4: Okay, time's.
Speaker 0: Up. Great. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Burgess.
Speaker 4: It was 3 minutes right there. All 3 minutes. Max is our next speaker, please.
Speaker 11: Ellie Gonzalez, 71 Cedar Avenue.
Speaker 0: So I wanted to bring up the issues.
Speaker 11: That I brought up last time, and I was wondering if any of them were resolved. So, you know.
Speaker 0: I'm glad we were this step in developing a new civic center. But my main issue is that we have a civic center and we have 20 years left to pay for this civic center. And it looks really bad. And you guys noticed that because it's on your address, because you can see that there's issues with it. One of the issues is that it doesn't open up on Monday. The library doesn't open up on Monday. The library opens up on Tuesday at 12:00.
Speaker 11: I don't feel that's an appropriate time for a main library.
Speaker 0: So we're talking about building a brand new, beautiful civic center, but we're not ready to open up the library at a decent time on Monday morning. So I wanted to talk really quickly. I have a bunch of points. Let's talk about the 27 study that's on Long Beach Civic Center dot com. There was a study that we're basing this whole safety issue on in that study. Christina Andersen, then the director of Public Works, makes a recommendation on page 19 of the 27 study for a retrofit of the main library rooftop park that would gain access to a public park that we have here at the center of the city that almost everybody has forgotten about. I just think that's an important issue because we're talking about a public park that we currently have that we have been paying for that is just not used. That's right here at the center of the city, accessible to everybody from the transit mall. And that just hasn't been brought up in any of the designs because we're not talking about a retrofit because we're afraid to ask the taxpayers to invest in a building that they have to pay for no matter what. For the next 20 years and they have been paying for it for the past 30 years. So in order to avoid that, we've decided to go to a P-3, a practice that has only been done once with the courthouse during a time when we didn't have money to find anything else. During a time when our justice system is going through a major crisis. So, I mean, I wouldn't really use the courthouse as the best example. Also, we talk about safety and we talk about leadership. Some of you leaders behind the dais are not new to this council. This safety issue is not new. Is safety was your number one concern, which is remember again, that's why we're here. Safety. We would have looked into a retrofit a long time ago because what you're doing is putting yourself and all of us at risk. Assuming that this goes through, that today's the day and we're going to choose. Plenary I realize of 20 seconds we're going to choose plenary and today's the big day that we're going to move forward. We still have five years, so we're hoping that between now in the next five years, some big earthquake doesn't come. So I really wonder if safety is the issue or if the issue is money and development and you guys are going to get suckered into building something that we don't need again. Case in point, the Pike Eggers, the books most of Pine Avenue and a dozen other projects at Long Beach has seen over the years. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Speaker. Mayor. Members of the city council. Excuse me. My name is Jim Gooden. I love it. 600 East Ocean Boulevard. I am the vice president of ORCA, which is Ocean Residents Community Association. I'm also on the board of the Downtown Residential Council. We who live on Ocean Boulevard are very excited about the project. I especially like to point out a part of the staff report that it gets me. Gets me jazzed, gets me excited. And that says private development near the new civic center will serve to invigorate the area, adding residential density, retail opportunities, hotels, supply and activation of Lincoln Park. Rather than locking the door on three blocks of downtown at 530, the Civic Center could be thriving, gathering place for activities other than municipal. Creating a new catalyst for future managed growth. Offering ongoing benefits to the entire city. We and Orca are your neighbors. We live right across the street from the project and we would like to be actively involved in the community input process. We would like to help. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Speaker 0: Please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council Staff I'm Ron Miller, executive secretary of the L.A. Orange County Building Trades. And I'm going to try and cut a little time off this by speaking for my group. If they would stand up, though, I'd appreciate it. Building Trades Guys Stand Up. We represent 140,000 craftsmen and women, many thousands who live in this area. And there's going to be some local guys here from Long Beach that's going to speak anyway. We've partnered with these two to general contractors in the past and in the present. We currently partner with them now in various projects across the country. They're both good projects. Both teams did a great job. I'd like to commend staff on their due diligence in our selection process. I think they did a very good job. They answered the questions. I think we have a very fiscally prudent council here. You guys answered you ask the questions that are needed, and I think you got the answers. Now, I can tell you something I know about is construction. The longer we wait to go for this project, the more construction costs go up. And with increased construction costs means more money. And the seismic issue.
Speaker 10: Is an.
Speaker 0: Issue. But we all know that since we live in California, that the big ones coming, we just don't know when and we don't know where. So I urge you to move ahead with this project tonight. Let's get some shovels in the ground and put some people to work and get a beautiful complex for the city of Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Ron. Next speaker.
Speaker 3: Please.
Speaker 0: Horrible. Mayor Garcia, distinguished city council and staff. My name is Alex Safaga. I live at 7 to 7 terminal and I believe, like most of you would, you guys will probably agree with the statement. Long Beach is perhaps the greatest city in the world to live in. All right. Now, being such.
Speaker 6: An amazing.
Speaker 0: City, I think one of the things that Long Beach deserves is a quality, safe and cutting edge civic center, library and City Hall as its main centerpiece. Now, I stand strongly in favor of this moving this project project forward without any due delay. And as Long Beach resident. I would also like to urge you to attach language that encourages the hiring of Long Beach residents for the building of this project, and also as a ten year veteran of the Marine Corps with two trips overseas. I would also like to encourage aggressive and enforceable language that requires the hiring of veterans for this project as well. I thank you for your time, and I trust in this Council to make the best decision possible for the city, its residents and the men and women who have so courageously defended it. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for your service and experiences. Hi, I'm Tim Ryan. I'm with CBRE. I represent the.
Speaker 11: World Trade Center. And I came tonight just to hear the process, sort of look at what you're doing.
Speaker 0: I've been following this project for quite a while, excuse me, quite a while. And one of the.
Speaker 11: Things that jumped out at me in listening to the analysis tonight, the Port of Long Beach was in escrow for $130.
Speaker 0: Million for.
Speaker 11: A half a million square foot building. And at the end of, they voted twice to approve it. At the end they said, oh, it. Cost too much. And but primarily the parking underneath the World Trade Center is a major problem.
Speaker 0: So I'm here to ask you to consider or.
Speaker 11: Look at how can you choose a group that is actually proposed that when that's something that the port has indicated they've not.
Speaker 0: Wanted all along, more importantly. So it goes back to cost. More importantly for me as I listen to the speakers that were here tonight and very good questions.
Speaker 11: By the various.
Speaker 0: Council members, what if the Broadway garage is not seismically fit? You're guessing that that you're able to. Well, I don't think it is. We don't have anything to say that it is. Well, do you have anything that says that it is not? What is the cost there for that group?
Speaker 11: Secondly, the costs cost seem to be.
Speaker 0: So important in my mind.
Speaker 11: And if you had a project that you could have gotten for 130 million, you're now having a difference in these two projects.
Speaker 0: Of 144, 179.
Speaker 11: Of her 247 million. I was personally moved by the young lady who talked about being homeless in this city. And I don't know how you can sit there and say every one of you talked about how great each of these teams are. I don't know how you could say, well, let's go ahead and spend 247 million.
Speaker 0: More or 47 million more.
Speaker 11: When you have people like that in the city.
Speaker 0: That need your help. So in closing, I'd ask you.
Speaker 10: Not to vote.
Speaker 11: Tonight. Before fully reviewing those costs.
Speaker 0: Make sure that the decision you make is a good one because you're going to look in the mirror and you've got to think about that lady. So that's my statement. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 11: Please. Good evening. My name is Rusty and the executive secretary treasurer elect. I'm not there yet of the L.A. County Federation of Labor. And it's my honor and privilege to stand before you representing 600,000 hardworking men and women all across the county of Los Angeles, many of which you live here in in Long Beach. You, as the council, have the opportunity to do something that many people don't get the chance to do. People have talked about it as a very hard decision. A difficult decision, one that you deliberated time and time again, month after month after month in 2008. In 2009, we saw a great downturn in the economy and many people really suffered. Those in Long Beach, those in L.A. County, those all across Southern California. And we've seen some recovery. Those jobs have been replaced, the ones we lost. But on average, those jobs pay 23% less than the jobs that they actually replaced. This project allows you, the council, to give 3700 people a good paying, solid job that they can support themselves and to support their families with. I think that is something that this council that has committed to the quality of life of the residents of Long Beach would commit itself, do and do immediately and move forward this project as soon as possible. Thank you.
Speaker 4: And thank you for your service as well. Okay.
Speaker 11: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and city council members. My name is Derek Smith. I am the political director of Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel workers and airport workers here in Long Beach and in Orange County. We want to commend the City Council for having the vision necessary to conceive of an ambitious project like this. I know it's been said many times before, but this job or this project will result in good construction jobs, good hotel worker jobs, and obviously will improve the quality of life for for Long Beach residents. At this point, we don't have a recommendation as to the applicant that the city should select, although I have nothing but praise for the two projects and the visions, the projects and particularly the forthright manner in which they have addressed our concerns. That said, we urge the Council to move quickly and expeditiously to select an applicant so that we can get this project moving and and get to work. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: All right. Joel Weinstein, 4000 Linden Avenue, District eight. You know, you never asked the citizens whether we really wanted to spend the kind of money in this particular way. So don't be surprised if the citizens will say no to anything you'll put on the ballot, and therefore this devious route of trying to avoid putting something on the ballot so that in effect, it's dumped on later generations who will have to decide which services they will live with with further cuts, because this project will just have to be funded or else. You know, just these you know, the bonds are going to have to be issued and paid for somehow. And the kicker is we're going to give away public land for the privilege of paying ever more money every year to a private developer, not just the private sector in general, but one selected private developer. We didn't ask for this. You came up with it. You rubber stamped it. You're going to have to live with that kind of.
Speaker 5: Decision, if that's what you want.
Speaker 0: To do. You claimed the claim. The pretext was that there's a seismic problem. If it was urgent, it was never addressed. Where are the seismic precautions that were taken, that were imposed after the year 2005 or whatever in the meanwhile? Where will the people go when this building is demolished? For several years. There's no plan for housing city workers effectively and safely. And yet that is really the issue. How do we do that? Well, there's one obvious way. Eventually we retrofit, we release for a while, but then we bring them back and a retrofit facility. The another alternative, which of course, wasn't even dreamed of, let alone considered, is exactly the digital age circumstance in which I have been working for the state of California for ten years and more. Namely, we're dispersed in small offices. My team is dispersed in small offices throughout the state. No expansive, high rise city center, vulnerable, uneconomic facility, which just has to concentrate us into plush offices. But we are connected every day, every hour by modern telecom. That approach was never even considered, was it? The idea was that you would never consider a spectrum of approaches, and by refusing to do that, by making it difficult to seriously consider and entertain retrofit proposals or other proposals, you made sure there would be no viable alternative. And of course, under these circumstances, the citizens will have no confidence in a decision to move forward in this way. Of course, we know downtown is going to love it. Some people think you. But that's going to be the bottom line. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next week, complete.
Speaker 0: Good evening, counsel. Mr. Mayor, my name is Albert Ramirez. I am a job developer, Winter YouthBuild. We service students primarily in Long Beach, Wilmington and San Pedro. Just wanted applaud everyone here for your hard work. I see firsthand what with students, unemployment can be.
Speaker 11: With respect to their personal lives and.
Speaker 0: How it affects their family, their health, and even the ability to buy food. And we I see this and we see this. And matter of fact, I have a student here, Steve Miller, not related to musician, but, you know, setting out to be here and, you know, just support this effort. And I know that with Unite here local and they actually spoke to some of our students and we look forward to their hospitality training academy as well as our sisters and brothers with the construction trade and the apprenticeship program. So again, we're in full support. We applaud your efforts and all this with respect to local hire. And I know that the job and employment, especially with our Long Beach youth, will change their lives and increase their quality of life. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 11: Good evening, Marion Council. My name is Jack Smith. I live at 50 Elm Avenue. That's in the East Village in the second district. Tonight is a question of which one. It's not a question of go or no go. Which one of these is.
Speaker 0: The preferable.
Speaker 11: One, the better one, for the city and for the community? As you know, I stick my nose into a lot of things in the community. I'm involved all over the city since day one of this part of the process. Once it was clear that it was going to move forward with a new city, a civic center. I had personally the preference.
Speaker 0: Of the planner group. My what?
Speaker 11: Just watching their behavior in council and at presentations in the audience, it was clear to me that that group. Was more interested in listening to the community than the other group. Since this appeared on the agenda in the past week, I have spent time talking to various community association leaders across the city in anticipation of what we can do.
Speaker 0: All of those working with the choice.
Speaker 11: You make tonight, which if the staff recommendation is the one to make. And make sure that now the community is heard, not just presentations and PowerPoints, but actual important, clear, meaningful discussions with the community.
Speaker 0: I believe that the group you're choosing tonight.
Speaker 11: Will make those efforts. To meet face to face with the community members, particularly in the downtown area and in the central area. I cannot speak for any of those organizations. I'm a private citizen up here speaking. But I can tell you that organizations like the Downtown Residents Council and the Community Associations that are part of that, the Central Project Area Council and the Community Associations that are part of that, the North Long Beach Good Neighbors Group and the community associations.
Speaker 0: That are part of that excuse me.
Speaker 11: The West Side organizations.
Speaker 0: Over there all across the city. Are ready to meet with these sort these this particular group and.
Speaker 11: Make, as I said, meaningful, clear, important contributions to this effort over the next few months. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Jack. Next speaker.
Speaker 8: Hello. My name is Sarah Myers. I'm a resident of the fifth District and executive director of the Long Beach Public Library Foundation. As Margaret Smith, my colleague, stated, one of our second key messages was that we really wanted design experts in library design and space planning to be included in the teams. And I do want the council and the public to know that we commend both teams civic core for bringing on Susan Kent and plenary for bringing on Lynda Demers, who is here tonight, both library experts who really brought the touch of their library background, what what should go into a library, how they should look at it to this process. And so we thank the city staff for putting that in the RFP. And for both teams looking at that, we as a stakeholder, the library stakeholder and the library have respected the RFP not to engage in any level of of great detail with the teams. And so we really are looking forward to this next phase of the 6 to 9 months of public outreach. We encourage the community to come out and we look forward now to to holding you, Mr. Conway, to your word that Glenda Williams will have an opportunity now to really sit down with these library design expertize and really plan out what will go inside the building and what are the services that we can provide. And I do want you to think about as we look at this library, this new main library, to think about the library as an innovation center. We have our small business center. We have our new makerspace with the 3D studio. We just had classes and patents, and I've had small business owners say that they got their MBA by way of the library where they came and learned everything they needed to know about tax laws and leases at the library. So I look forward to us all coming together as a community and thinking about what the current needs are and the library of the future. So I thank you and we'll be talking more.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 11: I'm Larry Jackson. Nearly 40 year resident of the city. But I'm here as secretary of the Long Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau to report to you that the unanimous recommendation or endorsement of the staff recommendation came from the board of directors of the Convention Visitor Bureau. We met I personally have sat through two presentations. As Vice Mayor Lowenthal mentioned, seven or eight years ago, I was part of the visioning committee, stood on top of this building where I worked and I worked in Old City Hall and watched and saw what this city could be, but saw what the deterioration and having worked in this building, this is it's it's long overdue. This is a tough building to be in. Larry Black couldn't be here today. Small business owner of Arden Hotel. Larry is ecstatic about the project and asks that I send his mention as well in terms of his endorsement of the project. Convention Advisor Bureau. Again, it's not just the hoteliers, although they unanimously, large and small, support the staff recommendation. It's the cab company, Long Beach, Yellow Cab. It's restaurants. It's Catalina Express. It's the businesses that serve the tourism industry. And we are so pleased and happy to see the project go through that. You're moving forward with the project and hope that it goes through. And lastly, for me personally, my life has been wrapped up in public transit and to see, as Pat West mentioned in one of his presentations that I attended, the linkage, a pedestrian linkage to those people who use those of us that are public transit users is a great design element in the plenary project. So I have others from the hoteliers that want to add. So it's not just me. But I thank you for listening to Long Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau for the support that you've given us over the years. And I hope that this project as staff recommendation moves forward. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Hi. Good evening. My name is Greg Keebler and I'm the general manager of the Hilton Long Beach. We are.
Speaker 6: Either the gateway to the port or the gateway to Long Beach, depending on which direction you're heading.
Speaker 0: On the ocean. We are very happy to support the staff recommendation for plenary based upon more than just the overall impact that this facility in this complex, mixed use complex will have here. But the overall economic catalyst, it will provide another development with additional residential, additional office space development. All of that continues to make this a much more thriving and prosperous area. One of our meeting planners who hadn't been to Long Beach in a while, who brought a convention here, went back and said, When did Long Beach get so happy? So the work that has been done in the city to create the kind of vibe that is exists continues to be that much more important for us to do so. Good luck on your decision tonight. We support the staff recommendation for plenary. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Distinguished Council Member and City Staff Silvano Mallon, the general manager courtyard by Marriott downtown. And also we are supporting of staff recommendation not only because it's been proven over and over that developing downtown is going to make the economy flourish, not only for the city but therefore its residents creating jobs and keeping the economy growing. So we thank you for all you do. I know it's not an easy decision and thank you for your support.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And I'm closing the speakers list after the lady that's in line so I don't see anybody else lined up. So we're closing the speakers list. Mr. Goodling.
Speaker 11: Mary Garcia, council members, city staff.
Speaker 0: First of all, Larry shared our board's discussion and vote yesterday, and it was a vote that actually was extremely unanimous, strong support. We hear from the visitors that convention visitors that come, they stay at the Hilton. They walk this breadth of Ocean Boulevard to the convention center. And this is a really strong gateway for us as a city. And it creates that walkway or that pedestrian walkway that we're looking for all of our visitors and residents to enjoy. In addition, as as a business community, we work with each of the council members. And we also know that jobs are so critical for all of our council members. And it was exciting to hear tonight the number of jobs that this will create for residents in our districts. And it again is Silvano said all of this helps to create a more vibrant environment, but also a long term, vibrant environment. Lastly, we appreciate the work that city staff has done. They've truly researched it and we were pleased to hear their report tonight and the questions that they answered. And so our support as a as an organization is that we hope that you all concur and that you actually support the recommendation of staff. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 1: Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Alexander Torres Galan seat and I'm the executive director of Women in Nontraditional Employment Roles and also a resident of Long Beach. I'm here to support this project and to urge you to move forward with it and work really hard in getting a really good, strong play and in this project, local hire and to have a strong support of this community and for you to support the community and for us to support you as well. So thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. The speaker's list is now closed. To take this back here. And I'm going to I'm going to make some comments now. And I will also then have a couple I have a couple more council speakers and then we'll we have a motion on the floor and we'll see where that discussion goes. Let me begin by saying that I think that the the one thing I'm really proud of on this throughout this whole last few years has been the process. And I remember when I sat on the visioning process team with a lot of people that were in this audience as a president of my neighborhood association. And there were two things that came up that we wanted to make a big impact on. One was to rezone the downtown. And the second was to reimagine the Civic Center. The first, which ended up being the downtown plan, was pass and move forward by this council. Huge accomplishment. And you hear from folks like John and Mario Molina that because of the downtown plan, they were able to build the new mall in a headquarters in North Pine. 6 to 9 to a year ahead of schedule because that zoning document was in place that came out of the work of the residents that kind of came together. And Larry was on that group who just spoke as well. The second piece of that discussion, and this happened before I even joined the council, was how do we re-imagine and rethink the civic center being us feeling that there was a need to to rethink the civic center. And I'm really proud that here we are having this discussion and important discussion about the process. I also say that I believe that the project's been described a lot of ways, but I believe this to be a transformative project. This is a transformative project for Long Beach. It's a transformative project for downtown. What we're talking about tonight is the construction and development of not just private development, private developments. Great. We're going to end up with incredible new density, some great residential projects, hotel property, other private development. But what I'm most excited about are the.
Speaker 0: Four public.
Speaker 4: Projects that will come out of this process. Yes, we will have a new city hall, but in my opinion, that's the least exciting of the group. We will bring our port headquarters to the downtown core for the first time. In the we've all known the modern operations of the port. They will come into the core of the downtown in a new port headquarters. We will be building what will be a new iconic park in Lincoln Park. A park that really will bring the community together. And finally, to be honest, the portion that I'm the most excited about is that we will be constructing and building a new main library. And I can't really emphasize enough that I view the library as the centerpiece of this project. That library, that Center for Innovation, as it was well described, that place that will welcome families and our youth will be inviting and it will be something that we will be very proud of. It will be one of the best libraries in the country. We're committed to that. This will be one of the best libraries in the country and on as good, if not better, than the great new facilities that have opened up in San Diego and Cerritos and and other places. In addition, I believe that staff has been responsible both financially as well as with their deliberative process to members of. The Council. I want to thank staff for their hard work. And I also want to point out that. Our City auditor. I have sat down and I have had some conversations on. I have asked her to also serve as an independent and objective extra set of eyes throughout this whole project. And I want to also thank Councilmember Ranga for also suggesting that and that was something that he discussed. So Auditor Doud will serve when we have briefings and when we are briefed when this comes forward. She will be invested in this project as well to ensure that not only do we have that financial set of eyes that will be coming from staff, but also an independent set of eyes that will be coming from our city auditor. So I want to thank her for agreeing to serve in that role. And I think it's one that provides extra financial oversight over the project. In. The last thing I'll close by saying is that I believe that we're a city that can do big things. And at some point as a city, we've got to step up and do big things. This tonight is this is a big deal.
Speaker 0: This is a the.
Speaker 4: Largest public construction and development project on our city side that we have probably done in decades. Sure the ports had some large projects, but the city has not invested itself in this type of endeavor in decades and decades. And so I believe that Long Beach is ready to take these types of projects on, and not just in downtown, but in North Long Beach and in West Palm Beach and in other parts of the city as well. And so I believe in big things. I believe us. We're going to take a great step tonight. And I fully support staff's process and the recommendation that they're making tonight. So I want to thank everyone involved in the process. And I especially a lot of a lot of our working men and women that actually build our public projects are here tonight. And I want to especially thank all of you for for building not just a good looking courthouse, but all a lot of the public projects we see in our community. So thank you all for your hard work and thank you to both teams. A lot of hard work went into them and I believe today what I believed when I first saw both presentations is that for us, we we have we got to we hit a homerun. We ended up with two great teams and really proud of both. And I'm looking forward to the process moving forward tonight. So with that, I'm going to bring this back to the council. There is a motion on the floor. Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I did want to ask, based on some of the comments that we heard, I wanted to ask staff, what is what are our options in terms of adding a local hire component to the project going forward?
Speaker 10: I think that's going to be clearly a subject of discussion with plenty more. Should city council go in that direction? We've heard of a number of parties interested in that, and I think that's an appropriate thing for a council to suggest.
Speaker 8: Is that something that would be appropriate to suggest tonight or at some future date?
Speaker 10: I'm happy to hear it tonight.
Speaker 8: Okay. Well, then with that, I'd like to make a friendly amendment that we have a local hiring component with the contract as we move forward.
Speaker 4: It was just a friendly amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 8: I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 4: Vice President Gore, would you accept that friendly amendment?
Speaker 9: I do. And the enthusiasm from council member Austin.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 8: A few other comments that I heard. You know, it doesn't need to be said. I echo many of the mayor's sentiments in regards to the positives of the project. There were a few comments that were made during public comment that I take issue with specifically that council didn't consider alternatives. As someone who spent a lot of time educating myself on this, I reject that completely, that we didn't give this enough time. There was enough opportunity for public outreach. Again, completely misinformed opinion and thought. And I would encourage those folks to do their research before they start spreading that. And really, I'd like to come to the defense of Mike Conway, and he's done a fabulous job on this. And I want to thank him for the work that he's put into this. I believe that this project on this proposal was was very transparent. And for anyone to claim that there wasn't enough time, it just shows me that they weren't paying attention. So thanks.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Sorry, Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of points I wanted to make. One is I wanted to thank the men and women that came forward to talk about the workers and really that matters to this city as well. And I'd like to thank Rusty, as well as the others that were here to address the workers issue. I'm very excited about the project labor agreement and the potential for that through this project. This is the largest public project that we'll ever do. And and it's very important. So I'd like to thank you for raising that issue throughout these years and helping us see it come through. The other question I have is it's actually the only question that I have I wanted to ask the city manager or Mr. Conway. When we look at what the Harbor Commission voted on yesterday, they required the term sheet and all of the other agreements that are negotiated to come back to the board. How different is that process from what you proposed to do with your council?
Speaker 10: Vice Mayor Lowenthal I do believe that the Board of Harbor Commissioners modified their recommended action to bring the memo you back for approval. I don't recall off the top of my head if the DNA was intended to go back as well.
Speaker 12: I think I can speak to that. The. I think Vice Mayor Lowenthal is correct. The NRA execution of the NRA has been authorized, but not the term sheet. So, in fact, I think the board of Harbor Commissioners, the only action that they authorized is execution of the NRA. Any other document requires for the Board of Harbor Commissioners approval.
Speaker 9: Since this will be the largest project that any one of us will have been a part of. As council members, I would like to request that staff come back every six months with an update to this council. I think that would be important after we make this decision. It shouldn't be that the first thing that that council hears about it is, is when we're ready to break ground. I think it would be very important for us to do that. Your thoughts, Mr. Cobb? Mr. Conway.
Speaker 10: Every six months at a minimum.
Speaker 9: At a minimum, absolutely. If you'd like to overwhelm us, that would be fine as well. And also, I know you've assured us that contractually speaking there, there are items that are required to come back before the council. But but a briefing and a briefing document to support that would be helpful as many hours a week as these council members work. It's technically supposed to be a part time job and there's nothing part time about it. And but I do think having that knowledge will be important. Do I have your assurance, sir?
Speaker 10: Absolutely. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I'd like to close with just something that I was reminded by when I had we had our friends from labor come up and speak. June 24th of 2011, I had the great privilege of taking a water inspection tour to the Hoover Dam with a small delegation of Long Beach business owners, residents and policymakers. And that was a time when we were experiencing one of the installments of this great drought that we're experiencing. And I was struck by a life sized photo, black and white photo of a man who was working to build the Hoover Dam. He was one of more than 5000 men who built the Hoover Dam during our nation's hardest times. And the caption was Hard times, hearty people. And I thought, that has to be the Long Beach story as well. The Great Depression devastate devastated the nation's economy and spirit. Constructing a great dam in the desert of all places bolstered both the nation's economy and the spirit. This and other public works projects stand today as a testament to the indefatigable human spirit. Great nations and great cities did this the world throughout. I believe our city can do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I do want to thank the many members of the public who came out and and spent their evening with us and sharing your thoughts about this, the direction that you like to see your city go into in this regard. I want to follow up on Councilmember Lowenthal request from staff to come back every six months. And again, I just want to be clear on what the exact exclusive negotiating agreement does. And if coming back every six months, what does that entail? Would you be reporting progress? Would you be reporting agreements that have been negotiated up to that point?
Speaker 10: Councilmember Austin. Attached to the INA Exhibit A is a group of milestones that the team and staff have to achieve over the next 17 months. I think that would be a good starting point on how to brief city council, on how we've kept our schedule, what we've achieved relative to those milestones, and receive any feedback from council on how best to proceed going forward.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Conway. I just want to make sure that this Council is ultimately going to be and I'm making a statement, this council will ultimately be held responsible for this project for better. And I'm just going to keep it positive for better. And and so I want to make sure that there's there's sufficient oversight from from this this body moving forward. I'm in full support of moving forward tonight. I think, you know, I woke up this morning with the mindset that I wasn't really ready to vote on this project. However, after listening to many members of the public getting phone calls and getting clarifying questions from this this council, and I want to compliment my council colleagues for for asking very thoughtful and insightful questions. This evening, I am ready to take a leap of faith of progress for the city of Long Beach tonight and support the recommendation I'm going to support going big. I think this is a great opportunity, a unique opportunity for our city. This is Long Beach life. This is the transformation of our city, which I'm going to be very proud to be a part of. And I'm going to be watching this process to make and commit to making it a success moving forward. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I've been moved by this discussion in terms of, you know, it's it's an opportunity to think big. We should be thinking big here. I think we know and we maybe we've lost our way in terms of our public leaders nowadays, that the way that you can help course correct the economy is by investing in infrastructure . That should be one of our predominant and primary desires and reasons for doing this. We can put people to work. We can help our local economy. We can give a shot in the arm to the downtown. That's it. I think we move forward tonight.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Counselor. Maria Ringo.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank you also for your discussion with the creator, and that includes meeting Clooney inclusive in her participation in this project, because it's very important that we have that independent oversight and if that independent, at least from the city's perspective, as to what's taking place, because I think we need to know exactly what's going on as we move forward. This project, I may also want to recommend if if it's possible to establish a committee of oversight one way or another comprised of city council members. That doesn't have to be five. It could be three. To look at the progress we're making on this and this project as it moves forward. It appears we're going to be moving forward tonight. It's going to be a defining moment for us on city council. There's no question about that. It's going to be defining this for many years to come. It's clear it's going to be one that will stand as a a defining moment for each one of us. It's going to be one that will be remembered for a long time when people walk, walk by the Lincoln Park, go to a library, visit city hall and say, you know, that city council in 2014 made the decision to go forward with this project. So there's going to be pressure, pressure that we felt today, pressure that we're going to feel tomorrow. But it's a pressure that I'm going to put on the winning team in regards to making sure that this is a civic center complex that is going to be responsive to the community, that is going to be responsive to the needs of the city, that is going to be responsive to the city council and more importantly, to the voters of Long Beach, because that's what we're all about. It's about engagement. It's about participation. And that's what we need to have. And I want to welcome and thank you folks who came out and express your views and your ideas and your preferences. I also want to thank the Labor for it. Can we now in expressing their views, I know that there was a comment made that saying that time is money. It certainly is. So we want to move forward in that and I don't think that we can delay this any further. So I think we need to move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Andrews.
Speaker 0: Yes. First of all, I just want to congratulate both teams in after sitting up in my office, you know, viewing all the speakers. And first of all, I'm so touched by vice mayors at Hoover Dam that just that that really got to me. And I thought that was wonderful. You know, the statement you made about Hoover Dam, that is really touching. So I'm going to move on from there and let the individuals know that I am voting for this tonight for my residents in the sixth District and all of Long Beach. And because of Long Beach, there's a vibrant civic center for all who enjoy it, because we see that this project in a way to create jobs. And if you know me, ever since I've been here, all I spoke about was jobs. Construction jobs and permanent jobs, especially for my district and for the residents I serve. Six District received a huge positive economic impact through an an aggressive employment. The play on the project will help our residents join unions that will help to get other jobs. These jobs are not just jobs, but a career. And these careers will support a family, especially for minorities and people who look like my residents. I've been promised this extensive outreach hiring in the sixth district. I'm the city manager, the mayor, and as well as winning team members. I will make sure that every moment that this comes back to the council, my promise to my residents will be honored. I want to thank every one of you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And finally, to close it up with Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 8: Everyone's ready for us to vote already. I just real simple want to thank you all for being here. Again, the teams to everyone that spoke. I know I've long advocated for local hire. So I think Councilwoman Price's friendly amendment for that, because I know that all of us are committed in some form or fashion to that. So just very quickly, thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And with that, please go out and cast your votes.
Speaker 3: I'm going to have to the.
Speaker 1: One motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. I want to I wanted to just real briefly, I'm going to take a five minute recess, but I want us to give a big round of applause to our city staff who worked very hard.
Speaker 0: On this process. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Five minute recess.
Speaker 3: I not. And. And. And.
Speaker 0: Okay. Jazz 88.1. Freddie Hubbard, a great tune from Freddie First Light, going all the way back to 1971. That's the title track from First Light and Kenny Burrell doing Motown's swing from his blues in around as CD Paul James into the final hour here. Got music coming up from Chet Baker will also hear from Stan Kenton right now it is David Ben Wah on member supporting key jazz 88.1. And. Was.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember. Mongo. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Durango. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia.
Speaker 4: I'm here. Moving on to item 11, please. | Contract | Recommendation related to the Public-Private-Partnership to Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain a re-envisioned Civic Center, including City Hall, Main Library, Lincoln Park, Private Development and a possible new permanent headquarters for the Harbor Department (Project), the following actions are hereby requested:
Receive and file the Evaluation Summary Report, dated October 2, 2014, which summarizes the analyses and scores of the responses to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. CM14-040;
Confirm the findings in the Evaluation Summary Report that both Plenary Edgemoor Civic Partners (PECP) and Long Beach CiviCore Alliance (LBCCA) submitted proposals responsive to the RFP and are eligible to receive payment of the stipend;
Confirm the recommendation of staff to select PECP as the City’s preferred Project Team for the Project;
For the Port-In alternative, authorize City Manager to negotiate and execute an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Board of Harbor Commissioners (BHC) detailing rights and obligations of both parties during the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12092014_14-1019 | Speaker 4: I'm here. Moving on to item 11, please.
Speaker 1: Item 11. Recommendation to authorize city manager to execute a Solar Power Service Agreement and related documents with Sun Edison Government Solutions District five.
Speaker 4: Can you get a motion move for a second? Okay. There's been a motion and a second public comment, please.
Speaker 0: Yes, very good. You clear the trash. If Jim HANKLA, Jerry Miller or the city manager would not have to ask this question. But given that.
Speaker 4: 1/2, Madam Quirk, is the timer on in the mic.
Speaker 0: Going to be too short? Okay. Just need some. Given the. Dubious conduct and shenanigans around the electrical pad at Marina Vista Park. What I would like to get specifically is knowing that the five locations for these sites. R will remain within the fifth District. And that before any other location is cited, the council person for the district. At least for District three will be notified. If you've done your homework. What? But this is. It's. It's. To project into the future. They're entering into a contract and going to set up solar energy systems at five different locations. The there are five now that are set forth in the fifth District. But the way the contract is written, you're going to have the type of conduct that happened in with electrical pad in Marina Vista Park. So I'd like to. I'd like to. All this over our head, get a commitment from the city attorney that there will be no other installations unless the council is duly notified. Is there a problem with having that assurance that we're going to expect honesty? And integrity and not have somebody try to slip something in. Or will it be the same West of Orleans approach?
Speaker 4: Sure, as you know, that you're not able to ask questions of the council during this time unless they want to ask the question.
Speaker 0: All I'm looking for is an honest person. Is there one here? Let the clock tick and see if there is an honest person here.
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 0: For the record, Mr. Cole made this it's 930 in the evening on this on the. December the fifth. Excuse me. December the ninth. You get an idea of what the the problem is here. Thank you for making my point.
Speaker 4: Thank you, sir. There's motion on the floor. Councilman Gonzalez, to the question.
Speaker 8: Just had a question for our city management staff. I know that there had been discussions about a local hire component for this, and I just wanted to confirm that there was just a preliminary discussion on this. I don't want to hold this up. I just want to ask whether that was a confirmation on your end or not.
Speaker 11: Councilmember I certainly know that there were conversations today between SunEdison and one of the labor groups. Mike, do you have anything to add on that?
Speaker 10: I understand that there is some preliminary discussion going on that may lead to an agreement with this group, though not necessarily a completed this evening.
Speaker 8: Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Okay. There's a motion. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: 10:00 motion carries seven zero exciting plays. Item 12 Recommendation to authorize City Manager to submit an application for the Airport Improvement Program Grant for Fiscal Year 2015 District five. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a Solar Power & Services Agreement and related documents with SunEdison Government Solutions, LLC, for a 25-year term for the purchase of energy produced from solar photovoltaic installations at five potential municipal sites within the City of Long Beach, and any necessary amendments that do not change material terms.
(District 5) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12092014_14-1030 | Speaker 1: Item 15 Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications Award a bid to Robert Klapper Construction Services for a total contract amount not to exceed 6,000,116. Increase appropriations in capital project funds. District five moved.
Speaker 4: A contribution to Java.
Speaker 5: Yes, I think this is great and long overdue and in the spirit of consistency, I just wanted to, I guess, raise a question to to step in and ask whether or not there's a local hiring agreement in place for for this project.
Speaker 10: Montgomery Councilmember. I don't believe that that was included in the RFP.
Speaker 4: Constable Austin.
Speaker 5: So is there a possibility to do that?
Speaker 10: I at this point, it would require renegotiating with the the bidders. Possibly rebidding.
Speaker 5: Them. What I would just just say in the future and this is a rather large, large project that that understand understanding that for an interest of expediency that we need to move forward but but future and I think we're addressing that through other means anyway that that we would consider this as well because this is a significant public works project that will benefit the entire city. And again, we have made a commitment on numerous occasions now, and I've heard from just about every council member, most of us want to see a local preference in terms of hiring for projects in the future.
Speaker 10: Message received. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Mr. Mayor. Councilman, if I can just point out that that's absolutely true. The Council's directed us to do that, and Mr. Miller was earlier in this evening. We're in the process of negotiating that right now. So the Council did directives to come back. And I'm hoping in the next 30 to 60 days you'll see a play project before the city council that would allow all projects above $500,000 to be.
Speaker 0: Involved for that. So we certainly would do that.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 11: And, Mr. Mayor, one the before we leave the subject, I do want to I see Mr. John Keisler standing back there. I want to highlight John. John is our finance guru in the police department. And he was although Mr. Conway's been incredible getting us here tonight, it was Mr. Keisler who was able to work so wonderfully with the police department's budget to guarantee that this facility is all that the police department wants it to be.
Speaker 10: And if I could I'm sorry to follow up with that, Mr. West. I can't overlook Sarah Price, who's in the audience here this evening as well, who's really project managed this through a couple of arduous periods of time. So thank you, Sarah, for your efforts as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Katherine Mungo.
Speaker 8: It would be. I would be remiss not to thank the police department and the.
Speaker 1: City management staff.
Speaker 8: Not only did we take this project and I think we're financially in a better standpoint than we thought we would be when we originally bid the project. It also is a lead certificate certified facility all within the context of the current.
Speaker 1: Contract before you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Ringo.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mayor. I want to also well, I want to thank Councilmember Austin for bringing up a very important issue in regard to local hires. But I think more importantly, I think I want to bring up the point that there were a number of maybe Whidbey Seabee. Enterprise enterprises that applied for this and that want got got appointed. So I want to in the future date, I want to have a report on how many contractors we have out there who are maybe will be the BCB entities out there because I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing it on this report. We talk about diversity. We talk about diversity on this on this council. We talk about diversity in hiring. We talk about diversity in in the city. And I'm not seeing it in contracts. And if we're going to affect local hires and we're going to affect providing job opportunities for people who live in Long Beach, people who look who look and live like us, I think we need to hire contractors who have that type of sensitivity. And I'm not I'm not I'm not seeing that. So I'd like to perhaps get a report later on, just like I want a report on diversity to bring this forward so we can start addressing how we can go out and find those. Maybe we BCB DB enterprises that can do the job that we want to do.
Speaker 4: Do you want to explain what that is for? I there's a couple of customers who may not.
Speaker 5: Know what you're referring.
Speaker 0: To. Okay.
Speaker 7: Minority business, enterprise, we have been in enterprise. I don't know what SB is small, but small business enterprise and.
Speaker 0: There's a disadvantage advantage.
Speaker 7: Business enterprise. And you know, I mean, I think that should be an important aspect of what we look for when we go out and look for contracts. It's not only about the lowest possible bidder, but it's also looking at the types of businesses that we contract with.
Speaker 0: Mr. West. Hello.
Speaker 4: The council was asked for either a public update or some kind of report back on the process, because I think that there's a lot of interest in that. And so, I mean, maybe this is a larger discussion. You and I have talked about this, but I think that we need to have a conversation at the council about that process so that everyone understands what it's like. And there's a there's a commitment to supporting, obviously, that that process as well.
Speaker 11: Certainly, we'll come back to you. As you see, every project that we do award has a list on where we have the disadvantaged businesses, minority businesses, and we'll get back to a report on how that some evaluated in the bid process.
Speaker 4: Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Any public comment on the item? Seeing none. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries seven zero. Next item item 16 Communication from Mayor Garcia Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Charter Chapter 2.36 relating to the Economic Development Commission. Read an adopted as read Group. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6999 for the East Division Police Substation, award the Base Bid and Alternates 2, 3, 4 and 5 to Robert Clapper Construction Services, Inc., of Rialto, CA, in the amount of $5,617,736, and authorize a contingency in the amount of $498,774, for a total contract amount not to exceed $6,116,510; authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto, and adopt and accept Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MND 02-13;
Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $7,063,951; and
Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) by $226,348, increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) by $132,762, and increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) by $660,000, all in the Police Department (PD). (District 5) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12022014_14-0953 | Speaker 1: Hearing item one is a report from the City Manager and Public Works recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record concluded the public hearing. Adobe resolution authorizing city manager to execute a contract with IP's group for the purchase and installation of electronic parking meter in an amount not to exceed 1.5 million 538,979 and Adobe resolution establishing parking meter rates as defined in the Long Beach Municipal Code. Citywide decrease appropriations in the City Activities Department by 800,000. Increase appropriations in the public works department by 1.148 thousand 134. Increase appropriations in the Belmont Shore Parking Meter Fund in the Public Works Department by 44,573, and increase appropriations in the Rainbow Harbor Fund in the Public Works Department by 153,891.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 3: Mayor, members of the city council on tonight's hearing. Number one item, it will require three separate.
Speaker 5: Motions and actions. We would after the presentation by staff, if the council so desires, we would need a separate motion and adoption of the resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the contract with IPC Group, and then a second motion to establish the parking rates amending the municipal code. And finally, a third action on the appropriation adjustments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. With that, I'll turn this over to staff.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council. We've got about a ten minute presentation to talk a little bit about the parking meter issue and all of the public outreach and the immense amount of study that we have performed this year looking at how we can improve our parking infrastructure. So we want to talk a little bit about our citywide approach. Talk a little bit about what this study found and what the results of that study was. Talk a little bit about community feedback and then go through some question and answer and be available to council to answer questions. So we really approached modernizing our our infrastructure for parking with a couple of goals in mind. One, we wanted to enhance the user experience. We have about 620 meters throughout the city, and we'd like it to be a uniform experience when you when you park in downtown or Belmont Shore or in the park. We wanted to really go through approach this with a comprehensive plan and reducing the cost of a fractured parking meter system. We really wanted to capitalize on data that can now be available as you upgrade to smart meters as they are so called. And we really wanted to do some extensive study both on the technical side and on the financial side to make sure that this is a sustainable model and that we can afford it on a go forward basis. And so we conducted a parking meter study earlier this year, and the results were finalized in August 2014. And we brought that out to the community to share the results of that study and really get some some public input. And so what we really looked at was how do you upgrade our meters or whether we should be doing single spaced meters or multi spaced meters? What are those new meter capabilities that we would recommend and then perform that financial analysis that we talked about? So we get asked the question sometimes, what about multi spaced parking meters? Why are single space preferred over multi space? If you remember, the city actually performed a pilot in the pike and in downtown using multi spaced parking meters. So those are currently in operation. We started this pilot a couple of years ago and what we found is people really do enjoy those multi space parking meters, but really they are more inclined to to function in a lot in a parking lot rather than on the street. We found that there's some confusion when they're on the street. They're not quite as intuitive, but they work very well in our parking lots. And so we're moving on a path to have multi space parking meters in all of our lots and single spaced parking meters for our and on street parking. So we get asked sometimes, where are the parking meters in the city? We actually have them in three areas in downtown. What you see here in red is what we call the downtown core, and that's currently at a dollar an hour. Then we have other areas of downtown which are shown in blue. We also have parking meters in the park and you'll see them down here. Those are currently at $2 an hour and that's those limited meters in the park. And then the third area that we have parking meters is in Belmont. Shaw and Belmont Shaw has all along of Second Street, we have about 50 cent an hour. We have 50 cent an hour on Second Street and then we have a number of lots that also are metered and those range from about $0.25 an hour on the north side. We actually have some that have a compounding rate. The more money you put in, the cheaper they are. And those actually average out at about $0.13 an hour. And then we have a lot down there in Belmont Shore as well. So what are some of the benefits of smart parking meters? Really, it is a new world for, you know, that we all live in we're all using credit cards a lot more. There's still people that love using change. There's people that love using their credit card. It is really a personal choice. The benefit of a smart meter is that it can do both. It accepts both credit cards and change. You know, these new meters are large backlit screens. They're very easy to view, very easy to use, very intuitive. You can display messages on them. You can tell people things like, you know, there is a special event coming up tomorrow or, you know, parking is free tomorrow if it's a city holiday. There's also a lot of technology that comes with it in terms of being able to have apps and information. For example, you can get mobile apps. We've seen them in other cities that help do drive by voice navigation. So it can tell you there are 40 parking spaces right now available on Belmont Shore. Drive down, take a left, take a right, and the parking space is right there on your right. And we often see people circling in downtown on Belmont Shore looking for parking. Apps like this can help direct people directly to a spot eliminating that need for circling. And then it provides a lot of data. For city staff and our stakeholders to come together and really empirically look at our ad, our parking situation at all of our parking assets, and how do we move things around to make things better ? Parking experience. So what we're looking at doing is doing a piggyback process to purchase EFPs parking meters. We talked about this a little bit at the council the other day, and we are recommending piggybacking here what the benefits of piggybacking here is. We are able to use the city of Sacramento's bid process to get the rate for 6000 single space parking meters for our 620 meters. So essentially, we're getting a a bulk discount and it's saving us about 12% if we were to bid this ourselves and to go out by ourselves. So we believe we're very comfortable in recommending the piggyback. It saves time in terms of implementation, saves time in terms of procurement and saves money as well. So talk a little bit about the financing. There are two aspects. We want to be able to fund the capital costs and the operation costs. The meters are there is a capital cost. It's about 750,000 for 600 meters. And then there's the sensors that go along with those that cost about 440,000. The real issue is the operating the operating expense is much higher for these types of meters because they provide a lot more benefit. There's a lot more that they can do. For example, the existing meter costs about 158 parameter, and the smart meters, we believe, will be up to 446 meter dollars per meter annually to maintain one of the big variable costs that we need to account for is the credit card usage cost. Every time you swipe your credit card, the city pays a transaction fee for that to the credit card company. And so you have to make some estimates on how many people are going to use credit cards. In the city of Santa monica, they estimated about 35% of people would use credit cards. And actually it was a very popular program. People love the meters in Santa monica. They started to use them and they used about 60% credit card transaction almost overnight. Santa monica had a $1.4 million expense they had not counted on. So we want to learn from their experience and plan appropriately. And we're conservatively planning that we'll be able to absorb up to a 70% usage of credit card rates or credit cards over the next several years. And so we know that you're going to we're going to have to find a way to pay for these if the city council does choose to move forward. Rate adjustments are what we are recommending. We've looked at the issues of credit card fees and the rate increase could cover that. We also are making some assumptions that the meters themselves will generate some revenue and that's a good thing. But we need to have a sufficient cushion in case those meters aren't you know, they don't meet our projections. And so we believe with the rate increase that we're proposing today will be able to cover both those eventualities and that the rate increase will keep the city what we call net revenue neutral. We're not looking to make a whole lot of money with these meters, but we're also not looking to lose any money, essentially be able to afford the cost of the new service. So we took this presentation that you heard on the road and went out to the community and heard a number of things. It was a pretty extensive outreach effort. We reached we did about 14 different meetings. We did an online community forum. We received about 70. So responses from that from Speak Up, Long Beach. We did email as well, and we also did a lot of social media. So we heard from a lot of people about parking meters. Just in your packet, you have the full information for what we heard and on the road. I wanted to sum up a couple of key issues. On meter rates, we definitely heard in Belmont. Sure. That there's a concern that an increase in meter rates will negatively impact residential parking. We're very sensitive to that. We we understand that area very, very well. And so, you know, we heard that very loud and clear in Belmont Shore and downtown. We heard some of the same issues about, you know, parking impacted areas. We also heard something in addition to that is the idea of trying to keep some parity between the downtown commercial area and the Belmont Shore commercial area in terms of a rate increase or everyone paying a certain amount in order to receive these meters and the sensors we heard some people love the sensor idea. Some people don't like the sensors. Some were worried that it will eliminate the remaining time to the next users. Others felt the sensors were incredibly powerful to provide that data that we're looking for. And in Belmont, sure, the parking commission actually looked at eliminating the sensors as a way to save money to prevent a rate increase. In terms of meter rates. We looked at a couple of different issues. We took a look at passing on our credit card fees to credit card users. That was a request to look at the so-called convenience fee. We also looked at whether you increased rates in the lots and increased rates for the on street meters and what different levels we could be doing that and especially in Belmont. Sure. We looked at reducing the proposed rate from 50 cent increase down to $0.25. We looked at whether we should increase rates in the lots on Second Street and whether or not we should do a change in enforcement hours. In terms of credit card transaction fees, we were asked, can you do a credit card transaction fee? And the answer is essentially it is legal in California to do so. However, our financial management department has talked to our credit card vendors and found that our contracts actually prohibit that. And we've talked to them personally. They do not allow us to pass on directly the credit card transaction fee. And so that is not something that will be recommending. In Belmont Shore, we were asked to really take a look at different alternatives about the meter rate increase in Belmont Shore parking. A business associate or a business improvement commission came up with some ideas. And so we looked at whether or not we could increase the lots and found that they would that we'd still be in a loss if we just increased the lots and not the meter rates. On the street we looked at enforcement hours, which would generate some money, but unfortunately that would really impact the residents down there because they use that for parking at night. And we looked at a smaller increase. Can you drop your rate from a 50 cent increase down to a 25 cent increase? And so in downtown, we looked at very similar things in Belmont. Sure, we did find that you can lower the rate from 50 cent increase to 25 cent and that can be affordable. Unfortunately, the same thing isn't available in downtown. Downtown has a different financing structure, different expenses. But one thing that we are looking to do in downtown is really make an investment in parking, is using some of the funds that are available from parking meter revenues above and beyond. For the first two years to invest in our downtown parking, we heard a lot of input about the need for additional parking, the parking garage improvements and safety and security and all those things. And so that is part of this staff recommendation to every two months as the money comes in that is above and beyond what we need. Put that aside for two years to be able to invest, and that's approximately $480,000 over the next two years. That is projected at this time. In terms of meeting rates, where are we compared to everybody else? We believe that we will still be very competitive. Actually, I'm going to skip to slide 23 to show where we're actually going to be is everybody raises rates when when looking at IPS meters or just about everybody. And even with our rate increase, we believe will be very competitive, will be at or below other beach cities will be between $0.75 and Belmont sure dollar to dollar 50 in downtown and $2 in the pike. And if you see down here, we'll see a number of cities that we're very competitive with. And so just wrapping up the recommendations, three things I want to highlight is one of the things we heard in the community is this idea of can we if we have to have a rate increase, can we maybe get some free time for short trips? And so we like that idea. We're actually recommending that you get 5 minutes free. So if you show up and you just want to run and get your dry cleaning run to a market, you can hit a button and you get 5 minutes free. And we think that's a very good thing to study for the first year in a one year pilot, I talked a little bit about the investment in parking. We're also looking at investing in mobile apps and investing in our website. And then one of the things we heard in Belmont, sure, is the issue of citations after 2 hours. And so we're looking to keep the same practice that we have today, not changing that, studying the data over six months and then making some decisions and coming back to the council on that. So for the next steps, if the city council elects to move forward, we basically will implement the following. An extensive public outreach and education campaign will let people come see the meters, touch the meters, get used to the meters, talk about how they work. We also want to relax enforcement during the initial implementation so that users have a chance to to, you know, get it right when they're using the meters. We'll also be looking to, you know, get a lot of information on that website, I think will be very helpful. And then we expect the rollout to be about 6 to 8 weeks after contract approval. Once we've got all these steps in place. So with that, we'll end the presentation. I just want to shortly thank a lot of people who have really spent a lot of time on this for the last six months. Too many to mention. But I do want to mention a couple our a Malloy and John GROSS, Mike Sickles, Leah Ericson, Dave Roseman, Geraldine Alejo and Karen Fu, who's sitting behind me who really did a lot of work out in the community. And then, of course, our business improvement districts, Bill Lorber and president in Belmont Shore and Craig Cogen for spending a lot of time to go out to the community, to engage the community and to work with us. And with that, we're available for questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to the council and then hop, have a comment. So, Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I want to thank staff for their diligent efforts to get us information and access to data in regards to this proposal. I will say that I've been very involved in this proposal with my community in my district since the initial memorandum came out identifying this opportunity. And initially, as staff knows, I was opposed to the idea of any sort of rate increase. I have a couple of concerns. I will be moving. In fact, I'll move at this time to adopt staff's recommendation. And then I have some comments.
Speaker 0: There's actually there's now the city attorney. There's three actual motions that we made. Could could Councilman Price make all three?
Speaker 3: That that's correct. Okay.
Speaker 0: So you would make the three different motions? Vice President I would second those and then we could do one public comment period for for the items that correct. That's correct. Okay. So do you want to make the three different motions?
Speaker 3: I believe.
Speaker 5: She did by moving staff recommendation will take three actions.
Speaker 0: On staff that's on mission. Yes thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I do want to have some additional comments, though, in regards to the item. So I want to talk a little bit about what my thought process was and hopefully in that process, answer a few questions for those who might be interested in this topic. Now, the initial staff recommendation on this for Belmont Shores specifically was a 50% increase, and that's that was the initial proposal. Mr. MODICA Is that right?
Speaker 12: Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 9: And the proposal that staff is now making, the recommendation that staff is now making would make the increase in Belmont Shore, the lowest in the city.
Speaker 12: Yes, we were actually as part of the community outreach, we look to see if we can reduce that rate. We definitely heard that that was an issue. So we are proposing rather than a dollar going up to a dollar, it would be only going up to $0.75 and using some of the fund balance that the parking commission has to make sure that they can cover those costs. And yes, it would be the lowest rate in the city would be $0.75 in Belmont. Sure.
Speaker 9: In terms of the discussions that took place, I want to thank staff for the outreach that you did throughout the city, specifically in the Belmont Shore area and the third district. I think, you know, it's safe to say that the dynamics in Belmont Shore are very different than many other communities in the city, specifically the proximity of residences to businesses. That's something that's very unique in the three areas where the new parking meters are being proposed. I would say that the proximity of homes to businesses and the availability of parking is is makes Belmont Shore this similarly situated than the other areas. So I think it makes sense that they have a different parking meter goal and wondering if that is what staff found to be the case in terms of the surveying that you did?
Speaker 12: Yes, we found them to be two very different areas. Don't you know, there in downtown you do have parking impacted areas, but they also have parking garages. They have some benefit of a parking garage in Belmont. Sure, they don't have a parking garage, but they have some lots that are very inexpensive. But it's also a very elongated strip. We're in downtown. It's more of a course, so they are very different areas.
Speaker 9: One of the things that staff did on this project and other projects that I think was really good and I think you should get a commendation for it, is using the Speak Up Long Beach survey tool. I've had a chance to read all of the survey responses in regards to the parking meter proposal. And the issue of disparity is one that I think was kind of echoed throughout the the comments from folks is that if there was going to be any sort of an increase, it needed to be an increase that everybody would that was getting this new convenience in terms of the meters was going to be experiencing. So I think that's an that's an issue. That's an important one that's come up. I am happy to know that the staff recommendation is now 25% increase in Belmont Shore as opposed to $0.50. And I want to think for a moment, Bill Lauber, who's here because he came up with several alternatives, many alternatives in order to try to find a way to make the rate increase, either zero or minimal. And it's my understanding that staff has considered all of those alternatives. And the recommendation that staff is making takes into account the convenience fee alternatives, increasing lot rates, changing the times, not having sensors. All of those were taken into consideration. Is that right?
Speaker 12: Absolutely. We did take a look at all of those. A lot of them are very good suggestions. I wish we could have piece them all together to add up to the total that it would have that we really were looking to. We came close but not quite there. But it we did look at all of those. And I want to thank Mr. LaBella as well.
Speaker 9: And now I had an opportunity to meet with some of the stakeholders in our community, including members of the Belmont Shore Resident Association Board. And I think one of the biggest concerns and and and they were very candid with me about their concerns. One of the things that's come up is sometimes people actually drive around the residential neighborhoods a little bit more because they don't have coins. And so they're looking for off street, off second Street parking so that they don't have to deal with the coin operated parking meters. And so I think the convenience of being able to use a credit card is something that most people who I've talked with have reached out to our office feel is a good thing. One, the issue that's come up for us in our community is the keys, the use of the keys, the parking keys. Can you elaborate a little bit on on the future of those keys?
Speaker 12: Yeah. So the key was implemented as a pretty innovative program down in Belmont Shore as a way to use the what I call the. Don't meet her, but allow you to not have coins, but to use a key to turn it into a little bit of a of a meter that allows a different form of payment. That exact system won't be transferable over into these new into the new meters. But we're very much interested in looking to see if we can replicate that if the business if the parking commission is interested in that, if the business association is interested in that, being able to provide a card that you can load up similar to the key and to also work on a transition so that people don't lose the money on their keys. So that's definitely something we're going to be looking at.
Speaker 9: Because that's an issue that's come up recently. It just seems that wherever I am on Belmont Shores, someone will walk up to me and tell me that they purchased a bunch of those keys of Christmas presents, or they still have money left on their keys and they want to make sure they don't lose money. And we're going to be able to ensure that that happens. Is that.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 12: That'll be part of our implementation plan. I don't know exactly today how that will work, but if we approve this, that will be factored into our implementation plan over the next several months.
Speaker 9: The other thing is these these smart meters, are they smart enough that when the technology changes and people are no longer using credit cards, they'll be able to sync up with smart phones?
Speaker 12: Absolutely. It has the ability today to do Apple Pay or Google Pay or Google Wallet or any of those things. We're actually choosing not to purchase and enable that because it is such a small market share right now. But if the market share grows and people are using that, it absolutely can be retrofitted at a pretty small cost. And it's a very easy adaptation. And we can and we can use that functionality in the future.
Speaker 9: I have a question that maybe the city attorney might be well suited to answer. Depending on what action we take tonight. Would it be possible for us at some point in the future to reevaluate the rate structure so that we use the data that we're collecting from the smart meters to determine whether or not there are different rate options available, such as the progressive pricing that some Kurt Schneider, who's a resident and a member of of our very active member of our community, suggested that a progressive pricing type option, where it's maybe $0.50 for the first hour, which is what it is now, but that you raise it higher than that for the second hour . Is that something that we could look into down the road and modify our payment structure?
Speaker 3: May or members of Council.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Price Absolutely. Under the second action you would take tonight in adopting the parking meter rates in the municipal code, you could come back at it at a later date and adjust just that rate, which would adjust the rates in any of the areas that the council decided to do. So, yes, you could do that.
Speaker 9: Okay. And that's I mean, I'm letting staff know at this point that that's something I'd really like to look into. And obviously, I'll talk to my council colleagues about that and see if that's something they're interested in. But if that were an option for our residents so that they're still having the same type of rate that they're used to for the first hour and pay more for additional time. And we can study and use the the data from the sensors to help us with that. I think that would be great. In terms of the sensors, one of the concerns that we've heard is that these sensors are going to encourage the city for revenue generation purposes to change its enforcement practices. Can you comment on that a little bit? Like, are we going to have, you know, people issuing citations waiting for the car to drive away and the sensor to indicate that it's, you know, waiting for the sensor to go off and indicate that someone's expired.
Speaker 12: So we absolutely looked at the citation and the impact of these meters on citation, and we actually believe that revenue is going to be approximately flat. It might go a little bit up, it might go down. It actually varies by year by year. For example, in a in a down year, in a down economy, we see our parking citation money drop as people are very, very careful about not getting citations. In other years it'll go back up. So in terms of the technology here, we don't expect a major change. It will help our officials to become a little bit more efficient while they're driving down that street. They'll be able to see who is, you know, not currently paying, but they can do that today anyway. We don't expect this to be that every time somebody is over by a minute that a parking citation person will show up , they're going to run their normal routes. From that perspective, things are going to be pretty much the same.
Speaker 9: In terms of using the data from the sensors to evaluate whether or not we need to modify our current parking ordinances in terms of to our max parking. Is that something that you foresee the sensors allowing us to be able to do?
Speaker 12: Absolutely. One thing that we heard in Belmont. Sure is the issue of the two hour limit and whether or not we would be changing our enforcement practices. And so what we want to do is leave things as they are today. So no change in enforcement practice. And then after six months, take a look. Maybe it's six months, maybe it's a year. But as we review that data, what are people parking? Are most people staying for 3 hours rather than 2 hours? And if that's the case, should we be coming back to the council with a recommendation to change the hours to 3 hours, or is 2 hours appropriate? And should we be should we be changing our enforcement practices to encourage more turnover? So the data will provide a lot of information and we won't be making changes until we look at that data and then come back to the council.
Speaker 9: And you would expect that to be maybe six months or a year.
Speaker 12: I think we're going to start at about six months to really delve into the data once we've got a certain amount of time behind us to see some patterning and then and then look at the data from there. So between six months in a year.
Speaker 9: Now, another thing that I think is very different in Belmont Shore is that we do have some some lots that are adjacent to the businesses, parallel to Second Street, and our residents use those lots for parking. So changing the hours where they're changing the parking meter hours in Belmont Shore would inconvenience the residents who use those lots because they like to park in those lots after work and leave their cars there till the morning. Is that something that you found in any other neighborhood other than Belmont? Sure.
Speaker 12: We definitely have some parking challenges in District two, in District one as well, where they use lots after hours in order to park. And so we're very sensitive to that. Again, part of this study is we didn't want to change any hours. We thought that was a little too much to to bring to the community is changing parking locations and hours and rates would just be a very confusing so this really focused on the rates and then we want to use the data to look about whether or not we should be changing ours. So no, our no, our changes are being recommended as part of this.
Speaker 0: Gentlemen. Are you all right?
Speaker 9: I am. I'm just taking one last look, and I think I'm done. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. I want to thank you all again for your work in this. I know it's been a long time coming as well as our community that's here. I first want to preface this by saying I know it's been it's hard to think about an increase in rates, but about two weeks ago, I brought forth an agenda item that really looks at downtown parking holistically. I shared that with some of you. I shared, you know, obviously our council, we passed that agenda item. It will basically direct our city manager and staff to look at public and private lots as it relates to efficiency exploration of a smartphone application, which is already being done. Safety as it relates to any unusual high calls for service at particular locations and also maintenance. So cleanliness as well. A lot of the emails I had been receiving, a lot of the contact I had been getting from business owners and residents alike, addressed a lot of these concerns. It was it was cleanliness. It was, you know, our city place parking garages aren't looking good. There's high calls for service. There have been issues after hours for employees. And so I hope and I feel very confident that the city manager will come back with some information that will make us make some changes, if possible, to our downtown parking garages to be able to to look at that. Aside from that, with the parking meters. I just wanted to go over a couple of questions with you. Can you? I know you explained a little bit about almost a half a million dollars projected to come back to the downtown for infrastructure improvements. Is that and that's above and beyond what we would be making. Can you go into that a little bit further?
Speaker 12: Yes. Councilmember and as to your parking study, we actually find that to be very symbiotic with what is being proposed here. And so ours really looked at add on street meters, but we're we're very cognizant of that. This is a system. And so but what you're proposing actually is going to dovetail very nicely into this effort. And then this effort actually provides the funding source to be able to do some of the things that we would find in the parking study. And so the staff recommendation and this came out of discussions with Dubé and others in our park and our community input. This was not part of the original recommendation was to say let's invest for two years the the amount of revenue above and beyond that we're currently experiencing today from the city side, the downtown Long Beach associate is actually going to be repaying the city out of their portion that they receive for that for the one time capital costs. But the city will have some money and right now it's projected to be 480,000 over two years. It could be more, could be less depending on the assumptions. And we see that money being available to start doing some of the improvements to fund the parking study, if you will, and and make some real improvements in terms of signage and signage and safety and security and paint and lighting. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 9: And then there were in comparison to Belmont Shore, we have a few different elements that make us a little bit different in the downtown. So we have the to our free parking and we're there. Was there anything else? I know we're getting 5 minutes for free on the on the front end. And were there any other elements that made downtown a little bit different than Belmont? Sure, because.
Speaker 12: I think those are the big ones. It's also the way that the finances are structured in downtown. We have an agreement to share 50% of the cost with of the net revenue with the DBA, which then reinvest that back into public realm and marketing. And so that's an expense. And we also have some general fund programs that count on that parking revenue. So it is a unique area compared to Belmont Shore. It's definitely different. And the parking garage, the to our free really is a fantastic resource that we're not really aware of any other major downtown anywhere in California that has 2 hours free parking in a parking structure in downtown.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you. And I just want to say, you know, like I said, as hard as it is to increase rates, I think, you know, I'm certainly initially I wasn't supportive as this of this. I am supportive of it now. Just because we are getting a lot of these concerns, I feel will be taken care of with both the agenda item prior and then, you know, just looking at what we we are projected to to come about now with with potential revenue. Last thing I wanted to mention, I.
Speaker 4: Had it in.
Speaker 9: Here was the data. So I know we had talked about the data. And so I just want to reiterate, it is possible to come back after three months, six months to re evaluate the data and say, you know, if this isn't working, then we can go back down to the dollar or perhaps we need to change ours if need be. But that data is really going to be very imperative for us to be able to do that, correct?
Speaker 12: Absolutely. And we agree with that. The data really is important. And that's one of the reasons that we're recommending both in Belmont Shore and in downtown, that we have that data and those sensors so that we can make those changes. And I think there'll be a lot of good information that we currently don't have today to help us manage our parking resources.
Speaker 9: Okay. I just wanted to get that clear. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Admiral Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I, too, wanted to extend my gratitude to staff and the business community, both from Belmont Shore area as well as downtown. For all the work that went into this and I know that this did not start just recently, all of you, most of you were involved during the pilot phase as well, when we were looking at whether this technology is one that we are in that we're certainly able to do, and one that's right for Long Beach. So I especially wanted to thank the downtown Long Beach Associates as well as the Belmont Shore Area Business Improvement District for their participation. But my thanks to staff, I do want to share how very appreciative I am of the lengths you went through to ensure that you had the right information. I know you made trips to other cities and spent a lot of time there to investigate how they're doing it. You were on the street. You're talking with their traffic engineers and looking at their data, not just from an increase in revenue standpoint, but really the customer experience. And I can speak confidently that I saw your staff there in Santa monica spending all day talking with different department heads and staff members and also the business improvement district there on what the experience has been. So my sincere appreciation for all of the effort that went into that. Our interest in parking meters and the visitor experience goes back several. They go back several years and it was mentioned by Tom Mr. Modica during his presentation what our experience was with the pilot project. This I also wanted to convey. While it's obvious and it's stating the obvious, it certainly is very much in line with our innovation agenda. This city is moving.
Speaker 4: Toward.
Speaker 2: Being able to allow its residents, its customers, its visitors to navigate and negotiate with all of their activities in a way that makes sense to them, in a way that they conduct their lives today. And a lot of it is technology based. And so moving in this direction comports with not only the city's innovation agenda on behalf of its residents, but also the way people are moving in their own lives to conduct their lives. And the convenience of using credit cards, which was stated earlier, is very much a part of that experience, not to mention the potential impact on the revenue. And specifically speaking to Santa monica's experience, I know they conveyed what the revenue experiences and balanced with what the customer friendly experience was as well. And there's a cost to making these sorts of improvements and that therein lies the challenge and why we are coming forward with this proposal. I wanted to ask a couple of questions to Mr. Modica. One relates to the grace period. Do you recall what the other cities utilized if they had the grace period, what their grace period was correct?
Speaker 12: What I believe the Vice Mayor is referring to is when a car leaves and the sensor resets, the the amount down to zero. Do you set it down to zero? Do you set it down to 5 minutes? Do you send it to something else? Many cities reset it down to zero. There is no grace period. City of Santa monica actually found that they had a number of constituent complaints about resetting it down to zero. And so the compromise that they came up with was to reset it down to 5 minutes so that there is a five minute grace period. So if a car leaves, you have at least 5 minutes. We had originally proposed that that was what was in our study. And actually as we went out and met with the community, we came up with that other idea of providing everyone 5 minutes free because in that case, the first scenario, you only get 5 minutes of somebody had time left on the meter. So we're actually proposing something a little different in that everyone gets 5 minutes free. You just have to push the green button on the device and you get. Yeah, that's the. 5 minutes.
Speaker 2: And then that would be very much a part of the outreach. Correct? So. I wanted to ask. That five minute grace period in other cities that do it, they do it when the meter resets. Our proposal, your proposal to council is to do it by putting hitting the green button. If the idea is to allow residents or visitors to run a quick errand, I'm not quite sure that that 5 minutes captures that unless you're parking right in front of a business which I know in the downtown is never possible and certainly in Belmont. Sure, either. And so I'd like my colleagues to consider, especially my colleague in the third, perhaps a ten minute. Green button reset, whatever you call it, grace period. Have you evaluated the financial impact of a ten minute? So we're not doing 15 this price.
Speaker 12: So part of the reason we chose the five minute I think we absolutely agree with you is that 10 minutes is probably more reasonable for a short errand. We really don't know what the financial impact is going to be. We had to make some educated guesses, and what we're estimating in downtown is that the five minute free pilot would be actually about $85,000 a year just for the 5 minutes. It it's not quite linear, so it's not like you just add, you know, 85 plus 85 and that's your new amount. It might actually be more than that. So we would certainly be open to increasing it to 10 minutes. What we were proposing was to do it for 5 minutes for, you know, three months, six months, something like that, to get a feel for it and what that cost would be and see what the meter data tells us , how many people were actually only staying for 5 minutes and then expand it to ten? If you'd like to make a different recommendation, we can try. We just might have to then go down if it's too expensive. We were proposing rather start low and an increase.
Speaker 2: So let me ask you this. When when someone does the 5 minutes and you're looking for data to determine whether or not they're staying longer, how are they staying longer? Are they doing so by coming back and putting money in the meter through their credit card? How how is that expressed to us?
Speaker 12: So the sensor will be able to see when the car pulls up and when the car actually leaves. We'll also be able to get data from how many people push the five minute button. And so we'll be able to see exactly how many people are taking advantage of our 5 minutes. And then we'll be able to get a sense of currently what the trips are. How many are there? Four, five? How many there for ten? How many are there for 15? 20. That will give us a better estimation once we get the sensor data of that. Another option could be you're just throwing this out there is to put in the meters without any free pilot program for the first couple of months, get that data and then institute a appropriate number. You know, there's a number of different ways to do this.
Speaker 2: Just from the practicality. And I know this is probably far more detailed than we necessarily need for the first discussion of it. But from a practical standpoint, if I approached a meter, someone's left actually any meter given your proposal and I strike the green button, I have 5 minutes, but if I needed ten, am I adding the additional five while I stand there or am I coming back?
Speaker 12: You would add it right then, so it would be 5 minutes free and you could walk away. Or if you needed ten you would put in a nickel, a dime, whatever it is, or, you know, if you needed to swipe your card and you would then buy an additional five to get up to ten.
Speaker 2: Okay. And we can have, I suppose, the data conversation later. My, my challenge with looking at that data to determine does someone need 5 minutes for an errand or 10 minutes for an errand. I think it like you said, it's not linear and it's sort of a blended average that you will end up with. And so I'm not sure that that gives us the most accurate data. My recommendation for our counsel is for the first three months to do the 10 minutes, look at look at the data, and you come back to us with that data and we can make a determination. While it is much harder to take something away, I do think from making a change going to a technological change like this and and a fee change or parking meter rate change this might be. A nice amenity for for certainly the residents that have expressed concerns. What are your thoughts, Mr. Vodka?
Speaker 12: We'd certainly be willing to do that if that's what the council would like to do. We you know, we'd want to if the council makes that adoption or that motion tonight, the first thing we would do is kind of rerun some of the financial models just to make sure that it that based on the assumptions it'll fit . And if it does fit, then we'll move forward with that and do it for three months if it for some reason doesn't work in at all and the projections show it may put us in negative, then I think we would need to come back and and get some further directions before implementation.
Speaker 2: And that'll be my caveat to the friendly amendment is it'll be contingent on the staff's assessment of the 10 minutes versus the 5 minutes and if it still keeps us where we need to for the capital expenditures for this project. Councilmember Price Are you amenable to that? Yes.
Speaker 12: Vice Mayor So do you want to point out it would result in less revenue for the infrastructure improvements in downtown because that that money comes out of the same pot so we can do the 10 minutes. It may result in some reduced money. It won't, you know, just off the top of my head, it's not going to take all of the money. It will just be a reduced amount.
Speaker 2: So we're doing this for the first three months. And then you'll let us know what the cost implications are.
Speaker 3: We'll do. Just three months.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. That's all my comments for now. And I would urge my I would urge my colleagues to support this item. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Mango.
Speaker 4: Assistant City Manager Modica. Could you elaborate a little bit on the inability to pass on the transaction fee to the consumer? Because for those of you who are about to pay your property taxes, which are due any day now, you can absorb the fee. If you choose to use a credit card. We pass that 3% on to the customer and they choose to take that. Additionally, if you pay by check, same with your animal licenses in L.A. County, you pay a certain fee, but if you choose to use it by credit card, we have an agreement with link to govt that passes that cost on to the consumer because. The theory is that the cost of maintaining the meters is equal for every resident and every consumer of the space or the dog license or the property. And therefore, why should one taxpayer pay less than another based on their type of transaction? Additionally, if we were able to pass that on to the consumer, because these meters are so smart, if it was a dollar and I paid by quarters, it would be a dollar. But if it was a dollar and I paid by a transaction fee, it would be like a dollar five $0.05. And since it would be a transaction fee, which is digital, hopefully that would not result in an additional coinage challenge. Thoughts? Anyone.
Speaker 12: So we spent a lot of time looking at this. I will try my first crack at the explanation. It is fairly complicated because you are absolutely correct. There are ways to do it and we actually do certain types of those types of payments as well. I certainly learned a lot about this. And if I if I say something incorrect, though, John, growth earlier will help me. We actually do have the same type of fee that you are talking about in the city and we do it for online bill pay. And essentially what you are paying is a convenience fee to use a online payment as a method of payment rather than passing the direct transaction fee from the credit cards on to the customer. So we had originally approached it from that approach as can we do the same thing with parking meters? And so we reached out directly to Visa and MasterCard and they were telling us what we do in terms of utility billing payments with the county does is a separate issue from passing the direct cost of the credit card transaction fee on to the customer in the manner that we were thinking of doing. There are other ways to do it. It becomes very convoluted and complicated. You can raise all rates and then discount for cash. You have to notify if they do a number of different things. But in that, if the intent is to keep the rates low and passing on just the fee, that would defeat the purpose, because otherwise you have to raise everybody's rates and then provide a a cheaper discount for cash. So if I if there's anything else to add, please jump in.
Speaker 4: So are you saying that if the rate was a dollar ten but there was a discount for cash, it would be a dollar in coin, but that the rate is a dollar ten per hour.
Speaker 12: That would be one way to approach it.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then to my colleagues, I am very interested in data. I think that there's a lot of value. I'm really excited about our open data and sharing a lot of what we have going on in the city with our residents. And I think that if we want to do a real assessment of the impact of the 5 minutes, I think that there's some value in starting with zero and then going to five. And then if you'd like to potentially go to ten, realizing the risks. And before you go to ten, you'd already have the data from zero and five. And that variance would potentially give you the output and the challenge of the cost implications to go into ten. And so my friendly amendment would be to do. Three months at zero. And then the three months at five.
Speaker 0: Vice President Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Mongo makes a very good point. I was just looking at the slide presentation again on some of the detail as well as some of the background information. And I do think it would be more responsible for us to start with. Five. I know you've asked for four zero, but start with five. Look at the data. I saw the look of concern on Mr. Marcus forehead, but he didn't articulate it. Sometimes you have to hear what's not being said and and our interest is not to start at a negative. And so I will ask I yes, we'll start with five at three months and then reevaluate.
Speaker 0: Next we have Councilman Price.
Speaker 9: I do have a question in regards to that. Mr. Modica, is Belmont Shore in a situation where we could financially accommodate the 10 minutes free because we are not similarly situated to the other areas in terms of our parking meter purpose. It's more of a turnover goal in Belmont. Sure. And so for us, you know, we might be able to since you've run the numbers in Belmont Shore so carefully, is that something that we could accommodate? Because my concern with the 5 minutes is there are very few businesses in Belmont Shore where you could go in and really utilize that 5 minutes in a meaningful way.
Speaker 12: So what we saw when we ran this and it's in the staff report is we looked at a number of estimates and we're expecting the 5 minutes free in downtown Belmont, sure. To cost about $25,000 in just roughly. Looking at it and give some numbers in year two, Belmont sure would have $132,000. But in year three, there would be 23 million, $23,000 in net excess. And so in that scenario, let's just say the 5 minutes free were to double. You would be okay in year two, but you would go negative in year three, you would go positive in year three four and then back a little bit below. That's not to say it can't work. But you know, there's also the fun balance that Belmont, your parking commission has that is different than in Belmont Shores. So if you wanted to allocate additional, you know, a fund balance to cover that for a certain period of time, that would be a financial that would be a financially responsible way to approach it as well.
Speaker 9: You know, I'd like to before talking on this item any further, I'd like to hear from the public in terms of public comments. I know there are some folks here who might have something to say about that, but would that be an option for us as maybe to do something different in terms of that, the free time that would be different in the shore as opposed to downtown?
Speaker 12: That's entirely a policy question in the council. There's nothing prohibitive from the technology side of things. As long as the finances and the fund balance were there, you would just have to allocate some of that fund balance to ensure that you wouldn't go negative during the time that you're that you're piloting this.
Speaker 9: Okay. Have no further questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: I'm going to make some comments before we go to public comment. And then, Councilman Gonzales, do you have additional comments as well? Okay. Why don't you go ahead and then I'll close.
Speaker 9: And I wanted to take it a little bit further. I know, Tom, don't give me any bad looks, but I know we talked about this in the beginning with even a removal of the parking meters, the ones that were not making any money. Because I know historically, you know, living personally, living along pine, but also knowing that some meters just don't even generate any revenue at all. It's just it's pretty poor. I just want to make sure that we keep that in our and our on our radar. I know I had discussed that with you beforehand, but if there's something some data that comes back and says these aren't even efficient, even for maintenance purposes, I mean, that would be something we could look at as well, correct?
Speaker 12: Absolutely. That's going to be part of our review. The beauty of the sensors is they will tell us when people are parking there during hours and whether they're paying. They also will tell us when people are parking there and not even when they're not being enforced. So if we see meters that are losing money on it, we will will definitely look at removing those and maybe placing them somewhere else or just getting rid of them altogether.
Speaker 9: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. We're going to go to the public here in just a minute. Just a couple of comments and then Mr. Modica, then a question for you. I want to make two sets of comments. The first is about the technology, and the second, it's about the rates, which has been part of the larger discussion. But the first thing I want to say is I really want us to just commend city staff, the group involvement or the parking commission deal, a hope to the DRC, all the residents who have been involved in this process. This is when you think about this, we're upgrading a major system in the city. This is creating a government that is more responsive to the 21st century. It's technology, it's data collection. This is exactly the type of investments that we need to be making and to ensure that we are a city with all the amenities of a big city and being are the two areas of the city that have parking meters. I think to go to smart meters, I've been lamenting not having smart meters for years. I've been using smart meters in every other downtown oceanfront in every other city. And we've been a little bit behind, but we've been doing also our research, our due diligence on the issue. And I want to thank all those groups. I want to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal, who's been kind of leading the charge on this issue for for many years. And also just a few things. Also, Tom, on the rate issue one, I do I think it's great that downtown has the two out of three lots. I think that needs to continue. I also want to make sure that at the six month review, we review two things that you and I have discussed before when I was on the council. One is looking at areas, particularly in the northern part of downtown, where you have meters in neighborhoods that have developed to a place where they're no longer business districts. So example, you have streets on Pacific Avenue that have no businesses that have parking meters in front of residences. And at time there may have been business on that street, but as as have been developed into residential corridors, there's no longer the need for those meters. And so it's I think it's it's hard to have a street with all residential homes and parking meters. And so I think we need to evaluate at the six months and and I know that part of this is ensuring that we can pay for this. And so if if we get the data back, we need to evaluate which parking meters, like Councilman Gonzales said, are are obsolete. In addition to that, I want as part of the six month, I would like to request that we also look at what is what you can what we consider the downtown core versus the downtown. Because if you look at the map, the what we consider the downtown core, which is the red, if you can put slide number seven up on the screen real quick. If you look at this map, this is this has been a map that we've used for a while as far as what we consider the downtown core versus the downtown from a from a parking rate point of view. And it may be and I don't mean I don't know this to be the case, but we should look at it. It may be that portions of it's what currently are the downtown core should have a downtown rate because of the usage. And it may be that there may be a street or two that are considered the downtown that should be considered the downtown core because of usage there. There are there are areas of that are currently in the blue section of the downtown that have very high use. And there are some areas that are in the red that have very low use. So if at those six months, those two items can also be reviewed, I think that's an important piece piece of all this as well.
Speaker 12: Absolutely. We can look at both of those. And that's what that's really the benefit of the data. So, yes, we'll have a lot of data to look at and make some good decisions about what is appropriate and what the appropriate rate and locations are.
Speaker 0: And I know there's an I that's that's been a request. I know that some of the neighborhood groups have submitted in the past to the city. And so I just want us to revisit that as well. So with that, let's go ahead and open this up to to public comment. So please come forward and introduce yourselves for the record.
Speaker 3: Greetings, Mayor. Council members and members of staff. My name is Eric Ray and I live at 133 Promenade Walk in the second District on the incoming vice president of the Downtown Residential Council. And I'm a member of the historic Pine Avenue Business Association, which is HOPER encompasses many of the businesses on Pine Avenue from First Street, and many of the businesses are North Third Street. Well, I support the installation of smart meters due to the ease of use factor for the customer experience and being able to use credit cards. I think it's unfair that the entire downtown core will be on a full dollar 50. I believe the downtown core should be set at a dollar so that we're more competitive with Belmont. Sure. To be clear, the proposal states that Belmont Shore will be at $0.75. The downtown periphery will be it will be a dollar. And that includes the East Village and the downtown core will be at a dollar 50. If you look at the map, the downtown core includes some of the economically developing parts of downtown, such as Pine Avenue, north of Third Street, seventh Street, between Pine Avenue and Long Beach Boulevard and so forth. This includes many of the small businesses who took a risk in Long Beach and are more vulnerable due to the higher parking meter prices outside their businesses, which deters customers. 5 minutes free is a nice gesture, but will hardly buy time to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks or let alone a sandwich across market. Well, I understand that there's a city place parking garage with two free hour parking. Many people feel it is an unsafe parking garage for a variety of reasons, which includes lack of security on the blue line and many calls for police in that section of downtown. I asked you to think about the Long Beach customer experience when making your decision. I asked you to put yourself in the shoes of a consumer who visits Pine Avenue, but is met with empty storefronts and expensive parking meters, which also have sensors that reset when a car pulls away. In addition, lots of data shows that cost of living has gone up for individuals and families, but wages haven't. The proposal before you does offer some good suggestions with revenue projections. However, part of the solution is to consider that not all parts of downtown are economically sustainable. Yet we need to compromise. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Eric. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council. I'm Joe Ganim. I'm president for another 30 days of the downtown residential council. And I'll be more than happy to give that position to Mike Dunphy. We had the pleasure of having Tom Mollica and Sharon at our forum, and they made a presentation. We had a packed house. I think most of the comments were very positive. I didn't hear anything and haven't heard anything in a negative sense about this idea at all. I have some personal comments, however, to make in a question to ask. First of all, I finally get to retire the little lime green coin purse that my wife bought me to put in my nice black macho jeep. Somehow it never fit and twins are a real nuisance. But on the other hand, the first three months that I bought, first two months that I was here, I had the pleasure of contributing to the city's coffers by the tune of about $90 for parking tickets. So I. The purse wasn't such a bad thing after all. The other thing is I heard about Apple Pay. However, I was listening carefully and perhaps I missed somewhere, Mr. Mayor, about the ability for the smart meter, if you will, to inform the person who's parked there when their time was about up, or in fact, whether or not they could use an app to not only pay for the meter, but at least re-up the meter if that was an availability through the application as opposed to, you know, you get to pay for it, but you don't know when for sure it's going to expire unless you've set a separate app to let you know when that's going to happen. So it would seem to me that that would be a real convenience. I know that if we're sitting down, enjoying ourselves, having dinner or something, and maybe the service has been a little late getting to us and we've got 10 minutes left, but we are not aware of that. The convenience of using the credit card then is obliterated by the fact that we get back and find out that we've been ticketed because we didn't know the meter ran out and we should have been able to do that. So I appreciate all this effort on technology. I think is is a great idea. My own thoughts about the rates is, quite frankly, I think most of us really concentrate more on being able to get a parking space and being able to pay for it efficiently. I don't know about others. Maybe I'm a little different, but I frankly, in most cases than the smart meters, but the maximum amount because I have no idea how long I'm going to be available. And so whether or not I'm saving a nickel, a dime a quarter or $0.50 a dollar, you know, I mean, at the end of the day, we're probably going to spend a great deal more money, whatever we're doing after we park than parking. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Mr. Mayor, City Council. My name is Michael Wylie. I live at 638 Pacific Avenue. I'm also the president of Sam Co Corporation. We own approximately a block in North Pine apartment buildings and about 50,000 square feet of commercial space. Tonight, I'm in regards to the parking in North Pine.
Speaker 8: The mayor mentioned North Pine.
Speaker 5: There's a lot of empty parking spots up there. In fact, about three or four years ago, I did a survey up there in which we audited the parking spots. And it looks like from our study, the area between 6/8 Pacific and locus generates about $50 per meter per year. And I think what the meter is, 425 bucks. So quite, quite a long payback on that.
Speaker 13: So anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you all very much. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mike. Next picture, please.
Speaker 7: Dennis Dunne. This is sour grapes. I know. But if we had built a swimming pool, we'd have 128 free parking places and won't have to worry about $0.50 extra charges for the consumer. Marketplaces would be available. Well, the pool has been set in concrete and the wheels are in motion. So let's go from there. What is the problems with this new parking meters set up? I think there are seven problems. That. That signal disaster. First, business revenues would go down because people would not be going into the stores to get change. They are more apt to buy something in the store if they go for change rather than to have a credit card. Put it in the machine, check it. More credit cards. It's a jungle. Why more credit cards? We have enough credit cards now. People are in debt because of credit cards. How are you going to keep track of the cost? It's staggering the amount of burden you will put on the person. Third. More. There'd be more overpayments with credit cards than if you didn't have credit cards. Because it's like magic. You get a gift, a parking place, and there's no exchange from your wallet with money to the meter. It's just magic. You slip a card in the machine's mouth and it feed you a free parking place, it seems. But nothing's free. It's going to cost you a lot more money because of overspending, because they won't be aware of the expense so much. And. Fix the costs of maintenance machinery we're talking about. You have to you have to maintain it to its prime order. That's going to cost money. The maintenance of these machines that are so exotic, you give credit cards. Seventh. There will be a black market in credit cards. There's no real stoppage. Of of thievery and of a black market that would be initiated. There's no real guards with the credit card system. Those are the points I'd like to make, and I'll leave it up to your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 13: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Craig Cogen with the downtown Long Beach Associates. I first want to thank staff for the incredible work that they've done in preparing this information. I don't know if it was the mayor or ourselves who really were in a race to get new technology in our downtown . We've been asking for it for a couple of years now, and we finally are able to look at really the benefits that this will provide. And I think it's important that although DARPA is supportive of a staff recommendation, that the technology and the rate adjustment does not equal unconditional support, that our support does come with those conditions that we have. We have requested and submitted to city staff and it's included in your packet. We have about 11 recommendations that we hope to be able to implement in a very systematic, strategic and chronological timeline. But again, it looks we look at the technology, we look at the convenience, look at the visitor friendliness, and it's sometimes the parking is the first and last impression that one gets in their business corridors. I think we have to be cognizant of that relative to data collection. I don't think this proposal would be worth the wait if it did not include the sensors without the data that that it will collect. We cannot go forward by making rational and smart decisions on how to utilize the parking that exists in our downtown or in Belmont Shore. And I want to thank the vice mayor and Councilmember Gonzales and their recommendation directing city manager to look at the off street parking issues in our downtown relative to the parking lots and city place parking. It does need better maintenance. It does need stronger security. It needs to be maintained on a regular basis. And we're looking forward to working with staff and certainly with city council on those issues and certainly be able to provide any of the support and support and and and offered the opportunity to create that opportunity when it comes to providing that service for the parking lot. So anyway, again, thank you. City staff did an incredible job in presenting that to us and look forward to the support here tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Hello. My my name is Celia McGill. I live in a I have a living you in me like 20 C 27 and living in and Pacific and twenties in 15 in the poor me maybe, but it is very good to see the those mirrored. But right now in this moment I'm in scary you know y because I live in over there in Pacific in 15. And in one building apartment on them is Pacific Theater like. And we can we have a something we have more space to partner the car. Now we are looking for around in the ground up there here. I'm going to I'm going to looking for one place where I'm going to leave my car. Why? Because I have more space and then maybe some some pencil than going to say Oprah specific. The lady parking space. Yes, but only two in 9 a.m.. Single and single woman with three, three busy, busy students, one in in lobbies, in university lobbies, and another 10 million, obviously. And they are they are very busy in item mobile to give them a right.
Speaker 10: Also.
Speaker 1: I also am very busy to enable in my community and different activities. And then for me without it for me is not working, maybe is very good for business, for places, for recreation areas, but no where to place away the cable building like I told you place too late tomorrow the sweeping will pass maybe to then going to sleep in my car if I if I am going to park my car and for my in my room, I am going to sleep in my car and wait until they are sweeping bus even though I am going to looking for around to to find one place where I leave my car then well, we need maybe we need those, those meeting in recreation areas where maybe in in something you you know, your city, you know what, what, where we need up. But maybe over the Pacific Pacific in 15. We don't need it. We need only one place where we can to borrow or car because nobody is too many cars. We can MySpace where we can to park or something. I see some person they pay $1 to summer a liquor stores to live Berkeley car over there. But they need to pay like a one day or three days before they call somebody because we can find one a space where we're going to leave the car away. Because if not, then what are we going to. We're going to find one ticket for last week. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please. This is our we have a link. Lisa is next and she'll be our last speaker coming off the speaker's list. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Yup. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Bill or beer bill? Much for parking commission. I'm the current chair. Start off by some big thank you's. Member Price did a great job looking at this and reviewing it and I really appreciate the effort you put into it. Staff did an amazing job too. I really appreciate all the work that Mr. Motoko did and the outreach that he did with the community in particular. I want to throw a shout out to Craig and his group. They really looked at it well. They made a number of suggestions that I know us and make sure would like to. So the debate did a great job on their task force. So thank you also. There were some comments earlier about the disparity or the difference between Belmont Shore and downtown in other areas. And I just like to focus on a couple of quick things. Now, Mature has always had a lower parking rate than downtown or any other area, and that's for many of the reasons that Member Price mentioned. But I think what wasn't mentioned is, is probably the most important reason, which is we don't have meters in Belmont. Sure. As a revenue source they they were never installed for the purpose of creating a new revenue source. They were originally installed to pay for a couple of parking lots. I remember my dad telling me that 20 years ago that when the parking lots were finished being paid for, they were going to take them out. Well, obviously that didn't happen, but we use them now to turn over parking. The purpose of the meters in Belmont Shores to help us make parking available to other people. Not not as a revenue source. Councilmember Mongeau made a couple comments about the merchant agreement and the convenience fee, and we strongly support that idea and I'm not sure for some of the same reasons that she was mentioning. I personally don't think it's fair to force the cash paying consumer, which is generally some of the older consumers. And I'm starting to get into that category to pay for the convenience of somebody that wants to use a credit card. You're basically disproportionately charging one group for the other group's convenience, and that's just not fair. I realize that, you know, it's the wave of the future, but I'd like to see you guys ask city staff to look at that merchant fee and see if they can, you know, make a change to that merchant fee in the future . So we could have a convenience fee. The data, as Craig was mentioning, is probably the single most important thing here, in least in my personal opinion. Without it, we can't look at, you know, rate structures. We can't look at the time, the amount of time we allow people to park. And since I'm not sure it is really about turn over, that data, I think will be tremendously useful for us. So we really, really while the commission didn't necessarily support the idea for a cost issue with the sensors. I am glad that you are looking at it and I hope you guys will pass this with sensors everywhere. Regarding the the five minute free period. Sorry, Bill. I'm sorry. Yeah, it's okay. One question. The fund balance. How will that work?
Speaker 0: Tom Bill, just so you know, you know, just the rules of the rules so the council can ask questions. But thank you so much. And maybe that might get asked by a council member. So thank.
Speaker 9: You. Hi, Lisa.
Speaker 4: Ramla, lifelong Long Beach resident, and I'm also a member of the Belmont Shore Parking Commission. And since Bill already did the thank yous, I'll pass on that part right now. I just want to comment on the five and ten minute idea that came forward. I understand that people are against the looping, which is the resetting of the meter. So I guess that's where maybe this came up. But I agree that 5 minutes really isn't enough to do an errand. And I feel like 95% of the people, probably 98%, won't know about the green button.
Speaker 10: They'll just go up and put money in or swipe their card.
Speaker 4: And if they do know, I think it'll cost so much confusion of, oh, 5 minutes. Okay, 5 minutes free. I'll pay for.
Speaker 10: 55. How do I do that?
Speaker 4: Or they won't know. Then I'll find out 3 minutes, three months later and say, How come no one told me? Because as much outreach that you did was which was wonderful time at all the meetings, everything we went to, I still would read so many letters in the Guardian Gazette. They had so much misinformation. I couldn't believe it. And I just think they were opening up a can of worms to do the five minute, ten minute mark. I know your offices don't want to get calls from angry residents about the looping and all that, but I just think you're opening a huge can of worms to do that. So that would be my thing was to pass on that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. We've close the speakers list. We're going to go back to Councilwoman Pryce and the motion by Councilman Price and Lowenthal.
Speaker 9: Councilman Mr. Modica, how will the fund balance work?
Speaker 12: So Council member and Mr. Livia. The way that it'll work is you essentially have a pretty healthy fund balance right now in the park and it's city funds but it's it's dedicated for parking. Commissioner for the parking issues down in Belmont you're essentially our financial management department would just ensure that there is a healthy enough fund balance to cover any type of potential decrease the the 25 cent rate increase actually was was not an easy thing to do we had to make sure that there was going to be funds available because we're taking a little bit of a risk. So if if our assumptions are incorrect and the costs are higher than that, we're saying for at least one year have some cash available to cover that so that it's never negative then. And we just wouldn't allow the commission to spend that money on something else for that year period. Then we would reassess next year. We're hoping it's not necessary, but then next year you'd have to potentially do another 25 cent rate increase if our projections aren't what we expect them to be.
Speaker 9: But our projections are fairly conservative, correct?
Speaker 12: They were very conservative under the 50 cent. They are still somewhat conservative under the 25 cent. But again, the variability is is so hard to predict. If people start using the credit card a lot, the costs will go up. And it could be that we you know, they don't use it nearly as much and you have more more funds available.
Speaker 9: Regarding the convenience fee that Mr. Lorber was talking about, is it possible for staff to consider that option in the future? As we renegotiate those merchant agreements.
Speaker 12: We're happy to look at those agreements and talk to the banks about them. And so that can be something that we look at. My understanding is it is not a city of Long Beach issue with our in our contract. It is more of a global Visa and MasterCard. But we'll keep our eyes open if there's changes in the future. Again, you know, convenience fees can be charged in a number of different ways. You know, we did look at that to see if any other city has found out how to do them. And none do in California all 25 that we looked at don't of cities. But I believe one city in the nation does do a convenience type fee. And so we can we can continue to look at that.
Speaker 9: In terms of the 5 minutes free. If we were to opt out of that, would we get anything back like a ten cent rate increase as opposed to a 25 cent rate increase?
Speaker 12: I guess technically you could go back in and change the the the fee. I think a 65 cent fee for parking might be a little odd. It's a little nonstandard, but I suppose anything's possible.
Speaker 9: And at this point that 5 minutes is being recommended to ensure consistency throughout the city and also some show some goodwill.
Speaker 12: Correct.
Speaker 9: Even if people don't use it, if we opt out of it, at least according to staff's recommendation, we don't really get any benefit in terms of a reduced rate increase at this time.
Speaker 12: And could you restate that?
Speaker 9: Sure. If we opt out of that five minute option, there's no proposal on the table that would reduce the rate increase.
Speaker 12: No, not at this time. We were looking to do rate increases typically happen in round numbers just for that and the way that they calculated. So we were we would either we would do the 75 cent rate increase.
Speaker 9: So thank you.
Speaker 12: Or a 75 total rate, not a rate increase.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. So we're going to go to a vote now. And I just want to make sure that we understand the motion that's on the floor and the motion on the floor, which was by price. Lowenthal was to approve staff's recommendation. As presented with the at the five minute free. Correct. Okay. And that's inclusive of all three motions.
Speaker 3: And Mayor.
Speaker 5: We'd need a separate vote. We'd need a first vote would be on the resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the contract with IPC Group. That's that would be the first action by the council. If that motion passes, then we would go to the second item to adopt the resolution establishing the new parking rights.
Speaker 0: Right. So we have we have the first price. Lowenthal made the motion for the first for the first one. Members, please go and cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carry eight zero.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Could we get a motion for the second one?
Speaker 2: So move.
Speaker 0: Second. Okay. There's been a motion and a second member. Please cast your votes. | Resolution | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with IPS Group Inc., of San Diego, CA for the purchase and installation of electronic parking meters on the same terms and conditions afforded to the City of Sacramento, California for an initial term of five (5) years, in an amount not to exceed $1,538,979 in year one, and in an annual amount estimated at $446,492, but in any case not to exceed $941,542, for the succeeding four (4) years, with the option to renew for five (5) additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12022014_14-1007 | Speaker 1: Item 26 is a report from Development Services and Financial Management. Recommendation to approve the recommended revisions to the Downtown Dining and Entertainment District. And request city attorney to drive an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code related to the downtown dining and Entertainment District. And the definition of nightclubs district to.
Speaker 5: Mayor councilmembers. I'm going to turn this over to our development services director, Amy Bodak, and also Rachel Tanner.
Speaker 9: Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm going to ask Rachael Tanner to start.
Speaker 4: With an overview of the process and the staff report on the policy recommendations. And then Rachel and I are available to answer specific questions you might have. So with that, I'm going to start with Rachel.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. And members of the city council. As you may know, the downtown dining and Entertainment District is an area in downtown bounded by Third Street and Ocean Boulevard to the north and south and Pacific and Long Beach boulevards on the east and west. It also includes the Pike and Shoreline Village.
Speaker 4: The council piloted the district in 2005.
Speaker 9: And then established it on a permanent basis in 2008. By doing so, they instituted consistent operating conditions for businesses with entertainment permits. In August of 2013, the City Council initiated a one year.
Speaker 4: Moratorium against the issuance.
Speaker 9: Of entertainment permits in the district for businesses with a Type 48 ABC license. The city's council directed the city manager to use that pause to evaluate the entertainment permit policies and to engage downtown stakeholders in this evaluation. As part of that, a task force was formed. Several the members are here this evening and participated in the evaluation. Earlier this year, the City.
Speaker 4: Council extended the moratorium for six months.
Speaker 9: To allow that stakeholder task force to conduct public outreach and engagement. The engagement included two public forums in August and October, two meetings with the LBA executive committee and submission of comments via email from the public. On November 12th, the task force in city staff met and reached a consensus on the recommendations that we're presenting tonight. The recommendations are meant to encourage residential development, as well as dining and entertainment. They safeguard both the quality of life for residents, while also providing clarity and predictability for business owners. Recommendations cover four broad areas entertainment permit processing, standard conditions of operation enforcement and items for future consideration. Regards to permitting, we recommend a process that proactively addresses quality of life issues such as loud music. To do so, we recommend following the downtown plan, which currently requires nightclubs to obtain a conditional use permit and an entertainment permit. However, as of today, there is no definition of nightclub in the municipal code. We believe nightclubs should be clearly defined in the code, and we recommend defining it as an establishment that has a Type 48 ABC license and an entertainment permit for music and dancing. Secondly, we recommend creating an enhanced entertainment permit that would be applicable to the district. To take this permit, applicant must was conduct a sound attenuation study to prove the sound emanating from their establishment and doesn't violate the city's sound ordinance. Or applicants can apply for a waiver from this requirement by one either indicating or demonstrating that they've used sound mitigation practices in the build out of their space, or illustrating that entertainment was previously permitted at the location without any incident. The requirement would apply to first time or change of owner applicant. Current entertainment permit holders today would only be subjected to this violation or this requirement if they become deer tiered due to sound violations. We also recommend modifications to the standard conditions of operations. Several of these are minor modifications designed to bring the conditions up to date with current entertainment permit practices. Among the more significant changes we recommend permitting outdoor amplified music, including rooftop entertainment in the district. Outdoor entertainment would be allowed from Sunday to Thursday from 10 p.m. to 10 p.m. and Friday and Saturday from 10 a.m. to midnight . We also recommend making the standards clear to business owners by codifying the conditions in the municipal code. Currently, the conditions are an attachment to the code and are not easily found by potential applicants. Enforcement is another piece that we examine and it's really critical to the success of the district. We recommend maintaining the hearing system while enhancing enforcement through additional outreach.
Speaker 4: Under the taring system, a.
Speaker 9: Permit who violates the conditions of operation is subjected to progressively more stringent regulations. The system has proven very effective in changing the behavior of entertainment establishments or revoking their entertainment permits when necessary. In addition, the Vice unit will establish a community liaison who can respond to complaining parties seeking to ascertain the outcome of a complaint, as well as report to the downtown community on incidents that have occurred and how the police have responded to these incidents. Finally, there are three recommendations related to future action. First, when the new conditions have been implemented for at least six months, the city staff and task force should reconvene to evaluate the program's effectiveness. Second, we believe the boundaries should expand, however, only after an engagement process that intentionally includes residents and business owners from proposed expansion areas. The process should take place after the recommended changes have been in place for at least one year. Finally, the impacts of bass sound on the quality of life in downtown came up often in our discussions. Modifications to the sound ordinance, though, are beyond the scope of this task. The city council could, however, take future action, adding standards for bass sound to the city sound ordinance. This concludes my report. And I'm available to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank the staff for their work on this. I know we've spent a lot of time on the dining and entertainment district permitting process since its inception a very long time ago. And I'd like to thank the mayor and the council as well for taking this item up earlier than originally planned . I see a few members of the task force that are here, and I'd like to thank the entire task force for their commitment and passion to improve the downtown. City staff Rachel Tanner, in particular, thank you very much for your hard work and your diligence on this item. And I wanted to express my appreciation to the downtown Long Beach Associates and community members for their interest and suggestions all along the way. These recommendations that Mr. Tanner summarized, I believe, strike a compromise between the business and residential communities. For many years, well over a decade, we have tried valiantly, and I believe we've been successful with the help of community members and businesses to identify the downtown as not only the economic heart of of the downtown, the Long Beach overall, but a neighborhood as well. And I do believe that striking this balance between the business and residential community speaks to that effort and speaks to that goal. I'd like to note that the task force was keenly interested in making sure our overarching request, particularly my overarching request to encourage good actors and discourage bad actors, was carried out. I know that that's an interest that many of us had. We've observed that when left, left without any guidance, that naturally does not emerge. And so to be able to have a structure that encourages the good acts of those and and discourages the bad acts of others, I believe is healthy for our downtown. The dining and entertainment district ordinance is a living document and it'll require updates from time to time. Hopefully we wouldn't have to put this much time into it in terms of bringing forward recommendations, but I do think this is worthwhile and all the time that you've spent for this effort is worthwhile. Our downtown's changed since the original dining and entertainment district conditions were established. I remember attending pilot meetings in 2006 and I know that we have changed significantly since that time. We have more residential units and higher expectations, certainly from our downtown stakeholder. And what I believe is that this ordinance will make our application process more predictable for new businesses. We want to have a predictable process, whether it's for businesses or residents or visitors, but particularly in this case, this will add to the predictability, more flexibility for current operators and more responsive to residents looking for enforcement of bad actors or bad choices that are made. So with this council members, I urge your support. Many of us, including Councilmember Gonzalez and council and Mr. Mayor, when he was a council member, we have worked for many years to ensure that the community is part of this process, that the business community is part of the process of this, as well as the stakeholders. And all of us have been at this for a very long time, and I believe this is an amazingly good product that we've all delivered together. With that, I urge your support.
Speaker 0: Can I get a second on that? Kim's been in motion in a second. Any public comment on the item? Scotian.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the city council, Craig Cogen with the downtown Long Beach Associates. I first of all, first of all, I want to thank the vice mayor for her leadership and in engaging and introducing this process a year and a half ago. It has been a very good learning process. I think we've been able to better understand the growth of our downtown, balancing the needs of our downtown. And certainly this process has been a very healthy discussion. So again, thank you very much for that. And we're supportive of all of the issues that have been addressed in the recommendations. I think the only concern that we have and the downtown task force is it's to be commended, as well as city staff that have done who have done that have done an excellent job in addressing the ambiguities and the vagueness that exists in the existing document. And we want to clarify that the only outstanding issue that we have is really the sound attenuation study that is going to be required of new permittees. And we're still a little concerned of what that process looks like, what those conditions of sound mitigation may be, and what really what those proposed cost would be . And those proposed costs vary from a depends on who you consult with some really. I would like to a little bit more certainty if we're talking about clarity and certainty. I would like to remove some of the uncertainties that may be surrounding that part of the process and get more clarity on that. Other than that, we're very supportive of this process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, mayor and city council.
Speaker 13: My name is Eric Carr live at 133, the promenade, which is right in the heart of the entertainment district. I am the past president of downtown residential council.
Speaker 3: And I.
Speaker 6: Have the.
Speaker 13: Privilege of being a task force member on the Entertainment District Task Force.
Speaker 6: As want to comment on how you can comment on the work of the task force with the support of the.
Speaker 13: Subject matter experts from the city staff and that to vice mayors.
Speaker 6: Lord last point. I think the.
Speaker 13: Group has come to a good compromise with businesses and.
Speaker 5: Residents to strike that happy medium that will.
Speaker 6: Support a really thriving.
Speaker 5: Mixed use environment.
Speaker 13: Downtown. And I just want.
Speaker 6: To give my humble recommendation to the council to support this in the next phase as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next week replace.
Speaker 9: Hi, my name is Laura Cameron and thank you Mayor and council members. I was fortunate enough to serve on the task force. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Low and fall. And it's been it's been a long road, but it's been a great road to kind of bridge the needs of both the residential and business communities to come up with these recommendations to really develop a kind of fruitful entertainment district. I think what was key to what Rachel and Vice Mayor Lowenthal pointing out is that the recommendations really create that predictable environment that really shifts us from a reactive environment to a proactive environment. So with that said, I really hope that you guys take our recommendations and move them forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, I'm Joe Garnham. I too am a member of the task force. I would like to know why the city manager thought I had knowledge of nightclubs, but I guess the word must have gotten out anyway. It was it was a great process. We had a lot of good discussion back and forth. The interesting thing is, I think most of us believe that now as the current time frame, we really don't have the kinds of issues that had occurred prior and time when Vice Mayor Lowenthal brought up the issue. The key was how to keep it that way. And now we've got some good actors, as she calls them. And we want to keep it that way. And we want to give credit to those businesses that have invested their time and their energy and their money in providing a really good product to create and sustain the vibrancy of downtown. So the standards are not particularly easy. It means that somebody is going to come do Long Beach needs to be serious about it and they need to put their investment in and and be a good business. It also means that the existing businesses are going to be supported by other good businesses. So we have the right combination. You know, there is one thing that we couldn't cover, and I think it deserves to be mentioned here. And that is the key to all of this in the future. Not particularly. Now, as we ramp up and see other as this ordinance takes place and new businesses come and take a look at our city. But the key in the future is going to be our ability to enforce it, our very own. And that's currently reliant on the police department and the city health department with their noise and nuisance abatement issues. I think that what we're going to have to see in the future is some means by which to recognize that perhaps neither one of those departments are really adequately established to manage this issue properly. I'm not giving any any I'm not saying anything bad about the way they are currently. But I think as we see more of these businesses come in, we're going to need to have more attention to the enforcement part. We've tried to do a lot of it by ordinance. We hope we're going to have the kinds of businesses come in. But in the end, our ability to enforce this is going to help ensure we maintain that level of quality business in our community that the businesses and the residents can live in, and genuine security and safety . And all of us have a good time. I urge your support for this. I think it's a really good start and look forward to anything we may do in the future to improve it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker, please.
Speaker 9: Reading Mayor Council members. My name's Katrina Harding. I am also a task force member. I would just want to say that I think it's a great compromise between business and residents. The task force came up with from the recommendation and through the great dedication of Rachel Tanner. One thing that we didn't bring up tonight is that the task force one to look at, have council, examine expanding the boundaries. Right now, the boundary ends at third. And I think at this point, the downtown has already started to expand up third and on pine. So that would be something that could be looked into expanding northward at a later date and having the test having. The task force may be involved in that process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. With that, we do have a motion on the floor which has been made for the item. Members, please, Gordon, cast your votes. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive a report and approve the recommended revisions to the Downtown Dining and Entertainment District (District) outlined in Exhibit B; and
Request City Attorney to draft an ordinance amending Title 5 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), related to the District, and amending Title 21 of the LBMC related to the definition of nightclubs. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12022014_14-1017 | Speaker 1: Item eight is a report from the city prosecutor. Recommendation to execute documents to receive and expend grant funding from downtown Long Beach Associates in the amount of 18,000 for a period ending September nine, September 30th, 2015, and increase appropriation in the General Grant Fund in the city prosecuted department by 18,000 citywide.
Speaker 2: And I'd like there's been a motion in a second and I'd like to turn this over to our city prosecutor for a brief description on what this project is. I realize it was unconcerned, but it is noteworthy.
Speaker 3: Well, very briefly, item number eight would authorize a grant of $18,000 to help fund a community prosecution program in the downtown Long Beach area. As background, the city prosecutor's office historically was one of the first officers to engage in community prosecution. All the community prosecution programs were eliminated over the years as the budget dwindled, and I think it's time to start to revive them and look at the benefits of community prosecution. The downtown Long Beach associate discussed with me, and we engaged in a dialog that could allow a part time prosecutor to provide some services in the downtown Long Beach area, providing information on crime trends, meeting with some of the stakeholders, and also reporting back on what's happening in the courts and in our in our community. This is a pilot program. It would last nine months. And at that time, we would reassess and make sure that it's in everybody's interest to continue before we continue this program. But it's our hope that it's successful and that we can bring back community prosecution to the city of Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, and I thank you for your efforts. There's been a motion and a second. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 9: I just want wanted to quickly thank you, city prosecutor Doug Halbert. I know how much work you've put into so many of the initiatives you've brought forward. But this is wonderful. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address council on this item? Please come forward. State your name.
Speaker 1: Mary Coburn, downtown Long Beach Associates.
Speaker 4: 100 West Broadway, Suite 120. Good evening, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Members of the council. We're very.
Speaker 1: Happy to have.
Speaker 4: This opportunity to work with the city prosecutor's office on this pilot program. Many of our counterparts across the state, especially in the larger urban areas, work with their city prosecutors to address quality of life issues. This is another tool in our toolbox to help our evolving downtown address quality life issues. And we really look forward to this pilot program and looking at the results at the end of the nine month period. Thank you for your support.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mary. Next speaker.
Speaker 3: Very good. Hugh Clark has the address. I would suggest amending this and I would bump the dollar amount up to let's start with $200,000. And follow the line that I have early suggested that we fire the city manager and hire a retired United States federal judge to act as a master to run the city until we get it back on track. I realize that's a little more, but I think in the final analysis, it will pay. It will pay. We'll have a more efficient, certainly a more honest administration. I'd like you to consider that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Goodyear. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: And also the issue is, tell us why what the objections are to having an outside federal judge come in and administer the city.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Ghanim.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Members of the council. Wow. I'm. I don't think I can follow that, but I think Pat's okay. And in either case, I'm. I've been appointed by the City Council to the Homeless Services Advisory Committee. I also serve on the Continuum of Care Board, which is the body that makes the decisions on distributing the federal moneys that are coming to the city on those issues. And I've been a part of the Lincoln Park Task Force for the last several months since its inception. We have an extraordinary amount of things that go on to assist those in our community that are in a hardship situation and particularly those that are on the street. But the reality is, unfortunately, there are simply some who will not take advantage of those opportunities. There are even those who, when given the opportunity to have a housing voucher, refused for months on end. And then when they do, maybe, perhaps possibly accept it. The social workers find them sleeping in the front yard or on the on their in their living room floor instead of in a bed. So there are simply those that that will not conform. And there are those that require a different approach. The community deserves to have safety and security. And we have we have a commendable operation to ensure that those who want it have a means of achieving it. So I appreciate this effort. I applaud the city attorney or the city prosecutor, or rather, I applaud city attorney two. But the city prosecutor and I know that he and our new police chief are going to be attending a meeting tomorrow of the homeless coalition and explaining this program at 830 in the morning. So I urge your approval of this and look forward to its implementation and means by which we can help to ensure that people who want to visit our community in the downtown area and in others impacted will be able to do so without problems. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilman Ray Andrews.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yes. Doug, I also like to commend you on such a hard, hard job that you're working with, especially with this idea that you brought in and assist tonight. I know how you guys work with that. And I want to thank you again for doing what you're doing. It's a wonderful job and please continue to do that. I wish we had more money to give.
Speaker 2: And with that members, please cast your vote among. Yes.
Speaker 1: Bush and Kerry seven zero.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Will you remind me if we are at the regular agenda item 19 one nine? Are you sure? Item nine.
Speaker 1: Item nine is a report from Development Services. Recommendation to adopt a resolution allowing the initiation of a consolidated coastal development permit process in connection with the rebuild of the Leeway Sailing Center District three. Nine. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Prosecutor to execute all necessary documents to receive and expend grant funding from Downtown Long Beach Associates ("DLBA") in the amount of $18,000 for a period ending September 30, 2015; and increase appropriation in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the City Prosecutor Department (CP) by $18,000. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12022014_14-0993 | Speaker 1: Item nine is a report from Development Services. Recommendation to adopt a resolution allowing the initiation of a consolidated coastal development permit process in connection with the rebuild of the Leeway Sailing Center District three. Nine.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Price.
Speaker 9: I'd like to move to table this item until December 16th. I received numerous emails today along with a big report from staff, and I think I need to circle back with the city attorney on this issue before we move forward on this item.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 2: There's been emotion in a second. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item nine? Please come forward stating that.
Speaker 3: Very good you able to support the council and so sage suggestion this is a just to understand this is a very. Very indicative project of some of the problems we face and the dollar amount that's being urinated down the drain by what is being suggested here would go to pay for projects that would benefit the public much better. Leeway Center is an excellent facility. The kids that are the staff that produces the product, i.e. teaching kids how to sell, are second to none. They do a tremendous job. When those kids come out of that program, they can sail better than their parents. But what happened is we got some people involved that hadn't the faintest idea about boating, about sailing, and indeed, the city had to fire the first consultant because he forgot about the fact that sail boats, sailboats move by sails. The sails move by wind. He blocked all the wind so everybody would be sitting there in the bay in that area without any wind. In addition to that, the size of this facility is being almost tripled, which is absolutely useless. It's a pure waste of money. It's indicative of the West, Hollywood, west of bullying damage this city has done. So I think when this comes back next week, you'll see some more details ending and be able to adopt a more intelligent course than it's sitting here in front of you now. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: I am Dennis Trombley. I've lived in the third district for 32 years.
Speaker 8: Sailor For over 50 years. I currently work for Cal State Long Beach as a volunteer employee for and work at the Sailing Center. I have prepared information that I have forwarded to Councilman Pryce, which I believe is.
Speaker 3: Why this is part of why this.
Speaker 8: Has been postponed.
Speaker 3: And has not been looked at properly from the proper.
Speaker 8: Perspective. We are.
Speaker 5: Supporting redoing.
Speaker 8: The center because it's falling down. It's really bad. It needs to be done. This has been on the books, I think, since 2007, way.
Speaker 3: Before I was involved.
Speaker 8: I only became aware of this about two and a half weeks ago, started looking into it, found all kinds of things we were not involved in.
Speaker 5: We've not been included. We didn't get our input, nor did.
Speaker 8: Any of the other.
Speaker 3: Major stakeholders.
Speaker 8: We're trying to find out how it move for this.
Speaker 3: Far forward without our involvement.
Speaker 8: We are one of the major users of this facility. And.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 8: Hundreds and hundreds of people have been affected by this. And we'd like to have it studied a little better.
Speaker 3: And then come back with some.
Speaker 8: Recommendations. We've supplied drawings and some other.
Speaker 5: Materials to be reviewed.
Speaker 8: And we'll supply some more now that we've got a little more time. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 4: Dennis, I just wanted to thank you for those of you who don't know in the audience today. When people come prepared in advance and submit to us their comments, they're attached to the digital agenda that all of us are reading. So your comments are sent to all council members and they're memorialized for all of us to read both on this item and when it comes back to council. So thank you for being prepared and coming in today.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I'm new to the.
Speaker 8: Process, so I'm learning. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Seeing no further comment. Members, please cast your vote. I mean, yes.
Speaker 1: Bush and Kerry eight zero.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Item 19.
Speaker 1: Item 19 is a communication from Mayor Robert Garcia. Recommendation to cancel the meeting of December 23rd, 2014 due to the holidays. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution allowing for the initiation of a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit process pursuant to Section 30601.3 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) in connection with the rebuild of the Leeway Sailing Center, Pier and Dock located at 5437 East Ocean Boulevard. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12022014_14-1003 | Speaker 1: Item 19 is a communication from Mayor Robert Garcia. Recommendation to cancel the meeting of December 23rd, 2014 due to the holidays.
Speaker 2: Do you want to know who moved in second? Oh, it was Councilmember Richardson and Andrews. There's been a motion and a second seeing no public comment or member comment. Members, please cast your vote. I mean, yes.
Speaker 1: Council member, Austin. Motion Carry A2 Item 2013.
Speaker 3: 13, 14, 15. I can combine them.
Speaker 1: They were not.
Speaker 2: They were not polled, sir.
Speaker 3: Excuse me. I think if you would remove the tape. I came to this council, this podium, and listed that along with council. I am the one that Council councilwoman the price board. And at that time, they said the Council on pace was full number seven. But I had also at that same time when I rose at that time, referenced 13, 14 and 15, saying that I would not vice mayor or.
Speaker 5: Members of the council, the item were not pulled by the vice mayor or members of the council. And therefore there was taken on the initial action they were voted on. So they were not polled.
Speaker 2: They were not polled. Only council members can pull the items. They were not pulled by us.
Speaker 3: Is that I could I get a clarification that from the city attorney?
Speaker 2: I'm going to ask you to sidebar with the city attorney and we'll move on with the agenda.
Speaker 3: Point of order, if.
Speaker 2: Necessary.
Speaker 3: To order Robert's Rules of Order.
Speaker 2: Mr. Goodhew, please sidebar the city attorney.
Speaker 3: Roberts Rules of Order.
Speaker 2: Please sidebar with the city attorney.
Speaker 3: 20.
Speaker 2: Item 20, and I'd like to thank you for your patience, for waiting for item 20.
Speaker 1: Item 20 is communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilman Andrews and Councilmember Richardson. Recommendation to require city manager to write a report within 60 days identifying the fiscal impact associated with installing a looping system. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to suspend Council rule contained in Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.03.020(B) relating to the meeting schedule of the City Council in order to cancel the meeting of December 23, 2014, due to the holidays. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12022014_14-0886 | Speaker 1: Item 21 is a communication from Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Lowenthal Chair, Budget Oversight Committee Recommendation to approve the revised Financial Policy on Fiscal Impact Statements.
Speaker 0: Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make the motion to move this item. And second, a couple of comments. Thank you. The Budget Oversight Committee felt that there was a need for more fiscal information when city council considers items from departments and council offices. We certainly try to impose that discipline on ourselves when we're bringing forward our own items to try and evaluate the fiscal impact. This does not include items deemed insignificant in terms of staff time or cost, but the Budget Oversight Committee felt there was a need to include year over year information and the standing financial position of the city to better equipped council members for its consideration. As Councilmember O'Donnell is now an Assembly member and no longer with us. I'd welcome any comments from my other be a key member Councilmember Mongo and financial management staff and I'd also like to thank the financial management staff for their efforts.
Speaker 0: Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 4: Several weeks ago on one of our agenda items, we had an item before council which stated an amount of money that the city would be obligated to for a particular item. But what that item did not disclose without questioning from council members was that the price of that item was $4 million over the prior year costs. And so I think it's important to have all of that information in advance, both for us and for the public to review those items. And so that in partnership with the discussions with some staff related to sometimes the significant amount of shift for resources and staff time to put together certain things. I just think we need to be cognizant of those items and be aware of it. Not saying that it's not appropriate because we absolutely need those items to come back and those reports are important. It's just important to be able to quantify it and to be honest with ourselves and each other about what that cost is. So I'm very supportive of the item and I look forward to increasing the fiscal discipline of the Board of the council and for our city staff as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I wonder if there's and I wasn't privy to the discussions that led to this item, but I wonder if there's a way to also amend our policy of writing no fiscal impact on agenda items when there in fact is either a fiscal impact or an unknown fiscal impact, because sometimes we'll get an agenda item and it says no fiscal impact. And it's very obvious that the item might have a fiscal impact. And then further, when you ask staff, is this going to have a fiscal impact? And they say, we don't know, and yet we're voting on an item that says no fiscal impact. I think if there was a way to add this within the spirit of this proposal, I'd be interested in doing that because I think we really need to be honest with the public when we put an item on the agenda that if we don't know what the impact is going to be, we should just say that. And that way we can vote on an item not knowing how much it's going to cost the city, if that's what we want to do.
Speaker 0: So that's merely one thought. The won't accept that.
Speaker 2: I do, and I wanted to seek some guidance from staff on how that wording would appear. For instance, I'm familiar with working with other cities where we don't actually put no fiscal impact unless it really does mean that if it's unknown, we're asked to put something akin to it is unknown at this time. But we do anticipate being able to evaluate the fiscal impact, something that states or at least acknowledges that there is a cost to it, even if it's just staff time. So, Mr. City Manager, I'm wondering what your suggestion is.
Speaker 3: I'm going to ask our finance director, John GROSS, to respond to that. Now this item, what you're seeing in front of you is an update to an existing fiscal impact statement, which existing fiscal impact policy, which requires all council matters that come before you to have a fiscal impact statement. What Councilwoman Brice, you are talking about is and Vice Mayor Lowenthal is making sure that the three items that the EEOC asks us to look at are included, and that includes the clarify that expenditure information is on there, particularly past expenditure information and resource utilization, including staff time as a fiscal impact, specifically as an impact. So those two items have been included and are in the current wording in the last item was to require EFM review, financial management department review and I think that addresses your last item and that that if an item if it comes before us and it says no fiscal impact, we as financial management are required to review that . And this document, as worded as we thought we had addressed, what the BOC asked for, would allow the financial management department to change that fiscal impact to better reflect what resources might be required or utilized. So I believe, subject to your review, that the wording has revised and as requested by the PRC, already incorporates a fix, so to speak, to an incorrect or what not might be totally correct. No fiscal impact. There will be some that have no fiscal impact. We will review it and we will change it if we believe it has a fiscal impact and its mark. No fiscal impact. Hope that answers your question.
Speaker 2: It does. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay for the comment on the item. Please come forward.
Speaker 3: Larry. Who do? Clark has the address. Do not have a statement of what? A project, let's say over $10,000 should cost is just inane. It's like the DNC policy pop out a kid. Don't worry about what it cost. We'll take care of that for you. There should be no project here. And you could I think it's it's fair to argue what the dollar amount should be. But once you establish that, then there should be no projects that are approved unless you know exactly where the dollar amount is going to be buried. Unless you've got a printing press downstairs to print the money. I don't know who came up with the idea of of having a policy that you should have no office, no statement of official impact. But that's clearly a disease thought in my view. Thank you.
Speaker 0: No more public comment. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I think that including financial, you know, fiscal impact statements are important. I think it's the right thing to do. However, there's a few things here that I'm certain frankly concerned about, particularly the EFM review. So there's a line in this policy that says if time is not sufficient enough for the required fiscal impact analysis, financial management may hold the item, provide for a preliminary fiscal impact analysis, or may indicate on the council letter, fiscal impact statement that additional analysis and information is recommended. So I'm concerned that I'm concerned that if we submit an item. It can be held up or delayed from a discussion here at the city council before that review has taken place. There is a number of examples tonight where sometimes you just want to have the discussion and it will. You know, obviously city staff will weigh in and say, you know, there are some you know, this is unfunded mandates on and so forth. You know, there was a there was a substitute motion on the floor about or friendly about expanding from 5 minutes to ten on parking meters. And they said very clearly, hey, this, you know, this, we haven't studied this. We haven't evaluated that. I thought that was fair. And I expect city staff to step up and let the council know. You know, just the last item on loops, we asked city staff to work on that. I think that's an appropriate way to go about it is to you know, I think the checks and balances are built in here in the fact that we all meet together and we catch things when they haven't been vetted appropriately. I think when we take that power away from ourselves and hand it over to city staff and say, you can unilaterally hold up an item, I think that creates some some problems for me and in the fact that our ability to serve as council members really rests on this and our ability to place a proposal on the on the city council agenda item and have a discussion. You know, I would also say that there are already tactics in place that are used, whether they're in writing or not. When a councilmember promote proposes an idea. You know, there are a number of city staff that will visit all the other council members and say, hey, I've got issues with this. This, you know, is going to cost us a million bucks, so on and so forth. And a lot of times our phones ring and it'll say, Hey, fix this. And a lot of times they get fixed. So I would say I'm not prepared tonight to hand over a hand over that ability for for city staff to unilaterally hold up or delay an item. So so that said, I'd like to see I mean, I appreciate the work that's been done. I certainly feel like the fiscal impact the three elements here. So the past expenditure information and staff time, I think those are important, but the require fiscal management review, I'd like to strike that. So my substitute motion would be to to approve the first two, but take out the required financial management review because I think that's going to happen anyway. And this goes to sort of the if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think we've acknowledged certain things that are broke, but I don't think the fact I don't think that element of bringing things to the city council that I'm prepared. I don't think we fix that by taking that entirely away from city council members. I think we we hope we should express to city staff that we expect them to catch things and inform the city council members. Given the fact that we don't have researchers on our staff and it's our job to really put our beliefs and our ideas out there. So that would be my substitute motion.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I have Councilman Ranga next, but I do I do have a question. Maybe it's to the the the chair of B of C. The way I understand it is the motion. And the item would give councilmembers options. So so option A would be this has been reviewed by by city staff on the on the fiscal impact. Option C is a councilmember could put that the fiscal impact has yet to be determined. That's still an option, right? Isn't that right? Okay. And then third option would be that there is no fiscal impact or that that it would require analysis. Is that right? Okay. So so the ability for so a councilmember could still bring something forward if there has not been a fiscal impact yet done on the item, it would just be noted that it hasn't been done yet. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify, Councilman Ringo.
Speaker 5: Thank you for bringing this up, because obviously transparency is a big issue with any elected body in regards to its budget and how things are brought forward and what the expectations are in terms of any reports. And if the expectations are, there's going to be a fiscal impact where no fiscal impact, I think obviously we should know know that in advance. But I have to agree with Councilmember Richardson in the fact that, you know, I don't have the type of staff to be able to do that kind of research. And if I want to bring something forward, how much of a delay am I going to have in putting that through the city council agenda because of the fact that I need to have the background done on that would when I would have to talk to our financial management people to get a background on how much of a physical impact would my ordinance or proposed ordinance would have on an idea or on a project that I want to put forward? And even if there's no fiscal impact, you know, they could probably tell me that, too. So I think that yeah, I know that this is an effort to streamline and to get our council agendas much more intact and much more efficient. But I also don't have an issue with the fact that I think it would be more time taken by each council office to bring something forward that can be done in, say, a month. It'll take two or three week to two or three months to get forward because of the background and the research that would need to be done on that. And that hasn't practical impact by that. So I mean, it's it's sort of it's sort of a disingenuous it goes sort of backwards. And I think at this point for what I see and Councilmember, it's that you took the words out of my mouth. You know, it's if it ain't broken waiting it waiting, need fixing cause all the wording is already there. We can as council members that we feel that there is going to be a fiscal impact. Then we asked staff, give us what the fiscal impact will be on this ordinance. So I think that that the the the the the semantics and the structure it's built in already and the way we present our agenda items for consideration by the full council. So I, I'd like to see maybe a substitute motion to, to substitute with a substitute substitute, okay. To receive and file this. And it does have some good stuff, but I would use to file a second.
Speaker 0: All right. There is a substitute substitute to receive and file and I'm gonna go to Charlie. Charlie partner, city attorney and then Councilwoman Price there.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, was there a second?
Speaker 0: There was a second.
Speaker 3: Mayor.
Speaker 5: Or members of the council. Just for clarification, there currently exists in the Long Beach Municipal Code 2.03076. The requirement for fiscal impact statements by those items submitted by a council member requires the Council member to state the fiscal impact of the requested action, and it requires that the fiscal impact statement be prepared by such council member indicating the significance or whether it has a significant fiscal impact. No significant fiscal impact or no fiscal impact at all. So I think the policy and the from the.
Speaker 3: Policy is to help.
Speaker 5: Staff and council implement the a requirement that already exists for the council. And so or maybe, maybe not, maybe there's further direction.
Speaker 3: But currently there is a requirement under the.
Speaker 5: Municipal code that there's where this comes from. So I just I'm not sure we were discussing that in this context.
Speaker 0: Okay. So let me let me go back to where we are. I have Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilwoman Pryce and then Council member Austin.
Speaker 2: So, Mr. City Attorney, thank you for clarifying that, because in hearing this discussion, I realize that the item was not as clear and my comments were not as clear as they could have been. Those policies that Mr. Parkin stated, they exist for council members. We want them to exist and extend for staff. That was the budget oversight committees recommendation. We want the. Staff. When staff. So all the items that we consider are not just council member driven, we have staff items from different departments and department heads. City manager brings an item. Gas and oil brings an item. We want the same requirements for fiscal impact statement to apply to staff. So what we don't want as a council hopefully is for staff to bring forward an item like any item. And not let us know what it costs. So we sort of are blindly taking action based on the merit of the proposal without understanding the the cost. So as council members, when I bring forward an item, I have to I am required to state what the fiscal impact is. But according to those three items that Mr. Parkin mentioned.
Speaker 0: Hey, someone has a mic on if for I thank you.
Speaker 2: But staff doesn't have the same requirement. They may operate under the same metric, but it's not required. And so we're trying to align council member standards with staff standards extended to the staff.
Speaker 0: Is that? Mr. West, drop your career with that as well.
Speaker 3: Oh, we have no issues. Right.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: Everything is gets vetted from. It takes us about.
Speaker 5: Eight weeks to put an agenda item through because it goes through the city attorney's office.
Speaker 0: And that. Mr.. Parkin And you got your clearance on Vice President of the motion.
Speaker 2: And Mr. Mayor, if I might also address a salient point that Councilmember Richardson brought up, this would not allow staff to hold up a council member item. What we're asking through this item, and probably not as artfully stated as it could have and should have been, and I apologize for that. We are asking staff to make sure they're not bringing forward an item for our consideration where we don't know how much that's going to cost. The ideas could be fabulous, but we should know what it cost before we vote on it.
Speaker 0: Next nexus. Councilwoman Price Pryce.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I appreciate all of the conversation that we're having here. I do want to respond to Councilman Richardson regarding his comment about if it's not broke, why fix it? The problem is it is broke right now. It's broke. And I'll give you a classic I'll give you a classic example. We as council members can put an item on the agenda, either in the regular timeline or on the supplemental agenda. And we can request a staff report regarding the fiscal impact case in point looping system tonight. Okay. We can also put an item on the agenda, regular or supplemental, where we are directing staff to take an action, not study fiscal impact, but to take an action. And when we write on that supplemental agenda item, there is no fiscal impact. Where there might be a fiscal impact, then we've got a loophole in our responsibilities pursuant to the ordinance that the city attorney just specified. So I'll give you a classic example. On November 11th, we were at Halton Park and agenda item three, which was the plea, said there is no fiscal impact. That item was put on the supplemental agenda during the process of trying to educate myself at the council meeting. I asked. John GROSS whether or not we knew what the fiscal impact would be and staff specific. I watched the video like four times specifically said we do not yet know the fiscal impact because the item was filed on Friday. Something to that effect. And so we have a fiduciary duty to if we and I completely understand. Council Member You're on the statement about not having the staff for the resources to be able to do fiscal impact. Certainly that's way beyond something that my council office could do, although they're amazing, brilliant people. It's just they don't have the resources. So that's one of the reasons why most of our items usually request a staff analysis so that we as a body, all of us can have adequate information with which to carry out our fiduciary duty . So there's a loophole right now wherein we can say there is no like, for example, item number three had in it a proposal for a possible additional position. And yet it said there is no fiscal impact, not fiscal impact is unknown, not fiscal impact to be determined, not anticipated fiscal impact, but minimal. But it specifically says there is no fiscal impact. And so what I would like to see is something that allows for us to be able to have a fiscal impact. That is a reasonable fiscal impact. That's honest. What we think may not be 100%. It may be, you know, fiscal impact. The range is going to be somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 or something. But to say there is no fiscal impact when staff is telling us we don't know, I think that there's a little bit of a loophole there. And it it is in conflict, in my opinion, with. What the city attorney just read. So I think there was an issue there because we have a duty when we're filling out these agenda items to, you know, be answer the the required components, which fiscal impact is one. So that's where it's coming from. But you raise great points and I agree with you. I don't want items to be held up because of that. I really don't. I would hope staff wouldn't do that. But I think that's a great point. And I think, Councilman, you around those statements are really you know, I take those to heart as well. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 13: Thank you for clarifying, Vice Mayor, that the intent was for staff. I just see that it says originating department or elected or appointed offers or office must be reviewed by the financial management department. So that is, you know, that being called out is what concerned me. And then but I understand if that wasn't the intent and I get it, sometimes you have one expectation, but one lands is something else. And it seems like there are two understandings from multiple understandings here on the dais about what this policy actually does. Like so I just heard from Councilmember Price that it does it is expected that council this would apply to council people as well, which I get it. I'm I'm in a position where, you know, I think that we should have we should be responsible when we say there is no fiscal impact. But the check the accountability to that are the eight other people that you have to sell this to, as well as the city manager. They are expected to look at what they vote on. And so while, you know, my staff and myself, we try to try our best to do our diligence to really evaluate if there's an impact, because we know if there is is going to have a tough time getting through the council. I think we get that. And that's just the reality of, you know, this democratic process. Just one of the thing, the if it doesn't broke, don't fix it. I was talking about like a narrow version of that. Like, I know there are elements that are broken, but I'm talking about like our ability to put things on the agenda. That's what I'm talking about, because before it makes it to the agenda, the number of checks in place when it makes it to the agenda. If is late, you get two other people to sign on. If it makes it on time, they've got a week. Council's got a week to review it. You know, if it's flagged by city manager, he'll make it clear to everybody here there are some major problems with this, with this item. I've seen it as a chief. I've seen that councilmember. So there are mechanisms in place. So I'd say that's the if it isn't broke, don't fix it for me. However, we're discussing we're debating the substitute substitute right now, which is the the receiving file. So that said, I think if if this were to come back in some other form at some point that like calls out, hey, we're talking about specifically staff being held accountable to listing fiscal impacts. I'd be open to to entertain that discussion and and supporting that. But I think it's needs to come back in a different form.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 4: I am so appreciative of the healthy discussion here today. And I will start by saying that this item before Budget Oversight Committee came from several different discussions that have happened, both at Council and Bossie that got us here today. Specifically, as I mentioned in my opening comments, an item came before this body that was a $4 million annual increase to the city. And it was not listed for council review. And most specifically, the checks and balances that Councilmember Richardson talks about of having additional people sign on. The staff don't currently have that. So this is a comprehensive item that is both for staff and for electeds. And in that case, the staff put that item on. But in any item that comes in on a Friday, while you do get two other council members to sign to, agenda is the item. The public doesn't have that amount of time to review it, and nor does anyone put in place to, quote unquote, validate that there's no fiscal impact if an agenda item would like to come forward. I believe that under the way that the original motion was written that if you wrote fiscal impact is unknown at this time, you'd still agenda the item and it would not require that getting to that point. Instead, it would alert both the council and the public that there were still things to be determined in that process. And so with that, I would say that. In certain occasions, depending on which group of individuals you serve in front of. There are times where you might say this may include an impact of 700 hours of staff time, or this might include 600 hours of staff time. And while I appreciate that some of our staffs might not have financial analysts at the level of Mr. GROSS in our offices, we are all able to make general estimates of an average city employee who makes X dollars an hour plus 56% benefits times 20 hours a week for 16 weeks. My estimated impact would be etc. and these are easy to do. These are things we've all done in our home budgets, in our previous employment, in our campaign budgets. I mean, we know how to allocate resources or none of us would be here today. And so for that, I hope that we get back to the original motion and move it to protecting the financial, health and welfare of the city. I really appreciate the comments made by Councilmember. Price and Vice Mayor Lowenthal in trying to pull us together in where the intent of the item came from, because this did come from many discussions in front of this body, which is why healthy discussion is so important. So thank you to everyone.
Speaker 0: Councilman Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Yes, very healthy discussion, I think. I believe the intent of it all. Absolutely. I do agree that there needs to be more details when it comes to fiscal impact. And we we do need to do a better job at that. Some people are subjective and looking at that. Is it a fiscal impact in terms of staff time? Is it a fiscal fiscal impact in terms of, you know, do we still have time to come back and review that? Which oftentimes we do. And I know that the city manager in cases like the play did come back with memos that did include fiscal impact. You know, there's time to to be able to do that. I would say, you know, we need to look at perhaps a disclaimer, something that is pretty universal depending on what we're were putting out there. I think we've kind of discussed that. Something that would state, you know, what the general fiscal impact would be, not the intricacies. I think it's too detailed on the front end to do that, and I believe it would delay the process. So I would support a receiving file.
Speaker 0: Okay. Next is Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: One. Excuse me. I wanted to ask the city attorney in the. Statement that Councilmember Richardson read about. Where are you reading this from, Councilmember Richardson, where it says the elected.
Speaker 13: So we're talking page two on the revised policy on impact statements. Yes. Top of the page.
Speaker 2: Oh, got it. Okay. Mr. City Attorney, is that the current policy? Or is that a combination of the current policy and what the new item is asking for?
Speaker 3: I think maybe I can ask answer that question. This is a council policy, and as such, it's not explicitly in code. It's adopted by resolution. And the current policy is on the last page of the attachment. It's not marked. It's page three. And the current policy is there. There have only been minor. I won't say minor, obviously not. But there are only been the changes requested by the BRC.
Speaker 2: So if I might understand the part that gives greatest concern to Councilmember Richardson specifically, is it the portion that it must be reviewed by financial management?
Speaker 13: So at the beginning of the paragraph, it said, it calls out those three departments elected or appointed office, and then it goes further in the third sentence to say, if time is not sufficient for the required fiscal impact analysis, financial management may hold the item. So it just continues. So it's the third sentence in the same paragraph, continuing that same discussion on this fiscal impact statement on that item. So the whole paragraph is problematic.
Speaker 2: The entire paragraph or the part about having it being held. Because. Currently we're required to provide a our policy is to provide a fiscal impact when we bring items forward that exists. Yes, I believe what I'm hearing you indicate is that. You're finding difficulty with financial management having the ability to hold the item.
Speaker 13: Yes. So it says. So here's where it's problematic. So on the second sentence, it says the proposed city council letter should be submitted in accordance with normal administrative timeframes to allow financial management departments review and comment if time is not sufficient for required fiscal impact analysis. So who's to say it's efficient or not? Like if. So, if we were to put something on that we think is a very basic standard item and someone takes issue with it and they haven't had an opportunity to do it. Like are we saying supplemental? Are we saying supplementals are not enough time for city staff to review so that that time frame brings up an issue that I have concerns about? Then it says that they may provide some options for them. They can hold the item. They can provide a preliminary fiscal impact analysis, or may indicate on the fiscal impact statement that additional analysis and information is recommended. It's saying that they would add that to our item. Fiscal financial management will add that statement to our item, not that we would. That's how I interpreted this. Whereas if I submit an item for discussion, I want that item to be presented as we presented it that. So I have an issue with that potentially being held up or altered by financial management. However, if. I mean. I mean, there are a few ways we could do this.
Speaker 2: No. And I'm and I'm I'm very appreciative of you explaining this, because I'm I'm able to hear what the concern is. And so I do think we can get there tonight. And that's why I'm thankful you're expressing your concerns. For instance, if I can just use an example, I have a council agenda item I'd like to bring forward. I'm aware that there is a fiscal impact, but I'm asking staff to come back with a recommendation. And so typically what I would do in my office is I would say there is no fiscal impact in requesting staff to come back with the item or a recommendation. But when they come back with the recommendation, we'd like them to identify what the fiscal impact might be so I could make that statement. We will still have the ability to do that. You will still have the ability. I will still have the ability. You will still have the ability all of us would to bring forward a supplemental item for consideration. That does not change. And if I can ask Mr. GROSS to weigh in on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The the item I'm happy to the statement may hold the item financial may hold the item was never intended to apply to elected officials. It was this is a generic fiscal policy. So it was intended to apply to city manager departments. So if I can suggest, at least in terms of what it was intended to say, adding a parenthetical after May hold the items put in parentheses only for city manager departments that would probably represent more accurately what was intended.
Speaker 2: And that is the intent. And so Councilmember Richardson, I'd like to add that on the floor in parentheses, parentheses, only city management items. City management department items. The intent of the committee was not to have financial management hold up council items. Again, this is really to temper and measure staff bringing forward their items without the proper fiscal impact. So in parentheses. So in parentheses I'd like to amend in there only city management department items. So that financial management, so that there is not misinterpreted, that they have the ability to hold up our own items. Being council items.
Speaker 13: So. So before I jump in, so I want to have that discussion. But before I do that point of order, are you allowed to change that? Because we've got to to. Well, prevailing motions.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. So there's a motion on the floor for receive and file. And prior to that, is is your substitute. And you'll have to remind me what your substitute.
Speaker 0: I mean. Let me. Let me. Mr. Parkin, I think that her being the maker of the original motion, she can certainly adjust her original motion.
Speaker 5: At this time. The discussion on a.
Speaker 3: Point of order should be.
Speaker 5: To the motion on the floor, which is the receive and file. The the ability to amend the original motion wouldn't return to the maker until the other two motions are dismissed.
Speaker 2: Okay. So as part of my comments, Mr. Mayor, I. Now that I fully understand what my colleagues were concerned about and I agree with you. If I if I could just state that unequivocally so I agree with you. I have the I would have the same concern. I'm willing to change the item on the floor, if you will, allow us to revert back to the original item and vote no. Either withdraw the received file and let's go back to the original item and give us an opportunity to amend it on the floor.
Speaker 0: Okay. I have a list. You want to respond that Councilmember Austin next cued up.
Speaker 13: So technically.
Speaker 0: It's Councilmember Rounds.
Speaker 13: That we got to respect. Councilmember Rein does most of the questions should be directed to him prior to.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I was I was looking his way while I was linking.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 0: Councilmember your NGO's is not removing his his motion right now, is that correct? Okay. Okay. So Vice Mayor Lowenthal, anything else?
Speaker 2: No. Then I would urge a no vote on receive and file so that we can have an opportunity to apply councilmember standards onto our own staff.
Speaker 0: Next is Councilman Braxton.
Speaker 8: So I've been sitting here patiently and I think this has been a very educational process. And in terms of our fiscal responsibility as a as a council. Our practices and protocols are policies. But I am I want to be clear about how staff items actually get to the agenda and what process they go through to get there . Because I am not aware of any any, any, any agenda items and none have been brought to to the floor in terms of examples where there is a real need, I believe, to to to modify that. I want to speak to Councilmember Richardson's point, meaning that these nine council members are service checks, as well as our budget oversight committee. There are there are so many mechanisms in place to keep us fiscally responsible. And so, Mr. City Manager, can you walk us through how our staff checks themselves in terms of fiscal responsibility, in terms of bringing agenda items forward, forward?
Speaker 5: I'm going to ask John GROSS to respond to that on how the Finance Department looks at all council letters done by departments.
Speaker 8: Wait, not all council letters. These are these are agenda items that are.
Speaker 3: Given what we call.
Speaker 5: Letters are agenda items. Okay. By depart by city manager.
Speaker 8: Department, I think. Correct.
Speaker 3: The the city management has a process by which all city manager council letters that are proposed to go to city council, go through the financial management department. We have a process to do that. The what this and we've been doing that for years so that what you see in front of you is is every every week are fiscal impacts that have been reviewed by the financial management department. What this strengthens and is makes required and currently isn't is that, for example, if public works or police department write their own fiscal impact, although they write it and we have a process to review it, this change in the policy explicitly allows the financial management department to make whatever changes are needed to make it clearer to City Council what the impacts are. And we do do that. And this makes that process that we use more clear, particularly when you have departments. It doesn't happen often, but occasionally those who who think they have written a good fiscal impact. But we believe that it isn't clear enough to city council and may not provide the information City Council wants this change to the policy, allows the financial management department to formally make that change. We actually do do that now. This makes it clear that it's authorized.
Speaker 8: So what I'm hearing is that you do do it already and that these these occurrences are few and far between. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: We do do that for city manager departments. Yes. And we do make changes. I won't say that's few and far between. We actually quite a few times make changes to the fiscal impact statements.
Speaker 8: Okay. So I'm troubled to understand why we need to move forward and set additional policy. I'm really concerned about over analyzing just about everything we do lately. And I do appreciate the robust conversation. I do appreciate council members interest in tweaking the system to make it make it better, because we should always look towards continuous improvement. But I don't think we get there by adding bureaucracy to policy making or or ignoring the checks and balances that are already in place. And so with that, I'm I'm open to receiving 2 to 2, supporting the motion to receive and follow.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Price. Okay. Councilwoman, if Councilman Andrews, who hasn't spoke and then I'll go to Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you, Mayor. You know, since I started as a councilman, you know, I've made every effort to run, you know, my agenda item to the city staff so I can get their input from the various departments that might be involved in my agenda item.
Speaker 3: You know, this is a good practice for all council.
Speaker 7: Members to, you know, for the intact. But I just think at this point, if we're doing it the way we're doing it, I mean, this could be putting the cart before the horse. And I would also would recommend, you know, to receive and file.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Mongo. Okay. Now what?
Speaker 4: On the agenda items 27 and 28 tonight. I think that there was extensive questions that I've received from the public. I feel that I've done my due diligence as a council member to speak with city management specifically on the 5.5 million a year for two years, etc.. But but the council but the item as recommended by development services, though thoughtful and I appreciate the way it is presented, it leaves out how much has been spent each year over the last five years. How does that compare? Are we spending more? Are we spending less? The same is true of the item from several weeks ago which spurred this discussion, which I won't call out my colleague, but I received a call at 10:00 at night thanking me for bringing the item to the attention and pulling the item and making thoughtful discussion about a $4.5 million annual increase. These are real dollars for real services. And to not have the discussion and to say that the stuff being brought forward already is clear. If it was clear, we wouldn't receive so many questions. And I think the intent is that it is clear in advance when being put on the agenda so that I know that my staff does do a lot of relaying back and forth between constituents and community members and the staff departments, as does Councilmember Price's constituency, to ensure that they have all the information so that they can submit comments in advance without coming all the way downtown several miles to make their comments. And so I think that there's a lot of value in this. And so I would prefer a friendly amendment to Councilmember Uranium's item to send to Bossi for revisions and more clarity to come back to this body more thorough. Is that something you'd consider?
Speaker 0: I think for the city attorney, we have to only speak. The only thing we can do right now is vote on the receiving file before we could do other amendments to other motions. Is that.
Speaker 3: Correct? Actually, this is this is directed to the.
Speaker 5: Maker of the motion that's on the floor at the time. The receiving file, I think, was a friendly amendment.
Speaker 4: Friendly amendments to.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 4: Friendly minimum standards to Bossi. Instead of receiving in file send received to Bossi.
Speaker 5: I believe that Councilmember Mongo has requested Councilmember Urunga to consider that as an amendment to his motion. Is that correct? That would be appropriate at this time, as discussion of the receiving file motion is a different.
Speaker 0: Well let's well council councilmember Ranka do on to respond to that.
Speaker 3: You missed your item. Well I appreciate the the effort I think that it.
Speaker 5: Changes my motion frankly. And I think I'll stick with what I get right now.
Speaker 2: Substitute substitute is receiving.
Speaker 0: Okay. And now we're back to the vice mayor. Thought they were going to go for a vote.
Speaker 3: So. So.
Speaker 0: First, Mary Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I. I think in the interest of what I've heard from our council colleagues, my council colleagues, not just tonight, but truly throughout the various meetings that we've had, the the better alternative would be to send it back to committee this. I acknowledge that this item is not worded, even reading parts of it with Councilmember Gonzalez, it's not worded exactly as it should be. Just in hearing the misunderstanding of what a council letter means as a staff member to another city council letter comes from staff. It's clear to me that all of us don't understand that to be the same because it sounds as though it's a council agenda item. This should be reworded. I do think it does speak to the spirit of what each of us wants, and receiving and filing doesn't provide that opportunity. I think sending it back to committee, I might humbly request that of Council Member your anger. I would appreciate that as chair of the Budget Oversight Committee, I think it's very important for us to at least have the opportunity to review these fiscal impact statements from from staff and look at a good policy that we would all agree on.
Speaker 0: Comes from Ringo.
Speaker 5: What I need at this point, I guess, is a clarification going, you know, say I'm old and I get sleepy in late. Perhaps I could get a read from the city attorney in terms of a definition and a clarification as to what it means to receive and file. From what I'm hearing, from what I'm hearing is that there is some issues with this as it is currently presented. There's a willingness by the EEOC to revisit it, reword it and bring it back. Does receive a file, provide that opportunity their counsel merry around the the answer would be it doesn't eliminate the ability of the EEOC to bring up an item again to discuss policy. What I think the the maker of the substitute or the request for the friendly amendment would be that this would be a more efficient way of directing the EEOC to revisit this issue. But either way, it could be revisited by the EEOC.
Speaker 0: Okay. So so Councilmember Turanga, is your is are you keeping your receiving information or are you accepting advice, Mary?
Speaker 5: And those the received information apparently brings it back eventually, later, when when the beauty has another opportunity to revisit this item.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: So I'll stay with the receiving file.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to go back to Vice Marie Lowenthal and then we need to get to a vote soon. We have right now on the floor is the motion to receive and file Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Mr. Parkin for his explanation. So, Councilmember Your Honor. What I want each committee chair has the authority to set an agenda for the committee, and. And that's clear. What I wanted to align with the committee agenda is, is really support from this body to consider this policy. We could still do it and we may still do it. In the spirit of collaboration, I'd prefer to do it knowing that our council members would like to have that discussion. And so do we have the authority as chairpersons to do that? Certainly I can set the agenda, I can do that, but I'd like to do that knowing that you'd be open to that conversation. And that's what I'm urging from you.
Speaker 0: I think I think Vice Mayor Lowenthal clearly would like to bring this back to the BRC. And that's that's a request. Certainly she could bring it back regardless. But I think she's asking that in this and in the spirit of of taking it back and collegiality. Councilmember.
Speaker 5: Go ahead. Well, I'll defer to if you if you drop your motion to.
Speaker 8: Accept this.
Speaker 5: And change your motion to take it back to the.
Speaker 13: EEOC.
Speaker 0: And I think I think if you accept the friendly amendment to take to go back to the U.S., that takes care of that.
Speaker 5: Well, then we're good.
Speaker 2: I just wanted you to be the author of that motion.
Speaker 3: We also need the second.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So is there a second to. Okay. Okay. So we have okay, everyone, we have a motion on the floor which is to send back to Bossie. That is the motion on the floor. Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 13: So I would I would just say and I'm going to support this motion. I'm going to say as another friendly that with this direction to the C, we're unequivocally clear that what should come back is this policy. But to address ensuring that what city staff do they have the same requirement that what we do as what city council does and that. You know, our city council items will not be delayed, tampered with, adjusted. Stamped anything before we actually placed them on the agenda. So I want to I want to make sure that that's protected in this recommendation.
Speaker 2: Guaranteed. I think it'll just be in plain English. This document is not in plain English. So.
Speaker 0: Okay, so there's. We have a friendly amendment. Did I. Did you even do public comment on this? Because I don't. I think we did. It's been such a long time ago. So great. We have it. We have a motion on the floor to send back to B or C. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Richardson. Bush and Kerry. Eight zero.
Speaker 0: Okay, next item.
Speaker 1: Item 23 is a report from the City Manager recommendation to execute an amended and restated lease with legacy partners. One. Long Beach Ocean Gate for the use of city owned property located under the Queensway Bridge along West Seas Highway District two. | Agenda Item | Recommendation of the Budget Oversight Committee to approve the revised financial policy on fiscal impact statements. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12022014_14-1035 | Speaker 1: Item 38 is a report from Councilmember Councilmember Richardson recommendation to authorize city manager to negotiate an agreement with the City of Bellflower to undertake a traffic study at the intersection of Downey Avenue and 64th Street in the City of Bellflower for the purpose for the purchase of determining if installation of a traffic control device at that intersection is warranted.
Speaker 0: Okay, Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I wanted to first thank our residents for hanging out this late. We have represented representatives from the Ramona Park neighborhood and the St Francis and Andy Street neighborhoods. So the Downey Avenue and 64th Street intersection has been a common problem and complaint in the ninth District for a number of years. The most common complaint is the speeding along Downey Avenue due to due to no traffic signals along the no slow, you know, traffic measures between Artesia and South Street, which is a long stretch. And so another complaint is the inability to turn onto Downey from 64th due to low visibility on the street. And again, the need to pick up speed very quickly due to the speed of oncoming traffic. And while the area on the on one side of the street is Downey is the city of Bellflower. On the other side of the street is in Long Beach, and its residents of Long Beach are where, you know, they heavily use this intersection. So this isn't this isn't new or unique to our district. Our district borders, Lakewood, Bellflower, Paramount, Compton, Rancho Dominguez. We board are five agencies, and we commonly have issues across across boundaries and borders of those agencies. For example, when El Camino College, Compton Center, when they went to construction, it impacted our residents because on the other side of the border was a college. It was no residents there. So we came to the we were nimble enough to bring it to city council, create a new ordinance, a temporary construction related preferential parking ordinance to mitigate those impacts. And there are examples across all different corners of our our our borders when sometimes, you know, the cities don't get along so well and the cities may not communicate very well, such as this experience. The city has tried unsuccessfully to work with the City of Bellflower for coming up on maybe a year now to address the issues of speeding. So now we're at a point where we've asked our city manager to speak out and to engage the residents and the city manager in Bellflower and the City of Bellflower about a study. And so they've they've brought us to a point where we have to we have to bring it to city council to make sure that we give them we prepare the the city manager with the ability and authority to go in, negotiate a traffic study. Now, I'm going to ask the city manager to chime in on some of these discussions with the City of Bellflower. But my it's my understanding that City of Bellflower has outright said if the study will allow the study, but if the study comes back that indeed you need a traffic signal, we're not going to put anything we're going to require the city of Long Beach to pay every dollar of this. So that said, that prompted a couple of questions for me before I place this on the city council agenda. The first question it prompted, which is, was, have we ever engaged in signal agreements with other agencies, other border cities? And the answer was yes. We're engaged in a number of signal discussions, signal agreements with a number of bordering cities. Secondly, what's the cost to install such a signal? So that's been vetted out and it could be a range between 175000 to 250000. The last thing the last thing I would want to do is bring in a recommendation, the city council that was unfunded. So we've identified $275,000 from our District nine infrastructure funds to in case a signal is warranted. We can fund that if it is on the higher end up to 250,000. I would imagine that this is going to come back during the budget cycle so we can identify additional funds to make sure that this is funded in FY16. Given that it's going to take us a while to finish the study and we're going to be well into the budget discussion then. So that said, my motion is to accept the motion as written, but where it says funds fund an additional expenditure of up to $75,000 in general, fund money for construction of the traffic control device. I want to make sure that I clarify that we're willing to pay 175,000 from District nine infrastructure funds and requesting that if there's additional funds are needed, that those be considered within the 516 funds, traffic CIP funds available. So that would be my motion.
Speaker 0: But there's a motion and a second.
Speaker 13: Oh, and I want to hear from city manager, too.
Speaker 0: There's been emotion and a second. Mr. West, do you want to comment on Councilor Richardson's comments?
Speaker 3: Mayor Councilmembers I just want to.
Speaker 5: Reiterate what the councilman said. The City of Bellflower has indeed said.
Speaker 3: That they.
Speaker 5: Will allow a traffic study to be made. And if that traffic study shows that there's a need for a traffic signal, they will require us to build a traffic signal. They will split some of the costs in maintaining the traffic signal. And there's certainly you know, it's up to the city attorney to advise us on what a liability issue would be. We haven't had time to look at that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any member do we want to take members of the public first or come from Boston to join in? Because two members of the public, if you want to come speak on this, please come down and identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Phil, so I'm here. 35, 18 lira. I live next to Downey Avenue. Downey Avenue. Between the two signals.
Speaker 3: That Councilman Richardson's talking about is.
Speaker 6: Approximately, I'd say, in regular city blocks, probably about ten, 12 blocks.
Speaker 3: Long. So there's quite a distance and.
Speaker 6: Both the city of Long Beach and the city of Bellflower. Often the police departments got to the point where they have radar stops on that particular street because of the the speeding on that particular street. It's I've lived there for a number of years, and the traffic has increased quite a bit, primarily at the south end of that because of commercial development in the northern part, three quarters is residential and.
Speaker 3: The last part is commercial and.
Speaker 6: It's also used primarily by one of the commercial things at the South End is Lakewood Regional Hospital. And we get a lot of traffic going down there for the city of Compton uses Lakewood Regional Hospital as their for their emergency services. I hear sirens all the time.
Speaker 3: Coming down there.
Speaker 6: It do. There's a market actually at the intersection that we're talking about. And many times when you come down down the avenue, you will find people trying to cross the street there. And it's very common to see that they're trying to dart between cars. And there has been problems with accidents further down where I live, we do have a problem getting on to down the avenue because of the traffic there and you kind of take your life in your own hands to get onto that street. So. And those are for those reasons, I think we really need to address that street, you know, traffic control and that particular street for those issues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I have lived in the ninth district for 42 years and right off of Downey Avenue numerous times I've heard accidents. Even just the short distance that I'm away, we measured Downey Avenue between Artesia and South, and it's a mile. I have seen where Bellflower, the city of Bellflower, put a speed limit sign of 40 miles an hour, and you go barely one block and into Long Beach. And it's changed to 35 and they just don't recognize it. I personally have had an accident at that intersection just a year and a half ago. There was another one where an ambulance was tipped over, but somebody trying to come out on Tony Avenue. So I'd really appreciate anything that the city can do to help control our speed on that particular street.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Members of the council. My name is Laverne Duncan. I represent the Andy Street Association and I'm here this evening. First, I want to say that I came downtown from up in North Long Beach because I feel that if we just send our comments in, we can't see how you're reacting to what we're saying . So I really appreciate the fact that you guys listen and hear what we have to say. I represent a lot of residents that may not necessarily come downtown or may not have a voice yet. And that's the voice I want to bring here tonight in support of this agenda item. Our council member attends all of our association meetings. We cross, attend each other's meetings. And this particular problem has come up many times in the last couple of years, especially. We now have a WinCo that's in Lakewood, actually, but it's on the corner of South and Downey, and that has increased the traffic tremendously because people come from all over to go to WinCo from other cities. And so we have a tremendous amount of traffic. We have kids that come from Collins that get off the bus. And because there are no traffic lights and any traffic crossings, there is that major potential for kids to be harmed. So I'm a youth advocate as well as for the elderly in our area. We really, really need some type of traffic signal because that's a very long stretch and people just continue to speed down that freeway and that makes it harmful for everyone. I just want to encourage all of you to take a take a ride up there and see exactly what it looks like. I know some of you, especially your new members, are very much data oriented. I appreciate that. But take a look at what we're doing. I know our mayor knows what I'm talking about because he's been a great supporter of of of Andy Street and what we've done. So I just want to encourage you guys to please, please support this, because there is a human cost, not just dollars and cents.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name is Dale Utterback, the Ramona Park Homeowners Association. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for doggedly pursuing this. For the last three years, I've been in the resident of the area for five years and I've seen the small business on the corner. It's a.
Speaker 6: Market there. Wall has been destroyed three times.
Speaker 13: There's actually I believe there was a fatality of a pedestrian at that intersection.
Speaker 5: I'll just echo what my.
Speaker 6: Fellow participant said. We need to slow it down. It's a safety issue.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Now I have Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 8: Thank you. And I do appreciate, first of all, Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward. Pedestrian traffic safety is a very important role for this council and for the city. Safety for residents is is our primary responsibility, I think. And I appreciate the residents for coming down and adding a human touch to this this this item I did. The thing that I'm going to support this, number one, because, you know, Councilmember Richardson is putting forth and contributing a significant amount of resources from his own discretionary infrastructure funds that are limited to this and to to this particular community, which he should be commended for. You know, that money could go toward fixing sidewalks or, you know, getting new treat new streets. But he's he's committed it to the to the Ramona Park Andy Street communities for for safer pedestrian and vehicular traffic. But I'm concerned about the the the sheer cost or the lack thereof from the city of Bellflower. And, you know, it would be really great to see the residents in that city who are just across the Downey Avenue organize the way these residents are due to go to their city council and demand the same. You know, because I think there is there should be a shared responsibility. And I think Councilmember Bridget Richardson raises some some significant issues in terms of border cities and, you know, our shared responsibility. So with that, I had a few questions, but I'm going to leave that alone for now and support this item and urge my council colleagues to do so as well.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I also just had questions for the city manager. I want to thank you first for bringing this up because I know sometimes we have to do what we have to do in order to make sure that safety is the first and main concern. But what is the city of Belfast? And perhaps this was mentioned when I left, but what is their take on all of this and their stance? And why aren't they involved?
Speaker 3: In discussing with the city manager.
Speaker 5: He didn't feel there was enough of a need at his level to initiate this, and that could have been represented that maybe Bellflower doesn't have the the quarter million dollars to build a traffic signal to. Sure. But but certainly he made it very clear that they were not interested in helping to fund this.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: By Mary Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to. And I'm sorry if this question was already asked of the city attorney. In terms of liability, I have a limited understanding of what conducting a traffic study would do in terms of where it places us on the liability spectrum. If we can if we conducted the traffic study and installed the traffic light.
Speaker 3: The Vice Mayor The way I.
Speaker 5: Understand the amended motion is that the City of Bellflower would be requiring us to conduct the traffic study in a maybe shared or not shared cost. I'm not clear. And then if the traffic study indicates that a traffic signal needs to be installed at that location, the city of Long Beach would have to fund that. And that, I believe, is the motion this evening. So if there was 175,000 and whatever the additional costs above 175, the city tonight would be approving our commitment to fund the entire requirement of the traffic study. And the reason I think Bellflower is requiring that is if the if we do it, they have knowledge of a traffic study that requires some sort of mitigation or traffic calming measure, and they don't do that. It could potentially expose them to liability while the city this isn't in the city of Long Beach, so there would be no liability to us.
Speaker 0: Mr. West, I have a question because I am wondering. It appears that there's probably been advocacy in the past for this intersection from the community or from the council. So I know it's been our practice that when there is advocacy on certain certain intersections, that we include those in our annual CHP book, and then we get those through the budget process. And I'm just wondering, is has this been on the on staff's radar? Is why is it not been in the past possibly allocated? And is there an intention for it to be included in the future? Is there any comment on that? Or maybe I don't know. Mr. MALONE If I can comment or if you can comment on that.
Speaker 3: I'm. You want to comment on that? Absolutely.
Speaker 8: We need.
Speaker 3: To visualize.
Speaker 8: This intersection that, you know, there's a map that was submitted. But basically this intersection, 75% of it is in City of Bellflower. Only 25% is in City of Long Beach. We cannot initiate a city project in another city unless the council direct us.
Speaker 0: So. So you're saying that that 75% of the project is in the city of Bellflower. Okay.
Speaker 8: I think for from traffic purposes, there are four legs to this intersection. And if you can see the city boundary line, which is basically at the curve face of westerly side of. The street. There's only.
Speaker 5: Let me look at this.
Speaker 8: 64th Street is the only street that it's in city of Long Beach. So the entire Downey Avenue is in City of Bellflower. The. That's at the bottom corner.
Speaker 0: Mr. Maloney, you're essentially saying that in the past it appears that there's maybe been some discussions about this intersection, but because a portion of it is in another city, we couldn't add it to our side people. Correct. But I'm under the assumption that. So we couldn't even in the past have added a traffic study in through the CIPA process or through the general budgeting process, or has that ever been considered?
Speaker 5: I just want to make it clear that if to do a traffic study, Vellfire is requiring us to build the signal that the traffic study says there is going to be a signal signals necessary. I mean.
Speaker 0: That seems be very honest, just completely unreasonable.
Speaker 5: So we wouldn't initiate that on our own without knowing that the city council's ready to fund the quarter million dollars.
Speaker 0: And I'll also just say, regardless of what happens tonight, that I'm more than happy to have a conversation with the mayor, you know, tomorrow or the next day. Because if it's if at the management level or not, it's not you know, it's I would think that the elected officials would be a little bit more open to hopefully working with us. It seems completely unreasonable that this community is not able is suffering because of an issue that is being. Kind of stopped because of another city.
Speaker 13: And just just to add to that, Mr. Mayor, and I want to be clear, like, I don't want to have to spend hours Long Beach money in a different city if we don't have to. I want to like the city staff has indicated to me they're stuck at a place where they can't continue negotiate until we give them some direction and appropriate the money. I think they've set the range 175 to 250. I'm willing to put up our 175 so that they can continue to negotiate and that we're in a position to that we should commit to building it. So that they they don't have to come back to us and keep checking in about this awkward situation. And you're absolutely right. It's been unreasonable. There's been outreach to the residents on that site. On one side is single family homes and the other side is apartments. And it's more difficult to engage them to engage their their council representatives. There's been outreach to the council and there's been numerous discussions, staff to staff, and I've had discussions with council members as well as the city manager when I was chief of staff. So some of these, again, we border Lakewood, Bellflower, Paramount, just around this area. If you go to more blocks now on both sides of the street or in Long Beach, so it's literally just awkward intersection that we can't we can't study. And we're stuck in this place until we give them some direction. And that's my understanding. And I wouldn't have brought this the city council, because I feel I personally my position was that our one time dollars could have been used on a study because there's a nexus on that area. But they're at a place where they need direction, right. They need to bring it to the city council in order to continue this fight.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, I completely understand the advocacy on behalf of the residents in the community. And and I'm glad for the question regarding the capital improvement project and understanding which corner belongs to us and and the other city. I think from a from a precedent standpoint, I struggle with this because it is applying general fund dollars toward. A project that's in some part not in our city, regardless of the benefit. And in those situations I'm looking to Mr. the city manager. I have observed circumstances where the COG or some other regional agency would step in and and offer some opportunity to conduct perhaps not a traffic study, but there have been other circumstances where it's multi-jurisdictional. Maybe just two jurisdictions are involved where it's not one city that's on the hook for the resources. Have you observed that in recent memory?
Speaker 3: A For a.
Speaker 5: Traffic signal, an entity like the Gateway Cities Council of Government would not get involved. They wouldn't look at this as a regional issue, and they certainly don't want to get involved. Between a scuffle between two municipalities, unless it's a regional issue. So I think this is probably the.
Speaker 3: The.
Speaker 5: Best advocacy that I'm hearing would be for the mayor to reach out to the mayor of Bellflower and see if, indeed the elected officials feel that way.
Speaker 2: And I would agree with that approach as well. I, I want this to be resolved for our residents. It becomes a very, very. Undesirable precedent setting standard, and one that I don't believe this council should be willing to exercise because then it it obviates the responsibility from other jurisdictions. And I struggle with that. We have similar issues for services such as language transit. They have they go beyond the city of Long Beach, even if they want a bus stop in a particular location outside of the city of Long Beach. And we would want to fund it. We don't fund it because that's that's a bad precedent.
Speaker 3: And the when lobby transit goes outside the city, that.
Speaker 5: City funds everything for for Long Beach Transit.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. And the and the benefit isn't just to the residents of that city or our city, but there is a mutual benefit there. And in keeping with that spirit, I'd like to support that effort. I'd like to support the mayor's reaching out to the council members and, and going forward. Mr.. Mr.. MALLOY And even if the project is only a certain percentage in the city of Long Beach, could you not include in your cap consideration when you bring it forward to council a notation or a request that there is there is an interest because my interest would be to make sure that we keep in line with how we budget and and make sure that we come through a budget process and that these requests are considered with the larger context, within the larger context of our entire budget. And so if there's a mechanism to do that going forward, that's something we would look at. I still do not support funding this from General Fund. My first option would be to go through the route that the mayor suggested.
Speaker 0: Let me make a comment to go out to Councilman Richardson. So I just want to make also very clear, I think, Councilman, what you're doing because is the right thing. I mean, you're you've hit a wall. These neighborhoods these neighborhoods need relief here. And so we're try to come up with a solution. Just to Mr. West, I would think that moving forward also, I understand there was a roadblock in the budget book that you'd council approval. But this would be I would I would think that regardless of whether part of it's in Bellflower or not, we have a responsibility to still try to fix the problem. And so I would think that in through the budget cycle or moving forward, if there's issues like this arise, I think those could be brought to us through the budget cycle and let us know, by the way, this is an important intersection. We've got it. We need a light. But if we, you know, we need additional approval because part of its in Bellflower or what have you and I think I think the council would probably you know, we don't know yet, but it sounds like that's something that we would be very, very supportive of. So I, I'm not sure where everyone's at on this. I'd be happy to have some additional conversations, but I think this issue has got to get resolved. And clearly this intersections are a problem for us. Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 13: Thank you. So. So a couple of things. So I want to thank you for your suggestion or your your your offer to reach out. And I would hope that I would want to include that as a part of this. But secondly, I want to just chime in on the precedent. So, Mr. City Attorney, are we engaged in any any agreements with other cities about signals?
Speaker 5: As a question. Have we done that in the past? And we have done that in the past.
Speaker 13: Okay. Can you give an example?
Speaker 5: Well, the example that I'm aware of is at the on Carson Avenue, when we built the town center, we reached an agreement, I believe, with the city of wine gardens, but not I'm not sure if we've agreed to build a signal 100% of it for any city.
Speaker 13: So so for me, what this is, is it they've been very clear with us that you cannot conduct this study. We don't know if that even warrants a signal. You will not do this study unless you commit. You are prepared to build this signal because we have no will to do it. So what I'm saying is I'm willing to put up our our my district nine resources. If it if that is tapped out, then bring it back in the context of the CERP, the traffic CIP in the next budget, which is in line with what Vice Mayor Lawndale said. But I want to give them I want to give you the ability to go negotiate. I want to give the the city manager the ability to go negotiate and let's get this done so we don't have to come back at every incremental point in this. So that's it. I mean, I want to continue the main motion. I think that I think that we can accomplish what I think we want to. I don't know if I need to say it because it sounds like you're going to do it anyway, which is good. Do you need me to put that in the motion for you to engage the city?
Speaker 0: I think I'm going to I'm going to talk to Mr. West and we're going to, you know, okay.
Speaker 13: Think about it. And just to be clear, if you don't have to spend our general fund dollars, don't. But I just after going through this for 2 to 3 years, I know what was at the bottom. You know, at the end of the day, this is going to be on us to do that.
Speaker 0: Just to clarify, Councilmember, I think are you asking that that that this item be considered through the CIP general fund budgeting process access?
Speaker 13: Yeah. If if 175 doesn't get us there.
Speaker 0: The rest of the rest the rest would be done through yet through the separate.
Speaker 13: Three CFP budget process. Well that is the general fund. That's what they mean by general fund.
Speaker 0: No, Mr. City attorney wants to chime in and then I'm going to go to Vice Mayor Lewis.
Speaker 13: I want to clarify my motion. Yes. If if for some reason that's not enough, then yes, it would go through our CFP process. And I had that conversation with the city manager about what would that look like? You know, how long would that take, considering we're not asking for a quarter million dollar signal after 175 hours spent , we're talking about, you know, whatever the gap is, 25,000, 50,000, 75,000. So that was just I just wanted to clarify that. That's my intent.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 3: My point or.
Speaker 5: Clarification for the council members motion is that at that point there'll be there'll be no obligating, there'll be no opportunity for the city council to say no. The only thing you would be doing at that time is allocating finding where that additional money would come from. Tonight, as I understand, the maker's motion, you're committing to building whatever is required there. So the and I don't know where the estimates came from, but if it's $175,000, then you have completely funded the project. But if it isn't 125 or if it's more than 175,000, the city is going to be contractually obligated to pay that difference . And what would come back to you is whatever that difference was, is where the council would like to take that money from.
Speaker 0: OC Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: In fear of sounding redundant. Councilmember Richardson The 175, as stated in your agenda item, is coming from Discretionary Infrastructure Fund. Your motion tonight is not requesting any general fund support. Is that correct? Outside of adding it to the CHP for the next fiscal year, which is a process that I would support.
Speaker 13: But tonight tonight I want I. This will be a better question for the city manager, because they're the ones who brought it to me and said, we're stuck. This needs to go to city council. So I need to find out what action they need tonight. This recommendation, this motion was, you know, submitted and consulted over. If I want to make sure what we vote on tonight gives them what they need to go negotiate with Bellflower.
Speaker 0: So let me ask this. Mr.. Mr. West, Vice Mayor, if I may. So, Mr. West, how can we what's your suggestion to craft this in a way where where we can work together and come up with a solution, and so that this community knows we're moving forward on this and this issue.
Speaker 5: Mayor Councilmembers, again, this is a supplemental item. So it really came to us yesterday. So we've been noodling this since yesterday to try to come up with an opportunity where we would come up with an extra potentially up to $70,000. So going forward right now would lock us into spending the 0 to $70000 and do the the signal. So my conversation with the city manager of Bellflower was yesterday and again, I don't want to delay this or anything like that.
Speaker 3: But it would be nice to have a chance, a letter to the city, to the city.
Speaker 5: Manager, asking him for to take this to his city council.
Speaker 3: So that the city council looks at it or something. Because right now I'm just dealing with the city manager. I don't have the ethical opportunity to talk.
Speaker 5: To his council members. I can only talk to the council, to the city manager. So it stops at that level for me without sending a letter or something like that and raising it to that attention.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you. And I do appreciate the the the robust conversation here. Again, Councilmember Richardson has has committed a significant amount of his discretionary infrastructure funds to set aside for this project, including a traffic study. And I'm not exactly clear what his original motion was, because it sounded like he had modified the with what is written here on the in the agenda item to say instead of coming from the general fund for construction that it would be B laid over for the CHP. The question I have regarding CHP, there is a priority list in terms of CHP projects that have already been approved. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. And so and if we were to approve this in this this the way it is laid out before us or has been presented in this motion, which I seconded, it would would that somehow leapfrog the did the list.
Speaker 3: Or will it put.
Speaker 8: Priority on this?
Speaker 5: Again, if the traffic study mandated a traffic signal, yes, we would be required to find the 0 to $70000, which would could leapfrog a list and or do something like that. But we would be required to bring to you a $70,000 solution during the fiscal year 16 budget.
Speaker 8: So. So if Councilmember Richardson were to to say and I want to get to a solution that that is that is responsible here today, fiscally and fairly for for all parties involved. If he were to instead of saying committing the CHP budget, instead say he's committing his infrastructure budget for for FY 15, would that would that would that be better or more? More, I guess, responsible way to to do this?
Speaker 3: I don't understand you for his thoughts.
Speaker 8: So instead of CHP it would be infrastructure dollars for future for future year for for ninth district.
Speaker 3: We we.
Speaker 5: Would. Given what the council's talked about, we would love to have the opportunity to sit down with our public works director, our traffic engineer, to look at other opportunities, maybe to backfill the general fund money and go for Prop C or some other funding source or gas tax money that would do a traffic signal. Look at the priorities of the traffic signals that are supposed to be funded this year and next year. And look at all that. That would be nice to have the time to do that.
Speaker 8: So. So council. Richardson would you be open to just using the or committing the $175,000 of your discretionary funds to fund this traffic study and committing that toward the the the the signal? And then if there's anything above that.
Speaker 13: That's my motion. It would come back in the C.
Speaker 8: But you're saying skip which, which, which.
Speaker 13: Is what we approve every year in the budget. I had a conversation today with Tom Modica, who indicated that there's one and a half million dollars that's already allocated this year. This would have to come in a subsequent year. Are you comfortable with that? Yes, Mr. Assistant City Manager, absolutely. And I know also that just saw this the other day. I've got an email from my chief of staff to our Malloy in agreeing on the motion, the recommendation. So this is a lot I mean, this is I'm really surprised that this has taken this.
Speaker 8: Turn what this this issue. And I think the only thing reason I bring this up is that the cap has been voted on. It's been approved that that list is approved every year. And there are, I'm sure, a number of our districts that that have traffic studies that need traffic signals. I know of three of mine that I'd like to get on that CLP list as well. I think this is this isn't because this traffic signal hasn't been and this isn't in the city of Long Beach, Holly. It hasn't been considered on that VIP list in the past. I think you're asking for for some consideration. But what I'm hearing is that it would it would take priority, you know, over other over other projects.
Speaker 13: Future years haven't been established yet. So this year is already budgeted. This will not knock any any of the of the traffic signals that are in that one and a half million dollar fund. None of those are impacted. So I know a lot of the council was was out of the room when I opened this up. But the first thing I said was, there are two things I took in consideration. And one of them was like, How will we pay? How will we pay for this? Is there a signal fund? I knew that this would be an issue where it would potentially be put lower down on the rail. That's why we committed our funds. And we're saying if there's anything additional, put it in line, take it to the CHP, put it in line for that, but make it an official project.
Speaker 0: Next, I have Councilman Mango.
Speaker 4: I want to say that I really appreciate the dialog. I think that what I'm hearing from Al is something that I really agree on, which is while I would it is an unsound fiscal practice to commit future dollars, especially from the AP. Right now, oil prices are very low and we're not sure what kind of one time moneys are going to come in. And the Budget Oversight Committee has a process to review each and every one of these. And so while I appreciate the dialog between you to what I'm hearing from Councilmember Richardson does not match what I'm hearing from city attorney parking, which is where I'm having a big challenge. And so until I have a resolution of that, I have to vote no because I'm uncomfortable committing general fund dollars outside of the budget process. And as my colleague said, frog jumping or lily pad in other projects that have been in the queue. I completely agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I also am very uncomfortable with this city taking on quote unquote unfunded mandates. This is us being given a mandate by another city stating that if we do work on behalf of our constituents, we are going to be stuck with the responsibility to pay for their traffic signal. If they were willing to put up their share of the traffic signal, of course we would want to partake in that. But my district borders several cities, Lakewood, Home and Gardens, Los Alamitos and more. And so in all of those areas, when those cities aren't willing to pay their share, that that's not acceptable. And I reach out to those councilmembers and I'm excited for the mayor to reach out. So I'm open to moving this to a future agenda item after the mayor and the city manager have been able to come back. You've been with this item for three years. Your commitment and dedication to the residents is appreciated. In the same way, I hear commitment and dedication to the projects that are already scheduled in our district and I'm sure and many others. And so thank you for bringing the item. And from what I'm hearing from City Attorney Parkin, this is a commitment of general fund dollars, whether it's next year or this year outside of the process Connex have.
Speaker 0: Councilor Richardson, did you have additional comments at this time because you're next queued up?
Speaker 13: So is the is the issue the gap between 175? And what the what the cost of signal is? Is that what is that? The discomfort that I'm hearing is that folks might think that this might stop an existing project in their district since this wasn't eligible to be factored into the CIPA discussion, does it not? And is that in general what it is?
Speaker 0: I and someone else jumped in. I think what I've heard from the counsel one is there's a there's a concern about something coming out of general fund dollars, not through the general budget process. And so I think we have an annual budget process we go through where those dollars are set aside. And I think that what I've heard is that there's some concern from some council members that this is outside that process. And then I think the other concern I heard is this idea of the other city having to pay or being or being part of paying a fair share of their portion of of that. I don't know if I missed anything else, but that's at least what I have heard so far.
Speaker 13: Okay. So what I would say is. My motion is $175,000. That does not impact anyone else's projects. If it's above that, it would come in within the budget process. Within the budget process, which means there is a need throughout the year. Departments all the time come across a need and established need and they factor that into their budget process. This would be adding to that list. There's a there's millions of dollars of projects on that list. And then if for some reason, you know, it factors into CERP and I'm five years out on the list that's on me to figure out what's my priority for the next if I want to move it up by using my my one time dollars in our district, because the priority that at least allows us to do that, we don't have any more red tape from Bellflower. My priority tonight is getting where we need to be, so we have a path forward entirely within the city, along beaches, wheelhouse. And so my motion, the motion that I set out, just to be clear, it's to get it entirely in our wheelhouse, give the city manager the ability to go, negotiate an agreement, be as aggressive as you need to. But we need to be prepared to move forward on this agreement. And yes, we border a bunch of different cities and these agreements, again, this is not precedent setting. We have these agreements in a number of cities. One of them was cited tonight and in Hawaiian Gardens.
Speaker 0: Okay. So just to I know that Mr. Parker, I wanted to wanted to chime in. And so the motion that I'm hearing from Councilman Richardson right now is different than the motion that was originally presented as you laid it out. So I want to make sure that we're all clear. So what I'm hearing, which sounds reasonable, is but as Councilor Richardson would like us to, he would like to dedicate 100 so 175 from his dollars to this project. Then he would like this project to be added to the CHP book list of projects which we do all the time and not he's not asking for it to, you know, jump ahead of the project. He's just adding he's asking for it to be added to the CHP book as a project to be worked on moving forward . And in the meantime, the city manager and I and whatever else are going to engage in a conversation to see if we can move this project forward. That's what I've heard. Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 5: May or members of the council. The only issue that that I would raise with that is the way I understand where the City of Bellflower is, is if the city commits to the traffic study.
Speaker 3: We are legally.
Speaker 5: Committed to install the traffic light. So unlike other projects on your city list where the council can prioritize those and approve those, you're going to have a legal obligation to pay that. Know what I'm hearing the councilmember say is there may be other sources of funds and.
Speaker 0: We're not and we're not. I think what the motion is now is we're not going that step yet. He's setting aside the 175 for this project and and the city manager are going to have some conversations and then the project is added to the scrapbook or. Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 13: So I would say I want to be able to give the city manager what he needs to go begin negotiation now and to continue the process. At the end of the day, the study might come back and say there is no no signal. We can't even have a study without agreeing to with the City of Bellflower to do this. So, like I said, if, if, if, if the real concern here is falling in line with the city, I would ask the question city the city staff, based on any research that that's been done, where would this fall in that the list as of today, because I know there's been some preliminary research done.
Speaker 12: So I'll take a first shot at that. When you asked us to take a look at where this falls in terms of the CHP process, you're correct. We do have about $1.5 million with the projects that are currently funded in our CHP. In our initial discussion about this today, the thought was that it would not impact that 1.5 million. Those are already projects that are allocated. We haven't allocated projects for FY 16 yet. We don't quite know what those resources are going to be. And so that was the concept and that's how any typical budget process would work within the city of Long Beach for our projects. I think what the wrinkle is that the city attorney brought up today on the floor is that essentially by by providing that direction to do the study and given what we know of City of Bellflower as constraints, they are going to require us to sign an agreement to say we will fund the entire allocation. So it may not be even 75. It may be more than that. It may be less than that. And so by providing potentially, you know, the 175 that you're providing and given the direction of the manager to go discuss with them, that would give us the ability to negotiate. But it is that extra step of saying every single or that we need to complete the project is what puts is what changes from our normal budgetary perspective, you know, our process.
Speaker 13: So just a quick. Question So what in terms of a timeline, if they were to say you have to do it, if they were to say you have to do is met your mandate to build this signal. And our study concludes, you know, after the budget process and we don't revisit this until the 2017 budget. Are we do we have a gun to our heads to get it built right then? Or can we say we don't have the funds allocated right now? But when we do.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm going to turn this over over to Ana. So I guess it would depend on the severity of the traffic study.
Speaker 8: That's correct. It becomes a liability issue for both cities. I mean, if if Bellflower is now been given notice that this study shows that you have to build a traffic signal, then the traffic signal needs to be built. And in case there are accidents during that period, then there's liability on that side. But also we need to negotiate or have a clearer understanding of who maintains this traffic signal and what portion of it, as far as liability goes, who's going to maintain.
Speaker 5: And who's going to absorb the.
Speaker 8: Liability. So in a typical situation, let's say we have a neighboring city and if three sides of an intersection belongs to another city and we.
Speaker 5: Own one, so it's one.
Speaker 8: Quarter or 25% of the city of Long Beach, we would be liable for 25% and they'll be liable for 75%. And also the same way we will split the maintenance cost.
Speaker 5: That would maintain 75%.
Speaker 8: Of the traffic signal and we will maintain or will be responsible for 25% of it. So, yes, the traffic study, if it comes positive, then puts everybody on notice that there is a need for that traffic signal. And this city of Bellflower will not allow us to do the traffic study unless we have a contract with them that says you will build this you shall build this traffic signal if the traffic study comes positive with the results.
Speaker 5: So it's it's it's a zero 200%.
Speaker 8: There's nothing in between. So either we do the traffic study and we pay for the whole construction of it, or we cannot do the.
Speaker 5: Traffic study period.
Speaker 8: Based on Bellflower comments.
Speaker 0: Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to restate my concern about. The potential of expending general fund dollars. I agree with Councilmember Austin in how he had articulated the piece on the cap, which I know has been resolved. What I understand, Councilmember Richardson, is your intent not to set back any other projects in. Q but in hearing Mr. Parkin's opinion, I am leaning toward favoring that leaning toward making my decision based on his opinion, which is that legal imperative is what guides us as opposed to our intent to solve the problem and solve it by not impacting other projects in. Q So I'm taking my direction from the city attorney's comments, which I firmly believe are accurate. And I think he perhaps, if I might just ask one one more clarifying question of you. Mr. Malloy. And so there is no in-between. It's either zero or 100%. And so one of the alternatives that Councilmember Richardson had suggested is that he would assign 175 from his discretionary infrastructure dollars. Would he be able to assign the rest if there were future discretionary dollars? And I believe the answer, while technically is yes, it doesn't help in this situation.
Speaker 5: That's correct. My understanding is that council members objective is to be able to come live here tonight with a project that the city can move forward with. It's my concern is that we're legally committing to a part as to some amount of money that's unfunded at this time and legally obligated to pay by us.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And that's and that's my concern as well. Mr. West, where are you going?
Speaker 5: Mayor Councilmembers. One of the an option might be and again, this is all up to Councilmember Richardson rather than we the the motion the basic motion doesn't give us an option to negotiate. It just says do it. So if given the fact, if I if I can go to the city of Bellflower with $175,000 that Councilman Richardson is putting on the table, that gives us an opportunity to negotiate. And I firmly believe if I'm sitting in that city manager shoes, it's going to you know, I would say.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 5: We'll go ahead and do that. It's a good gesture. And we then Bellflower will cover everything above the 175. But I think if I have that opportunity to go and negotiate that, talk about that, then that gives us an opening to talk about liability as well. And I can come back as quickly as possible to meet the councilmembers needs there. But $175,000 is nothing to sneeze at for a traffic signal. And it, as the councilmember pointed out, it very may well be, you know, close to that 175 and not be above that. But I think that might give me the opportunity to negotiate with the City of Bellflower.
Speaker 3: Along with that.
Speaker 5: Public works director, to use their property dollars or their gas tax dollars.
Speaker 3: To do that.
Speaker 2: And that shared responsibility and shared obligation approach as well as action. I would.
Speaker 3: Negotiate.
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely. And as opposed to us saying we're going to fund it no matter what, there's no incentive on their part. And Councilmember Richardson, if you would be open to that, to changing your motion to that, I would reverse my my no vote to a yes vote.
Speaker 13: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the motion, just so we're clear, the motion is to direct the city manager to your city manager to negotiate with your Bellflower on this project and to set aside 175 as from from his infrastructure dollars to as a starting point for the city manager negotiate a price.
Speaker 3: And I'd like to say to protect councilmembers.
Speaker 5: Richardson's wallet up to 175.
Speaker 0: Right. Okay. And then as and as part of that.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 0: As part of that, I'd like to ask that. Councilor Richardson, you're okay with me sending a formal, formal letter over to the mayor, and we'll have a conversation about that. Okay. So that's the motion on the floor. I'd love to go to a vote counts from your end. Could you have another comment on.
Speaker 5: This discussion when exactly as they wanted it to go?
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Okay. We've done public comment. Councilmembers, please cast your vote.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Next motion carry a general.
Speaker 0: Nexus item 25. We're going to jump to 25 because we have some folks here for that. Did you say 25?
Speaker 8: Yes. And Mr. Mayor, I've been advised by the city attorney that I should recuse myself from this particular vote because I serve on the board of the Fairfield Family YMCA. And so I need you to do that.
Speaker 4: Oh, okay.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Not yet. 25. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to negotiate an agreement with the City of Bellflower to undertake a traffic study at the intersection of Downey Avenue and 64th Street in the City of Bellflower for the purpose of determining if installation of a traffic control device at that intersection is warranted. If said traffic control device is deemed appropriate at this location, authorize the expenditure of $175,000 in 9th District Discretionary Infrastructure Funds and an additional expenditure of up to $75,000 in general fund money for construction of the traffic control device. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12022014_14-1006 | Speaker 2: Madam Clerk. Adam 25.
Speaker 1: Item 25 is a report from City Manager and Parks and Recreation and Marine recommendation to execute an amended and restated lease with YMCA for city owned property at 4949 Atlantic Avenue.
Speaker 2: District 8/2 there's been a motion and a second. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 13: So just Councilmember Austin know that this is this is a very important YMCA in North Long Beach. Know I used to serve on the board. That was one of my introductions to Long Beach. And Councilman Brosnan is still currently a member of the board. He requested a staff report from our I mean, no, from Mike. Mr. Conway.
Speaker 3: Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council. This item relates to an amended lease with the Young Men's Christian Association for City Property at 4949 Atlantic Avenue in Share Park. The YMCA has leased the subject property since March of 1975, with their use being grandfathered in this zone. The YMCA constructed and owns the improvements, which includes an 8300 square foot building, an in-ground swimming pool and some parking improvements. The park and the improvements on the site will convert to city ownership at the end of the existing term in March of 2015. Since 1975, the YMCA has enjoyed a $1 a year lease, which is due to terminate next March, and staff is proposing a 20 year lease extension with 210 year unilateral options, with the requirement that for each extension the YMCA submit a facilities condition report indicating that the improvements reflect a facilities condition index of 10% or less. And this is done to ensure that the YMCA continues to maintain the facilities in a good or better condition. Also, staff has negotiated a market rate lease of $6,225 per month. But we have included an opportunity for the YMCA to offset this lease cost on a dollar for dollar basis for the financial value of the community benefits that they offer without cost or without restriction to any appropriately aged community member. The lease costs can also it will be offset annually but cannot be carried over. Additionally, capital improvements can also be offset against the lease cost on a dollar for dollar basis. But these capital improvement costs can be carried over on an annual basis until fully repaid. Any lease offset that that is applied to any benefit that is applied to the lease offset shall be verified and confirmed on an annual basis. And so staff request the council approve the recommended action.
Speaker 2: Thank you. There was a motion, a second councilmember, mongo.
Speaker 4: I would just like to say thank you to the YMCA of Fairfield. I've been to the facility, have been to events at their facility. I've been a member of the Los Altos YMCA board, Fairfield YMCA. Provided fiscal support of Long Beach community last year of almost $350,000 in support to our residents in need. So I fully support this motion.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Sir, any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 25, please come forward. State your name.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Honorable Vice Mayor and members of the council and staff. My name is Alfredo Velasco, president of the.
Speaker 5: YMCA of Greater Long Beach. Presently, the city plus the.
Speaker 3: YMCA, equals.
Speaker 5: Programs and services for literally thousands of kids.
Speaker 3: Teens, families, adults and older adults in the North Long Beach community.
Speaker 5: Served by the Fairfield YMCA. As many of you may know, and some of you very well, the Y is a cause driven organization dedicated to helping all people realize their fullest potential through programs that fostered the development of young people through healthy activities. And we do this in a very socially responsible way. Part of that social responsibility includes being available to all, regardless of financial barriers. Our mission promise is that we find a way to serve any child or any family that comes through our doors. We believe strongly that with the community benefit that was alluded to earlier, the city working with the YMCA.
Speaker 3: Means the community, our neighbors, our families.
Speaker 5: Our kids and the city of Long Beach. Ultimately, when through this partnership. So we want to thank you for your consideration to continue this partnership to.
Speaker 3: Serve the Long Beach community.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Vice Mayor Lowenthal councilmembers. My name is Mike Kolakowski and I am the board chair of the Fairfield Family YMCA Community Board of Managers. I just want to make sure you understand that this is not just your typical Y kind of a swimming gym, sort of a of a situation. It provides much needed services to the residents of the eighth District and beyond. Things like childcare for parents of for children, of working families, as well as a health based programs that serve the community. The YMCA is a nonprofit. I've served on the Finance Committee of the Fairfield Board for several years, and I can assure you that the Fairfield branch contributes to the nonprofit status of the YMCA. It's been pretty difficult to run a nonprofit organization since the financial downturn. The lease recognizes the community benefits to offset the market rent, and as Councilmember Mongo referred to the the community benefit as much greater than the potential market rent. So this is a good deal for the city. It allows for sustainable operations for the Fairfield Family YMCA. Before I close, I'd like to thank Mr. Connelly and the staff for working through this with us. It's been a kind of a unique process with some. It's been a lot of effort on this, on the city's part. And we appreciate that. And I just like to encourage your approval and thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote. HAMMER Yes.
Speaker 1: Council member, your uncle. Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 2: Next item, please. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary for Amended and Restated Lease No. 12508 between the City of Long Beach and the Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater Long Beach (YMCA), a California nonprofit corporation, for City-owned property at 4949 Atlantic Avenue. (District 8) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_12022014_14-1004 | Speaker 1: Item 23 is a report from the City Manager recommendation to execute a supplemental agreement to management agreement with SMG for the completion of capital improvement projects at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center District two.
Speaker 2: So moved. There's been a motion. A second.
Speaker 3: Have a very good you think as the address, as I pointed out, the fuel check your notes. There's a half a million dollars being spent on shares. I just googled and I. 5 minutes of various different vendors coming up with what look to be. And I haven't seen them yet, but I will check them out. Cheers. Padded stackable. That looked like their sturdy and I hadn't checked them, but I will. $30 apiece. Some for $19 apiece. I just want it on record. And I want these the management group to know I'll go out and check because a half million dollars, it's probably, I would say right now standing here probably 30% more than we need to spend. And that comes on just four months ago, urinating away $300,000. To put up has to create a sign because after 20 years, a few people couldn't find it. It goes to the issue of this city does not. The biggest problem is not a shortfall of money. It is a shortfall, a good management period. I think this management company might well be just seeing this as a Black Friday opportunity or end of the year to balance their budget and so forth. But I would suggest you hold this over until you check and see whether or not it's worth spending a half a million dollars for those chairs.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Goodyear. It's been in motion in a second. Members, please cast your vote. I mean, yes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries six zero.
Speaker 2: Next item, please. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary for a Supplemental Agreement to Management Agreement No. 21667 with SMG, formerly known as Spectacor Management Group, for the completion of certain capital improvement projects at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center located at 300 East Ocean Boulevard. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0935 | Speaker 1: Thank you. The first hearing involved financial management department with a recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant the entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Cascade Corporation doing business as the Britt at 1744 East Broadway for an entertainment with dancing by patrons permit. This is in District two.
Speaker 0: Okay, I'm going to turn this over to our city manager.
Speaker 5: This item will be held will be taken care of by Jason MacDonald, our business services manager and Commander. Farfan. Mayor Council Members. Jason MacDonald Purchasing and Business Services Manager for the Financial Management Department. Tonight you have in front of you the application for entertainment with dancing forecast of corporation doing business as the Britt 1744 East Broadway in District two. All the necessary departments have reviewed the application. The application and proposed conditions are contained in the packet that was provided. We would like to highlight the fact that this is an existing business that had previously held a short term entertainment permit. We are prepared to address any questions or concerns along with the police department regarding the application or conditions.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to first begin by going if there's any public comments on the hearing, this would be now the time for you to come forward. And just please identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 5: I am Tom Hertzog, property owner at 1725 East Second Street. My partner and I and our two sons live there. Well, my partner I have lived there for 20 years. Our adopted sons for up to ten or so. Anyway, the threat has been more of a problem in the last five years since the city first granted the variance for the outdoor patio, gogo dancers and even karaoke. I live two blocks away or 2 hours away, and we have constant, ongoing issues with the noise. In the last year I didn't bring my calendar, but I've called the police probably approximately ten, 10 to 12 times, maybe a little bit more. But there is a record of that because the city council directed it to the residences to manage this issue instead of addressing it themselves. So we have a noise noise issue where the board is not complying with the noise ordinance. And I don't know if you've read the noise ordinance, but it is at from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. at 55 decibels at the property line. Actually have a noise meter from my project work where I know from my bathroom window they exceeded. So we have that calling the threat they will respond. But I've also been told any number of language that it's not my business knowing that I am a property owner vested and financially inclined. It does affect my property value. It does affect our quality of life. Finally, it is the City Council's duty to implement the noise ordinance and the general plan and that does disturb, does do disturbing noise with language, loud music in close proximity to residential sleeping court facilities, which if you look it up, it's 880 dash 130. So anyway, I've called all the officers strongly opposed to this being in favor. It doesn't generate enough revenue to allow dancing in a bar of 880 800 square feet. It's going to put more people out onto the patio, which doesn't have any noise restrictions, puts more smoke, more general nuisance out into the neighborhood, which address public a number of properties. So even with the, you know, the apartments right around it, we have to deal with it. So you may vote for it thinking that, oh, it's business, but no, it's our life and it's our homes. So please vote against that. There are not a good business.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments?
Speaker 8: Please.
Speaker 9: Hi, my name's Reg Latham. I'm the property owner at 1747 East Second Street, which is directly behind the Britt. Our property lines are right next to each other, so our little courtyard in the back of our house, I've.
Speaker 6: Got a wife and two kids.
Speaker 9: In elementary school. I live there. But the place in 2005 did a really good remodel and it's a good property. I can tell you when we first moved in it was okay. We knew we were behind a bar. We knew what we were getting into. There's there's no secret there. We've been fine. The variants five years ago that increased the noise level substantially. Is there smoke that we can count that we smell coming into our home at night? Yes. Is there a lot of noise? Yes. Are there people walking in that door next to the bar and defecating and sleeping and doing whatever in that in that space between our house and apartments next to us? Yes. However, we've been living close in proximity with these people and we've been working with them and we haven't really complained. But I can tell you now that if you vote with them even more noise rates, there's going to be some serious problems and there will be. The police called your services will be will be used. And it's just going to waste a bunch of people's time and effort and money. Owning a home, owning a rental property, that's a business, too. And when we sell our house, we don't want exterior issues with an appraisal saying that there's smoke coming in the house that you can hear cursing. You can see vagrants. And it's very loud. So common sense would give you guys a little bit more insight as to how to vote on this one. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other speakers, please?
Speaker 5: Very good you cook as he dress circumstance circumstances have it. I was here at the last hearing you had and the dialog is the same. Essentially my take is essentially the owners are giving the middle finger to the residents. Nothing has changed substantially. So they're in violation of a code. You need to take action in concert with that and bring down the hammer period or close the place down. There are a lot of bars or, you know. I've yet to hear of any complaints out of of Jojo's. And there are a lot of other bars around this town that can act responsibly. Period. It's just a question of whether or not the owners want to be like that and whether or not the elected representatives want to keep taking the cash from the people to allow them to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker put.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Council. My name is Jerry Cochran. I'm the property owner at 1735.
Speaker 10: East Second.
Speaker 5: Street and 1732 through 1738 Broadway. My apartment building is adjacent to the brick, particularly the patio, and I have been unable to keep tenants in one of my units based on the noise and more importantly, the smoke from the patio. I've had to turn over like every 90 days in one of my units, and I've had several people that move out my one rear unit and number three backs right up to the patio. And as somebody has.
Speaker 10: Said previously, we have people defecating, doing a little bit of everything.
Speaker 5: Right, actually, between my building and the Brett and the noise is extreme and the smoke is just absolutely ridiculous. And I know Long Beach is very considered over smoking and where you can and can't, but when you have residential around this facility and as the president, the previous speaker spoke, he has little children. This is a problem. And I, I beg you to not allow them to go forward with this project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Seeing no other public comment. I'm going to close the. There's more public comment, please. If there is public comment, please come forward. If you have public comment, I need you to line up at the at the at the podium right now. And there's something else that's beeping. Can someone turn that off?
Speaker 3: Used to have.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much.
Speaker 5: This general manager. I just took over managing it seven months ago. I know their concerns. The gate on the left side is not our property. It's the apartment complex. It used to be locked since the new people took over. It is unlocked so we can't really control people going in and out. I have put a doorman out on the patio to control the noise on Friday and Saturday nights when it's open till midnight. It actually closes at 1145 because we're on bar time on Friday and Saturday nights during the week. It closes at ten, so it's actually closed at 945. We are working on, you know, controlling the issues, the smoke. I can see it as being a problem. There's you know, it's a smoking patio. We could go nonsmoking on it. I don't you know, I would hate to do that for the patrons, but it is under doing it.
Speaker 11: I spoke with both the neighbors.
Speaker 5: And commented up there in the past trying to control issues and problems with it.
Speaker 8: They both have.
Speaker 5: My personal cell number to call me at any time. I haven't, you know.
Speaker 8: Trying to do our best there.
Speaker 5: So I don't know. I say that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Could you please state your name for the record? Yeah.
Speaker 5: Joe Meeker. Julia.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And see no other public comment. I'm going to close the comments and bring the public hearing back to the council with Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a few questions for staff, and I'm wondering if the owners in the audience. Mr. Beaker is the owner here. Okay. Thank you. So, two staff. I wanted to ask about Mr. Herzog's comment regarding the noise ordinance and violation of our noise ordinance based on a decibel reading that he's received. Did staff send anyone out? I don't know if Mr. Kurz in the audience.
Speaker 5: But Vice Mayor Lowenthal. The business license department doesn't have meter readings for noise complaints that I would want to speak to health before we could answer that question if they sent someone out for those.
Speaker 7: I don't see how in the audience. I see general health in the audience, but I don't see our health department in the audience. I'm just Lenny phrases delicately. If a constituent is concerned about a noise ordinance violation, would we not have contacted Health to investigate that?
Speaker 5: Vice versa. The process would have been that the complaining party would have called either the police department after hours or the health department during working hours. And then the police department did their normal review of the entertainment permit. So I'd let them speak to any other issues they identified there. But we were not made aware of any issues regarding noise from health prior to the to the tonight.
Speaker 7: And I can't see past Councilmember Richardson. Is that PD sitting next to you? So would you be able to answer that question in terms of the violation?
Speaker 8: Well, a part of the investigation.
Speaker 5: We contact residents within 100 foot radius, and it was 46 residents total. None of the.
Speaker 8: 4617 were not opposed to or opposed to an entertainment permit and 24 were not home. However, with the 24 that were not.
Speaker 5: Home, we do leave notes to contact the police if they have any positive or negative input. As far as the concerns for for noise or music from June 28th.
Speaker 8: 2014 through today, we responded five times to location.
Speaker 5: One was for a dispute. One was for an intoxicated person. Two were for misdemeanor assaults, and one was a theft of a passport. So basically, since.
Speaker 8: June 28th, we have not received any calls for service regarding loud music.
Speaker 7: And I think Mr. Herzog feels differently, correct? Yes. And I appreciate the report. I and I appreciate Mr. Becker being here. I understand that you're new and you're put in a precarious situation. So I'm not going to ask you to answer to anything or any questions. But I will say this has been in place for five years and we've had plenty of time to work it out. And hitting the reset button every time someone comes forward for an application is not fair to the residents. And and I appreciate the summary of what our outreach resulted in. It resulted in 17 people being okay and two people opposed. But unfortunately, when we talk about quality of life, it can't be that numbers game. The people that live the closest are impacted the most. And so we have to make some mitigation efforts. And so tonight, I don't I didn't know this coming here that I would feel this way, but I don't know that I feel comfortable proceeding tonight. I'd like to speak with the owner who's not here. I want to address the issue of the patio noise. I understand that it is a smoking patio and people do have a right to smoke outdoors. But in the second district we have such density of units very close together. And so it's a little different when your patio is right under someone's window. And I do think that that matters, whether that leads to a no smoking policy in the entire building, that's something we can talk about. I'd like to talk about that with your owner and the noise ordinance. I do want health to go out and and perhaps partner with Mr. Herzog and and his family. So when you do feel that a noise ordinance violation took place, perhaps we we can contact help that night. Mr. Kerr does provide his mobile number. And so I know it's a late night call, but I'd like us to be able to get that reading as well. And so that's going to take going to take a little bit of time. And so, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to ask to put this over. And Mr. City Attorney, would that require a time certain?
Speaker 5: I believe the answer is yes. But if the if you had a date that you wanted to continue to. Or they could bring it back as a new item at a future date.
Speaker 7: Or they can bring it back when?
Speaker 5: At a date. A future date. After you've we can put it back on the agenda at a later date. It doesn't have to be to a time certain.
Speaker 7: Okay. I would appreciate that, because I'd like to respect people's schedule and I'm not sure when we're able to get that on our end. And so if we can. December would be a great time if we can bring it back. But if it's not possible, then we will schedule it to when we can. And so for now, that's my motion is to put the item over until we have the opportunity to talk with the owner and collaborate a little bit more with our residents that are primarily impacted. I understand there are others that might be in support.
Speaker 0: Is there is there is a second kit has been in motion in a second we did the public comment period please cast your votes on to holding this over.
Speaker 1: The motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 0: Motion carries. Moving on. Mr. Kirkup, we're going to do the public comment period first. I have eight members of the public that want to speak. I'm going to ask the first four to please line up at the podium Fred Potter, Ricardo Ceja, Shawn Lanigan and Larry Goodhue. | Public Hearing | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Casto Corporation, Inc., dba The Brit, 1744 East Broadway, for Entertainment With Dancing by Patrons. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0970 | Speaker 1: This first item is from the Office of Vice Mayor Susie Lowenthal, Councilwoman Susie Price and Third District Councilwoman Stacy Mongeau with three with a three part recommendation. The first is to request the city manager and city attorney to return within 90 days with a draft ordinance regarding mandatory spay neuter for dog owners. The second part has to do with a recommendation to have the city manager plan and make recommendations on a for implementation of a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance. And then finally request the city attorney to draft an ordinance making it unlawful for the owners to sell dogs, cats or rabbits in any pet shop unless specifically exempted.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. With that, I turn this over to Vice Mayor Alonzo.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to go ahead and start by moving the item with a couple of changes right now. For now. One is. The requested item, the actions as is with the third action item, including an exemption for AKC certified show dogs. And then I can explain in my comments and then the last line of the recommended action where it says Bred on the premises possessing a breeding permit. We'd like to change that to bred in Long Beach. Possessing a breeding permit. So just change the premises to in Long Beach.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is that the full motion? Can I get a second? Okay. There's been a motion in a second by Councilman Mongo. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, thank you.
Speaker 7: And I wanted to thank my co-sponsors, council members, Price and Mango for joining on this item. Council members. As you know from the agenda item background, this issue is very close to my heart. And so it's been a work in progress with our animal care services staff and community partners going on seven years now. And during that time we've done a lot of good things together. We've increased low cost spay neuter options. Just as we heard from Fix Long Beach tonight, and I'm thankful that you are here in the audience, we've created a full time veterinarian position and encouraged mobile clinics. All of these elements and others have increased the number of animals adopted and reduce the number of animals euthanized in Long Beach. However, seven years later, we're finding out it's still not enough. We have a real problem in our city. Long Beach has a real problem with pet overpopulation. Despite the great work of our Animal Care Services Bureau, very responsible dog owners, and we have thousands of responsible dog owners and our extremely passionate community partners. Knowingly or unknowingly, pet owners are contributing to our overpopulation, and we're not going to adopt our way out of this problem. That's simply just not possible. We know that the vast majority of dogs picked up by animal care services are unaltered. We also know that backyard breeders have created puppy mill businesses that are cruel and inhumane, sometimes dumping the mother in one of our dog parks and choosing a few new female pups to take her place. We also know that cats in Long Beach must be spayed and neutered by law. Over 80% of owned cats are fixed, and that's provided by our animal care services. It's a fact that's provided by them. These are health and public safety concerns as well as taxpayer concerns. We have to focus on the faucet and not only the drain of this broken sink. I believe this motion is another measured step in our attempts to go from a reactive system to a proactive system. And for those of you who've been committed to this issue for years and years and years, you know that this council starting seven years ago, has been laying down a foundation, moving toward this step. Installment by installment. Because as we reduce the number of animals being impounded, we can focus more of our resources and volunteer hours on adoptions, public outreach and mobile clinics. Let me also share with you what the intent of this motion is not. It's not an attempt to punish responsible pet owners or prevent purebred breeders and dog show owners from carrying on their business. And I know we have representatives here from AKC. They have had their invitational here, I believe, for seven years. We welcome that business. We encourage that. We know that there are responsible owners that participate in that, and we'll hear from them a little later today. But this is not to punish any one of those very responsible pet owners, dog owners. I believe a friendly amendment will address any lingering concerns from show dog owners. But I would like to continue the larger focus.
Speaker 3: To be the.
Speaker 7: Focus to be on the larger problem, which is pet overpopulation. And so the amendment I had made earlier, I believe, addresses that concern about show dogs. And then I'll welcome any comments or questions from my colleagues and would appreciate your support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Well, what we're going to go ahead and do is take action is take public comment unless. Councilwoman, did you want to make a comment first, Gonzalez or do you wanna wait for public comment? Okay. So if you want to speak on the item, please come forward and line up. I need you, please, to line up on on the mike and everyone just please identify yourself for the record. And Mr. Clarke, can you get the stand up, please?
Speaker 8: Getting.
Speaker 0: And if you can line up on the stairway, that would be that would be very helpful, please.
Speaker 3: Good evening, everyone. My name is Judy Crumpton. I reside in the city of Long Beach and my address is on file. And I want to show you what we do want to achieve. And I am going to ask everyone in the audience who has a poster. And if you don't have a poster, just raise your hand. Just raise your posters for a second. All your hands. If you're in support of litter free Long Beach, this is our goal is to be litter free. Thank you so much. You can see the outpour from your humane community. There are many of us here. I want to give a very special thank you to once again, Mrs. Lowenthal. Dr. Lowenthal, Susie Price, Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Mongo for bringing this together and bringing it forward. I thank each and every one of you for listening to my comments and allowing me to meet with you. We have such an outstanding, humane community here in Long Beach. We have a lot of spay neuter assistance in place. Mandatory spay neuter to me is the big fix. Once again, just as vice mayor said, we simply cannot adopt our way out of this tragedy. It's more than a problem. It's a tragedy. And our ordinance, as vice mayor stated, has been in place. The AKC wanted it. The AKC got it. It's a it's a decent enough ordinance, but it's really not strong enough to help us to make a significant difference in pet overpopulation. Our animal care services is very good, but they need a stronger tool. This is not a strong enough tool. Let's give them a tool to work with that will target the irresponsible pet owners and the backyard breeders. They're the main problem, and that's who we need to really focus on.
Speaker 4: And mandatory a.
Speaker 3: Mandatory law is not designed to be punitive. It can up Santa Cruz. I have talked to Melanie Sobel, who is the the manager of the Santa Cruz shelter. It's not just the Santa Cruz City itself. It's the outlying areas that are very problematic and they have a mandatory spay neuter ordinance in place. And it's very successful. People are concerned about the dumping. I get that. But we have so much assistance in place. This ordinance will get great education. We will educate our community about what we're doing. The enforcement will happen. And you're humane community is behind you on this. And as long as those are in place, this is just a recipe for success. Once again, once when one of our community members is sighted and that dog needs to be fixed, we will be behind them. The shelter has an outstanding spay neuter voucher program.
Speaker 4: We work very hard on it.
Speaker 3: Friends of Long Beach Animals, Pet Assistance Foundation, Fixx, Long Beach, Golden State, Humane Society. They're all the people that will be there to assist that individual with any calls for spay neuter. Melanie has reassured me about and it's just is not happening of animals. So there are other areas too. There's so much to say. Oh, and you know what? I would like to propose to anybody out in the audience. Audience, if you would please help us to sponsor a microchip program. Our city right now can't afford it. But if a corporate person wants to come along or an animal protection organization would like to sponsor the microchips, we can get these animals microchipped as well while they're being fixed. There's just so much to say. And I know my time. I hate seeing those lights. Come on.
Speaker 0: Well, actually, the light just turned on for you. It wasn't on. So I.
Speaker 3: Can slowly. I've got to wrap it up. Okay. And, you know, I want to say that our animal care services are in the trenches. They're the ones who have to deal with a community made problem. Pet overpopulation is made by the community, not our shelter. They're the ones dealing with it. We need to help them. We need to give them something powerful to work with and please support the pet shops.
Speaker 4: It's a great thing too.
Speaker 3: Let's just have adoptions out here and I still have a problem with number two. I'm very sorry. I'm still there. Still a little questionable. Where's that red light? It's coming on. Oh, no.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you so.
Speaker 3: Much. I love you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next week with the.
Speaker 3: The City Council. Laureen Wilson, speaking on behalf of the American Kennel Club, is an exhibitor and breeder. Thank you very much, Mr. Lowenthal, for making the amendment to the proposal, because it certainly does address our concerns as an AKC show person. We cannot show spayed or neutered dogs. It's against the AKC rules of exhibition, and we are very responsible dog owners. In addition to that, we have dog clubs, purebred dog clubs that rescue dogs, if there are even any purebred dogs found in the shelters. So we are very responsible people. I would like to ask, though, how the enforcement officers intend to enforce a bitch that spay. It's obvious if a dog's neutered, but what are they going to do? Turn the bitches on their back and look for a scar. Just wondering how that enforcement would work with that. It is something to consider because we certainly don't want to feel harassed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Very good. Cleric as he addressed the makers of the motion are certainly to be commended for bringing this forward. I'm going to suggest a friendly amendment. It was prompted by a rather revealing article in the L.A. Times reporting some national news relative to the number of orphaned young ones, if you will. So I'm going to suggest the easiest thing to do. The easiest thing to do and it's obviously a dramatic change is to drop the third strike law. And instead of having that after the second strike, if it goes to a third crime, you have neuter and spayed period. That will alleviate a great many of the problems. We are throwing millions upon millions of dollars, just like we're doing with our four legged friends after the problem. And it's not working. The DNC keeps pumping money into, you know, pop out again and we'll give it to, you know, give you the money that's not working. So let's eliminate the third strike, replace it with a spay and neuter on the offender and solve the problem. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh, you cute. Always so instructive. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening. My name is Daphne and I am an animal rights activists currently specializing in the care and stabilization of feral cat colonies. And I just wanted to bring to the table the, I guess, the human aspect of it. Any of us involved in rescue or people that are involved in shelter work. See, on a daily basis the just a flood, the flood of animals that are taken in and surrendered at animal care services. And it's it's it's blind to the rest of the population, doesn't know about it, doesn't worry about it. But to us, we see kittens, puppies, old animals, young animals, animals of all kinds that are only surrendered because they have nobody to their own owned. And so what I would like to say is that with this with this mandatory, mandatory spay and neuter ordinance. Sorry, I just put this together last minute, but. Well, let me just say this. I'd like to change the dialog from euthanasia to more murder. Euthanasia implies that there's an animal who is ill and is suffering. And what happens in our shelters is not typically euthanasia. Maybe 80% of the time, the animals that are in there and are killed are just killed to make room for more animals to come in and so on. And it's an endless cycle. And so with with the mandatory spay and neutering, if it was to go into effect, that would take that would free up so much kennel space and cattery space and leave more time for these animals to potentially be adopted. And the resources that are spent on this so called euthanasia would could be reallocated into more conscientious programs and bringing awareness to the community of what's happening in our shelter system. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Elizabeth Orrick. I'm the national manager of Puppy Mill Initiatives for Best Friends Animal Society, and we wholeheartedly support the proposal to draft a retail pet sales ordinance. The fact is pet mills, particularly puppy mills, are in business to supply pet stores because responsible breeders do not sell to pet stores. And you can find that provision in the code of ethics for virtually every one of the American Kennel Club Parent Breed clubs listed on the AKC website. Although commercial breeders who sell to pet stores may be regulated by the USDA, the federal animal care standards do not ensure quality, breeding or humane life for dogs. For instance, dogs are allowed to be confined to tiny wire bottom cages, only six inches bigger than the dog, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for their entire lives. Forced to breed every cycle without ever being taken out, even for a moment, to stand on solid ground or feel the sun on their backs. These are the dogs producing puppies for local pet stores. This kind of substandard breeding often results in unsuspecting buyers purchasing pets with physical, genetic and psychological problems that result in many of them being surrendered to overcrowded shelters when the emotional toll and the vet bills become more than the buyer can manage. So this is not just a humane issue. It's a consumer protection issue. Pet stores supplied by mills are not an asset to this community. And yet, while they may profit from the practice of buying puppies and kittens at a low price and then reselling them at a high price, typically without first spaying and neutering them, it is the taxpaying public who pays for animal control to house and kill unwanted animals in the community. And yet there is a more humane alternative, which is for those stores to stop supporting the puppy mill industry and transition to an adoption model. As thousands of pet stores across the country have already done very successfully. So this proposal would not preclude pet stores from staying in business. It would not impact responsible hobbie breeders who could continue to sell directly to the public. And of course, it wouldn't prevent anyone from adopting an animal. And as we've heard, there's no shortage of puppies, purebreds, kittens, and I would also guess rabbits currently looking for homes in the Long Beach area. A retail pet sales ordinance is a reasonable means of preventing an endless supply of poorly bred animals from being imported into the city so that consumers are protected and fewer animals will have to suffer in order to supply the retail pet trade and would relieve the burden on shelters and therefore the taxpayers. By getting animals out of those facilities and into retail settings where they have a greater chance of being adopted by the public. These ordinances have been a fair, positive and effective measure for the 72 communities that have enacted them 17 right here in California. And it would be a very good thing for Long Beach as well. So I thank you for considering this important reform and for setting a positive example for the rest of the country to follow.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Kate Karp, and my address is on record. First of all, I want to thank you council members, but I also want to thank everybody who had input and inspiration and impetus for this resolution, for this hopeful resolution, including Judy Crumpton, Friends of Long Beach Animals, Fix, Long Beach Animal Care Service, and every single rescue and trap spay neuter organization in Long Beach that pulls from the shelter and helps reduce animal overcrowding. And also the people who, because of the voucher program in Phenix, Long Beach, have become educated and have fixed their animals. I volunteer for friends of Long Beach Animals, which provides vouchers for low cost spay neuter for people who can't otherwise afford it. And I also volunteer with Fix Long Beach, which gives it away for free to the same population. And we meet an incredible lot of people who are grateful and lap up the education, the way their pets lap up the water we provide. But there's always a number who, for their own reasons, won't. And I don't want to turn this into a comedy production because some of them are absolutely ridiculous and this has to be addressed and it is being addressed. I've had people tell me that passing this law would cause pet owners to turn their dogs into the shelter. And that may be, but that'll be one dog that'll get fixed and possibly adopted out or not, sadly. But this is.
Speaker 4: Opposed to.
Speaker 2: Litters and litters that doubtless won't be as for as fortunate. And if that sounds like collateral damage, consider this spay. You would say reports that an underpaid female cat, her mate and all of their offspring produce producing two letters a year can total 11,606,077 cats in nine years and in six years one and spayed female dog and her offspring can reproduce 67,000 dogs. It's a shame that we have to legislate responsibility, but we just can't sit there and do nothing. My concerns about this, of course, can concern enforcement. I hope this will you will find the tools to enforce this law. And I'm wondering about tweaking the sales law. I'm glad that you excluded the adopt a shop type of stores. But will the dogs bred on premises in Long Beach? Will there be will the number of litters be controlled? And I also would want our unaltered cats, no unaltered cat laws enforced. And Suja, thanks for the thumbs up. Humane education in the schools would be great. Friends of Long Beach Animals has such a program and it works. I hope Long Beach is a model for the entire state. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Alison Levitt, and I'm speaking to oppose the proposal for mandatory spay neuter. I know this issue can become very emotional for the people involved, and I think that fixed Long.
Speaker 3: Beach is doing a fabulous job already.
Speaker 2: The numbers that they have put forward as far as the improvement rates speak for themselves. So I certainly encourage them to continue what they are working toward. I do think that mandatory spay neuter would not stop irresponsible pet owners. I think that the issue in question is enforcing the existing laws. If there is a breeding prohibition in the city, then the people who ignore that are just as likely to ignore spay neuter. The other element that's of concern to me is that spay neuter by four months of age in any animal, while it may be possible to do it, does not mean that it's a good idea to do it. There are numerous veterinary reports that it's actually.
Speaker 3: Harmful to the.
Speaker 2: Development of an animal. So I think that that is far too young for any surgery of that type. My other concern is that it's going to be costly to implement. There hasn't been a cost analysis done yet.
Speaker 3: But I, I firmly believe that.
Speaker 2: If the money spent on that were put instead toward expanding the microchip program or furthering the efforts of Fix Long Beach as far as their subsidies for low income pet owners, I think the results would be far more what the city wants to do rather than becoming top heavy with legislation that is either redundant, unenforceable or inappropriate
Speaker 3: . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Mayor and City Council Members, thank you for considering this very important ordinance. My name is R Mighty May that spelled r m itii last name May and I am a practicing veterinarian. I've been in practice for over nine years. I graduated from UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine in 2005, and I've done thousands of Space Invaders over a number of years, including high volume spay neuter in mobile clinic settings. And it is a highly effective way to not only curb the pet overpopulation crisis, but also improve the health of individual animals. I can count on all ten fingers and toes and then have more counting to do to tell you. All the times I've seen female dogs who develop geometry, which is a life threatening infection of the uterus if it's not treated in time, which involves surgery to remove the ovaries and uterus as well as intensive IV fluid and antibiotic treatment, it will result in death. And I have seen that. I have also seen female dogs developing mammary cancer because they were not spayed by their first or second heat cycle. And 50% of the cases of mammary cancer in dogs are. Metastatic and malignant. So that's basically a death sentence for the dog. It also affects cats. Similarly, in the case of males, I've seen a neutered males who have developed testicular cancer. And I've also seen many cases of dogs who have been hit by cars and almost all the time it's because they're unaltered and they're seeking a female in heat. So they jumped the fence. They burst through the gate. Whatever they need to do to get to that animal they're going to do. And if it puts their life in jeopardy, that's what ends up happening. So it's been shown time and again that spaying and neutering not only protects these animals from pregnancy, which leads to , of course, unwanted animals like the ones pictured here. But it also protects the individual lives of those animals and their health. And I just want to remind you all that each of these animals in this picture and millions of others like them are individuals who matter. And I think we all need to keep that in mind. I have also an early age spay neuter and have not observed any adverse health effects from that. And I also want to make sure that feral cats are included in this conversation. They deserve attention and care as well. And we need to tackle this problem through trap neuter return. I've volunteered hundreds of hours of my time to spay and neuter feral cats, and it's a highly successful way to keep that under control. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: She's a tough act to follow, so I just want to be brief. I fully support having mandatory spay neuter ordinance and banning the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits for all the reasons stated by the other speakers. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Could you state your name.
Speaker 0: For the president? Can you just give your name for the record?
Speaker 5: It's Eric Deardorff.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Best Riley. I live at 375 Wisconsin Avenue, Long Beach, California, 90814. I came to just make a statement to you. I know you guys appreciate these beautiful show dogs. They're so magnificent. But I want to tell you about my type of dog. And it's not in your list. I do competitive herding. I have a border collie and I have an Australian shepherd currently. They're both fixed. I want to have some more dogs. My girl, I spent almost $50,000 on money for herding. Okay, I love it. It's my, my love. But when you talk about dogs, you're talking about something that I like. I want to breed my dogs. If I find an excellent breed, I'm not going to be a breeder. I'm 65 years old. My chances of doing, you know, becoming a great breeder is really off. But I want the right to breed my dogs if I have a great a great herder, I want the ability to breed those. And I understand I mean, I listen to these people. I understand their concerns. I love animals, too. My point is, I I'm I'm concerned that you're kind of cutting my people off because they're not pretty, but they really are pretty. If you ever saw them work, they're beautiful. So I just want you to look at this and see if you can make an exception for something like a herding dog. And I don't know about agility dogs. I was just thinking about people do that. But I know herding job dogs, it's inbred my border collies. Border collies have been hurting dogs all their life. They were born to herd. If you watched them herd, you understand that's what they want to do. That's what we're they were made to do. So I would like you to seriously consider making an exception to that. That's all. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hi, my name is Stephanie Run is I actually live in Lakewood, but I spend so much time in Long Beach I might as well be living here. I work here, I spend my money here. I come out to eat here. I like to play here. So I'm very and then I come out to all the events. But I've been involved in animal rescue for a number of years and follow animal issues very carefully. I have to tell you that this is such a wonderful step that Long Beach is looking at taking in alleviating the pressures of overpopulation for animals. And I come from Fresno, and if you want to know really, really, really bad situation as far as animal overpopulation. And there are rings, dogfighting rings and lots and lots of cases of documented animal cruelty. And in the past few years, my family's still there. But in the past few years, a number of animal organizations have risen up to try to take care of feral cats who take care of dogs that have been abandoned.
Speaker 3: And in introducing.
Speaker 2: The conversation of how to be a responsible pet owner or guardian and introducing the concept of spay and neuter, that already has had an incredible effect on the conversation in Fresno, where it was such a it was such a foreign concept before. So here we are at an apex where language really has the ability to be a model city and other cities are watching. I'll tell you, Fresno is watching, Lakewood's watching. Your surrounding cities are watching.
Speaker 3: And where you.
Speaker 2: Go is going to make it so much easier for us to make a difference in the rest of the state. So please, please, please continue the good work and please get these ordinances in writing. And gosh, you got so many people who are just pushing for this to go through.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Wendy Aragon. I'm a resident of Long Beach and Representative Pet Assistance Foundation. We were founded in 1955.
Speaker 3: To combat the tragic pet overpopulation.
Speaker 2: Problem, and we've been active in Long Beach ever since, referring people to low cost spay and neuter services, education and subsidizing those who cannot afford.
Speaker 3: To alter their pets. We want to commend Councilperson Sudhir Lowenthal for taking steps to draft.
Speaker 2: These two ordinances that are long overdue. Long Beach has taken initial.
Speaker 3: Steps through the 2006 passing of the Breeding or Breeding.
Speaker 2: Control Ordinance, but many of us in the animal welfare community.
Speaker 3: Realized that we needed to take further steps to reduce.
Speaker 2: Euthanasia rates of healthy, adoptable animals and alleviate the animal.
Speaker 3: Suffering that is the direct result of pet overpopulation. The second ordinance.
Speaker 2: Banning of the.
Speaker 3: Sale of rabbits, dogs and cats in pet stores is especially important.
Speaker 2: Because we all know that these businesses are exempt from requiring the spaying and neutering of animals.
Speaker 3: When they are sold. This, I believe, is due to the passage of.
Speaker 2: The law in Sacramento that required the animal welfare organizations to do spaying neutering.
Speaker 3: But the businesses were exempt. Do I believe again to the powerful pet store lobby? Those of us.
Speaker 2: Active in animal.
Speaker 3: Welfare know all.
Speaker 2: Too well the tragic impact of too many unwanted animals, the abandonment, the passing from one bad home to another, the endless stream of kittens often motherless during the kitten season, the endless parade of unwanted.
Speaker 3: Pit bulls in Chihuahua.
Speaker 2: As a small organization, we have to listen to every single day on our hotline. Will you please take my animal? I have to move. I've been evicted or I found a little kitten under the porch. I can't keep it. Can you take it? I don't want to take it to the pound because it may be euthanized.
Speaker 3: We hear this over and over, yet we have limited room and limited resources.
Speaker 2: This has a tremendous negative.
Speaker 3: Impact on those of us in this work because we can only do so much.
Speaker 2: We know that many of these animals for whom we cannot intervene will end up in desperate situations.
Speaker 3: Or perhaps if they're lucky.
Speaker 2: In the shelter as a euthanasia statistic. It's tragic to say that, but.
Speaker 3: That's what we have to endure every day. As we've stated before.
Speaker 2: Here many times, we need a synergistic, three pronged approach to this problem, which Long Beach has made great strides in addressing legislation, education and low cost sterilization.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I have to wrap up because a little bit later on. Thank you.
Speaker 2: In closing, we urge you to appeal to the better angels of your nature and deal with the elephant in the living room.
Speaker 3: The moral imperative.
Speaker 2: To deal with pet overpopulation in our city.
Speaker 3: By drafting.
Speaker 2: And ultimately passing these.
Speaker 0: To. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Good evening.
Speaker 4: My name is Luis Dubi and.
Speaker 3: I have been an animal control officer. I began my career with the city of Long Beach in 1980.
Speaker 4: And the.
Speaker 3: Majority of my career has.
Speaker 4: Been with the city. It's a great city, but mandatory spay and neuter. The time.
Speaker 3: Has come. We need this tool. Our officers are out in the city serving our citizens, addressing complaints.
Speaker 4: And we need this to.
Speaker 3: Address the issue of overpopulation.
Speaker 4: And the issue of people that don't want to spay and neuter their pets. Education and enforcement is our focus. We educate, we offer assistance. But when people do not want to comply, enforcement is necessary. This tool will.
Speaker 3: Be the enforcement we need. As far as.
Speaker 4: People say as they're worried about a mass abandonment of animals. We also need to address the quality of life that we give our pets. And if someone is going to abandon.
Speaker 3: Their animal or dump their animal.
Speaker 4: Because mandatory spay and neuter takes effect.
Speaker 3: They're not the right pet owner. One issue, too, I think is very important. Not only do are we talking about animals here, but we're talking about the.
Speaker 4: Citizens of the city and their safety and public safety. And it's a well-known statistic in my career, in my profession.
Speaker 3: Just for example, in our city.
Speaker 4: Between the months of July, August.
Speaker 3: September and October, we had a total of 196.
Speaker 4: Bites by dogs in our city. Out of that.
Speaker 3: 196 animals, 131 of.
Speaker 4: Them were unaltered. That's a pretty staggering statistic. The propensity for a dog to bite is lessened if the animal has been.
Speaker 3: Spayed or neutered.
Speaker 4: So helpless. So please take that into consideration with consideration when.
Speaker 3: You're addressing this ordinance. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Emily Brewer. And to be respectful of your time, I'll keep it brief with the millions of animals who are euthanized in shelters every year. I feel like we owe it to Rose, who we met earlier, to move forward with the mandatory spay and neuter ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening. My name is Vicky Yamashita. I'm a 25 year resident of Long Beach, and this mango is my representative. I just came down here because I saw a post on Facebook that said, an organization that I've only sent until tonight only been in contact with through Facebook. I needed some support. I've been a long time adopter of animals. I will. I vowed 20 years ago when a friend of mine educated me on the importance of spay neuter and pet overpopulation. The importance of not contributing to the supply chain of any breeders and I have since adopted about five dogs, having two or three at a time and taking them through to the end of with a high quality of life. So I'm deeply, personally committed to adopting, but on a daily basis, just my heart breaks and I'm overwhelmed with the stories I hear and just the staggering numbers. And I would love to see Long Beach be a model city. I'm so proud of the city that I moved to after coming to Cal State Long Beach in the seventies and would love to be able to be able to have bragging rights that Long Beach lead in efforts like this. In one week alone, I learned of three people who had infant puppies.
Speaker 4: One was found.
Speaker 3: Rescued and my friend is actually raising it. It's been quite difficult because it needs to be fed around the clock. Another one was thrown from a moving car and hit some people and fortunately it survived the fall and is being raised by somebody. I think they're called bottle babies when they have to be fed around the clock because they're so tiny and they've not been weaned. I don't know the circumstances of the third one, but three instances of puppies being used, thrown like litter and that is all a part of our pet overpopulation problem in the city of Long Beach . And I would love to see this ordinance passed. I would love to be able to see some of my friends who run adoption, um, excuse me, rescue agencies privately and work tirelessly. They would love to go out of business. They'd love to just be able to go get a real job sometime. So thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Alicia.
Speaker 3: Johnson and I volunteer for Pet Assistance Foundation and I started volunteering there a month ago. And you see the conditions that the animals are in and how they have no home because there's so many animals out there and why people are breeding and buying animals. The innocent animals that are just in shelters and have no home to go to are being put down. And if we make spaying and neutering mandatory, we can save so many innocent lives. Because, you know, if a human has a baby, we don't put them down because there's not a home to go to. And I just wanted to say, animals have the same feelings, too. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Before before our next speaker, I'm going to close the speakers list here. Unless there's someone else that didn't get a chance to get in line, please get in line. I'm closing the speakers list. So after this gentleman here will be the last. We'll be the last speaker in the jacket, please. And you can, sir. You can if you'd like to sit. That's okay. I just want to, sir. So we'll close it after this. Gentleman, please.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name's Larry Hansen. I'm a 25 plus year resident of Long Beach, also a small business owner, California Canine Services. I oppose this proposed mandatory spay neuter. However, I was delighted to hear that you were considering an amendment for the AKC show Dogs. And if you're going to go that route, I would hope that you would consider any national registry. There are some dogs that show work complete that are not AKC registered dogs, but are United Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association, APD are several different organizations, also North American Red. Association, which a lot of our police dogs come out of that program. Those dogs cannot compete as the breed they are unless they have both testicles. I also think and I can appreciate everything everybody is saying here, none of us in this room, I'm sure, want to see any animal injured, neglected, abused. However, I really think that we need to target the owners. You may also want to consider some sort of safe dog program a little different than the American Kennel Club's canine good citizen. There is a video that they watch, a test that they take, and then they do a little demonstration with their dog showing basic behaviors, but really trying to educate the owners to target educating the owners a little outreach program like that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: And hello, my name is Lena Gaiser. I while I'm not a resident of.
Speaker 3: Long Beach on this issue about.
Speaker 2: Spaying and neutering dogs is really important to.
Speaker 3: Me. So I just I'm here to voice my support for the ordinance making banning the spaying and I mean ban.
Speaker 2: Making it mandatory to spay and neuter dogs. And.
Speaker 3: You know, because I feel that animals, while they are not human beings, they still deserve a lot more.
Speaker 2: Respect than they're being given at the moment.
Speaker 3: Being put to sleep by these numbers that have been discussed. And it's really sad. And I think that we we need to be doing more about it. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Anna Wong with Stray Cat Alliance as well as being a resident of Long Beach. And I want to commend the Council for bringing forth this ordinance for the pet shops. We enthusiastically support this and thank Julie Crumpton for her tireless work and moving forward for the Long Beach Animals. I would encourage all of you to consider strongly wherever you go with this mandatory spay and neuter that you please add on mandatory microchips. I run many, many community cat programs within our Long Beach area and contract cities. We microchip every single one of our feral cat and community cats that are released. This protects them when they end up back in the shelter from multiple trappings. It protects their lives. It protects their their livelihood. We are able to assess when a cat gets retract the health and condition of that cat in that colony. This also stands true for owned animals as well. It's a really great way to protect the animals of Long Beach. And I would encourage you, please, please, please consider the microchip issue.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please, sir. Final speaker.
Speaker 10: Thank you. My name is Jack Smith, and I'm the president of the Long Beach Kennel Club and also the great Western Terriers location that has conducted dog shows in the city of Long Beach since well before 1970s. I think we were the first Kennel Club to hold our shows in the Convention Center in 1973. I really, first of all, want to thank Councilman Councilwoman Lowenthal for the amendment. I came here to speak to the issues that she just amended. And so therefore, I really don't have a lot to say. But thank you. But I would like to say, because I've heard all these speakers and and I'd like to have a comment on it other than being the president of dog shows, because I enjoy the sport of dogs. I enjoy breeding dogs. I was also I'm also a retired captain of police for the Los Angeles Police Department. I was the chief of police for the city of El Cajon, and I was the assistant sheriff for the county of San Diego. So I've had a lot of experience and working with kennels. I've had a lot of experience in working with pounds. I used to manage one when I was in El Cajon. And everything that you've heard here tonight regarding the the heart break of going into the kennels and seeing the euthanasia scene, the the dogs that are abandoned , it's always been a heartbreak to me and been working with the council here. I have to say that when we put this ordinance together, the one that's existed now about nine years ago, the idea was to create a model ordinance that would allow the care of dogs that do need to be cared for, but at the same time allow the sport of dogs and the breeding the purebred dogs to continue to help to have them both. And what we realized was that while the AKC, I think, is probably one of the best registered registries in the country for purebred dogs, there are many others that don't offer the same advantages that the AKC does. And so in the ordinance you'll see that it talks about the fact that if we're going to. If we're going to allow dogs to be bred in the city of Long Beach, that the registry that they're registered with has to offer certain things, which includes rescue, it includes genetic testing, that includes training to be a responsible dog owner and things such as that, so that we have a combination of both that we have the AKC really working together with the people that are here today to try and create the best world we can for our dogs. And I think I think the council and I think these people that we look forward to working together with you in the future. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: I have to think of Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I know it's been a long time coming. Also. Judy Crumpton. I see Kate, April, Claudia, all of you, the great work that you've been doing on this. I have to commend you because I know how passionate you you all are. We've had many discussions on this, but thank you, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, for really leading this effort. And just wanted to say my thanks and it's certainly needed. I know that in the First District we have such an amazing amount of dog owners that are responsible, but yet we have another handful that are not very responsible. And that I think that this ordinance would certainly do something to achieve, you know, under puppies, under populating, if that's even possible.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I wanted to thank everyone that came out to speak on this issue and the proposed ordinance. And I've taken copious notes with most of the comments that have been made. And I want to thank Jack and his wife for being here as well. Since Jack spoke last, I do want to ask I want to ask our staff to be sure. It's probably the last paragraph of the second to the last paragraph of our item, asking for staff to consult with other cities and other resources and putting this together. We aren't the first to do this. That's the beauty of it. That's the extreme beauty of being in this position is we're not the first. And so we can certainly learn from the cities that have been mentioned here earlier, learn from the best practices that Mr. Smith has highlighted. And I think there's an effort that can be made to bring all of those together so that we make a proposal that makes sense for our city. And all cities think that their unique we really are unique. So I, I firmly believe that I take comfort in it. And, and I think our staff knows that. And if I can judge based on everything that our animal care staff has done in these last seven years, moving toward good policy on the various items they've worked on, I know that they've looked at best practices elsewhere. So I'm confident and I, I know that you both will be open to working with our team as well. And I look to our staff to call on you for that advice, that expert advice on how to draft something that's responsible for us. There was an issue raised about enforcement. I know Councilmember Mongeau will address that. But just to staff, I would like Mr. Stevens or or our director of Parks, Recreation and Marine to highlight how our canvassers work at this moment. Could you do that for us?
Speaker 5: I'll let Mr. Stevens talk about that.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 8: George.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So our canvasing program, our. Our staff will go into the neighborhoods. They'll they'll run reports for the animals that are either currently licensed or delinquent their licenses. So they'll basically canvass, walk neighborhoods and look for unlicensed, unregistered animals. They'll make contact, educate. It's not about enforcement, writing citations, grabbing money from people. It's about educating, getting people in compliance, rabies shots. And so this is just one more one more tool that we just we'll just add in there with, along with the rabies and licensing. It's just checking for spay and neuter so we don't look at it to be too difficult.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Mr. Stevens, I also wanted to ask you about the cost to implement. While the item does not highlight an impact or a fiscal impact, that there's no fiscal impact to developing the item. But certainly we're very realistic that there will be an impact to the cost for public outreach, additional low cost, spay neuter vouchers and enforcement. But we're hopeful that the city manager, as the item calls for, will also find revenue opportunities to pay for these increased services. There were so many things that we do today with animal care that seven, six years ago we didn't think we could afford we never thought we could afford a veterinarian, but we prioritized it and realized with a cost savings to the city. So I think when we look at that cost benefit analysis to be able to add resources to this additional effort, we will realize that there will be a lot of cost savings. And so in that report that comes back in the recommendation that comes back, we will look to staff to highlight those differences. What are the costs and then what are the savings? And then finally, I wanted to also mention there.
Speaker 3: Was.
Speaker 7: There was a resident that spoke about breeding for hurting animals. If I could get this correct. There you are. Thank you. And. I'd like staff to address how that can. That possibility already exists today. She can get a permit to do so. Correct, Mr. Stephens?
Speaker 9: Yes. Currently she could buy a breeding permit.
Speaker 7: And I understand that you indicated you don't want to be a breeder, but our definition of breeding isn't. I think what the commercial definition might be, it's not so much about breeding for sale, but for what you describe. You already have that ability to do that here, and so this does not prohibit you from doing that. I want you to rest assure and I know that there's a section of folks that might feel the same way. And I wanted you to be sure that that this did not impact your ability to do that. There was mention made of feral cats, and that is a very serious problem. And I want to thank the the constituent that came up and spoke about her work in that area unaltered. Feral cats do roam our neighborhoods in far greater number than stray dogs to. It is a bigger problem certainly and trap spay neuter and release programs. They do play a very important role in controlling this population. I do think it's worth noting some of the success that we've had. So that's the tragedy with the success that we've had, is that 80% of owned cats are spayed or neutered. And that's to the great work that you've done, great work that staff has done. So we have to celebrate that. We have a long way to go. But in combination with the volunteers that are helping, along with our staff, I think we are getting there. I will ask staff to consider if there is an opportunity to address the feral cat population through this effort. And if you don't have a response today, that's okay. But I would hope that you would consider that because it is a big problem and perhaps that will be our seventh or eighth installment in this overarching policy over these last several years. But we recognize it's an important issue. Mr. Stevens Did you want to address that at all tonight?
Speaker 5: Vice Mayor Yeah, I think Ted can address that. We do have a similar program.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Well, first of all, I would just mention that we already have mandatory spay neuter for cats, so we already have that. We have cat licensing and rabies for cats. We I know for at least the last couple of years that I've that I've been over animal care services. I have done everything I can to support TNR groups that are out there, some of them out there I see their today and I'm sure they would agree that I support a lot of them through assistance with spay neuter vouchers and things like that, helping to get animals fixed. We help have normal, everyday residents that contact me and want to tnr their own neighborhood. I help them with that. We and we've been doing this for probably a couple about two years now. I've been supporting a lot of these groups are helping these groups with their work. In addition, recently, earlier this year, we started a community cat shelter neuter return program, also addressing community cats and trying to limit the number of litters that are born in the community through to feral cats. So it's definitely something we've been working very diligently on for the last few years.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I appreciate that. Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 3: I want to thank everyone here who has brought this issue up for years. I've known many of you since my time with L.A. County Animal Services several years ago, back when Long Beach and L.A. County partnered to grow the CANVASING program here in Long Beach. Spay verification is done through providing your certificate of spay when you license your animal. So as our wonderful director, Ted Stevens mentioned the verification, the canvassers that are in the field are canvasing for a license. And then upon getting your license, you would then provide the verification of the spay and neuter. So there will be no flipping dogs in public will be okay about that. I am passionate about many animal issues, but working hand in hand with our supervisors in our puppy mill ban in L.A. County is a step. But as we talked about, it's really the demand for animals that continues the import of puppy mill pets into our cities. And so what we hope will happen is that our local certified AKC breeders will be a resource, and our cute little puppies like Rose, who is here today, will come from our shelters into our pet shops . So I look forward to hearing about the partnership between pet shops in the city. I think that this is also an opportunity to lower the cost of inventory for those businesses because they'll be partnering with us and we'll also be lowering the costs of our shelter for providing care and euthanasia. Those animals will get to be in the pet shops loved by the pet shop administrators, and additionally, I'm supportive of another friendly amendment. I know we talked about the earlier friendly amendment, but of competitive herding and other types of animals specifically. The word breeding permit is often confusing to consumers. And so whether we call it another classification, so that if your animal is deemed to be a champion in herding or any of the other animal areas, that they would have that later option to breed, working that end would be encouraged. So thank you to Jack and to Judy and to all of you that I see at the dog park regularly. Thank you for your continued commitment to our fixing animals and our trap neuter release. Those are all components of getting to where we've all said we were going, which is one of the friendliest cities in America for animals.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And before I start, I want to salute all of the the caregivers and the volunteers, the folks who are working so hard to deal with our overpopulation of our animals. You guys all have great hearts, and I appreciate you being here. I. This is policy work. And so I'm going to to ask a few critical questions, if you may ask. And, you know, it was interesting in the the write up for for this particular agenda item. It said dogs, cats and rabbits. And I haven't heard anything about rabbits here this evening. I have a question, a few questions for staff. When was the last ordinance around done toward this this matter? I know that there was an audit is done a few years ago that increased fees for for dogs and unaltered dogs and cats. When was that ordinance done? Then increasingly this was for increasing the fees for unaltered animals. We have not increased the fees since I've been there and I started in January of 2012. Okay. I believe it was 2009. What about Councilmember Lowenthal? I believe you were signature to that particular item. Right. And I'm curious to know what sort of performance between since 2009 have we experienced in terms of dog registration and the the the reduction in terms of unaltered pets? Is there any data to show performance over that period of time?
Speaker 5: Councilmember, if you're asking what our data is in terms of unregistered.
Speaker 9: Well, let me let me.
Speaker 5: Record on all three dogs registered.
Speaker 9: What sort of data do we have to show progress, if any, to reducing overpopulation of animals in the city of Long Beach since that ordinance was was enacted?
Speaker 8: Good.
Speaker 9: We have seen I know since the cat an ordinance ordinances were passed the cat licensing and mandatory spay neuter for cats has passed. We have seen a significant decline every year in our cat in pounds and our cat euthanasia. And I know our dog euthanasia is in dog in pounds have been were pretty steady for several years. But just recently since the voucher program was started, we've seen a steady decline in dog euthanasia, in dog in pounds. And since fixed Long Beach has started the actual which was in June of last year I believe Korea we've seen significant declines in pounds and euthanasia of dogs but especially the pounds dogs. It was pretty significant when I ran the numbers after fixed Long Beach started for the year after they started compared to the previous year, it was a significant drop in euthanasia and in pounds. Okay, so how many households currently have registered dogs in the city of Long Beach? Number of households that currently have registered dogs is kind of fluctuates, but it's around 30,000. Okay. And they can have multiple dogs and they could have multiple dogs. Yeah. So that's that's unique. When we ran it, we did it by unique addresses. So that's not the number of licenses. That was the number of households that house not licenses. Yeah, licenses is a little bit more it's closer.
Speaker 5: To like.
Speaker 9: 36,000 or 38,000. Well, totally more. Almost 40,000 somewhere in there, 35 to 40000. And so it's so there's 35 with 40,000 households with licenses, right? Some of them are expired, but yes. So how many total households do we have with with dogs? With dogs. The estimate, based on federal statistic models, we would estimate that there's roughly 62,000 households with dogs. And about a population of about 100,000 dogs would be that's an estimate based on models from the Department of Finance. And of that 100,000 dogs, how many are registered? Current licenses, I believe, is a little over 30,000. There are about 10,000 expired licenses. So somewhere in there. So one third of our the dogs in the city of Long Beach are registered. Yes, that's correct. And what are we doing to enforce registration right now other than the CANVASING program? The CANVASING program is our main method of enforcement. Okay. How many? Uno. Uno. Two dogs are registered in the city today. Current licenses are about 3000. Okay, I'm in listening to this. I mean, this is this is compelling. And all of the public testimony that has come before us, I believe, is extremely compelling. And I support. Voluntary spay and neuter neutering of our dogs and cats. I think we have an enforcement problem, and that's really where I'm having a heartburn with with this this protest that this proposed ordinance. With all due respect, I know Councilmember Lowenthal has worked and is very passionate about this. And, I mean, I commend us for bringing this forward for conversation. But if we're talking about 100,000 dogs and we have a third of them are actually registered. We have an enforcement issue in terms of registering our pets. If we're going to move towards a mandatory spay and neuter program here in the city. What what? I'm not too confident that we have the resources to to enforce that. And I would love for you to tell me otherwise. Well, I can say that our CANVASING program is still relatively new. It's only been a few years in existence since 2010. We've increased by over 10,000 licenses overall in the city. And so it's we haven't actually a higher compliance rate than most cities as far as licensing goes up very much, very high. And now it's not as high as obviously we'd like it to be, but we are higher than most cities in the state. And I would say that this is going to be every year we add more and more licenses to our database and more and more we get higher compliance rates every year. And this is I don't think anyone believes that this is going to make a difference overnight, but we feel like that over time the enforcement will come, more and more people will be educated, more and more people will come into compliance. And this is this is a long term thing as we've increased our licenses over the years, will increase compliance. Well, in a lot of respect, I mean, I think that's what we're doing now. I mean, I think we're moving in the right direction with the current policy. And, you know, I may be in the minority here, but, you know, I want to be consistent. If we're going to push forward with policy, it needs to be enforceable policy. The thank you.
Speaker 3: In.
Speaker 9: I'm curious to know how many pet stores currently are selling puppies in the city of Long Beach. To my knowledge, one. Okay. So we're putting together a policy that that is restricting the sale of pets in the city of Long Beach, which will impact at least one one store. And that's good. I support that that component of this this ordinance, a proposed ordinance. And I've done a little bit of research and research about many poultry, spay and neuter policies in other cities. And I've noticed that that several cities have not produced the desired results because of the lack of enforceability and. And in many respects, it has created a situation where where pet owners have actually promoted irresponsibility, where pet owners are not taking their pets to the vet. Pet owners are not registering their pets. And they are they're essentially going underground in response to local policy that that that concerns me. And I don't want to see the progress that the city of Long Beach has made over the last several years in reducing pet overpopulation turned around as a result of that. And so I have some real, real concerns here. I think, Councilmember Longo, you you offered I think you began to offer a friendly amendment which recognizes the other types of dogs other than AKC dogs. There are there are other dogs that that are bred for agility and competition and agility, fly balls, obedience training, working dogs, herding police work. We don't even touch that. Does that mean that we're going to fix our police dogs, arson detection and customs dogs? I think this issue is a lot more broader than than what is before us here today. And I would love to have a lot more time, a little more more time to massage this this issue, if possible . Again, I know that I'm not speaking in in favor or I'm not championing the issue the way that many of the people who came before us to speak see this. But again, this is policy work. Councilmember Lowenthal, you mentioned another point that I want to raise is the impact to the budget. This is an unknown, complete unknown. We don't know how much this is going to cost at all. You know, and to really do this right, I think we're going to have to really commit real resources to doing this, a robust CANVASING program so that our Animal Services Department actually has teeth. Again, one third of the pets in the city are registered. That's a real problem. So I'll reserve my comments and thank you for dodging me.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 0: Jump. Councilmember Price.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I first of all, I want to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal for bringing this forward. I know this is something that she's worked diligently on for years, and I am learning a lot about the process through hearing the public speak tonight. And I think a lot of good questions have been raised. I did want to ask staff just a few questions before we go further with this, and that is.
Speaker 3: Why is staff.
Speaker 2: In favor of this proposed ordinance or would they be.
Speaker 5: Councilman. I believe it would help us in the long run to reduce the number of euthanised pets.
Speaker 2: Councilman Austin raises a good point about fiscal impact. And as I indicated just last week, I don't think it's prudent for us to adopt any agreements or legislation when staff is telling us outright that they don't know what the fiscal impact is going to be. My understanding of this item is that staff is going to do a fiscal impact study before we as a body direct you to go out and do anything. Is that accurate?
Speaker 8: That's that's accurate, councilwoman.
Speaker 2: In terms of our current policies, we talked a lot about breeding and the limitations on breeding. Could you please describe for me what our current breeding license policy or requirements what they are?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I'll try to keep it brief, but.
Speaker 0: Basically someone who.
Speaker 9: Can apply to get a breeder's permit. There is a background check done on them to make sure they haven't violated any any laws like animal cruelty and things like that. They they would pay for the permit. And then, like I said, it is in the batch. There's a lot of restrictions. The the breeding animals, they have to show paperwork showing that they're not related, like in, you know, incest type situations. They have to show that the animal's healthy. There's age restrictions. I believe it's 2 to 7 years old. They can only have one litter per year. So they have to be said that be microchipped. So there's just a there's a lot of restrictions on what they can and can't do as far as breeding their animal.
Speaker 2: I've received several emails in regards to this item, mostly in support, but a couple of the comments that I've heard and we heard from some of the members of the public tonight was about them wanting to breed. Is there anything that prevents someone who wants to breed for for applying for a license, for example.
Speaker 9: Currently, right now, no.
Speaker 2: Okay. And how would that change, if at all.
Speaker 9: Depending on what you guys would approve? Depends what exclusions are approved, if they're, you know, AKC certified or competition animals. Animals like that. But I think you just you're every day random animal. I don't I don't know what kind of exclusions we would come up for that, but we could look into it.
Speaker 2: Now, in terms of some of the direction you've received this evening as a result of what council members have stated in public, do you feel like you have enough in terms of coming back with a recommendation on what exclusions might apply?
Speaker 5: I believe we do. Councilwoman.
Speaker 2: We talked a lot about enforcement and I think Councilman Austin makes some good points. What are the short term and perhaps even long term plans that you have as a department in terms of enforcement and education in regards to this particular policy?
Speaker 9: Well, you've seen some of the posters that some of my volunteers and I have already kind of started working on the campaign. Obviously, those posters currently don't talk about being mandatory, so that would change the posters. But I think we could look at some educational outreach to the schools. We could look at social media. We can look at print media, you know, do as much outreach as we can, busses. And most of it is going to be I think we're going to look at our enforcement is mostly going to start with probably animals coming to the shelter. Those are just people that we interact with every day and educating them. And I believe that we want to be more towards the education part of it and compliance and not a heavy handed type of citation compliance. I don't think that's what we're looking for. We're looking for educational compliance.
Speaker 2: And I would say, personally speaking, I think that would be the right place to have the focus in terms of this kind of policy. Currently, what if an animal is adopted? Are they do you do any spaying and neutering before the animal is relinquished?
Speaker 9: Yes. State law requires that animals that are adopted are spayed or neutered.
Speaker 2: And that's.
Speaker 5: And microchipped. Any any animal that leaves the shelter in.
Speaker 9: Long Beach has to be microchipped.
Speaker 2: Okay. And that's what I did not know. Okay. Spayed or neutered as well. Correct.
Speaker 9: Animals that are adopted have to be spayed or neutered. Animals that are redeemed by their owners currently do not have to be spayed or neutered.
Speaker 2: But they do have to be microchipped.
Speaker 9: They do have to be microchipped, yes.
Speaker 2: In terms of enforcement of illegal breeding. I'm assuming that happens now. What can you tell us a little bit about how you enforce illegal breeding allegations or complaints?
Speaker 9: Well, currently now it's it's mostly complaint driven. And one of the problems with it is there has to be a litter of puppies before we can actually enforce it. So the babies are already born at that point will issue the citation. We will require that the animals are given to a nonprofit rescue organization or were relinquished to the shelter. We do not allow them to buy a breeding permit after the fact and then sell the puppies. To answer your.
Speaker 2: Question, it did. Thank you. Thank you. I have no from a question. No more questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 3: I do want to make another statement about how we as council members receive comments. I know that so many of you have come here today, and we appreciate your time and your comment. I'd also like you to know that while these discussions go on and in advance of the meeting, each of us as council members on our iPads have access to anyone who submitted their comments in advance. Those show up on our agendas and we're able to look at the specific dialog and verbage. So oftentimes if you are choosing between coming personally to council or making a comment in advance online, I would strongly recommend you consider making the comment in advance because it's a part of our record that we can continue to reference during the dialog. So consider that in the future and in reading some of these. I also wanted to ask a quick question. Director Stevens, would you be able to tell us what our return to owner number of animals were released in our prior year for dogs? Yes.
Speaker 9: It's roughly 26%.
Speaker 3: 26%. And what was our live animal release last year?
Speaker 9: 75% for dogs.
Speaker 3: What was our live animal count? I'm trying to count the number.
Speaker 9: Of dog or the number of the number of our tails.
Speaker 8: If I had the number of pounds.
Speaker 9: Was roughly 4200. So 26% of that.
Speaker 3: Okay. So under this ordinance, would you believe that autos would be required to spay and neuter despite where they lived, whether it was Long Beach or an adjacent city or a contract city?
Speaker 9: It would. We would only enforce it on Long Beach residents and some of them in Long Beach.
Speaker 3: Or Animals Court in Long Beach. I should be. I believe that we are in. And if I could make.
Speaker 9: Sure we're all in on that right.
Speaker 3: Now. Okay. As an L.A. County animal shelter, we required all animals released from our shelters to be if it was impounded in the city, if it is impounded in an unincorporated area or a city that has a mandatory spay neuter ordinance, we would require that pet owner to spay and neuter other animal unless they had an age exemption or a medical exemption or an AKC or breeder exemption. So I just wanted to put that into your thought process for writing the ordinance. I also wanted to make some comments. Well, we have a few pet stores. We have a few pet stores, but only one that currently sells dogs. Is that correct?
Speaker 9: Yes, we do have one pet store that takes cats from our shelter, which would be legal in the new ordinance. And they do adopt cats.
Speaker 5: From pet.
Speaker 3: Shelter. And are there any other pet stores that don't sell dogs or cats, but they may sell hamsters, rabbits and all the others?
Speaker 9: I don't know of any that sell rabbits. I know there are some that have rabbits from rescue groups, so they would be okay. And there are a lot of pet stores that do adoptions.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 9: Through rescue groups.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. And so under this ordinance, the sale of those animals would be spayed or neutered. An example would be a current pet shop that is not actually a pet shop, but as a pet store would be PetSmart. And PetSmart currently brings in animals from all different types of rescues. And under this ordinance, would those animals be required to be spayed or neutered before sale?
Speaker 9: Yes, the rescue groups are required to spay and neuter before they adopt them.
Speaker 3: Perfect. When we talk about lack of enforceability, I just want to say and once again commend the city of Long Beach, because our enforcement rate is so much better than it was six years ago and significantly better than a majority of the cities. Also with the number of pets that are unregistered as a comparison to other cities. A lot of it has to do with each city's ability to contract for services with the County of Los Angeles. Because the County of Los Angeles is canvasing unit is scheduled years in advance. And so even cities who know they have low compliance, they do not have the resources and they have not been put on the schedule in enough time in advance to increase their compliance rate. And so having that in-house is a remarkable program, and I commend you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a few follow up items. I know that Councilmember Austin raised some good issues regarding cost and outreach and enforcement and what responsible pet owners will do. And I think the last item were the theme last themed item was probably equity. On the cost piece, we the item is asking for staff to come back with what the costs would be, but just on canvassers alone. The activity that the canvassers do pay for them. They pay for themselves. And it's distasteful to say it, of course, but that is the reality of it. We have enough in order to be able to do that. Their canvasing work results in being able to pay for greater activity. When and I'm not sure if it was heard earlier, but I did address the constituent that came forward about the hurting dogs and and other types of dogs that people would like to breed. I think staff has been instructed to look at that when they come back with their recommendations. And I know the staff is clear that they are going to look at that and make a recommendation that's appropriate for our city. So that is not excluded. But we are giving staff the latitude and the flexibility to be able to do that. I've heard from some comments. Councilmember Mongo indicated that we do get lots of emails as well. And so in addition to everyone that's come today, there are quite a few individuals who aren't able to make it and we value their their comment and input just as much. And we also have to think through policy for those who aren't able to comment at all or make their make their opinions known. But a couple of times we've heard that this may drive people to drive responsible pet owners to go underground. If one is a responsible pet owner, I don't think you go underground. It just that those two don't quite comport in the same sentence. And so. What I do believe will happen is those that don't abide by ethics or whatever guides you toward pet responsibility. They will try to find other ways to avoid enforcement. That's a human behavior. I don't know that we can legislate our way out of that, but we do the best that we can. And so I don't want to leave that out there hanging that somehow responsible pet owners will go underground. I don't believe that to be the case with outreach. I know Mr. Stevens addressed outreach as well as Mr. Chapman did. We are asking staff to come back with a pretty robust outreach effort. We know that outreach has worked for us in these last several years. That's why Mr. Stevens is able to report the numbers and the decline that he has mentioned. A lot of it is outreach. People do want to be good pet owners. I, I believe that that they do want to be and need to know how they can be and need to have the resources to do so. On the equity issue, I just wanted to mention that this item actually does address equity. We made manage we made it mandatory to spay and neuter cats. And now to bring plus you now to now to bring dogs into that same requirement is an equity issue. It is mandatory to spay spay and neuter cats right now. And so to leave that as unaddressed with dogs, I think is an unequal treatment in our public policy. And so I'm confident that that is equitable. And with that council members, I ask you to support this item. This isn't something that's come overnight. We've been working on it for nearly a decade, leading our way to this point, proving with every step that we have taken, every installment that we have made toward good animal care policy, that this is the next step for Long Beach. You have heard our animal enforcement officer who's here on her off time indicate that this would help tremendously. We need to support our staff. We need to support our residents and we need to support our volunteers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this has been one of the most interesting nights since my tenure on the city council. We've had a music video. We've had some very interesting quotes that I don't think I'll ever hear again coming from some of this public testimony. I got to rescues Rocky and Kizzee very proud of those dogs. So I wanted to shout them out at home. And and so I want to. Vice Mayor Lowenthal mentioned something just a moment ago. She mentioned the person who came to testify on her off time. And I thought that was that was really compelling for me. I mean, people who work in our shelters, they don't do it because they want to euthanize animals. They do it because they love animals. That's why they work in our shelters. So that said, I mean, I had a I was able to work with L.A. County shelter workers for a number of years when I represented them in L.A. County. And I just would you know, I would just say that long be should strive to be, you know, the leader in the state on this issue. That said, I mean, I do think this was a lot of discussion. I think the public's been educated to to a great degree tonight on the intricacies of breeding and herding and so on and so forth. So I think this discussion has been reasonable. I think our vice mayor has taken and wrangled a lot of the comments and formed that into a motion that I will be able to support tonight. And I think that I am interested in seeing the finer details in this ordinance. I think it does stop short of an issue that, in my opinion, we should be talking about, which is really like a real definition of responsible owners. I think if if we cut a deal and someone gets a permit under a rule that one pet, you know, one pet is spayed and the other one is not neutered . I mean, one is not neutered. Another one is spayed. They can't meet. Right. And so they built a plan for their pet around that and then we change it on them. I think that's what I don't want. We can't I don't want to call them irresponsible. I think irresponsible is the people who have the aggressive dog who they can't keep control of, who gets out and attacks the old lady in the neighborhood. And I think that's an issue. I've had a conversation with our staff about figuring out like how we identify and track dogs that constantly get out. They're not always they're not always pit bulls either. I've been beat on the ankles by Chihuahuas too many times, and I am upset about this. So what I'm saying is I think we need to like this stopped short of a discussion that a lot of people are concerned about, these dogs that just constantly get out. If we want to create this culture of responsibility, we got to be able to call out irresponsible pet owners. And I don't think this I don't I think we just got to be careful who we're calling irresponsible. I just think we should say that. That said, a lot of discussion. I call for the question.
Speaker 0: Okay. There there are two other speakers. The question has been called in by 1/2. Anybody wants to second the call for the question by Councilmember Austin and Andrews and they're going to go to a vote.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and I do appreciate the debate and comments. And I had to ask the questions that were were in my mind just for a point of information. I, I worked with the veterinarians in the city of Los Angeles when this issue was hot and heavy a few years ago. And it wasn't pleasant. And many of the veterinarians questioned the mandatory spay neuter policies as well. And so I'm not coming to this as completely ignorant. You know, I've kind of walked this through this policy once before. And again, I'm not sure that the policy is necessarily performing the way they envisioned it in the city of Los Angeles either. And so to say that we are leading the state on this issue is is a little misleading because we're kind of behind the curve. Secondly, I wanted to just make sure you knew that last last year when at the end of the budget cycle, when I had a surplus of resources from my district office budget , I allocated it to animal care services for for spay neuter programs and I think actually benefited from that. So thank you very much for your work in my district and Councilmember Lowenthal. I do. I'm going to vote in support of this because I recognize that we will this this issue will come back before us and we will be able to massage some of the finer details of this. And with that, I'm going to also support and ask that you really and this council really look at putting forth a robust canvasing and outreach program. And you mentioned that. But I want it to be more than words. I want to serious resources to be committed to it. I think there's an opportunity to to to move forward on some of the even ideals that Mayor Garcia has talked about in terms of bringing interns into the city to to to help us with that. And so I would ask that we look at doing that as well and to the equity issue. I think cats and dogs are like apples and oranges. When you talk about mandatory spay neuter, they're different kind of animals altogether. You can't control you can't put a cat behind a gate and and keep it contained whereas a dog you can. And so and Councilmember Richardson, I do appreciate your your comments regarding those responsible pet owners or or redefining what a responsible pet owner is tonight. I think it's very important to understand that that, yes, they are pet owners who have said, you know what, I have a girl dog, I have a boy dog, and one of them is going to be fixed so that we don't have a problem here. And so and I'm one of them, by the way. So I do think we need to take that into consideration. And families, responsible pet owners and families throughout the city of Long Beach who are in those situations as well. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Okay. And finally, Councilmember Andrew.
Speaker 8: Yes, I want to thank you, first of all, Mr. Richardson, for calling for the question. But when I finish, I first of all, I really want to thank Vice Mayor Souljah for all the hard work and effort. You know, what I'm hearing is that we're making progress in this item, too, and I will keep the progress moving along. You know, I do not want to use this as an endorsement because making people hide the fact that they own animals. You know, I have the homeless people with pets in my community. I have community members that do not have much, but they do love their pets. You know, I do not want to support more enforcement as people in my community cannot afford, you know, more penalties. What I need and what I'm hearing in this item is asking for it is for the education of our community and how to better care for their pets. And I want to thank you for bringing this item to voice, and I thank you and I will support it. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 7: Just briefly, Councilmember Andrew's raised an issue that I know staff is going to consider and look at. But just so we can have it on the record, if if affordability is an issue, we have always found a way to remove that as a barrier. And I think in this policy, we have an opportunity to do the same. For instance, if there is a citation, but then I don't have a better analogy. I was going to call it a fix it ticket, but it's a fix it ticket, right? So if there's a citation that's in place, but then the owner makes good on using a voucher to spay and neuter that animal, then the citation should go away. And I know that our staff has a compassionate approach to this policy. So I want to thank you for raising that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to we're going to go ahead go to a vote. I just wanted to thank listen, I know that. Everyone here, myself included, as a as an animal lover, cares about animals. I know that. What the work to fix Long Beach and friends of Long Beach animals and all the rescue groups from the cat rescue to all of the work that's being done. Everyone here cares about animals. And thank you all for being out here, regardless of what what side you fell on the issue. I think what's before us is responsible and it does address the issues that we have with those members of our community that are breeding their pets responsibly . But but what I don't want to get lost on is there's two pieces, I think the the ordinance in related that's related to eliminating the use of pet shops and then purchasing animals that have been, you know, breed it in these large puppy mills in factories is as significant. It's something that we've been watching happen in other cities, and I think that's a really good piece of this as well. And so there's been a motion already on the floor and a second. So, Mr. Quirk, if we'll do a vote, please.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you all very much. And before we go to the next item, since I know there's a lot of interest, the the item will be back to the city council within about 90 days and that will actually be the law that will be before the council. So the law will be written, the law will come before the council and the council will then vote on that law or before a law similar to that. Okay, thank you all. Item number nine.
Speaker 1: Item nine is a report from the Office of Councilmember Al Austin and Councilmember Roberto Rango with a recommendation to ask the city attorney to draft a resolution commemorating National Family Caregivers Month.
Speaker 0: Let's. I want to make sure that we give time for the next item. So. Can I have everyone? We're still in a council meeting. If I can have everyone have the conversations outside and really appreciate it. Sorry. We have another item. Thank you so much. Mr. Clarke, let's just hold on 1/2.
Speaker 5: Mayor, if Councilmember Richardson could announce. Yeah, we will.
Speaker 0: We're going we're going to do it right now.
Speaker 5: Okay. I'm.
Speaker 0: We are. Let's have the conversations outside, please, because we have to move on to our next item. All of these items are important. Okay. Mr.. Mr. Clarke, can you read the item one more time?
Speaker 1: Thank you very. It's a report from the office of Councilman Al Austin and Councilmember Roberta Ranga with a recommendation to request the city attorney to draft a resolution to commemorate National Family Caregivers Month in recognition of the importance of in-home care provider workforce. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager and City Attorney to return in 90 days with a draft ordinance making it mandatory for dog owners to spay or neuter their pets unless they possess a medical exclusion or breeding permit from the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine, Animal Care Services Bureau;
Request City Manager to include recommendations for supporting the successful introduction and implementation of the Mandatory Spay & Neuter Ordinance, including but not limited to public education, spay/neuter vouchers, mobile services and enforcement through administrative citations and license canvassing; and
Request City Attorney to draft an ordinance making it unlawful to sell dogs, cats or rabbits in any pet shop, retail business, or other commercial establishment, unless they were (1) obtained from the city animal shelter, humane society, or nonprofit rescue organization or (2) bred on the premises possessing a breeding permit. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0971 | Speaker 1: Thank you very. It's a report from the office of Councilman Al Austin and Councilmember Roberta Ranga with a recommendation to request the city attorney to draft a resolution to commemorate National Family Caregivers Month in recognition of the importance of in-home care provider workforce.
Speaker 0: And before we begin, I'm going to have Councilmember Richardson make an announcement.
Speaker 10: I'd like to say out publicly, I'm going to recuse myself over legal conflicts of interest to do some consulting with this group.
Speaker 0: So if you're going to. You're going to. Great. Okay. Motions and motions being made. I'm going to turn this over by to turn this over to Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart, as I have worked hand-in-hand, side by side with many home care workers over the years. This is a draft resolution to commemorate the National Family Caregiver Month, an important meeting in recognition of the importance of in-home care provider who who do , in my opinion, God's work. They do work that is unseen and goes unseen and often unappreciated. They work with our our seniors. They work with our our our disabled. They work they work with our developmentally disabled. And they do great work. They save the state of California millions and millions of dollars with the work that they do, working with the clients that they work with. If their clients weren't with care, in-home support services or caregivers, they would be in nursing homes or developmental centers cost in the state of California. Instead of them costing a few thousand dollars, a couple thousand dollars a month, there would be six, seven, $8,000 a month. So the work that they do is critical to our community. Many of us don't realize that we have over 100, almost 150,000 home care workers who live in the county of Los Angeles. We have over 11,000 of them right here in the city of Long Beach. I'm looking out here in this crowd, and I see quite a few familiar faces because many of them are eighth District residents. I appreciate their work and I'm proud to want to recognize them here to stay today. I keep talking.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mayor. And also, I want to thank Councilmember Austin for bringing this forward. Having been a individual who benefited from home care, where my father in law was in his in its final days, and you see the quality of work that they do in there. It's a it's a branch of service that is very much under looking, very much underappreciated. And so I want to thank Kazu, Austin and Richard Hill for bringing this forward. I totally support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Yes. I really want to thank you also for standing here just at this time of night. But you guys are really if people really knew what you individuals are doing when it comes in, Askia, I mean, the work that you do is just I mean, impeccable because the fact that it's not easy, because the fact I know that, you know, for my father himself had to have been asking, but you guys are just tremendous. And the work you do, you know, everyone would really seriously take a serious, you know, look and see what you guys if they had a chance to see the work that you go through, man, I'm telling you, they would be so appreciative. And I know I am. And thank you guys again for your hard work. But.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Austin.
Speaker 9: Yes. I don't want to to to to under undervalue. What we're doing here tonight and what we're doing here tonight is also we're recognizing in-home caregivers, but we are also saying that, you know what, we're standing with them in support of of of a fair wage on their path to to earning $15 an hour very, very clearly . And there's a lot of conversation about raising the minimum wage and who deserves $15 an hour or what that should look like. I don't think that that anybody would argue that the work that these individuals are doing, the savings that they are providing the state in our communities, we shouldn't there shouldn't be an argument about the wages that that these folks deserve. And so I just wanted to make sure that was very clear. I'm going to read the last paragraph of the proposed resolution, and it says Whereas whereas whereas and I think we've covered how great our in-home caregivers are now, therefore, be it resolved that the city of Long Beach, standard support of home care workers, acknowledging the essential work and contributions they bring to Long Beach by officially recognizing the month of November as family caregivers month and supporting their efforts to lift themselves and their communities out of poverty as they fight for path to earn an hourly wage of $15. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Price.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I have a couple questions for the city attorney. First of all, no quarrel whatsoever with the premise of this item. The work that these individuals do is it's God's work. And you cannot mean arguing how much it's worth is kind of a useless argument to have because I don't think we can even quantify what their work is worth. Its its there are very few professions out there who do the type of work that you can't even fairly quantify, especially not with something like a minimum wage. But having said that, I'm concerned about this last paragraph and I noticed it was in the revised and I wanted to maybe ask the city attorney about this. So in this resolution, the last paragraph is basically. Articulating as a body that these individuals would be working towards a wage that is higher than the minimum wage. Is there any legal issue with that? Are we are we then setting a new minimum wage?
Speaker 5: No. The resolution would not set or establish the minimum wage in Long Beach. It is, as the resolution indicates, it's to commemorate the National Family Caregiver Month and a recognition of their importance. The last paragraph does talk about a path to an hourly wage of $15. I don't know that this resolution in itself articulates that the city is supporting the $15 in this particular resolution. It's supporting and recognizing their work. And I think it as a goal for that organization to get to $15. But it does not establish or establish the policy of Long Beach that there's a $15 a wage, minimum or living wage for this particular sector.
Speaker 2: Okay. And I mean, maybe I can ask the makers of the of this the authors of this item, where did that number, $15, come from? How was it determined that their worth that their their work is worth $15 and not $30, for example? Well, is that an arbitrary number?
Speaker 9: It's an it's I wouldn't say it's an arbitrary number. We have representatives here from SEIU. You will T.W., I'm sure during public comment. They will they will speak to that. I know for a fact that they have they have bargaining relationships with various counties throughout the state of California. And that is who they they bargaining. They bargain with. They their funds come from a a blend of federal and state moneys that that are that are moved through the county of Los Angeles. And they they bargain with them as the caregivers for, like I said, over 150,000 folks who they provide care to here in our county
Speaker 2: . I guess my concern is the title of the draft resolution is recognition of the Importance of the in-home care provider Workforce and National Family Caregivers month. And most of the. Resolution seems to be consistent with that title. The last paragraph seems to be. Frankly, unrelated to that title, it seems to be more of a maybe a labor support issue. I'm not sure. And to me, I think that the resolution's purpose is met without that last paragraph and certainly without placing a dollar value on it. That last paragraph really has nothing to do with the purpose of the resolution. We might want to title the resolution something else like helping this particular labor organization or something, but calling it appreciation or recognition of the importance of the in-home care provider workforce and national family caregivers. Month And then including that last paragraph in there, to me it just doesn't seem like it fits. So my, my recommendation would be that we and you know what I would love to hear from public comment and see maybe there's a link there that I'm missing. So before making any friendly amendment for fear that it will be rejected, let me just hear the public comment and I will go from there. How about that?
Speaker 0: Okay. Next, we have Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Just want to say thank you all for being here, too. You've waited so long. And I know that this resolution is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. And I know the $15 is a trend that, you know, Los Angeles County had been making. I know you're onwards toward that towards that trend. And so I want to thank you for every single day you know, what you're doing for folks in our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And now we'll take. Yes. Please come forward and you can just identify yourself for the record. Anyone who wants to speak to us, please come to the mic. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Leonard Camarena. I'm a home care provider, being a home care provider for 13 years. Finally got to meet you, Mr. Mayor. You hear everybody. Counsel. Thank you very much. And I am really happy that you guys are with us on this. But, Mr. Price, I will answer any questions if you need to know anything. But first of all, I'd like to tell you that I am here supporting my brothers and sisters at home care working providers. Right. And you guys are right. We do do a job that we give home care provision to to the elders, to the sick and to the disabled. Okay, so that's us right here. That's the job that we were chosen to do. This is a job that we take with a lot of pride to meet these people, to make our clients, to feel real relaxed during the days of their illness. Okay. So then I'm asking you also if you would stand up with us and fight for us for $15 an hour that the county has presented us with. Right, because it's $15 an hour. Sure. 965 an hour that we're making now. And we fight for $0.65 for about six months in 2013. Well, now we're asking you, because the job we do, you know, it doesn't pay a lot. So a lot of us live in property, you know, like we we can we always worried about our rent and our bills and our finances, but still, we don't give up. We keep taking care of those that we are we're asked to to give health care to. So I would just like to come to the county council and ask you to join us to help fight for $15 an hour. And as in January, coming up, me and my. Me and some providers.
Speaker 4: We will be.
Speaker 8: Going to the to the county legislators for tally county status for for higher wages and better dignity in life saved by being a home care provider. I mean.
Speaker 4: We were.
Speaker 8: We're not really recognized, but through you. I really appreciate it. But through others were not recognized. But now we're starting to get recognized. Now all the cities are combining together to fight, to assist us to get $15 an hour. So that's what we're asking you, if you would join us to get $15 an hour. And we appreciate it. And I'm glad to be here.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Jimmy Taylor. I'm also a home care worker. I've been a home care worker for about seven years now. I used to take care of my mom. She's passed on as well as I take care of my aunt now. So I had two clients that I took care of. I'm asking the council tonight to stand up to stand up with working families. And we demand $15. I know you said $15 not. Why not 39.60 $0.05. If you walked a day in my shoes taking care of my client, which has multiple different health health issues. Nine $65 would be nothing. 965 For a lot of folks that's in poverty or barely making it. Nine 69.65 Since I've gone to a lot of folks home, that makes 9.65 and they're barely making it. $15. We could put money back into the economy, which would give it a boost that would help. We would save the the country, the state, millions of dollars, millions of dollars that we wouldn't have to build different facility. So. 965 Yeah, it's really nothing. You ask yourself on this panel. Could you live off a 9.60 $0.05? I don't think so. Even $15, it's not a lot, but it is a start. It would help a lot of home care workers out there that really needs that. So, again, I ask you, please stand with us. Approve the $15. We thank you for your support and the recognition that you're going to give us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 9: Bennie Thompson, SEIU, United Long Term Care Worker Staff. I wanted to come to address some of the issues that the council.
Speaker 8: Price raised, and your act tonight would be an act of solidarity.
Speaker 9: And standing with the long term care workers as we go forward into bargaining in January with L.A. County. And just to continue with the comments of the city attorney, it would not change the minimum wage.
Speaker 8: Or set any wage here in.
Speaker 9: Long Beach. Your act is purely.
Speaker 8: An act of solidarity and standing with the over 11,000 long term care.
Speaker 9: Workers who are providing services to the elderly.
Speaker 8: And to the most vulnerable in.
Speaker 9: Our community here in Long Beach. Does that answer the concern? Are there any other concerns?
Speaker 0: No, I think right now it just wouldn't comment on. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Patsy Walton. I want to say thank you for coming out to listening to us tonight. I've been in-home care worker for 12 years. My first four years, being a worker, I did not get paid. I worked for free because it wasn't just family members, it was friends also, and they didn't have it. And if.
Speaker 3: They did, I didn't know anything about.
Speaker 4: It. Now I have two clients. I work for elder people, 95, 85 years old. We do I do the same kind of work that people in the hospital does. You know, and sometimes I do more. You know, I have relationship with my workers, my clients today. And I love my clients. And if I can get more, I will. My goal is to help any elder I can, any kind of way I can. That's what God got.
Speaker 3: Me here for. You know, and.
Speaker 4: And I wish you guys we really look at that we really need a $15 cut for real for real. This $9 an hour. The way the rate is, we can barely live. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Hi. My name is Larry Prince. I live in the first district. Hi, Councilwoman. I was walking to school. One of the young men I mentor. To the elementary school.
Speaker 5: Here and with his mother. And we were.
Speaker 10: Confronted by a transient who had to use. The sidewalk as a toilet. And as I ushered them past that, I, the man, exposed himself and defecated on the sidewalk. And I called the police. And it just it was a a reminder how bad our.
Speaker 5: The homeless problem is.
Speaker 10: Here. They. The mother asked me later, why would he do such a thing? And I had to tell.
Speaker 5: Her that they don't have any place to go.
Speaker 10: They can't go to Starbucks. They can't go to a restaurant. They won't let them in. So. It was a tragic reminder of the human tragedy. All of you walk through every day when you walk through the park next door, any place downtown. But that aside, I was. Reminded also that the the the mother of the woman of the young boy I'm mentoring is somebody who is in need of in-home supportive services.
Speaker 5: And she's applied for such.
Speaker 10: She has debilitating effects of diabetes and also lupus. And she has.
Speaker 5: Applied to receive this care and.
Speaker 10: Has not received.
Speaker 5: An answer for this.
Speaker 10: And. I'm very encouraged by Councilman Austin's support for in-home supportive services. I think that's that's a great thing. But she has not received an answer for this. Somebody who has diabetes and lupus, I'm just wondering, does she need a third major disability to qualify for this? I'm just wondering if there's an advocate. Councilman also asked Austin or Councilman Andrews or your. I know you've spoken in support of this.
Speaker 8: Is there somebody who can help.
Speaker 10: This particular person who needs this help.
Speaker 5: Urgently? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Just.
Speaker 0: Please come forward if you're going to. We need to get through the speakers. If you're going to speak, just please come forward.
Speaker 3: Hi, my name is Wanda Williams, and I'd like to thank you all for being here and taking a time out to listen to us. And also, I'd like to thank you guys for recognizing November as the Caregivers Month. That's a great thing you've done. And as for the $15 an hour, that's just something for all the home care workers who are striving for all over Southern California and Northern California. That's our fight. We're coming here to thank you right now for making November. I can't give as much myself. I have 25 years in a health care union health care industry, but my fiancee had a massive stroke due to his football days, so I ended up taking care of him. We never lived together. We got engaged. February 22. We had a massive stroke in May of 2000. Two didn't know who I was. So what was I going to do, walk away from him? No, I let him move in with me. So it didn't matter about the money, us, whatever we get paid, we're going to take care of our family, our friends, whoever we going to do this. So but everything costs and we need to be recognized. And I so thank you guys for what you done for November. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Count. Oh, sorry. We have another speaker. Please come forward.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Donna. I'm the disabled person. I'm here today to tell you how my caregiver helped me and how it saves you money. I wasn't born with a brain damage, disabled, couldn't walk, talk or hear. As you see. To know I'm why I talk, I could hear. But unfortunately I had medical problems in my stomach. But leave me to have 15 surgeries in my stomach that left me with a cloth in me bag for the rest of my life. For now, I have a hole in my stomach. It's very hard with my hands with die with with arthritis to put my own bag on, to have one bag to mess it up at $22. Could you imagine? My caregiver were kind enough because my supply was not in and I ran out to buy me one. Not only that, I cannot do this by myself. Not only that, I want to let you know if you put me in a boarding care, if you put me in a hospital, it would cost more the state more money to care for me. So I get off my butt every day and I fight for my life and keep on fighting because not only my stick, I have a son was to rest and kicked in the brain and my brother unfortunately been hit by a car for a time that left them with a brain injury. But I get up every day and I help the workers and I give them hope that I am going to try one day to get off of Social Security and be a worker myself. This is my caregiver. She helps me. And I want you to understand the work that you do, the hard they help every day and make sure that I get my medicine taken. I have came a long way. I've stopped taking a lot of medicine. I don't want to take pain pills. I want to get up and walk. I want to crawl, I want to walk. I want to run. I want to scream. Without a caregiver, I don't know what I would do if they give me hope. I What have you told me? The child. You would never believe that I couldn't even talk the way I talked. And now, 20 years ago, when the caregiver union people met me, I couldn't write a word I wrote back was upside down. They said, Butler, you need to pick up the phone and try to call. I did it my way. I did it every step of the way for the worker because I believe the workers need to help the disabled. Please. They don't need they need what they deserve. They worked very, very hard. They even were better than some nurses. I thank you very much to listen to my story. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Crystal. I actually want to thank God for one thing, for giving me this opportunity to work with disabled peoples. You know, I want to thank the councilor and the mayor's, my friends, that made news. And I really appreciate me. You know, I've been an assistant for working for disabled people since 2001. And some days it's hard because we get these clients. Sometimes I can really, really help. They serve. I mean, they sometimes mess up on me. So and we take the time, even the little time that we do how we do overtime to make sure these clients are accountable. What they provide is because some of us, we can't deal with a lot of these clients, but me, I'm so grateful that I'm be able to take care and not a disabled person because I don't want somebody to take care of my mother. So I'm just begging and praying on it. You think about giving us just $15 an hour because we work hard, but to help the community, knowing that there is some good people out there that will go over time to help these clients. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Mango. Oh, another one.
Speaker 5: Please.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Betty. I'm from Carson. I'm not from Long Beach. However, just to let you know, I want to let you know that the the $15 an hour is a pathway to $15 an hour. And the the council the council people of Carson have also given us a resolution stating that they are also supporting us in our in our fight. It's not from you guys. The $15 is going to come from it's from the state and the county, Los Angeles. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 3: I am a county of employee professional. Home health care workers are an important group of health care professionals in our system. I specifically have worked on health care policy for the CEO's office for Los Angeles County, and I know the financial savings that each and every one of you provide for the system. Having had elderly grandparents, I know and understand how hard it is to care for someone after a stroke and during other times of need and the work that you do. As my colleague said, it is the work of God. That being said, wages are a complicated matter with rippling impact and we as a city are in bargaining with I am employees right now, some of which make less than $15 an hour as well. And. A resolution for your service is warranted. Asking this body to get involved in the labor negotiations of the County of Los Angeles is a different matter, and I feel that the revision to the resolution was not timely. I think that. If if the true weight needs to be behind this that you're asking for, then you should ask your council member to come here with the resolutions specifically stating only. That the city of Long Beach is asking for your support in getting involved in the labor negotiations of the County of Los Angeles. Let me also state that my mother is a member of SEIU. I am a supporter of labor. She is not a member of your particular group within. So I am not in a conflict. But but I have a significant problem with bringing. Issues of wages through a resolution process that is changed after posted to the public. And to make any evaluation of your value without having it stand on its own.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 9: Yes. I want to thank the many people who came down, particularly from the the home care providers here who live in Long Beach, who serve residents here in Long Beach. Again, I think everybody behind this dais appreciates the work you do. And I believe most of us support your pathway to earning a living with a living wage. And so with that, I would call the question.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a there's one more person that wants to speak. You called the question is or a second to call the question, can the second that have called the question with one more person wants to speak to will Mr. Judy Turner will vote on the question first. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: There's been a motion and second, yes, it'd be okay.
Speaker 0: He'll withdraw. Okay. There's one other person. So, Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So I think what this I'm gathering from the comments that that what this item is asking us to do is basically adopt a resolution. But not only appreciates the work of this class of employees, but also helps them with their labor bargaining with the county of L.A.. Mr. City Attorney, is that your understanding of what?
Speaker 5: Yes. The resolution would indicate that the city this would be a position of the city of Long Beach supporting and recognizing their importance and then also supporting their efforts in their attempt to earn or make $15 an hour. So, yes.
Speaker 2: So and I don't really think this is a city attorney question, but common sense wise, if we were to do this for this. Labor group, then we would be. I guess that would be some. It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented then for us to do it for other labor groups who are about to embark on negotiations with their employer, which is not the city of Long Beach. Right. So. So my my issue is that I think it sets a really bad precedent for us to be asked as a city to weigh in on labor negotiations in another with another entity, knowing full well that we ourselves are going through labor negotiations here in the city of Long Beach. And let me just ask hypothetically, perhaps the city manager might be able to assist me with this question if we were to support a $15 wage for all of our employees who are currently making under $15 an hour, would that have a financial impact on the city of Long Beach?
Speaker 5: Councilmember Yes, it would.
Speaker 2: And would would that financial impact possibly result in us having to cut services to our residents?
Speaker 5: It possibly could.
Speaker 2: So by adopting this resolution, we'd be saying that we want the city of L.A. to do something for its employees, that the city of Long Beach is not currently doing for its own employees. That's my understanding. And and I think that's that sets a bad example, bad precedent. It has nothing to do with this particular organization, because if we do this for this organization, we're going to be expected to do it for others. I'm not sure what other discussions are going on out there, and that's a concern to me. I think that it's important for us to think about the ramifications of passing a resolution like this. Given that we are in the process of labor negotiations in the city of Long Beach and will continue to be for the next few years, what are we saying? Are we in fact saying that this is a principle that we want applied to all the hardworking employees in the city of Long Beach as well? And if so, are we okay with the financial consequences that are going to come with that? We given the fiscal. Situation that we're in. I don't know how we could answer that question responsibly in the affirmative. So with that, I have nothing else to say.
Speaker 0: Okay. I have I have one more council comment here that's popped up and then we're going to go to a vote. Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 3: I want to say that. Even more so. I think it is unfair that it is unreasonable to think that our council colleagues do not have an impact on us. And unfortunately, one of our colleagues is a consultant of yours and. While he is recusing himself from voting on the item. That does not take back his influence. And it just really upsets me that this is brought before us and this has to go on. And I. Would strongly request that the friendly amendment that we were hearing potentially come forward would be considered. Are there any ideas of any amendments you'd like to make? Councilmember Alston.
Speaker 9: May I call it question?
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's questions being called. I think we're done with the comments, public comments over. There's an emotion. The second on the floor. The motion on the floor is to approve and move forward with the resolution that the city attorney would draft. Correct.
Speaker 5: The motion is to request our office to draft. We would bring the resolution back for a final vote. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. And Mr. Clark, everyone, please cast your ballot.
Speaker 1: Motion carries five votes. Yes. Two votes no.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. That that resolution will come back to the council. And I also want to thank all of you for coming down today. Like I think everyone up here said, you guys do some really, really important work in our community. It really is some of the work that you're taking care of those that need the help the most. So thank you all for being here. And the resolution will be back to the city council. Mr. Kirk Item number ten.
Speaker 1: Item ten is a report from the city manager with a recommendation to approve the Magnolia Industrial Group Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report and authorize payment of the city's assessments in the amount of $1,488 per second. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a resolution to commemorate National Family Caregivers Month and in recognition of the importance of the In-Home Care Provider Workforce. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0913 | Speaker 1: Report from the city manager with the recommendation to authorize execution of a memorandum of understanding with Long Beach Transit in relative to the Alamitos Bay berth Dock three and Gangway Replacement Project.
Speaker 0: Public comment on the item. CNN members, please cast your vote at Mr. Goodyear. You coming on this? Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Larry. Good. You work as the address. I obviously support the project with the following caveat. I want to make sure and I haven't seen the I haven't been able to discern from the plans whether or not there is any mitigation required by any of the work that has been done. And I'd like to get a answer one way or another if in fact, this drives the need, if there's any damage to the environment that there was driving, that will drive mitigation. And if so, where is that mitigation site?
Speaker 0: As you know, you don't get to ask questions of staff. But we'd like to continue your public comment.
Speaker 5: Yes, I'd like to find the answer. Is there. Does this drive the need for mitigation? Number one. Number two. Has that mitigation been approved? And the project if there's a mitigation project, has it been identified? And in most cases the Coastal Commission rules require the mitigation be completed before the project. This driving it is completed. But what I need is an answer under oath that there is no. Mitigation required.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are you done with your comments?
Speaker 5: Yes, but I'm waiting for the answer.
Speaker 0: Mr. Goodyear, as you know, members of the public don't get to ask questions of staff of a council member wants to ask a question. They're able to. But that's the way it works.
Speaker 5: I thank you for demonstrating to Mr. Komi what the problem is.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, sir. Next item. And we actually will take a vote on that item first. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carry symbol. Yes.
Speaker 0: Next item.
Speaker 1: Adam, 13, is reporting the Financial Management Department with recommendation received from the Investment Report for the quarter ending September 30th, 2014. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Long Beach Transit in association with the Alamitos Bay Berth 3 Dock & Gangway Replacement Project to provide up to $687,000 in funding support. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0946 | Speaker 1: Thank you. Item 18 is a report from financial management with a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the award of a contract to West Coast Arborists for as needed tree trimming services in a not to exceed 2,000,680 $68,750 for a period of two years.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Mr. City Manager didn't make a report on this.
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Chase McDonnell is going to give us a quick report on this. Mr. Mayor, city council members, the staff is requesting that council consider a request to withdraw the first portion of this item to allow time for additional analysis based on new information that was received by staff. We would request approval of the second element in the amendment to the contract in order to in order for time sensitive work to be completed by the user departments. Staff anticipates being able to return with an updated request to council following the additional analysis. That concludes my report. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Can I get a motion back? Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 2: I have a couple of questions that I just wanted to go over. Will this update include.
Speaker 3: Because I don't know if there's.
Speaker 2: A certain amount that we have to go out to RFP and why there was no bid in the first place. Can you answer that?
Speaker 5: Councilwoman, this contract was to be piggybacked off of the City of Tustin contract. So in a piggyback situation, the city relies on the competitive process of another municipal agency, and we step into the shoes of that competitive process. So Tustin had completed an RFP that we were going to be use as the basis for our pricing. West Coast Arborist was willing to acknowledge that pricing and share that pricing with the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 2: So why did we choose Tustin and what are the what are we paying per tree at this at this point?
Speaker 5: I don't know the answer to the second part of your question. The reason we chose Tustin at the time was that was a valid contract that had the longest length of time available. I'm still on it.
Speaker 2: Okay. So will the update include all that information or what will we get back when we have that?
Speaker 5: Sorry. The intention was to analyze the new information that was provided that we received last night and come back to council with a new recommendation.
Speaker 2: Okay. So it's just a new recommendation on a on a new service or a new contract or I'm sorry, or is it a recommendation to come back and go out to RFP again?
Speaker 5: We were going to analyze what was provided and then return to council with a recommendation. It could be to do the same piggyback. It could be to go to a new RFP or some other combination. We have not made that determination yet.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I also have some questions about the you said the second part of the RFP. Currently, as it stands, you want to go ahead and proceed. That became sensitive stuff.
Speaker 5: Correct? Yes, sir.
Speaker 11: What is that and what's the cost?
Speaker 5: The second portion of the item reads Amend purchase order with West Coast price by 410,004 Mt. not to exceed 505. Some of that work includes time sensitive work by Parks Rec and Marine that for trees that will be subject to nesting requirements. And that work has to start on or about December 15th and conclude by January 15th.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 11: So there was a time sensitive issue from beginning when this went out to to bid, if you will, with the city as they went in to piggyback. We are correct.
Speaker 5: Councilmember, we did not bid this item. So again, when we relied on touchstones, we were attempting that.
Speaker 11: What I meant is that because of the time sensitivity of the issue, you went with Tustin as a piggyback contract.
Speaker 5: That was one of the considerations. Yes, sir. Okay.
Speaker 11: Well, you know, when I read all the other contracts out and I read where there's a bid put in place, or so aggregating goes through to the press telegram or some other advertising agency. And I think this does not happen here. I would I would not be supportive of this. I think we should put it out to bid.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And either.
Speaker 11: If that's if that's in the in the face of emotion, make that.
Speaker 2: Motion second.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a there's been a motion and he's saying now there is already a motion on the floor right now to to a to approve the recommendation as amended by staff. Sir, I'm actually running the meeting, so just relax. Thank you very much. So just say to the pro, the process is, is there was a motion on the floor that I believe was made about Councilwoman Pryce to accept the the the the motion as amended. Then now what we have just to make clear is Mr.. Your angle you would you want to get substitute motion. Okay, so there's a substitute motion that is on the floor. Someone seconded today didn't hear who it was, but Councilwoman Gonzalez and that would be to go through an RFP process for the motion, is that correct? Before we go any further, and I do have some speakers, I'd like the city attorneys to comment on this just to make sure that we're this is something that is optional for the council here at this point. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mayor. Yes. The the way I understand the substitute motion, I believe that Mr. Rangel said that they would approve the time sensitive nature on the additional money and then require the not approve the proposed piggyback contract, but to direct staff to go out to RFP with that portion of the agreement. If I understand that correctly. And the answer to your question, Mayor, is is is that allowed by the staff? Yes, I think the council has the authority to either approve or disapprove this contract and give further direction to staff at this time.
Speaker 0: Okay. And Mr. and Mr. West, I guess my question was more a question about I have no idea where the process on this is at at this point. So did you want to comment on that?
Speaker 5: Mr. WEST Yes, Mayor. Councilmembers One of the reasons we'll be doing this is because we are getting a better price. We've been directed by the council. Previous Council, of course, this might be a policy we might want to revisit is to go ahead and utilize bids, combine our resources with other entities to get better bids, to get cheaper prices for us that are out in the marketplace. That would include piggybacking, that would include working with the school district for stationary, for things like that. So this is something that we've been asked to do to get better pricing for the city of Long Beach. I do want to highlight that we do have some necessary work in the Tidelands area that may not be able to get done. If we have to go back to rebid this because of what Jason talked about, given the nature of the birds and trees and things like that.
Speaker 0: My question my question is this. So my interest is there's a motion, the subject motion to just essentially go up for RFP. Is it possible that by just going out to RFP that we would get a we would not get a bid as low as the one we could possibly get by going back out and doing this additional information and coming back, or is that not a possibility? Very possible. So I would just just mention and caution to the council, I think what staff is asking for is to come back with information. What you're going to bring back to council would be, I'm assuming could could be we want to go back to our RFP or it could be we want to go forward with our proposal or it could be a variety of options. Is that right?
Speaker 5: Yes, we could come back immediately. Honestly, we were fully prepared to go forward tonight to award the contract. However, we did get a protest last night and we wanted to do the protesting vendor, an opportunity to review his documents and all that. So we're just trying to be as transparent as possible and analyze this. We've worked with the city attorney. We certainly could have come forward and gone forward this, but we just didn't want to give an alternate vendor an opportunity to review his documents. And given what we received yesterday and I'm not saying that after review, that would change our opinion or alter it in any way. But we can come back very, very quickly with the information you're asking for.
Speaker 0: Okay. And so I just want to make that the council aware of that fact. So, you know, it's your call whether you want to go to an RFP or not, but just know that that's a possible consequence if you just don't wait for the information to come back. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 2: It's my understanding that the first part of this item was withdrawn as the first order of business before we started talking about this. So the first item isn't even something that staff is asking for us to act on tonight. In fact, they withdrew it. The second part of it, it's my understanding that the second part is time is of a time sensitive nature because it's paying invoices for work that has already occurred during an interim purchase order. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: Yes. Jason, any other information for that? Correct. Councilmember City Manager There was there are some invoices that were incurred that we were looking to pay through this money. Additionally, Parks Rec and Marine, as I mentioned, has specific work scheduled that would be required notice scene as well as scheduling within the next 30 to 45 days. That must be completed due to the nesting issue.
Speaker 2: That's right. So if we don't do this work before the nesting season starts, then we can't do this work for some time until the nesting season is over because we don't want to harm the birds. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am, correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. So just to be clear, when when you took the first part of it off the table, the only remaining part for this agenda item was whether or not we pay the invoices that we've already incurred.
Speaker 5: The pay the invoices that we have incurred, as well as this additional work for Parks Rec and Marine, to be clear. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I think Councilman Price, you're correct, but I think Mr. City attorney, the substitute, the maker of the subs who can still make that substitute regardless of it, because it's germane to the item, is that correct?
Speaker 5: Correct. And I understand the substitute motion includes that second portion and adds the direction to city council to go out to RFP with the first part that was withdrawn, not review the situation and come back with maybe a recommendation to piggyback or go to an RFP as I think staff originally described.
Speaker 2: Okay. So the substitute motion is to go out to an RFP on the first part and then go ahead and pay the bills on the second part.
Speaker 0: See no other council comment at this time on public. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 9: Just one quick question. How long would the RFP process take?
Speaker 5: Councilmember Probably we would estimate the RFP process.
Speaker 9: Between six weeks to. I mean, it could be it could be up to two.
Speaker 5: And a half months. Well, an RFP is a complex process sometimes.
Speaker 9: Understanding the complexity of the process. Would it be possible to expedite it?
Speaker 5: We can certainly work to make that timeline as short as possible.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. We're going to take public comment at this time. So if you remember the public wants to speak, please come forward and identify yourself. 3 minutes.
Speaker 5: Yes. My name is Gus Franklin, and I am the president of United Pacific Services. First of all, I was very surprised when I when I found out about this, the contract being piggyback on to the city of Tustin. And test them way out there in Orange County. The West Coast Company has four other cities that we bet against them that were just right here locally in the L.A. area and their average unit price on those contracts. Let's take La mirada, which is right next to the Long Beach.
Speaker 9: Was $44 per.
Speaker 4: Tree.
Speaker 8: On trimming the cost at the city of Tustin.
Speaker 9: The average cost is.
Speaker 5: $64 per trailer. West Coast is currently charging the city on their old contract $55 a tree for great trimming. It was Coles wanted to give the city a piggyback city, the one to take the city and one to bellow their charge to the city. $44 a tree for good trimming. Ah, the city of commerce. They're charging them $44 a tree trimming. We better get some. A couple of weeks ago. We bet against him in the city of Highland.
Speaker 8: They beat $44 to tree. We bet 43. 75 a tree. And the contract was.
Speaker 5: Awarded to us. We beat them by $0.25. We've been trimming the trees for the city of Long Beach since.
Speaker 4: 2001 for 13 years.
Speaker 5: And during the past 13 years, they let out the contract four times for three years, three years of each. And we were the low bidder. West Coast, bit higher than.
Speaker 9: Us.
Speaker 5: Last year. Our contract was extended for one year now. We were the company that.
Speaker 9: Did all the trees in Queensway Bay.
Speaker 5: And we trimmed all the palms on the Thailand. I came down here today to to request and.
Speaker 4: Ask the city to renew.
Speaker 5: Our contract expired in June of 2014. That was from the one year extension. Can the city renew our existing contract.
Speaker 9: For until a first, maybe 90 to 6 months until you let out a.
Speaker 8: New RFP? Remember, we've been trimming your trees in the Queens way.
Speaker 5: In the Tidelands and your parks for the past 13 years. And. I think myself that West Coast does this piggybacking on a lot of different contracts. We bet against them.
Speaker 8: They piggyback from one city?
Speaker 5: We were betting against them in a contract to San.
Speaker 4: Diego.
Speaker 5: And then they piggyback from from.
Speaker 4: The Sierras.
Speaker 5: Made it. At very high unit prices.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 5: I see my time's up.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: Hello. My name is Jack Boring. I'm the vice president, general manager with United Pacific Services. And it was interesting.
Speaker 5: Your comment you made about the cheaper prices for trimming.
Speaker 8: That these trees that are that had to be done on a time sensitive timeline because we've been trimming those trees for the last 13 years at $25 apiece. And West Coast is priced under the proposed piggyback is $45 apiece for the same trees, 80% price increase. And the same. And Queensway Bay that we've been doing for 13 years has a budget for $75,000. For the last four years, we've been trimming all the trees in Queensway Bay for.
Speaker 5: 75,000 for.
Speaker 8: Four years. The West Coast, the proposed West Coast Prize, would double the budget cost for the Queensway Bay Area to 150,000 for the same trees that we've been doing for 13 years. So I don't understand what your cheaper price argument on that one. But anyway, that's all I have to say. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Honorable Members of City Council. My name is Angel James Otello, director for True Milan Company. We've been your contractor for the Parks and Rec for the last 3 to 4 years and we were also surprised when we read the agenda report trying to piggyback this contract. If you look at your staff report, you'll see that the rates for city testing are not included. I actually got a contract when the see test in city clerk and they gave me the prices that I proposed under this piggyback contract. If my company had an opportunity to bid this contract, we would instead of 64 or $50, whatever they're proposing, we would charge you $45, $47. And this is what you get when you go out to RFP. You get companies to compete for your business. There's at least 4 to 5 different companies that could do this work. We are also a contractor for City of Riverside who is comparable in size to the city of Long Beach instead of City of Tustin, ten square miles compared to 50 square miles. City of Tustin at 16,000 trees. Long Beach has more than 200,000 trees. So we were one of the contractors here, along with UPS and West Coast, was the contractor for the city, and that contract expired in June. What the second portion of this contract is asking is to take TLC out.
Speaker 11: Of the out of the.
Speaker 5: Program, take ups out of the program, and give all of that to West Coast arborist until the second portion, I believe, is in the best interests of the city to extend the current contract with TLC for the parks up W for the marina and the bay and West Coast are best for the city. Until an RFP process comes out, even if if we are offering the city of Long Beach four times out of the tree, that's a 25% decrease of the $2.6 million a year contract that West Coast is proposing. Since 80% of this money is going to come from the general fund, that's half a million dollars a year you can save. This contract is asking for a four year contract over $10.6 million contract. That would be maybe the largest contract in the city of Califor in the state of California. And I believe that the city of Long Beach will get the best possible rate if it puts that contract out to RFP. If you look around to your neighboring cities area, Signal Hill went out to RFP and they're paying $39. The Tree City of Bellflower and Lakewood both went out to RFP and they're paying 4490 a tree. We are a contractor here in the city of Long Beach. We are a certified minority owned business enterprise. And this piggyback option is eliminating minority firms from actually giving you guys a bid. I respectfully ask council to give us an opportunity to put this out, to bid. Let the private sector compete for your business. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Could we have another speaker? Okay, last speaker.
Speaker 8: Go ahead. Okay. Think. Think. Thank you. I'm Patrick Mahoney.
Speaker 10: From West.
Speaker 5: Coast Arborist. And I just want to.
Speaker 10: We've been working here in the city of Long Beach for the last 30 years. I think all of us have different contracts, but we're welcome the opportunity if you want to go back out for bid. There's all these different prices. Long Beach has a very mature, overly mature population of trees that really 44, 50, 39. It's hard to really compare the different prices. But we're happy to go compete on an RFP basis. They're talking about extending our current contract that we currently have, and we're happy to do that. And I'm here to answer any questions if you want, but thank you for the business you've given us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. With that and to go back to the council. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 2: I'd like to ask city staff at this point if we were to not approve the second part of this item, the item that's before us in terms of the work that's already scheduled and the invoices that we've incurred, would that delay any existing projects or work in the city? And specifically any projects that were on a tight timeline on or anything like that.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilman, we. We would need some money for emergency removal of limbs that are down from storms. About 50,000 of that. About 240,000 for the palm trees and the tidelands area, because, as you know, the front will have a tendency to fall. So they would trim those palm trees. So again, needs to be done before January 15. We have a tight timeline for the nesting period, September 15 to January 15. If we don't get it done by January 15, we can't do it until next September 15. So that leaves the palm trees untrained, and it's an annual trimming process for the palm trees.
Speaker 2: Now, maybe I can ask for some clarification from the maker of the substitute motion councilman or Ranga. Were you thinking that we would not pay the outstanding for the outstanding projects that we've already contracted for and go out to RFP on the work that hasn't been done? Or were you thinking in terms of the first part of who we're going to enter into a contract with?
Speaker 11: Well, what I'm dealing with, my concern is the transparency of going out to a contract. It's the bidding process that is merited in such. Contract to get out there and we do it. I understand there's been a commitment made. I understand the city charter allows for us to do this, but I'm concerned that there wasn't enough transparency in putting out the bid and maybe the city staff to give us a clarification as to how this happens. But from what I can understand or see here is that under the piggybacking section 18 or two in the city charter, there's no information, there's no notice that this is even going to take place. It just sort of it's sort of done. For lack of a better word, better terms. And back in the back, in the back door, you know, in the kitchen sink. But I would I would like to have is an opportunity to have other agencies be able to bid for this. And any time that there is going to be a consideration about invoking City Charter Section 18 or two that we know about it. Nobody knew about it. It sort of surprised everybody and surprising me that we're dealing with this. It surprised the other vendors who are out there who didn't know who got wind of this sort of last minute. And it comes up to us at the last minute. So I think that in all fairness, for everybody to be equal on level ground, in terms to be competitive, to go ahead and do that, and we have commitments right now that we need to meet, let's meet them. But I think what we need to do is make sure that when we are awarded the more two or three year contract, that it's that it goes out to bid.
Speaker 2: And I and thank you for that clarification, and I don't disagree with you on any of that. My concern is for any projects that we've already committed to paying for or projects that they're waiting to be paid on that have been scheduled because those those palm trees, you know, when when they don't get trimmed, they're incredibly dangerous . We had one fall on a, you know, neighbors car recently in our community. And we need to yeah. So we need to make sure that that that trimming takes place. But I agree with you on the inclusiveness of the bid process and the transparency. I just want to make sure that your motion, you know, basically supports us moving forward and paying the bills for the expenses we've already incurred and paying the cost of anything that is in the process of being done and then making sure that we go through a transparent process, as you've indicated, in terms of who we're going to award the contract to, is that okay with you? Are we on the same page on the substitute? Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 10: So contracts are are protested all the time. And people come to the council, they protested the I think it was the library. This stuff happens and rarely am I ever compelled by someone who lost a bid because city staff typically has a methodology for why that subcontractor was selected. Tonight, there was a compelling argument that that process hasn't gone through, and that's the process that that is the process that we should all take pride in. And we should be able to say we do have a public process that does value minority owned businesses, women owned businesses, local businesses. And when we when we circumvent that process, we expose ourselves to. To a discussion that I really don't want to be a part of. So. So that said, I mean, I'm going to support I'm going to support the substitute motion and I really want a review. I think we should have a discussion at some point about this process. I've never heard of this piggybacking until tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 2: In terms of the substitute motion. And again, just to clarify it. Is the maker of that motion. Okay. With staff coming back to us next week on that part, one option and letting us know exactly what happened, how they came up with that recommendation and what the RFP timeline, if that's what we chose to do, would be to give them some time to come back to us on that first.
Speaker 11: They could do that. What we're looking for is a clarification and more transparency in regards to the process. It's all about the process.
Speaker 0: That's good. That's not going directly to RFP, though. That's different than the first time. So what I'm hearing then from what the substitute now is, is to have staff come back at the next council meeting and explain not. So you didn't accept that. Okay. So I want to make sure quickly different motions here and I want to just be very clear about what they are.
Speaker 11: Council to pay our bills and go up to our people per.
Speaker 0: Council. Council Councilmember, your rank is motion, as I had understood it prior to the question was to directly go to RFP on the first part and then to to pit to pay for the second piece. The original motion, which was I believe made by Councilman Price, is to also pay the bills section. But then on the first part, to give staff some additional time to come back and kind of walk the council through how they got to that process. And I believe to meet with the or have a discussion, at least with those that are have an issue with with the contract being awarded this way. Is that correct? Mr. West.
Speaker 5: Yes, we did. And again, we'd be comfortable with the substitute that gets the work done on the Tidelands. And again, I am hearing perhaps we do need a discussion with the new Council regarding the piggybacking policy as well.
Speaker 0: So that's separate. So there's two, there's two motions. So. Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 2: I think my questions were answered about the piggyback because I want to get more familiar with it as well. So that's about it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mongo. And then we're going to vote.
Speaker 3: So I'm going to be supporting the original motion, which I don't know if I was the second on it or not. Mostly because I want to follow through with the process as it was started so I can find out what happened before I make a vote to go out to bid. I want to have a full understanding because I don't think that we have all the information yet. And so I'd like to say that I'll be okay.
Speaker 0: So now we have the substitute motion, which is the Durango motion. Please cast your votes. Well.
Speaker 1: Motion fails. Four votes. Four votes? No.
Speaker 0: Now we have the original motion, which is to come back, have council come to have to come back. And the second part will be paid. The first part would come at the council members. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Let me capture the no's on the previous vote. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 0: Please cast your votes. This is the original motion.
Speaker 1: Motion carries seven votes, one vote no.
Speaker 0: Okay. Can I also ask Mr. West, there's been enough discussion about this provision that I think it deserves a conversation either at the council or in the member for matters. I think clearly the council wants to talk about the process as far as moving forward itself.
Speaker 5: Mayor Councilman, I totally agree. And if we're going to continue to use that policy, I want to make sure it is supported by the Council.
Speaker 0: I also think it's important that this issue come back ASAP. So at the next council meeting, if we can please have this issue back on the council agenda. Sir. Okay. Next item.
Speaker 1: Item. Item 19 is a report from the Health and Human Services Department with the recommendation to adopt a resolution declaring a shelter crisis for the operation of a winter shelter from December 1st, 2014 and March 15, 2015. Inclusive and authorize the city manager to execute a lease and subleases for 12,000 square feet of rentable of industrial space | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc., of Anaheim, CA, for providing as-needed tree trimming services on the same terms and conditions afforded to the City of Tustin, CA, in an annual amount of $2,135,000, and authorize a 25 percent contingency in the amount of $533,750, for a total annual amount not to exceed $2,668,750 for a period of two years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; and
Amend purchase order No. BPPW14000026 with West Coast Arborists, Inc., by adding $410,000 for a total amount not to exceed $505,000. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0947 | Speaker 1: Item. Item 19 is a report from the Health and Human Services Department with the recommendation to adopt a resolution declaring a shelter crisis for the operation of a winter shelter from December 1st, 2014 and March 15, 2015. Inclusive and authorize the city manager to execute a lease and subleases for 12,000 square feet of rentable of industrial space at six, eight, four or five Atlantic Avenue.
Speaker 0: Can I get a motion? Councilmember Richardson, you want me to cut some comments?
Speaker 10: Sure. Just quickly. The winter shelter is an asset to our city county fund. It provides a resource for folks who may not have a place to sleep during those cold months. They're brought into my district. It's happened the last few years. They brought in by by their busting. There's no impact on the neighborhoods. That said, you know, I just want to encourage city staff. Going forward, we should talk about like a long term strategy every year. So we're not in a place where every year we're figuring out where the stretch shelter, where the winter shelter are going to be located. I think we should, you know, place a value on a lot of these homeless folks, many of which are many of whom are veterans. We should have that conversation before this comes up yet again next year.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Public comment.
Speaker 8: Please.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Mayor and council members. My name is Robert Props. I'm the executive director of the Long Beach Rescue Mission. And I'm just here and in good faith. First of all, to say thank you. Thank you for your support. And also to let you know that Health and Human Services has been doing an outstanding job, working with us, collaborating on how to do a better job helping the homeless. We've we've been running such a great shelter that just just last year they called it probably the cleanest and well, the cleanest and best organized shelter in in the county of Los Angeles. But I want you to even know we're even going to raise the bar a little bit. We're taking it to a whole nother level because, like Councilman Richardson said, that it's a continued problem and we need to do something better and how we can handle this better. So we're really looking to take it to another level as far as. Just instead of just more than a shelter and food, to actually give them an opportunity for a life change, and that's to case management and really showing them and pointing them in the right direction. So I just basically, I'm here out of good faith saying that's what we're committed to. I like what you said. Councilman Richardson, I have some really good ideas for the future, the route that the rescue mission actually owns property. And we like to think we have a permanent spot where we could work on something like that. So thank you all. Appreciate each and every one of you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other public comment on the item? Seeing none there. Can we have a motion, Councilman Richardson? Yeah. Would you move? Was there a second? Okay. Gonzalez, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes 20. Item ten is a report from Long Beach Airport with a recommendation to execute an agreement with Paradise, Long Beach for a period of five years for one time. Early opening assistance services in the amount of $200,000. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution declaring a shelter crisis; suspending applicable provisions of local law, including those contained in the City's zoning ordinances and regulations; and authorizing the operation of a winter shelter between the dates of December 1, 2014 and March 15, 2015, inclusive; and
Authorize City Manager to execute any and all documents necessary for a Lease between Eddie N. John #1, a limited liability company (Lessor), and the City (Lessee), and a Sublease between the City (Sublessor) and the Long Beach Rescue Mission (Sublessee) and/or affiliated entities, and any necessary amendments at the discretion of the City Manager for approximately 12,000 rentable square feet of industrial space at 6845 Atlantic Avenue at the monthly base rent of $6,000 for use as a winter shelter, and increase appropriations in the General Fund (GP) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HE) by $21,000. (District 9) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0955 | Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes. Yes. Adam 2525 is a report from the Public Works Department with the recommendation next year an amendment to a contract with Vitek construction and the amount not to exceed $15 million.
Speaker 7: It's been a motion as a second. That's member Andrews.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 7: And Mr.. Good to you.
Speaker 5: Yes, I have. The name is Larry Good. You Kirk, as he address the questions I have on number 25 or identical to the item number and the question, the issue of number 26 coming up, I will not take the total of 6 minutes, probably about 4 minutes. And let me say to the counsel and also to Mr. Comey that. I have complete confidence in our Director of Public Works and our Director of Parks Recreation and Reed and had we had had our city manager in Jerry Miller or Jim HANKLA this question these questions would not that I'm going to ask would not have to be raised. And had we had Ernie Cal or Beverly O'Neill as the mayor, it would not be raised. But to to ask the questions that are need to be focus in. And my questions are have to do with two or really a one sentence or tail end of the sense it refers to the work is repairs and related improvements, repairs and related improvements added that language is in both of those contracts. What brings rise to the issue is the criminal rules relative to tools which blindsided the good director of Parks, Recreation, Marine, blindsided the director of Public Works and blindsided the new councilperson. When Marine Stadium two s was taken down. And without any contract, the normal contract coming before this council. And some black ops groups within Mr. West's shop came up with a contract that was signed. One month before the California Coastal Commission sat in Bank. To approve the two ads issue. This all tolls to the issue of again. I'd like to get an answer. And it's easier to answer. The question can be answered here or eventually if the grand jury. Want to make sure. What the repair what the related improvements are. And again, the issue of that goes back to that other contract. There was no contracts that specifically stated Marine Stadium two was going to be taken down, period. Set aside the fact that the contract was signed. A month, six weeks before or four weeks before the California Coastal Commission met in Bank to decide the issue. What that tolls do is that simply our city manager and the mayor cannot be trusted. So I'd like to find out what assurances we have and have those assurances given under oath as to specifically what the related improvements are going to be. And. To pass that without. Without securing that information and placing it in the public record so Mr. Comey can hear it tonight or tomorrow morning whenever he views this and the public knows. I don't think it's good judgment to pass this. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Members. There's been a motion and a second on item 25 saying no further comment, please cast your vote. I mean. I mean. Yes.
Speaker 1: Motion carry somewhat, yes. I'm 26.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Mongeau would like to cast her vote. Are you? And I'm a council member.
Speaker 1: Are you and I? Okay. Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Item 26.
Speaker 1: M26 is a report from Public Works with the recommendation. Authorize a contract with CG construction company an amount not to exceed $18 million. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a Fourth Amendment to Contract No. 32168 with BiTech Construction Company for the annual contract for concrete repairs and related improvements, increasing the contract amount by an additional $3,000,000, for a total amount not to exceed $15,000,000, and extend the contract term to December 30, 2015 at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0957 | Speaker 10: So I'm not making a motion right now.
Speaker 3: Oh, okay.
Speaker 10: I want to talk all my.
Speaker 3: I'll make the most sense of it.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 7: Just so we might.
Speaker 10: Make a substitute, I'm not sure. So. Okay. When we started putting ads on bus shelters, there was a larger discussion within the city about these should be intended to provide a benefit to the city. So the first time this happened, and I'm going to ask city staff to elaborate a little bit when this happened initially they purposed , I think like the first five years of this two of these resources, which were about $360,000 a year to go to youth services. The way that the city met that that sort of idea was they purposely it to pay for the rent on the power center power centers long gone. That's fine. And I don't want to beat a dead horse, but we're we're at the we're at a place where we're renegotiating and we're executing another five year agreement on these shelters. And I think there's a few questions that need to be asked. I think, one, where are the shelters going to be located? Right. I'm going to run off a list of them where the shelters are going to be located. What's the condition of these shelters? Many of these bus shelters are rundown. The Long Beach Transit doesn't have the means to update a lot of these shelters. A lot of them get painted and spruced up. But really, it comes from project costs in one time costs to spruce up a bus shelter. Are we taking that into consideration here? Just a question for me. And and then lastly, should we have a discussion about like if we're going to renew this contract, are we receiving some larger public benefit rather than just placing blight on our our bus shelters? So those are some questions for city staff.
Speaker 7: Mr. WEST.
Speaker 5: I'm going to turn this over to our budget manager, Leah Erickson. And then we also have Ara Malloy in to help out.
Speaker 3: To the council member, we are receiving approximately $350,000 a year for this contract in the past, and that is the amount approximately that we're going to be receiving going forward. And that amount is deposited into the general fund and it is used as all general fund resources are used for the services that City Council has prioritized as part of the annual budget appropriation. So it is not specifically earmarked, which would be a bad financial policy to earmarks, dollars that could be going to the general priorities of the city council. So right now, if it were to be earmarked, it would be a it would be cause a resource allocate reallocation from other.
Speaker 8: Respectfully, I'm.
Speaker 10: Not asking for an opinion on I have specific questions, I'm not asking for an opinion.
Speaker 3: But over to our Malloy and for the other questions.
Speaker 6: Honorable Richardson In regards to bus shelter, these are existing bus shelters. They're not putting any new ones. And they're basically it's the advertisements on these bus shelters. If you and they are supposed to maintain those bus shelters, if there is any issue with any of those bus shelters, I would like you to bring it to my attention . I'll have them fix it. But that's part of the contract for them to maintain those bus shelters as much as possible. And that's that's my answer to your first question.
Speaker 7: So Mr. Malloy and I wanted to weigh in a little bit of Councilmember Richardson will allow me to. So in Santa monica, we don't have bus shelters, but we have them outside of the city of Santa monica. So in all the bus stops where some of the bus stops in Los Angeles, and so depending on who the contractor is, if there's a problem with cleanliness or the the condition of the bus shelter, we ask constituents to call CVS directly if they're the vendor, if they're the installer or another company. Or we ask them to call the transit agency. So I get calls at the big blue bus for bus stops outside. And so there are ways to have these bus shelters addressed if they're not in the right condition. And they should be. My recommendation to staff is ensure that Long Beach Transit is part of that, that tree of complaint process. Otherwise it shouldn't. I understand that it's an on city property, but it should not be just the city's responsibility to ensure that they're in good condition, whether the revenue comes here or not. So I would appreciate knowing from our public works director what his thoughts are and how these complaints can be processed. Because there are I don't know them specifically, but bus shelters aren't maintained unless someone points that out. I wish they were, but they're not always.
Speaker 10: My vice mayor. I think we should get to those. But my questions were not answered by city staff and I'm still so forgive me.
Speaker 7: I just know I interjected. I don't think you're finished answering your questions. Interjected on that bus stop. I want to.
Speaker 10: I want to restate and thank you very much. And I'm fine. But the question was where are they located? What is the public what is the perceived public benefit of renewing this contract? There's obviously like putting we're going through a whole discussion about billboards because there's a perception that these advertisements are blight. There's a public benefit to like, they're contributing money to our cities. So I think we should have a discussion about what's the benefit there, and then why are we negotiating the same value as we did five, ten years ago? Like, has the value of these ads increased over the last decade? Right now, we're negotiating for the same amount of money today that we negotiated last time. So I would like those questions answered. I'd like this question answered today, otherwise I'll probably make a.
Speaker 5: Motion or something.
Speaker 7: Mr. Malone.
Speaker 6: Honorable Richardson, I can't tell you where they are exactly at this point. I don't have a list of all those locations. I can get it to you as soon as possible, if that will satisfy you. As far as your second question, what is the public benefit? Obviously, we're receiving 300,000 or 350,000 cars, as Ericsson mentioned, that goes into the general fund. I guess that's the nexus as far as the public benefit is concerned. And this went to RFP. There's only nobody responded, but except the same company. So we did try to find a competitive bidding process, but unfortunately nobody else was interested except the same company who was incumbent.
Speaker 7: If I might ask. This relationship started in 1998. Do you have. Do you have knowledge of what the revenue was to the general fund, say, in the last five years? I think because the way this is written, it's either $140 per bus shelter or 20% of gross revenue, whichever is greater. I'd like to believe that we've been leaning on the 20% side rather than $140. So if this Ericsson or Mr. Malone can answer that question, I think that would help move this conversation a little bit further.
Speaker 6: Unfortunately, I don't have that data since I was not around in 1998, but we can get that information to you.
Speaker 7: So I think it would be very important before this council makes a decision, because it's it's a it's a very unique industry. There aren't there are not a lot of there are not even many there are barely a few companies that actually can respond to this type of RFP. I'm curious why only one responded and why. Similar to Mr. Councilmember Richardson, why we would negotiate the same rates. It may be that that $140 or 20% of gross revenue, whichever is higher, is the industry standard. If that is, I think we need to be told that confidently. Otherwise, we are creating a subset of a billboard policy that I don't think this council intended. And I appreciate the revenue, Ron. We all are council members and in a city that struggles with revenue and preserving revenues, I don't think any one of us is looking to erode a revenue source, but we do have an approach toward billboards and bus advertisements are no different. And I will.
Speaker 3: I will.
Speaker 7: Mention my I'll mention Santa monica one more time. There are no billboards in Santa monica except for one that's been grandfathered. And that's why they don't allow bus advertising. I mean, advertisements at the bus shelters because it's technically outdoor advertising. So how we have that two tiered policy without the council weighing in on it, I think is interesting at best. But we should have that conversation. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 10: So that said, what I'd like to do is I'd like to add a subject to motion to and I might want needs to return to weigh in on this but to come back. With this after you've like considered either, you know what I'm going to say? Recirculate the RFP with a specific intent to have a larger benefit. A greater benefit. And I'd like to see if there's a way to see if, like, we can improve the general condition of our bus shelters through this process if we're going to advertise, they need to be the best bus shelters in Southern California if we're going to advertise in our neighborhoods on it. So I would say, like, go back to the table. Go back to the table. Recirculated RFP. Or maybe I'll say maybe I'll put it as a question for our the motion if we wanted to go back and get a better deal. What will be our methods, our triggers to do that?
Speaker 6: Well, obviously this was a competitive process and nobody else is interested besides this company we can recirculate. I'm not confident you're going to get any better deals.
Speaker 10: What do you think the issue is?
Speaker 6: I think I would like to know if the council is interested in having bus shelters or not, because basically the nexus is they're providing bus shelters with the ad. So they're providing a service to the city, providing a shelter for the residents and users of the transit. And the benefit that we're getting is the advertising plus some cash counts.
Speaker 5: If I can interrupt, Councilmember and Mayor, you certainly could increase the monetary benefit by going digital, and we don't allow that at this time.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, what did you say.
Speaker 5: To go digital?
Speaker 7: Right. So, Councilmember Richardson, just so I can clarify. There is a benefit to the shelter it provides. Certainly, it provides shelter from the inclement weather that we have here. But there is that benefit. But it does need to be maintained. Well, so that that's not.
Speaker 10: I mean, I think, you know, where I want to go here. I want to and I'm going to make you know what? Let me just make this motion I want to direct it to. Yes. I'm sorry. I want I want to I would make a motion to receive and file this and come back with a greater plan on how we can utilize the opportunity to provide bus shelters for greater benefit, including improved conditions of bus shelters. That's that's what I that's what I want to do.
Speaker 7: So there's a motion I have to councilmembers cued up. Is there a second for that motion?
Speaker 10: I got a second.
Speaker 7: Okay. Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 3: Could could finance answer for me when the current agreement ends and if there'll be a loss of revenue if we don't, what are the implications of not approving tonight? How far of a lead time where we give in as a council to discuss this?
Speaker 6: The original agreement expired on December 31st, 2013.
Speaker 3: So. Okay. Let me let me take a side note. I'd like to find out if in open new business, I need to make an item. I'd like to know all of our expired agreements that are currently in effect, but not on the back burner for a quick second. That would be that would be city wide, please. This is not just directed to finance and or. Right. And I understand there's many complications and RFP than sole sources and all of those things. I work in this world. I understand it. But more specifically, are we currently operating under the prior agreement receiving revenue today?
Speaker 6: Allow me to correct myself for continues that conversation. The existing contract expired on December 31st, 2013. There were two extensions that city council approved. So we're at the end of the last extension with expires on December 31st of 2014.
Speaker 3: And under the agreement as written, were we given an option for an additional extension?
Speaker 6: We can check into that if if that would be amicable to continue either on a month to month basis or on a short duration, six months or whatever times it takes. It took it took us about six months to get get through this RFP. So yeah, it's not an easy task. There's a lot of steps that we have to go through. But whatever your wishes, if you wish us to go to another RFP, we will do that. If you have additional comments, we can make sure that it's incorporated into RFP.
Speaker 4: It's.
Speaker 6: It's up to the city council. How do you want us to do it?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't want to have a loss of revenue to the general fund. We are already experiencing record well, not record, but near record setting lows in our oil revenue. So I want to be cautious about the revenue coming into the city and protect what we have to ensure that no services need to be cut and that we can afford what we've already committed to. If if we are coming to the end of an extension period, I would. I'd like to at least keep options in place. How long is this extension for? Five years. An additional five years. Correct. What are the opt out options?
Speaker 6: It's basically a five year contract with options to add another two or more years. Two additional years and also there are termination clauses.
Speaker 3: So in the termination clauses, either party.
Speaker 6: Could terminate.
Speaker 3: For cause or no cause.
Speaker 6: I, I believe it. You know.
Speaker 5: It was not.
Speaker 6: It could be mutual.
Speaker 3: Okay. I need to think about this for a few minutes.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And along the same line of questioning and I'm concerned about the potential lost revenue here, I'm actually in support of the staff's recommendation on this this motion, this particular item. But I do appreciate Council Member Richardson's questions on this. If we can get more out of it, I think we should. But understanding that we are in the second extension, I think is a bit concerning. He's talking about community benefit and where's the community benefit here? And I just want to remind the council that this particular contract did have a significant community benefit at one time and that it. Helped provide youth services at the Palin Athletic Center in North Long Beach, and it was dedicated toward that for many, many years. And at some point, I think we lost our way as a council, and particularly when we talk about a community benefit, it's now a general fund item and it's funded toward the general fund . And, you know, yes, it's it's it's it's supporting the entire city in some incremental way. But I would like to get back to that discussion and repurpose this these funds at some point during the budget conversation toward youth services and youth programs and to to to deal with the community benefit component that Councilmember Richardson spoke about. And like I said, I think we we could we could really see a true benefit from from these dollars if we were to put them into youth programs in our districts currently where we were funding our Be Safe summer programs with one time funds. I think this is a structural way to deal with that that issue. So I'm going to go back and just to say, Councilmember Richardson, I think you made some excellent points, but I think the timeliness of this is it would be prudent, prudent for us to support the staff recommendation.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilmember Austin. And I wanted to just share I, I support the staff recommendation as well, but I would like to know from staff and perhaps staff can let us know how quickly they can get this information back to us is what is the industry standard for negotiating the revenue share on bus shelters? I don't while I'm in the industry and in advertising on busses, I don't know that because I don't we don't do bus shelters, so I don't have the answer. And I know we have a couple of speakers lined up or we'll queue up and they can maybe share that. But I think those are valid points is why are we having in the same arrangement that we had in 1998, if that in fact is the industry standard, we need to know that. Councilmember Price.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just wanted to say that I agree with council member Austin and I support staff's recommendation as well. I think he makes some excellent points things.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 10: So just quickly. So is there a this is a good question about the revenue where we're based, we're budgeting based on that is our way to continue to receive this revenue before we lock ourselves into another five year deal.
Speaker 7: Yes. That's what Mr. Malloy had had responded to earlier, that we can we can continue in this extension.
Speaker 10: No. This is a five year.
Speaker 7: How to you asking for? I'm sorry.
Speaker 10: So what I said was come back. Come back, like receive and file these and come back. But I think I'm going to change it because I don't want to like create some unintended consequences. I would say if there's a strategy to go to a month to month basis, why we like renegotiate with them like a month to month contract. And a greater question is like this, 340 $300,000 would receive this $300,000 receive annually. Is it like a monthly check they would receive? Have you received it? Received it for this year? Like, what is our real exposure? The contract ends, but like when is when is our budgetary exposure for this window? When? When will we have a deficit if we ended the contract works?
Speaker 5: If if indeed Councilmember the the contract was over in December 31st, that would begin. We no longer be in receiving a proportion of the $350,000. I was just chatting with Mr. Park and we could postpone this decision that the Council wanted and respond to the Vice Mayor's comments by going back to the company and asking their permission if they would go forward with a month to month. Right now, we don't know that. I suspect they probably would, but their contract expires December 31st and they're kind of in the driver's seat on whether they would go forward with a month to month or whether they want us to pull the trigger.
Speaker 10: So I would say that what I would say is. Like I don't want like every everything folks brought up makes a lot of sense, but I don't want to lock ourselves in. And when we're in the budget conversation, we're in the middle of a five year contract. Next time we talk about the budget. So as a matter of process, what I'd like to do is change my motion, like change my motion if the second year of the motion would agree or if somebody else wants to rethink seconded, I want to change my motion to say between now and the end of the contract, direct the city manager to go back, see what they if they would be amenable to a month to month until we renegotiate with them. I go through a process to renegotiate, since they're the only ones who responded for greater benefit than what we negotiated 15 years ago. So that would be my my motion. So it doesn't stop us. It doesn't give us any. It doesn't stop our our ability to still our general fund to benefit from this.
Speaker 7: If I might ask Mr. Parkyn to weigh in, we have gone out to RFP and so there are certain obligations. I think that combined with that. So if you can address.
Speaker 5: That, right, I think hearing Councilman Richardson's direction, what you would have to do then is reject this proposal and direct staff to see if they could maybe negotiate either a month to month or another short term extension, six months or whatever staff believes is the appropriate time to do a new RFP. And that's assuming you either they bid again or you get other proposals to see if you can make the change, the compensation that you're receiving. So, yes, I think you have to either accept or reject this or direct staff to come back in a short time period if they want to extend that contract.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Park and Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 3: I think I have even greater concerns with we as a city wrote an RFP and I think we've talked about this as a council in public forum before. Related to maybe we should be a part of that process because what I don't want to do is responding to an RFP is an extensive process that's expensive for a business to participate in. And so if a business in good faith fulfills the requirements of the RFP as we put forward, we need to have some good faith. We hear a lot about how hard it is to do business in Long Beach. We don't want it to also be very difficult to do business with Long Beach. And so I appreciate that there are some ways to step out of this in the future. I think there's a lot of opportunity for our by Long Beach at Long Beach adopt Long Beach shop Long Beach to be incorporated into this in some way with any vacant space, if there is any, that would come to Economic Development Committee. But for the time being, even though I have passion for all of those options, I also don't want to provide that risk to the city in terms of the loss of revenue. So I'm going to support the staff recommendation at this time, and I think we should continue to look at this and be involved a little bit earlier in the RFP processes, because I want businesses who bid to know that we will follow through when they win.
Speaker 7: Council member, Austin.
Speaker 10: Point of order. My, my, my motion didn't get a second. Right. So we're on the original motion, right? Okay. You want to just withdraw it because you're in support of the I mean, I would withdraw it if the second do I need a permission to. I'm going to withdraw my motion my sec my substitute motion.
Speaker 5: Is that in agree is a second in agreement. That's a consensus of the body. Yes.
Speaker 7: Was there. Who was? Who's the maker of the original motion? I.
Speaker 3: Of course I was. Jeremy Corbyn.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And I do support the staff recommendation, but I. Mr. West, I want us to pay close attention to the issues that Councilmember Richardson raised, and that is, we don't know the value of this. And so in this is not a good preparation of our council members. We don't have what industry standards are. We have nothing to compare it with. And so I think that we'd be better served knowing that as opposed to learning staff went out to RFP. Here's our recommendation and there you go. It's very tough to make a decision like that. I work in the industry and I don't feel like I can tell you right now if $140 a shelter or 20% is standard. I don't know. We need to know those things. Okay. There's been a motion and a second public comment. So anyone from the public that was to comment on this item. Okay. The motion is to adopt staff recommendation with a request to city staff to come back with some information to to the council. All those in favor. Please cast your vote. Me? Yes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries equal tears. Item Pollinators report from public works with a recommendation. To work toward a contract to all American asphalt for improvements on Ocean Boulevard between Livingston Drive and Bayshore Avenue in an amount not to exceed $1.6 million. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a five-year Agreement with CBS-Decaux to construct and maintain ad-bearing bus shelters, with an option to extend the agreement for two (2) additional five-year terms. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0926 | Speaker 1: Is a recommendation to declare an ordinance amending the municipal code relating to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and campaign disclosure statements read and adopted.
Speaker 0: Kim has been in motion in second. Any public comment on the item? Please.
Speaker 5: Yes. If the AMCU AMCU board wondered where that stench was coming from, I think we know. At least I. You should never put it. This puts the council on a war footing. With the voters. If the voters pass this, then you should have the intellectual integrity. To go back to the voters and say, look. This is in your best interest. Revise it. If you if your candidacy is legitimate. And you're doing a good job. You shouldn't have a problem raising money. Capital of the people supporting this. Or one of them said, well, it makes it easier for us. With all due respect, it's not you know, you're not here to have an easy job. It's tough, no question. Or integrity, in my view. And I think in the view of many people, if you've got you know, if you've got a case, put it forward like Martin Luther nailed it to the door. Say, this is what we want to do. Don't try to sneak around at the last minute. At the end of the day or at the end of the first reading, this was what the distant from the majority of the council people. Citizens. The odor. You know, the odor is. But it's the stench will linger too long. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. As you know, the public comment members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next item. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 2.01.210.B, 2.01.340.B, 2.01.370, 2.01.390, 2.01.420, 2.01.810, 2.01.1010, 2.01.1030, 2.01.1210, and 2.02.010; by adding Section 2.01.395; and by repealing Sections 2.01.330, 2.01.350, 2.01.610, 2.01.620, and 2.01.730, all relating to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and Campaign Disclosure Statements, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0980 | Speaker 1: I'm 34 as new business from the office of Customer Patrick O'Donnell, Councilwoman Suzy Price, Councilwoman Stacy Mango and Councilman Al Austin with a recommendation to approve the use of fourth District Council Council District funds for various parks and infrastructure improvements.
Speaker 0: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Councilman Price, were you cued up?
Speaker 2: I would just like to. Sorry. States that I've talked to Councilmember O'Donnell. And it's his intent that that we approve these District four funds as recommended and allow the director of Parks, Recreation and Marine to use the remaining funds for additional district for park projects as he sees fit and under his discretion.
Speaker 0: Any public comment on the item? CNN. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 0: Next item.
Speaker 1: It's item 35 with it's a recommendation from the office of Councilmember Rex Richardson, Councilmember Roberto Ranga and Councilman Al Austin with a recommendation to request city manager to work with the Gateway City's Council of Governments to form an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Committee and develop an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Master Plan. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to approve use of Council District 4 funds for various parks and infrastructure improvement projects to be allocated as follows:
Eyes on Anaheim $85,000
• Cameras
• Signage
Orizaba Park $20,000
• Cameras
Whaley Park Baseball Field $410,000
• Storage Structure
• Field Stands
Stearns Park Baseball Field $275,000
• Baseball Field III Enhancement
• ARC Field Enhancement | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11182014_14-0981 | Speaker 1: It's item 35 with it's a recommendation from the office of Councilmember Rex Richardson, Councilmember Roberto Ranga and Councilman Al Austin with a recommendation to request city manager to work with the Gateway City's Council of Governments to form an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Committee and develop an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Master Plan.
Speaker 0: Councilor Richardson, Thank you.
Speaker 10: So the hours late, I want to acknowledge Executive Director Dick Powers for for being here tonight. The Artesia corridor is an incredibly important corridor. It's an alternative to the alternative to the 91, the 91 corridor. And when you look at Alameda all the way to Orange County, you've got the cities of Compton, unincorporated Rancho Dominguez. You've got about three miles of Long Beach. You've got a you've got Bellflower, Lakewood and Cerritos. And so we have a unique opportunity here to join those cities in doing those agencies and begin a discussion about the long term vision of this corridor. We've had a discussion with with the COG, and they are fully prepared to step up and quarterback this process for us with Long Beach solidly in leadership. So I'd like to ask Mr. Powers just to give us some remarks.
Speaker 5: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Council members, before Mr. Power speaks. I've just got to throw a shout out. Dick and I have worked together for a very long time in Paramount. Dick is one of my mentors. He's been the executive director for 20 years since it's been founded. He's been a city manager at Garden Grove in Norwalk and the Paramount redevelopment director for a long time in Paramount. So Dick, welcome to Long Beach. And Dick is also in line to be president.
Speaker 0: That's right. I would say the most important parts of it. He lives in Long Beach. Every resident of the second District.
Speaker 9: Yes. Thank you, Pat, for the kind words. Kevin Richardson and I met and he was ironically advancing an immediate solution to our first project. Which one was going to go first? So that's our teachable moment. For the longest time, you know, the Congress done the highway corridor planning and funding. We were tasked originally through federal legislation to do subregional planning, and that includes all the highways which we've focused on for the last decade or more 1791, six two, five, four or five. The COG is also the funding conduit for those regional projects.
Speaker 5: The Artesia.
Speaker 9: Boulevard Corridor will be the first one, along with the Florence quarter and to the north where we would take much of the what we learned of this over 17 and 1965 corridors having a policy committee of elected officials a where each city.
Speaker 5: There everybody at the table.
Speaker 9: And the public works officials all performing attack. One of the big.
Speaker 5: One of the things we.
Speaker 9: Have learned in our 20 years with this large base of.
Speaker 10: 28 cities.
Speaker 9: Plus three case supervisors districts, if we have 100% consensus and a plan, we've always gotten the money and there is always be a first that that's.
Speaker 8: MTA give us allocate.
Speaker 5: Us.
Speaker 10: $8.
Speaker 9: Billion of measure over time. So that's the pattern which we would use in the Artesia quarter.
Speaker 8: All of the usual.
Speaker 5: Engineering.
Speaker 9: Issues of the quarter would be looked at capacity, lane improvements, esthetics, landscaping, lighting. But we're also adding a new component, Complete Streets, which would include including pedestrian and bicycle planning in that mix. There's a concept called first mile, last mile where street designs now would look at how does the how does the homeowner get from home to the bus stop, say, about last mile? So the.
Speaker 5: Street would then take.
Speaker 9: That into consideration. It may be just as simple as having a bike rack at the bus stop so that the person that lives within a radius can walk to not get the car out of the garage at all, to go walk from home to the bus stop. So all those things will be taken into account in our cheeseboard for the first time in the Cox Regional Planning Process. That's pretty much all I have to say. If there's any other questions, we're ready to go.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I just don't think I made the motion so, so moved.
Speaker 0: Because when the motion in a second comes from Boston.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Powers, for being here. And during this meeting, as long as you have. He is a true man of wisdom, and we appreciate his great leadership on the Gateway Cities card. I'm on the caucus as a city representative, as is Councilmember O'Donnell, and I believe Councilmember Urunga will be joining in his place very, very soon. I look forward to supporting Councilmember Richardson's vision along with the other cities along Artesia Boulevard, because it is certainly a vital arterial for for for many of the cities in this region. And so I look forward to working with you on that. Likewise. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Good to see you again, Dick. Okay. There's been a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 1: To make her the motion in the second.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay, Rick. Cindy, thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Now, do the second public comment period. If there's any, please come forward. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to respectfully request City Manager to work with the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) to form an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Committee and develop an Artesia Boulevard Corridor Master Plan. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11112014_14-0928 | Speaker 1: Item 14, communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilman Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Durango. Recommendation to request city attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code to establish a citywide Veterans Affairs Commission with representation from all nine Council districts and a minimum of four commissioners must be veterans. Referred this item to Economic Development and Finance Commission.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Rex Richardson.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I'm honored to be bringing this for this item fourth here on Veterans Day. And I'm proud that my my colleagues have joined me on this item. And I wanted to just say that before I give my remarks. You know, some of my best ideas are not my ideas. It was during the campaign trail, you know, one of our ninth district residents, Dan Pressburger, said, hey, I've got a great idea, Rex. We you know, we've got we're the heart of veterans here in North Long Beach, and we need to have a Veterans Affairs Commission. And the more we talked about and thought about it, we said absolutely. I mean, given the focus on veteran homelessness and the issues in education and things that we're doing here, we should have a body that's focused on really evaluating and making recommendations on that subject matter so that we can make smart policy decisions. So that said, I'm honored to bring this this forward. The very freedoms we all enjoy today are courtesy of the sacrifices that veterans have made over the years defending our country. And so all the veterans here today, I want to thank you for your service to your country. Are there any veterans in the audience? Stand up. So just this past Saturday, North Long Beach was home to the 18th Annual Veterans Day parade. It was a citywide parade, and the vet fest was hosted here at Highland Park. I know many of you were here. And thank you to the Veterans Committee and the veterans, the vet fest committee for the countless hours they've invested to make that happen. You know, Veterans Day is very important to to Long Beach. For over 50 years, Long Beach was host to Naval Shipyard. We're proud of the sizable population of veterans among our citizens, with estimated at 21,000 veterans in the city of Long Beach. And a Veterans Affairs Commission dedicated to the needs of our veterans will not only honor their service, but also will will allow us to give back to them with an even higher focus on the well-being of our veterans. I envision that this commission will be able to provide recommendations on all manner, all matters pertaining to the affairs of veterans within the city, evaluate and recommend programs, policies, practices designed to assist veterans and act as a central point for information programs. A Service for our Veterans. One component I'd like to clarify this is a nine person commission. So the hope is that the VA, the council offices, would appoint people from within their council districts to serve on that commission. That said, I'd like to move the item.
Speaker 6: Seconded.
Speaker 0: There's been a motion and a second. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I want to thank Councilman Richardson for asking me to be on this item with him. My husband is a veteran, so I think it's very appropriate to be on this item and how appropriate it is that we're we have this item on our agenda today on Veterans Day. As many people know, Long Beach has had a deep history with the military and naval shipyard for over 50 years. We have a deep rooted history. The third district is home to the veterans hospital. The facility provides comprehensive inpatient, outpatient and extended care programs to our veterans. The medical center and its community clinics employ more than 2200 full time employees. And VA Long Beach Hospital is the health care provider of choice for more than 50,000 veterans. Being a former Navy town and having the veterans hospital in Long Beach, it seems only natural that we would have a veteran's commission to help guide the City Council on issues related to Veterans Affairs. So I want to thank you for this item, and I'm happy to support it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Ringo.
Speaker 8: I, too, want to thank the Councilmember Rex Richardson for bringing this item forward. And we are going to be continuing that. The history of Long Beach as being a a home and a facility for veterans. As many of you may know, the seventh District is the home of the U.S. vets and the villages area, which houses a lot of veterans and provides many services for homeless veterans who who end up coming in Long Beach. And we also have the Gold Star Manor, which is home to mothers of veterans who lost some children in the various wars. But I also want to indicate that this commission is going to be a hopefully a very active one. As you know, we are still engaged in a number of conflicts around the world where we have veterans who come home needing of assistance and with finding jobs, with training and getting reacquainted into the civilian life. And we also are currently having a a what you might call a void that needs to be filled with our many veterans who are dying every year from wars such as World War One, World War Two, Vietnam, Korea. And so a lot of these veterans, especially with what we have right now in terms of a volunteer draft. I have the honor of serving in the Selective Service Board in Long Beach, and thank God that we haven't had to get activate the Selective Service Board or the Selective Service Agency because we have a continuing flow of volunteers in to enlist in the volunteer army. So this Commission will serve a great void in providing our veterans with services that are going to be much needed once they return from the service. So I want to thank you, Rex and Suzi, for helping sponsor this item as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Is there any public comment on the item? Please come forward.
Speaker 4: Good evening again. Diana Logins Advocates for Disability Rights. First of all, I wholeheartedly support this item. I think it's a good thing. But I do also want to remind you, you can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand say, gee, we're going to put a commission out to help the veterans and then persecute them at the same time for their choice of medicine. So we really need to pay attention. I'd like to just relate, just a very small story. Matt Kowal made at home after two tours in Afghanistan, but was racked with pain from physical injuries and a host of anti-anxiety anxiety medication to try and treat his mental anguish. About ten months after I got back, I attempted suicide call, told CBS News. I was completely hopeless, recalled the veteran who said he was on 15 different medications until the day he tried marijuana. Suddenly, my extremely overactive, hypervigilant mind started calmed down. My pain gradually started to go away, too. I needed less of those other medications, and shortly afterwards I determined I absolutely have to move to a state that allows this so I can get my life back. He moved his family to Colorado and now works with a group of veterans. Anybody who has been on narcotic medication especially wants to get off of it. I really have not met anyone who enjoys being in a drug stupor. For Matt and his wife, the relief he gets from marijuana means a second chance at healing from Afghanistan. And that's nothing less than a second chance in life. So that's one person's one veteran's account. And I'm just saying, again, I think this is a great idea. I love the support that we can give our veterans. But you can't have it both ways. You just can't persecute them on one hand and then say, hey, we're going to support them in another. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: You see no other public comment on the item? There is a motion on the floor. All those in favor. Please raise your hand. Unanimously. Thank you very much. We're going to we have our time certain here coming up in a minute. And so in that quick minute, I'm just going to make two announcements. The first is we want to congratulate our colleague, Patrick O'Donnell for being elected to the state assembly to represent Long Beach. And in fact, we're going to be at an upcoming council meeting, will be going to be honoring Patrick for his I think it's ten years from ten, ten and at ten and a half, so ten and a half years of service to on the Long Beach City Council, which has been just one of the very obviously in modern times, certainly one of the most long running council members. And so we're going to be honoring Pat in the coming weeks. But I did want to make sure that we congratulated him tonight as well. And also, I just saw I don't know if he stepped out. I saw deputy chief soon to be chief. Robert Luna was here somewhere. I don't know if he's in the in the hallway there. Yeah, there he is. Come in. Let's let's give a big round of applause also to our new police chief, Robert Luna. We know that that Chief Luna is a close to 30 year veteran of the of the Long Beach Police Department, starting from a from a beat cop working his way all the way up to chief within the police department. So we're very proud of him. We know he's going to be an excellent chief. And I believe your your first days, November 22nd, 21st or 22nd, does that sound right? All right. There you go, November 22nd. So thank you again, Robert. You're going to do a fantastic job. And so thank you. Let's give another round of applause. And so congrats to both Robert Luna and Pat O'Donnell. You're both going on to new, new and other adventures. So we look forward to working with both of you. So now we're going to our time certain 7 p.m., which is item number three. Mr. Clark. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code to establish a citywide Veterans Affairs Commission. The ordinance should include the following criteria:
• Representation from all nine Council Districts; and
• A minimum of four (4) Commissioners must be veterans.
Pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.03.075, refer this item to the Economic Development and Finance Committee and direct City Manager to prepare a fiscal impact analysis report for review and recommendation by the Committee back to the full City Council. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11112014_14-0964 | Speaker 1: Item 33 Communication from Councilman Gonzalez. Councilmember Yee Ranga. Councilman Austin. Recommendation to direct City Manager to negotiate citywide project labor agreement with the Los Angeles Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council. Report back to City Council within 30 days.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Yes, thank you very much. First and foremost, I have to thank the building trades and all of the the union representation that's here tonight. I really appreciate you being here. And also to my colleagues that are here and have stayed committed to this to this large contract, an issue we, you know, certainly know that will take a great deal of work on the city's part in negotiating. But we hope to have your support tonight if passed. And this will be a comprehensive contract, as mentioned, including all hopefully all city departments, public works, port, gas and oil and our water department. But a document that not only emphasizes major job creation with public funds from multi trade projects of 500,000 or more, but also addresses a plan that includes zone development that is most often on time and on budget with enforcement mechanisms, mechanisms that could be incorporated into the project costs by the successful bidder. In addition, we address local hiring at 30%, which includes first tier local zip codes in areas with particularly high rates of unemployment and underserved communities. And within that, we have proposed 10%, which will be allocated to disadvantaged communities, women, veterans, as often as we just spoke about youth while offering apprenticeship programs that lead not only to a construction construction job, but a career that will support not only local residents and their families, but many more. And it is said that about $36,000 from each potential construction employee is actually spent back into the local economy. In addition, our city manager crafted a couple of documents that address potential concerns and in my opinion, could mitigate any potential issues for any potential issues. For instance, clearly recommending no work stoppages, small business enterprise participation and deterring any small and disincentives for bidding purposes. A project coordinator that could be included in project costs rather than a burden to the city, and overall working towards a main goal of hiring local through our workforce development and more mindful methods to address unemployment rates that in some cases on the western parts of our city have been upwards of 14%. So I ask for your support and certainly move to approve this motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a motion and a second Councilmember Durango.
Speaker 8: I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales for bringing this forward. I think it's very important that we as we move forward, some of the major projects that are going to be coming into Long Beach that we have adopted, such as this, to protect our employees and to protect and to ensure that our projects are done not only on time and on budget, but to done well so that we don't have to go back and read them again. And I'm sure that the communities would also favor wanting to get jobs locally. And I think it's important that we do so. And more importantly, having come from a community college background is very important that our students get an opportunity to enter into internships and into entry level jobs so that they can start getting working toward their journey level certificates once they start getting into the into the job for. So this this item is very important not only for our local economy, but for our residents and our future employees in developing our future workforce. And hopefully along the line, we can also include a living wage ordinance that would address not only their training and their apprenticeship and the certificate, but also living salaries that can provide them with an opportunity not only to buy a home, but to raise families. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council member.
Speaker 6: Austin Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales and Ranga for bringing this item forward. I'm happy to sign on. I think each and every one of these council members on this dais ran for office with the promise that they wanted to support local jobs and get jobs and get people back to work here in the city of Long Beach. I think this project labor agreement does just that. I want to speak to the complexity of actually coming up with an agreement like this. I also want to thank Councilmember O'Donnell for his leadership on this matter. He's been involved in this much longer than any of us and has been critical getting us to this point as well. I want to thank the stakeholders in the community for their input in efforts to get us to this point, because this wasn't an easy issue to to to broker, so to speak. There was a lot of negotiations. There was a lot of input from community stakeholders as well. And I think this this document, this item addresses most of those concerns. It will put people to work, will put people to work in our communities, and it will provide fair wages for poor numbers of workers. And so I'm very proud to support this and would encourage my my coworker, my colleague, council members to do the same. I did have a question, though, regarding the and I guess it would be for the city attorney. Can you explain what the prime single trade specialty contract that exceeds $25,000 means?
Speaker 9: Mayor Members of the Council, I believe it means and this is in my item, but I'll take a shot at it. The single trade project, which I interpret to mean a single union. So if there was an electrical job or a painting job involving one particular trade, not a multiple trade contract, it would be a specialty contract
Speaker 6: . Maybe I can ask someone from the from the building trades to to explain exactly what that means to this council. Okay. Maybe I need to go back to the.
Speaker 0: Councilmember, I think, on that one. Councilmember O'Donnell actually wanted to.
Speaker 2: I'm going to speak to that in just a moment.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. That said, I wish that I hope that everybody can support this this item.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 2: Me. Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate the members who agenda this item. This is about getting projects completed on time and under budget, but also about providing local jobs, but also about providing training for those jobs. The building trades have a clear pathway to a successful career. You enter as an apprentice, you spend roughly about four years, depends on the trade, and then you hit the journeyman level and then it's foreman and beyond jobs that pay well, jobs that give back to their community. So this is the policy that keeps giving. And I just want to be clear from Councilmember Gonzalez, the direction here this evening is to request the city manager to take the items you have listed here and go and negotiate a project labor agreement. Is that correct? You're not listening. All right. The question is, the direction you're giving the city manager this evening is to have management and I assume the city attorney to step forward and negotiate a project labor agreement with the building trades. And you've attached a list of items you'd like to see in that that agreement, is that correct?
Speaker 5: That is correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. It's one of you very clear on that. Now, there is a component on this. That was some older language that had been then worked on a little bit. I know I had a conversation with the trades today and there is a component of this list that we have here that speaks to a $25,000 threshold . And the overall threshold we want out, we want to be at is $500,000. So we wanted to to change that to the $500,000 level across the board. Why we want to do that is in talking with the building trades and city management as they felt that that might be pretty complex to manage. If we were going to go down that path and if there were problems in the future, we could come back and address it. But for tonight's purposes, we would raise that to that level.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I want to direct a couple of questions to staff. Now, I know that staff created a memo for council that on November six stated that recommended that the play threshold be at the $1 million level. And I want to ask you a little bit about that, because on July 22nd, when this item initially came before us, several council members indicated that we wanted to know what the threshold levels were in neighboring cities or other cities that are utilizing plays. And just to be just to clarify, there are only six cities, is that correct? That have plays on all city projects.
Speaker 2: John GROSS is going to answer this question. Yes, that's our understanding from the research we've done, which we think is pretty comprehensive.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I did some of my own research and that was my understanding as well. So some of our neighboring cities that would be geographically similar don't have plays on all city projects. For example, the City of L.A. doesn't. City of San Diego doesn't. So I'm wondering and we had asked specifically for what the threshold limits would be in some of the other cities so that we can do that comparison. And the staff report of November six indicates the minimum dollar amount for a play of 1 million or more is designed to have a suitable number of projects over the next two years, about 10 to 15 projects, even though it is lower than the typical amount in other cities and much lower than the federal policy recommendation of 25 million that the city was previously using. Can you elaborate a little bit more about that?
Speaker 2: We we looked at when we got this request from City Council I, we took it as our goal to review whether we could support a play limit that was less than 25 million. And we thought that we could if it represents that $1 million, it represents about 47 projects. And if it were $500,000, it would represent 71 projects. And so although that may not match exactly with what other cities have done, it's not that far off from what was done. And we think we can manage a program at either 1 million or $500,000.
Speaker 7: Now in terms of.
Speaker 4: The proposal by.
Speaker 7: And so would staff's recommendation still be to have that threshold at $1,000,000?
Speaker 2: Our recommendation was $1 million, but we believe we can make 500,000 work. Also, it's about 24 more projects.
Speaker 7: In looking at the item. I wanted to maybe perhaps the makers of the motion can elaborate a little bit on this. And I have tried to research it a little bit, but. I have a problem with the language of and it's on page one of four. The participants cannot provide the employers a sufficient number of local residents from within the city of Long Beach. First tier zip codes. Does that mean that only certain ZIP codes would be considered in terms of the first line of possible employers employees? Because if so, I would have a real issue with that. I think that the I think that I agree with Councilmember O'Donnell in terms of the benefits of a project labor agreement and having a local hire component and having an apprenticeship program. But I don't believe we should discriminate by zip code. I think All Long Beach residents should have the opportunity to apply for the jobs and to be part of the Apprentice program. And I know that there are many people in my district who could use that work and would want should have the opportunity to be considered. So are we discriminating by zip codes here?
Speaker 2: Well, let me actually.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Donnell, did you want to respond to that?
Speaker 2: I can be quick on that. The answer is no, because you'll see a list of zip codes that have been that have been provided in the other zip codes. They are all long beach zip codes, although Long Beach zip codes. So it isn't a this isn't a situation where we're going to say, hey, we're going to grab from three zip codes only and then move on to other zip codes in another tier. All Long Beach zip codes are in first here.
Speaker 7: Do we have a list of the zip codes?
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's. Well, even if we don't. The intent this evening is that it be all Long Beach zip code. So I think if we express that, I think the team over there will pick up on that and move ahead with all long language zip codes. Councilman Price And to clarify what I think what you're referring to is there was some there was some thought out there among some that we should that we should start with just a few Long Beach zip codes, then move, move out from there. But the proposal, as put forward this evening, applies to all Long Beach zip codes.
Speaker 7: Okay, well, I think while we might need to amend the item then, because if you look through the item, it talks about first tiered zip codes and there's no definition in the item of a first tier zip code. I've been handed a document here and.
Speaker 2: Let me define it for you right now. All Long Beach zip codes.
Speaker 7: Okay. Well, then we should take out the terms first tier zip codes. And then the second thing is.
Speaker 2: Well, hold on, hold on, because first it's Long Beach, then it's regional. Because if we get it first here being Long Beach, second tier being outside, as I.
Speaker 7: Understand, I get what you're saying and perhaps the perhaps the city attorney can opine on this. But if you read the sentence, it says, then if the participants cannot provide the employers a sufficient number of local residents from within the city of Long Beach parentheses first tier zip codes. The participants will extend their best efforts to recruit and identify referral local residents residing within a 15 mile radius from Long Beach City Hall, which implicates or infers that that would be above and beyond the first tier. So if it's all Long Beach residents, then 15 mile radius from Long Beach City Hall.
Speaker 2: Would be the second tier.
Speaker 7: Right. But it says that's right. But when we have first tier zip codes identified in there, it implies that there are other zip codes, for example, that's got a 15 year I mean, 15 mile language. If you go scroll down a little bit on page two, it's got a ten mile radius, which is a different hiring requirement . If you look at the ten mile radius from Long Beach City Hall list, my district is not on here. So, you know, there are definitely provisions and I get what you're saying and I completely support.
Speaker 2: You're in the first tier.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I hear what you're saying. I think we need to modify that so that first year to include all Long Beach zip codes and that we should eliminate the 15 mile and ten mile.
Speaker 2: I don't know that you want to do that. Here's why. Because I think one of the efforts here is to avoid contractors bringing in out-of-state workers, because that is a situation which we've and I think some out there would share when I'm when I'm when I'm what I'm saying right now is that is a situation we're trying to avoid, because what they will do is they will bring out-of-state workers for a large project, put them up in hotels. They may not even pay them the required wage. And oftentimes there's no way to seek redress when they move back to that state from which they came. But I think you're pointing out, Miss Price, I think you're pointing out that this needs to be clarified. I think as this goes through the process, this is not done this evening. You make some great points and I'm not going to fault you for them at all. I think the city attorney and he could even share right now that he could get some of those things clarified as we move through the process.
Speaker 0: Mr. Parker, can you can you help me? Can you walk us through those questions that Councilwoman Price said, if.
Speaker 2: You could help clarify?
Speaker 9: Mayor Morris Council Councilmember Price I think you're absolutely right. I didn't anticipate tonight we would be negotiating the agreement, but it would be my understanding that the these would be defined by exhibits. And then if the first tier, which I understood, would be all zip codes of the city of Long Beach, then we could correct the language on the radius to do a radius from the city's boundary to incorporate the general corporate area for the second tier. And then, as they described the third tier, it would be any and all of Los Angeles and Orange County. So we would anticipate that if we get to the point where we're directed to a negotiated agreement, we would come up with exhibits that would further define this document and bring that back to council for their consideration and approval. So tonight, we wouldn't be into the terms specific, but we would certainly have to clarify that. So everyone knows on a go forward basis what each one of those tiers are.
Speaker 7: And that's good. And I appreciate that. And I hope that when we watch the video, again, the intent is very clear in terms of what what residents we want included in this. The question the next question I have for staff is, do you have any and I know that the document says no fiscal impact, the agenda item says no fiscal impact. Do you really believe that this will have no fiscal impact on the city of Long Beach?
Speaker 2: What we commented on in our memo is that there will be some administrative cost. One to do the negotiations will be in using some consultants to assist us and also to assist us in monitoring whether what we use for for the monitoring is somewhat specified by the the High Council item, but there would be some costs associated with that and there are some costs there may or may not be costs depending on whether there is any impact, as some would claim, on on on the number of bids and the price of the bids. But there are no statistics available on that. But we do think there would be a fiscal impact.
Speaker 7: Okay. In looking at the agenda item, page two of four, and I and I believe Councilwoman Gonzales has touched upon it, the request that this agreement includes some project labor coordinator. What has the staff contemplated in regards to that requirement? Who would pay for that position.
Speaker 0: That there.
Speaker 2: Was that issue we would be looking at? We don't have an answer on that today. We certainly see what the direction is. And I think depending on what direction council gives us, that would be what we would look at as to how we could how we could achieve all that council directs us and how much we think it would cost in administrative costs, how we can save as much money as possible on that. Well, we don't know the answer specifically.
Speaker 7: So there could be a fiscal impact in terms of having to hire someone to do that, correct?
Speaker 2: There will be in one form or another, either contractually or by hiring.
Speaker 7: Okay. My recommendation, I would make an amendment at this time to take the project labor coordinator aspect of this agreement out of the equation until staff has had an opportunity to evaluate what that cost would be and whether that's a component that we could actually afford, given our budget, if that cost is going to be something that would be put on the contractor, for example, I think that the council needs to have the opportunity to determine what, if any, impact that would have on the contractors in terms of whether it would deter them from applying for contracts in the city of Long Beach. So I think that's an additional component that we don't have any information about. And there was no attachment to the agenda item about what this person would get paid, what their hours would be. Who would. For them. None of that. I'm just I'm it's purely speculative. So I would ask for a friendly amendment that we take the project labor coordinator component out of the equation at this time.
Speaker 0: So I think that that's not a substitute motion, but a friendly amendment to the maker of the motion. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So let's at first ask the the maker of the motion if she accepts that friendly amendment.
Speaker 5: No. At this time, I want to be very clear that this is a study. So we can certainly look at those. And I think that's what we're asking for in the next 30 days. So, no, I won't accept that friendly amendment.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: Councilman Price. Sure.
Speaker 7: So the recommendation isn't really and it may be a study, but it's directing the city manager to negotiate a citywide project. Labor agreement with the components identified in this doesn't appear to be a study in terms of the language. I will check with the city attorney on that. Mr. City attorney, would you agree with that?
Speaker 9: I agree with your interpretation that the direction of the language here would be to start the negotiations with the Los Angeles and Orange County Building, Trades Building and Construction Trades Council, and then report back the progress on those negotiations within 30 days to the city council.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, I'm still not going to accept the friendly amendment. I misspoke in saying it's a study, but I do believe that we still need to incorporate the project coordinator in that.
Speaker 0: And just to clarify, also, there is there's a motion on the floor. I just want to make sure that that motion, Councilman Gonzales, does include the elimination of that $25,000 cap as well. Is that.
Speaker 4: Correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct. Okay, great.
Speaker 0: It's all it's $500,000 is a number.
Speaker 2: For all projects. The threshold.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Going, Councilman Price, are you.
Speaker 2: Are you complete.
Speaker 0: Are each of my questions.
Speaker 1: I don't think I have.
Speaker 7: Any other questions at this time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just a few things. So, I mean, I support this. I think this is a great thing for the for I'm happy that our colleagues have brought this forward. And I'm happy that Councilmember O'Donnell's really been in leadership for so much time on this. It's the right thing to do. It's proven, it transforms lives. And so what I'd like to I just have a few questions and some clarity. So I heard in the motion it said Gas department and Water Department would, do we have the authority does this body have the authority to to adopt an agreement that covers those areas or with their respective bodies? Need to adopt it as well.
Speaker 9: As to the gas department is. Yes. As to the harbor and water department. No, this body would not have the jurisdiction. They would have to take an independent action by their boards to adopt a re project labor agreement.
Speaker 3: So the first thing I would do is ask the maker of the motion to include some specific language to go to the water department and to request that they similarly adopt this this item. You agree to that?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Okay. Second question. So so I know there's been a lot of discussion about local hire and local hire. And I know there was a memo out earlier about work source and some of the work that's taking place there is the city manager maybe next. Can you can one of you chime in on some of the work you guys are doing with work source to ensure that we're hiring folks locally and from disadvantaged communities?
Speaker 2: Mr. West I'm going to turn to I'm gonna turn this over to Nick Schultz in just a moment. But tonight, we're being asked to do a play. We talked about the possibility of a first class hiring that Nick is working on, but that's not what we're being asked to do tonight. But with that, I'm going to turn it over to Nick.
Speaker 3: And just to clarify, the reason I'm asking is because obviously there's an expectation we're talking about local hire. There is a nexus between the issues. I want to see if the mechanisms are in this agreement or if the mechanisms are out. That would be outside of this agreement to ensure that we can do that. That's why I just want to make that connection.
Speaker 2: So so the mechanisms that you're discussing tonight are not for a broader city hire that would that would actually allow the city's investments in service contracts and non construction projects to have a first source and a local hiring component. The Web is working to craft a recommendation that we hope will be brought forward at a later time for the council to consider in that regard.
Speaker 3: So so that said, just a quick question. Are the are the so the zip codes discussion, are those like best practices or those actual requirements as a part of this policy with what would those be considered?
Speaker 9: I'm sorry, Councilmember. The zip codes would be part of the.
Speaker 3: Target zip codes like hiring folks. This is this like a requirement on this agreement?
Speaker 9: Generally speaking, in a project labor agreement, the answer would be yes. The. You would set up a waterfall for the hiring. And the way I understand the direction this evening would be, the first tier would be all zip codes that encompass the city of Long Beach. And then you fall to subsequent tiers of a of a greater area.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I wanted to get some clarity on that. No, there's been diverging discussion about whether this requires us to hire our folks locally or whether it would or not. So I'm glad to hear that is a requirement that we will hire our folks first.
Speaker 9: It's a best efforts on the part of the union to find folks that are qualified within the zip codes. And if they can't do that to meet their numbers, then we expand the boundaries. So their first look is at the zip codes within Long Beach.
Speaker 3: And if that's not.
Speaker 9: Available, that's correct. If they don't have the qualify the qualifications to meet the requirement, they can go to the next tier, which would be a radius around the city and then to the Orange County, Los Angeles County.
Speaker 2: Great. Great.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to go back to the clarifying question that Councilmember Price asked regarding the contract compliance officer. And while it could pose a cost to the city, I know that we've seen cities incorporate that as part of an existing staff members, job duties. And Mr. City Manager, I'm wondering how you would envision that. I don't believe that it necessarily has to be an additional position. Is this is this something that one of the staff members is already working on projects and development projects, someone that's working on any is in any any one of those positions. Could they fulfill this role without adding a cost to the city?
Speaker 0: Mr. West.
Speaker 4: Or. Mr. GROSS.
Speaker 2: John? John GROSS. Okay. John GROSS. We looked at that and again, this we haven't had a lot of time to review this, but our our guess is that that, no, we would have to use an external person. That is typically what we have done with plays. Regardless, we did not have the internal staff resources to handle it when we did the airport. So it would be normal and expected, I think, to to at least use outside contract. It would not be done internally.
Speaker 4: And in your experience, have there been projects not necessarily in the city of Long Beach, but other other municipalities that may have plays? Where the cost of that is is part of the development costs, but it's not a direct cost to the city that is part is paid for by the third party, but not managed by the third party.
Speaker 2: The the only one I saw was Berkeley. And in I'm not saying there weren't others. I'm just saying that the only one I saw was Berkeley. And their cost recovery efforts in a recent memo did not work. So we we absorbed the costs through the project with the airport. That's what. And charged it to the project. That's what we anticipate doing this time.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 10: Good evening. First, I want to start out by saying that I am in support of apprenticeship programs. I am in support of training programs. I am in support of local hire. When we talk about compliance, compliance is the only component of ensuring that some of.
Speaker 4: Our.
Speaker 10: Contracts are in compliance. Sometimes we are partners, agree to things, and without a compliance component, there is no enforcement of that agreement. And when I've sat down and met with some of the unions that are actually here today, we talked about some of the agreements with non play contractors and how they make promises and then without a compliance component there is no enforceability. So I am strongly in favor of compliance. I think we need to discuss specifically the components of compliance that are necessary. In my prior role in $180 million annual budget, we used to contract out approximately a million a year and we had a team of compliance staff that would audit different components of a workforce in different components of a hiring process and different components, especially with our million dollars for veterans, that all of those things are there. So compliance is important to me. With that said, I would like to find a way through negotiations that, as stated in the original items intent. I believe that that would not be a new and burdensome cost on the city. And so I have some concerns in alignment with the discussions we had at Budget Oversight Committee a few weeks ago. That fiscal impact needs to be discussed by project, and I feel that many of the partners in the room today feel that there's no fiscal impact. And so I would hope that they would be supportive of the idea of an annual review of the additional costs, some of which. We as a body would want to decide are important. I think it's more important to say there are additional costs and identify them than to say, well, we're going to reallocate costs inside house. That's still not an appropriate fiscal terminology. If staff are allocated to work on something, then they are costing the city money and they are costing the taxpayers money. And I think we just need to be open and honest about what our values are and what that means. Additionally, under no circumstances will I ever vote yes on an item that has unlimited, no actionable extensions. No matter what contract we have, whether it's a contractor that we have loved our whole lives that may have built the foundation of America, we have to have. Even through potentially a consent item on the agenda, the option to discuss performance regularly. And I hope that our partners would be open to discussing the value that they bring on an annual basis, or at least at the end of the first term. But to have unlimited non discussion extensions seems absolutely unreasonable to me. So with that fiscal impact compliance, um, in terms of and direction of, I'd like to make a substitute motion and pulling open the item. Sorry, I'm trying to go paperless. Okay. I would like to bring forth a substitute motion that states that an annual fiscal impact will be provided to the Council through a consent item so that it is provided ten days in advance to the Council. We can discuss the fiscal impact. We can state that this is one of our priorities, and we would like to put a staff member plus employee benefits on compliance. I think that all of you value compliance as a major component of this. I would also state that extensions would be through consent calendar of the council in the same way that we would want to approve any other way that we do anything. And so let me try to say what my substitute motion is.
Speaker 5: Actually, councilwoman. I can take that as a friendly amendment versus a substitute motion. I think that would be more appropriate.
Speaker 10: Okay. So what are we saying exactly?
Speaker 0: Why don't we have let's have Councilwoman Mongeau read exactly what she's trying to achieve and then Councilwoman Gonzales, whether or not you accept that or not and whether it's a substitute.
Speaker 10: And my only concern on my substitute is that we're kind of pushing Charlie to negotiate for us, and we're Charlie and Pat or whoever that works on terms that we're putting out in the public. And that's not really a negotiation. It's like playing poker, but all our cards are forward and on the table and in front of us. And so a component of this that I'd like to discuss is how potentially the other partners would pay for the compliance option. And I think that negotiating the terms and then coming back to council with either a study or I don't know, I don't know the wording to get us to a discussion of what those costs are. Because I think sending someone away with we agree that we want to talk about the costs and go ahead and approve it before we know what they are. Maybe even a memo back or I don't know. Help me out here, team.
Speaker 2: What do you want?
Speaker 10: I don't want to approve an item that I don't know the fiscal impacts that we're not being open and honest about someone's value. I think both the partners here would state that their value is diminished if we say that it has no fiscal impact. Instead, the Council should have the courage to say this will cost us $200,000 a year because it'll cost us 1.5 staff members. And with that we would want to move forward. But I think we should know what the number is.
Speaker 2: So what do you want?
Speaker 0: So, Councilman, it is in motion. So let me.
Speaker 5: Not clear on what I.
Speaker 2: Mean. I try to be funny. I mean, what kind of motion?
Speaker 10: In fairness, we've only had since Friday at 4:00. So look at this.
Speaker 0: Let me let me let me ask question. I haven't.
Speaker 10: Had a time.
Speaker 0: To. So I think I think what at least one of the things that Councilman Mango's looking for is.
Speaker 2: A.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman. You're looking for an annual review that would come from staff, that would come that was coming to you, that would speak to what the costs were for that year and the progress of those projects within the within the scope of the project labor agreement. Yes, yes. Okay. So that is I believe that Councilwoman Gonzalez earlier mentioned that she would accept that as a as a friendly amendment. Is that correct? That is that's that's part one.
Speaker 10: And so it's a one year contract with annual consent items on the agenda with that item to continue. So you'd have to put it on in advance. So maybe 90 days or 100 days before the end of the term, it would say prior year cost us $125,000. What a great investment in our community. And it would be on the consent item to go forward for another year.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that is that's different. So the. So part one of what Councilman Mongo asked for was this annual review. The second part, from the way I understand it, is you would ask that on a yearly basis that items would come forward, but the Council would have to affirm vote in the affirmative through consent on those items coming forward for that year. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: That sounds reasonable.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I just want to make sure so that that's certainly different than the first part. So, Councilwoman Gonzalez, so either are you making that a substitute or are you asking Councilman Gonzalez as a friendly amendment?
Speaker 10: I was originally going with the substitute because I didn't see her except the first from the amendment, but I would look that direction to see where we're headed.
Speaker 5: I can take it as a friendly amendment. That's okay. Fine.
Speaker 0: Okay. So so I understand you're taking both as a friendly amendment.
Speaker 5: But both items.
Speaker 0: On let floor once again, council becomes a roadblock. Okay, so let me so what we have I just want to be very clear.
Speaker 5: Please be very clear. Let me be very clear. Getting lost in.
Speaker 0: This, from what I understand and someone correct me if I'm wrong, there are two things that Councilwoman Mango's looking for. The first is she's asking for an annual review from staff on the status of the project labor agreement that would come to the council once a year. And with the status update of the projects that I believe Councilman Gonzalez you've okayed. Correct. Okay. The second thing, and maybe I'm less clear here, the second thing that Councilman Mango's asking for is a annual vote. That would be an affirmative vote of a council that would be essentially on consent calendar, that would list the projects that would come before that would have to affirmatively move forward. They get that point. Right.
Speaker 10: I think that the issue is it says there's a five year contract with unlimited extensions with no action. I think that's a concern. I think that if you have a anyone who works for you, whether it's the person that I don't have a garden, cleans my pool every year, I discuss with them the annual rate hike that comes in because challenges change and things change. So there needs to be a term of the contract and then. Extensions need to be approved by a body. We don't have unlimited non-voting extensions. So I'd like to reduce the term from five years to three years. I think one year is too short, five years to three years. And then I think extensions shouldn't be annual. They should be in maybe three year blocks even. We should talk about a lot of these projects are long term and so annual one year non-voting amend. That sounds crazy to me.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's that's definitely a very different, different proposal. And so I don't know if there's that a substitute. Councilman Mango.
Speaker 10: I was first looking to.
Speaker 0: See Councilman Gonzalez. Do you accept that friendly amendment?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 10: Okay. I'd like to make a substitute motion.
Speaker 0: Okay, so that's a up. So we have a substitute motion, and I'm going to have a count the before time, the vote. We're going to go through the motions so we everyone knows exactly what they're voting for.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Donnell. Than Councilmember Durango, then. Is that welcome?
Speaker 2: So just to be clear, we have the original motion which approves this item. And you actually said that you agreed to a friendly amendment right here. The friendly amendment said on an annual basis, the costs incurred by this agreement will be shared. Your document to the council amendment to the council. But you're not agreeing to the the the the annual.
Speaker 5: Will.
Speaker 2: And write the annual.
Speaker 5: Complaint.
Speaker 2: Required agreement.
Speaker 0: Agreement. And I just want to make sure that that motion get a second. I thought I heard something over here but was there a second on that motion? There was not a Second Amendment on the substitute. Okay, hold on. There was a substitute motion made by Councilman Mongo. Is there a second on the substitute?
Speaker 10: Can I clarify my substitute? Cause I'm not sure that it's clear. Please. Okay, so my substitute encompasses what was in the friendly amendment, plus more. So item number one of the substitute motion will be that an annual report is brought forward to the council that shows the value and costs of the project labor agreement for the year . Item number two is that before we sign on the dotted line, the Council will know what the annual costs of a compliance officer are. Right now this council is approving an item that we don't know the costs of, and we should know the cost of things that we approve and the source of funds because we passed a balanced budget. And what I hear us asking to do right now is to either which I have not heard, reallocate internal resources that were supposedly at limits or create new costs without a source of funds, which I would not be in agreement with. And item number three is that it would be a three year contract with three year extensions as approved by the council. Thank you.
Speaker 0: The second I have I have a speakers list. I'm going to go down. The speakers have got four or five council members. So, Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 2: I just do you have to share that your your motion somewhat changed there as we went through this this conversation significantly changed as far as the annual reporting. You know, I'm supportive of that. But the other component, I'm not supportive. And one of the reasons why is because it takes an apprentice generally four years to get through their apprenticeship program. So you're not going to see the benefits. You're one necessarily to the participants, your local economy, etc.. So that that that's why I have the opinion as such. I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Cake.
Speaker 0: Council Vice Mayor Lowenthal, than Councilmember Durango.
Speaker 4: Wanted to contact person. If I wanted to follow up with Councilmember Mungo's request on those three items and I'm just that different, can I ask you a question? Council member Mongo. Yeah. Sorry, sorry. I can't. I can't see you from here.
Speaker 10: We think Councilmember O'Donnell brought up a good point. So these are things that we need to discuss because we need to discuss them in public. Thank you. Absolutely.
Speaker 4: So I do think we can work within the construct of adding a friendly amendment or requesting a friendly amendment to the authors. Two out of the three items you requested are amenable to the authors and certainly are amenable to me in the five year to three year component. Councilmember O'Donnell shared the challenge with our apprentices and internships. I think it's very reasonable to go back to your first iteration of that third component, which is after a five year contract, year after year, come back to the Council on a consent. You're absolutely right. We don't do that. That is not the culture of how we do contracts in the city is to have sort of this limitless, boundless extensions. And so doing that is reasonable. And and I'd ask that you consider reverting back to a friendly amendment with with those two your 2/1 items and leaving the five year the third item as a five. With the one year coming back on consent. So the council has an opportunity to review it and review the performance. I think what you're what you're trying to get at is something that we all support. I, I wholeheartedly feel and I'm confident that we all behind this day to support this, which is that performance matters. And certainly our partners in the trades want that. They want to demonstrate that they have performed well under this this contract or soon to be contract or agreement. And so it's it's beneficial to both sides. I do believe we're there and we can be there with a friendly amendment.
Speaker 10: I, I like the friendly amendment for five years. I think Councilmember O'Donnell makes an excellent point. And I think that the Roberts or the Brown Act would not have allowed us to discuss that in advance. So I appreciate your insights and guidance on that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So just so I'm clear, is there, Councilman Mongo, you have a substitute motion as as amended by the friendly amendment from Vice Mayor Lowenthal, is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. Because you I was hoping that I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I was hoping that Councilmember, the Councilmember Mongo and Councilmember Price would withdraw their substitute and allow Councilmember Gonzalez to work that into her original motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, does Councilwoman Gonzalez accept that as part of the original motion as a friendly amendment?
Speaker 5: I accept.
Speaker 0: It is that I.
Speaker 5: Accept I'm accepting the the annual review.
Speaker 7: The compliance.
Speaker 5: And the compliance after the fight and.
Speaker 10: The cost of the compliance officers.
Speaker 4: The council?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. I will comply. Let me. Let me. 1/2 here. I want to be very clear. What we're doing is it's getting very complex.
Speaker 10: It's a good.
Speaker 0: It's okay. That's okay. So I just want to make sure very clear, Councilman Gonzales, what we have right now in front of us is council. Councilmember Mongo is asking for from friendly amendments, two of which you have accepted prior. One friendly amendment is at correct me if I'm wrong, at the end of the five years it would come back for a review at the after city council. Is that correct, Councilman Mongo? Is that what you asked for?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilman Gonzalez, do you accept that friendly amendment.
Speaker 5: Being the first two, but not the last? Okay.
Speaker 0: So she does not accept that. So, Councilman Mongo, do you want this to be a substitute? Cause we've got to move this forward. So do you want it to be a substitute or were. What is your substitute exactly? So she's accepted the first two, not the last one.
Speaker 10: So if I take such as from the amendment, it's almost identical to the original motion. With the exception of one. We have the annual review of fiscal impact, which still is a five year contract, and then we would review at that time and decide to move forward with an extension which could be one year or three years or five years. Currently it just says one. So this could be more beneficial if this shows to be the value that we are saying it could be. It would bring forth the cost of these compliance officers, at least as an estimate, before Charlie negotiates. So we know what we're asking for and hopefully we would be able to share that cost with our partners and. I think that's it. Okay, great. Okay.
Speaker 0: So I will tell you that that does sound different to me than than the original motion. So I just want to make sure that we're being very clear.
Speaker 5: Because I feel very.
Speaker 0: Okay, so.
Speaker 5: We're all.
Speaker 0: Over it. Hold on. I think there's two very different I think there's two different motions that are on the floor. There's a substitute by Councilwoman Mongo, and there is your original motion. Councilwoman Gonzalez that's in place. And so I think that there has been a second on a substitute unless Councilman Mango wants to change that substitute, let's move the process forward. One of the substitute that fails, we go back to the main.
Speaker 10: Motion with accepting. So just friendly amendments to see Councilwoman Gonzalez. Could you tell me what the variance is from the original.
Speaker 4: The complaints.
Speaker 5: From the friendly or maybe.
Speaker 10: Suja chicken.
Speaker 4: Sushi?
Speaker 0: Let let me so let me let me turn it over to Vice Mayor Lowell.
Speaker 5: To be more clear as well in saying that the only thing I'll accept is the annual report. That's right. You know, I think it's being a little bit more convoluted at this point. The annual report. I will accept everything else. It will not accept. It's not clear.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I think it's very clear. Councilman Gonzales will only accept that the and report back to the council.
Speaker 4: So just so I can I can articulate Councilmember Gonzales did not accept the amendment that I had suggested. What I had hoped was for the original authors to retain ownership of the motion. And I thought that there was more agreement. Yes. So the reporting is clear. I think the only the only thing that's not being accepted is the final item. Correct, Mr. Mayor, which is the item on the automatic renewals?
Speaker 0: That is correct. I think right now we have a we have a the original motion, which is the motion as presented with the review that comes from staff once a year. That's the motion as presented by Councilman Gonzalez. That's as far as she will go. And then we have a substitute motion by Councilwoman Mango with that with that additional piece that you just mentioned.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So now let me go through the queue.
Speaker 2: So, so so, Mayor, let me may I.
Speaker 9: Ask a point of clarification on the substitute motion that's on the floor currently? As I have it in my notes, there is a substantive motion, a second by price, that has the annual fiscal impact report required that the term of the agreement would be a five year term or a proposed five year term, with annual extensions approved by the City Council. And three, the cost of the compliance officer would be provided to the City Council before authorization of the agreement. And then also for clarification purposes, does the substitute motion accept the other previous motions as made by the Council members to make a request to the Harbor and Water Department to consider adoption of a similar agreement and the removal of the single trade specialty contract that was discussed. So that also includes those two items.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. I do have a speaker's list, so I want to make sure I get to the speaker's list via email with all you had completed your comments with the.
Speaker 4: For now.
Speaker 0: Okay. Next, we have council member Ringo.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 8: After all of the iterations that we've just gone through, I have to go back with our original document here that provides a very clear direction as to how we want this negotiation to take place, including a the compliance officer and compliance component to it. I think that all of this can be negotiated during the association process. All we're doing at this point is directing city staff to enter into a negotiation where all of these issues can be addressed, whether it's a compliance officer that is paid through the city, paid through a contractor, maybe both. I don't know. We can work that out. That's part of the negotiation process. In regards to a three year document or a five year document, my important issue is with the apprenticeship programs. A lot of apprenticeship programs are based on hours worked, not on bodies. So we have to make sure that whatever we negotiate is that we address the Apprentice issues there, because many of these apprenticeships are either hours required, not by the time that they work on a project. A project might go from one building or job to another. And they those hours should be accumulative for those interns or those interns and apprentice apprenticeships to come be completed. So I'm very concerned about that. And I think Councilmember O'Donnell brought that issue up. So I think that that's a very important component of this negotiation. So in and in regards to the yearly report, that's automatic. As far as I'm concerned, it should be already automatically incorporated into any agreement anywhere that we enter, that there will be a yearly review as to our progress and these projects. So I support our original document, our original motion that that that's here without any other reiterations of it, because that can be worked out in the end. The contractual issue, especially now since the the horse has left the barn, so to speak, that all of these issues have been raised. I think the city attorney has been paying attention, knows what what the concerns are by the council because we've raised them. But I want to raise one more and I brought this discussion up the last time we talked about this, is that you want to make sure that in this negotiation process, we have all our stakeholders involved . And I and I specifically asked that we also include the the Legal Aid Foundation to be included in this negotiation. They have some great idea. They've worked some neighbor project agreements, a project labor agreements in the past. And I think that they should be part of this process, too, if not an active participant, to provide some some outside independent review as to what we had so that they could provide their expertize and guidance in this whole process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Council member Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I really appreciate this robust conversation about this very important issue. I'm going to offer a substitute substitute, I think, that will encapsulate capture everything that is being discussed here. I like the the ideal of of of the existing document as Councilmember Urunga has stated his support for. I do would like to include the annual review for fiscal impact and with the option to contract the compliance officer. If I can get a.
Speaker 7: Amount of that.
Speaker 6: And and that that does a couple of things because we do have a council policy that affords the city manager to contract anything under $250,000 a year. And I don't see that this individual or compliance officer will exceed that without council approval and it can be negotiated in this. And and it also affords the community organization stakeholders. It opens it up for the city to to look for an appropriate compliance officer. So with that, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: There's a substitute substitute. Was there a second? You can have other duties as well. Okay. There was a second. And can I ask the city attorney on the third component of what Councilor Brosnan said? Can you clarify that? Because I'm not sure that I'm understanding it correctly.
Speaker 9: I might ask the maker of the motion, I have two items that he makes a substitute substitute to include the annual fiscal impact and the option to contract the compliance officer. I didn't know there was a third.
Speaker 2: Item that wasn't.
Speaker 0: There to contract the compliance officer.
Speaker 6: Contract with.
Speaker 9: Compliance that would remain an option to city staff to come back. And I'm very.
Speaker 0: So very similar to the original motion. But with that, with that little difference. Okay. So there's a substitute and a second on the substitute substitute. I still have more speakers on the list. Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So a couple of things. So this is an agreement. Would it not come back to is this we're never going to have a chance to talk about this again.
Speaker 2: You will.
Speaker 3: The city attorney, after you finish the agreement, does it come to the city council for adoption?
Speaker 9: The way I read the motion is that we are to return to city council within 30 days. I'm not sure what it is we will have in 30 days to present to you, but.
Speaker 3: We will be have to get into the weeds on every single detail tonight. Correct?
Speaker 9: It was my hope you wouldn't get into the weeds on it.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Secondly, I just want to I just want to say that I want to say that on the whole discussion about compliance, whether we should like contracted or hire it. In my experience, like we're building a library right now, all the all of that is built in like we are the principal on that project. We are bearing that cost. Right. But if it's a private development or or I mean, shouldn't that be built into the project costs? Like we shouldn't have like an ongoing like person on staff to do that shouldn't be that be a part of the project.
Speaker 2: Yes. The compliance the the compliance would normally be part of the project and yes, it would be built into the project.
Speaker 3: So would it be the same person? Will we have one compliance officer for the whole city, or were these be different compliance officers per project?
Speaker 2: It might be a same compliance officer.
Speaker 3: I think would be. We're getting into the weeds on stuff we shouldn't get into at this point, honestly. So I would honestly say, like let Charlie and the city manager go back. I think we've been very clear. Come back. Let's see what the document is so that we can we can vote on it. There were all a lot of motions and substitutes and substitute substitutes, so I can't make a motion. So I will just ask. I think we're going to vote on our motion. I would ask I'll just leave it leave it up to, you know, them to come back. Like, I don't know that we need the contract a like ongoing person. It might need to be structured differently.
Speaker 6: I'm okay with the substitute substitute. And I will I will take away the, the option for the compliance officer because that makes sense. I just want to get on with the vote.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. There is Councilman Price.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I think the one thing that I want to make clear is that and I understand, Councilman Richardson, that, you know, we don't want to get into the weeds. But unfortunately and perhaps it's difficult for me as an attorney reading this document, there are some very serious directives in here. Okay. So it's and Councilwoman Gonzalez, when I originally made my comment, thought that this was a report back recommendation. It's not we're actually voting to direct the staff to engage in contract discussions, engage in a contract so the details of the contract matter because we pursue it. If staff is going to be compliant with this council directive, they are going to have to negotiate in certain aspects of this agreement, including potentially additional staff or labor. And so we don't know what the cost of this item is going to be for the city. That's the problem here. Nobody has an issue with the spirit behind it, the intent, all the great things it's going to do. We don't know what the fiscal impact is going to be to the city. And we have to look at and I appreciate what Councilman Aranda said about bringing the stakeholders to the table. But, you know, we talk about this this person that's going to oversee these projects, we're talking all projects over $500,000. That's a lot of projects that they're going to have to be involved in if it's going to. Be a staff person, that's going to be a cost that we as a city are going to have to absorb . So how are we going to do that if it's going to be something that's going to be built into the contract with the with the contractors who get the bids, then is it going to be something that's going to deter them from bidding on our contracts, especially smaller contracts? Is this going to be an additional cost that they're going to view as a deterrent from wanting to do business here? These are these are just concerns. And that's why I think it's important that we have as many options available to us as possible. And I understand Councilwoman Gonzalez didn't agree with my friendly amendment. And I appreciate Councilman Austin trying to meet me halfway here, because it seems to me like this is an item where what we're hearing is it's all or nothing. There's no room here to accommodate what some of my council colleagues might be concerned about. And this is this particular aspect of it. The compliance officer is so important that it's it's got to move forward. I think what's important about this contract is that it's five years. It provides local hire, it provides an apprenticeship, it allows people to be employed when those elements are met. Why can't we as a council work together moving forward on the additional items that we don't currently know the financial value of? That's my issue here is, you know, I'm trying my best to hold on to the importance of understanding that we need to have some appreciation, that there are some additional costs associated with this contract, and we should know those before we move forward, which and I don't know it when we're talking about stakeholders, I know that there are some you know, based on some conversations I had today, I know there was a lot of some assistance or input into this agenda item, maybe some boilerplate language. You know, we are the city of Long Beach. We are going to negotiate contracts that are best for the city of Long Beach. And so whoever assisted with boilerplate language or whatever we are, the city of Long Beach, we are going to draft contracts that make sense for our city. And that's and I would hope that my council colleagues would look to the spirit of this and say, what is what is the most important aspects of this contract right now ? It's the local hire. It's the threshold value, which is what they've requested. It's it's the apprenticeship program. Those are important. Those are things that all council people agree. But there are a few things they're concerned about. I'm going to meet them halfway so that we're not in a position where we're accepting a contract that we don't know the fiscal impact of. So I appreciate Councilman Austin. It doesn't go far enough for me because I would like city staff to be able to just analyze that portion of this contract. That would make me very happy if we could just know how much that additional impact was going to be. We are looking at a deficit starting next year all the way until 2021. Are we now adopting a new staff person for the city? Because if we are, I'd like to have some input. Maybe that staff person is someone that I want on the police department. Maybe that staff person is someone we need in a library. I mean, are we now hiring another staff by virtue of a play? That's important information. So we're not even we're just ignoring it. And and I think that that is wrong. I think that if we, you know, we talk about collegiality and doing the best thing for the city, we have a fiduciary duty to make decisions that are financially prudent for this city. And we are if we vote yes on this and let's make make no mistake about it, I think that the local labor, The Apprentice, I am 1,000% behind you on that. Absolutely. But I have a problem voting on a contract that we don't know what the fiscal impact is going to be. And with 30 days, we could know that information. Why wouldn't we wait 30 days?
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to go now to Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 10: So that's a point of order. I believe that. Councilmember Austin, accepting the friendly amendment of Councilmember Richardson, reverts the motion to the original item, which cancels out the substitute substitute. Would I be correct? City Attorney.
Speaker 9: That's not correct.
Speaker 4: Oh, darn.
Speaker 0: However. However.
Speaker 10: So tell me what he what friendly amendment did you accept? Because I don't think that we all got that down here.
Speaker 2: I mean, he.
Speaker 9: He did not, to my knowledge, and I did not hear a friendly amendment from Mr. Richardson.
Speaker 10: Councilor Richardson asked to remove the $200,000. No, you did not.
Speaker 9: Oh, there was an annual fiscal impact. Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 0: Let's let's let's let's here still. And we're going to. Okay, I have the floor. So, Mr. City Attorney, there is a substitute substitute right now by Councilmember Austin, and it has two components. One is the review component at the annual annually. And the other component had to do with the contracting out of the compliance piece. Is that correct, Mr.. Austin, with the option of contracting. Listen, that substitute substitute is almost identical to the original main motion, with the exception of the review, which Councilman Gonzalez was amenable to and the option to contract out the compliance piece. Is that correct? The city attorney.
Speaker 9: That's my understanding with the other discussion that was had on the main motion that talked about the referral to harbor and water and the removal of the specialty contract. And I think that one other item.
Speaker 0: That was the five, that's all included as part of the. Yes, yes.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. We're all clear what the substitute substitute is right now on the floor. Okay, great. I have Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 3: Thank you all for the question.
Speaker 0: Actually, Councilman Mongo wasn't done. So Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 10: So just to be clear, we're contracting out almost 50 contracts totaling more than $250 million. And the substitute substitute does not require council action for extensions of the contract out.
Speaker 0: Mayor, Manchester City.
Speaker 9: Council member Mungo. The city council item is asking us to negotiate that agreement. We would be coming back to the council with that final contract and if the decision of the Council at that time, currently it's a five year agreement with an evergreen, meaning that either party could cancel it with with notice, either you could amend that termination clause or the term of the agreement as when we come back to you and present what has been negotiated as we're directed tonight.
Speaker 10: Well, it would be difficult for me to vote for an item that is evergreen. So that is my concern that I wanted to communicate to my council colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and we're going to do public comment still. That's coming up. Are there any other comments from any of the council colleagues?
Speaker 3: I called for the question.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is there an is there more? Okay. Let let's let them make her the original motion. She has a comment and they're going to go to public comment. Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 5: Okay. I just wanted to say thank you for all the comments. We've had a really fruitful discussion here. I want to remain committed to the fact that, you know, we need to make sure that, you know, certainly we understand that compliance coordinator component is very essential, but it does vary. And this is not the first time, you know, the city has done a play. I'm, of course, not of this extent, but we have a play for the airport. Is that not correct? Or we had one.
Speaker 0: That's that's.
Speaker 5: Correct. Okay. And so this is we're not brand new to this. I trust fully and trust that our city attorney, our city manager will certainly make the right decisions when it comes to a compliance coordinator, whether that's contracted out or incorporated in the project costs. But certainly, I believe, you know, we still need to remain committed to this and make sure that we're just moving forward. So I you know, like many of us, we just want to vote on this item at this time.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. With that, we are going to go to public comment on the item. So if you have public comment, please line up over by the mic. So please come forward.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Ron Miller, executive secretary of the L.A. Orange County Building, trades on behalf of 140,000 men and women that are within our ranks and the many more that we hope to put in our ranks from your community. I want to thank you for the justified conversation that happened up here today. This is how things get done, and there's no mystery of these plays. We do lots of plays. The first one of the first ones was on the Hoover Dam. So they're not the wolf in the forest. They're real and they're very successful about putting people to work and creating tomorrow's future workforce. They maximize your dollar spent. And when you're putting your local work, your local constituents to work, they're reinvesting in your city. And many of the points that I had planned to go over you guys covered tonight. So talking about partnership, we have the state building trades in Sacramento. They introduced legislation within the last couple of years. And I'd like to be able to tell you when it was, but there was an assembly bill for 36 and what it does is for compliance on public projects. You guys pay a quarter of 1% of the construction cost to the state for compliance. If you have a play, you don't pay them. You don't pay that quarter 1% to the state of California. You keep it. So maybe that will help you find the money to pay for this coordinator. Right. But I want to talk about the careers, the apprentices that are put to work on your jobs from the trades that are in the audience. They don't pay anything for their education. They walk into an apprenticeship. That trade is going to spend 30 to $40000 on that apprentice. At the end of the four or five years, depending on the link to the apprenticeship for that particular trade. They're going to become a journeyman. They're going to have a lifelong career. They're going to punch their own ticket to the middle class. And that's important in this day and age. Not everybody goes to college and they need to have a career where they can provide for their family, send their kids to college, and have a modest pension and a modest retirement. So it's very important that you understand these apprentices, their educations paid for by the journeymen on the project and the contractors. It's in a partnership with our contractors. That's who pays for that education. So it's very important. And we have high standards. We rely on the community groups. We partner with the Urban League, with workforce centers, Youth Build Winter Group, which is locally here in Long Beach. We partner with all those folks to help break down the barriers for your community to get into our trades. Like I said, we have high standards and we don't lower them for anybody, but we work with the community. So thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Kevin Norton, assistant business manager with Electrical Workers Local 11, also a Long Beach resident by Councilmember Susie Price over there. Give them how. It's nice to see you all tonight. It's been a long time coming and certainly we're excited about the prospect of partnering with the city of Long Beach, with the IBEW and our apprenticeship program. We have 100 apprentices from City of Long Beach already and we look forward. We have about 1000 members that live in Long Beach, so we have quite a few people. So we look at this play is putting our members to work in their own neighborhood. So we think it's a good thing you're leveraging money that you're already going to spend. And the cost of a compliance officer when you're talking, you know, the kind of value you're talking about is honestly de minimis. You know, it's the cost that someone moves an outlet a couple of times on these jobs. They end up costing about the same. So we think it's a great opportunity to put local people back to work in Long Beach. And we're excited to work with you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening again, Mayor Garcia and fellow council city staff in public that's here today. You know, I want our members that are here for my BW Local 11 to stand. You know, we also have women, you know, that are coming into our apprenticeship programs that are, you know, happy to raise their families, raise them right. Bring them up, you know, through a career and give them give them help, good health and good benefits. And that's you know, that's what it's all about. You know, given opportunities for disadvantaged men and women that, you know, needs their second chance to be given a career and in a IBEW apprenticeship program, you know, I, I can tell you, I myself, I've been in the IBEW for 18 years and it has changed my my life and my family to, you know, to bring up a good a career and a good family. So I urge the city council to adopt the proposal from Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez. And we look forward to the project agreement when it comes up. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 4: Laurie Angell. I happen to live in town up here in North Long Beach, and I'm going to speak as a member of the public. I don't belong to a union. I never have, but that is not a big deal. I support the trades. I think it's important. I love apprenticeships. It's a wonderful idea. I agree 100%. I think the issues are very convoluted. I don't think it's ready for prime time. I completely agree with Suzy. I think that you're the cart's way ahead of the horse. I think you've got to pull back and you have to refer this to committee, have it cleaned up a little bit before you like rush out. I know you want to make a lot of people real happy tonight, but I just don't think you're quite ready. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Gary Curt Plumber's, local 78. I represent about 2000 members with about 100 apprentices that live in the Long Beach area. I have met your city attorney and we haven't talked about this matter, but I have the confidence in him that he'll sit down and negotiate in the city's best interest. A lot of the things that we've heard tonight are just small things that can be negotiated through. And I look forward and my members look forward. And if I have members I have members in the audience, they would stand. Please. That is the face of the community we bring within. So I appreciate the time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Yes. Tom Guitarist, the business manager for the Insulators and Fire Stoppers I share with my colleagues at the apprenticeship program is his number one. And also they forgot to tell you that because most of the students don't go to college, all these apprenticeship programs here that are present, they get college credit for going to this apprenticeship program . So that that is really important to see that. And also since Long Beach is the home of the veterans, I'm saying let's move ahead with this thing. Let's give a better chance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: My name is. My name is Ernest Roberts. I am executive director of TV Jobs. And we've been working local and disadvantage worker policies in the last 17 years. And in fact, the products, the agreements, the policies and the about the public works at the Port of L.A. are kind of modeled after our program and the high speed and the nowadays Metro Metro's policy. So we have a lot of experience in this area. And I can tell you right now a few things about what you guys are discussing, which you should kind of pay attention to. And one of them is that when you talk about local, you can't talk about positions. You really should be talking about hours. Positions gives the contractor too much leeway to be able to maneuver around. And you're not going to get what you want. We've we've experienced that and big time. And when you talk about the local hire, I would strongly urge you not to forget about the disadvantage worker and try to expand that as much as humanly possible. Because when you talk about getting a local worker person to work, yes, you're going to get the the trickle down effect for the local economy. When a person gets paid locally, when you get a disadvantaged person, including a veteran, we also consider disadvantage. Back to work. Somebody coming from you as vets, you no longer have to pay for the support of services for that individual. So you get the benefit of the trickle down economics and you save in taxpayer money when you don't have to pay those extra support of service costs. And that that includes a lot of the different at risk elements. And I would suggest that you take a close look at them. And one final thing, we found that the jobs coordinate has a jobs coordinator, and I'm not sure if that's what you meant when you were talking about a project coordinator, but a jobs coordinator is the person who is the intermediary between the local community and the nonprofit faith based organizations and the training organizations to interface with the trades and with with the contractors on the ground. You actually have to have somebody to talk to these contractors on the ground in some kind of a regular basis if you want this to be efficient. So that jobs coordinator then is kind of the the interface between all of the community and that that brings a lot of benefits to you. It brings the benefit of the bringing the local community involved to support the project that you want to commit because they're committed. Do they get something out of the project? It saves a lot of time and labor and stuff. If you have a single entity with having 18 job developers call the apprenticeship coordinator particular union. So and is and by the way all the projects we work on is usually paid for by the contractor, by the GC. It's not paid for by the, by the government. And in terms of cost of compliance, there's several ways to address that. Sometimes it's an independent contractor and sometimes it's internal, but we're available to help with because I haven't heard anything here that we haven't heard a dozen times before, and we're working with Legal Aid. If there's anything we can offer in terms of assistance, we're there for you. Oh, and do the play the field as best.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, I'm also going to I'm going to be cutting off the speakers lest anyone behind Jeanine or she the last one. She lost one. Okay, cutting off the speaker's list. Janine's the last speaker. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: How are you guys doing today? My name is Rashad Moore. I'm a proud apprentice from Local 300. But before these guys came, I'm a resident of District six out here in Long Beach. Upon come home from incarceration, I knew that I want to get a job and change my life. I went to several programs out here and it really wasn't too many means of like a play program. So I reached out to L.A. and from that opportunity these guys gave me to play in to local hiring to resume. I was able to obtain a great job. I was able to get a career. I was able to get a house and get credit. I was able just to have an opportunity, a life which I wouldn't have had had. I not had these opportunities given to me by me being out here in Long Beach. It made a big difference for me to speak on this situation. I believe that we should definitely brain is to Long Beach and really consider how many lives we will change in this community. We're giving that opportunity to not just live in this city, but build it up, be a part of a union, and be a part of something that's meaningful in that represents not just to be a proud union member, but be a proud citizen of Long Beach. Not to say, hey, look, I was raised here. I was born here. With this play, they gave me a chance to provide for my kids, my family, you know, look at to drive down the street to say, hey, we built this and we can we can go in there, spend some money there, too. So, you know, I really think that, um, you guys really consider this movement, and it'll do great justice to this city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name.
Speaker 11: Is Kevin.
Speaker 2: I'm a resident of Long Beach. I go to when.
Speaker 11: New youth build.
Speaker 2: And I'm here to express my support for local hire. And I feel youth like myself should deserve good jobs. Good paying jobs like the construction site, construction crews. And I feel like it would help us in our future. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next speaker. But.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Albert Ramirez. I'm a job developer with Winter part of YouthBuild and just wanted to thank the youth for sticking around. They've been busy all day. You know, they're there. You know, I give them a lot of props.
Speaker 9: And also to the sisters and brothers here.
Speaker 2: It's been a very long night. But that being said, I work with youth. We service youth in Long Beach. And I see on a daily basis every day students come into my office. We work on their resume. We work on job readiness. Everything. You think of the interview process. But. The stories about how and why students want a good paying job, especially in construction, and how that can change their lives and their family lives is so critical. I hear it every day. Mr. Ramirez I want to get to work. Mr. Ramirez, what's going on with the construction? What can I do? How can I be a better person to get these jobs? And it it really hit home. And I cannot stress enough this local hire, ensuring that a strong local hire that's targeting our youth because they're our future. And I also wanted to share with you all, counsel, that we have 250 signatures in support of a strong play that has the independent job coordinator, as well as the local hire piece. That being said, we applaud all efforts. Please let us know how we can continue supporting your efforts with a strong play and local hire. Thank you. Thank you. Next week first.
Speaker 0: Next speaker.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Alexander Torres, Golden Seat, and I'm the executive director of Women in Nontraditional Employment Roles and the Youth Feel program that you see today. I'm here in support of the play. I want to encourage you to really look into local hiring and hiring people from Orange County and including L.A. County is not local hiring. Local hiring should be for those people who need jobs in our own communities. And that is our job. Our job as an agency. And your job is public officials to be ensure that first, our local hire are people that live here, especially in the low income communities. And I understand that there's a lot of controversy about was not including my area but I can assure you that in every council district there are kids that I have drop out of school, that there are in programs like mine that they want jobs. So it's not is not about boundaries, is about the city's citizens of Long Beach. I speak as the executive director. WYNTER But I also speak as a resident of District two. And I do want to see a strong two Tier three tier Long Beach residents local hire. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: And our our final speaker. And then we're going to have a hello council.
Speaker 5: Janine Pearce with Lane, Los Angeles Alliance for New Economy. I'd like to really show our appreciation for a healthy discussion for the for the mayor and also for the city attorney for keeping us all straight on what was happening. Really appreciate that. I want to echo everything that everybody said before me, which is really fantastic, that we have a lot of labor groups and community groups and groups that work as job coordinators saying that the city is on the right path. I think that there's no disagreement that the intent of this policy is is a great intent. There are a couple of things that I just want to shore up on areas that we feel like could be tightened up. And at Lane, we've worked on six of these plays in L.A., around the L.A. port, around Metro, and with the city of L.A. and the things that made all three of all of those successful was that it had an exterior jobs coordinator. That it included a requirement that it wasn't a best effort. So while there was some discussion around, is this a best effort or is it a requirement, both words were used. And so we would like to ask that the city makes it a requirement that there is an attempt at that 30%, that that is a requirement and not a best effort. We would also like to make sure that the hours part is included when we talk about apprenticeships, if we're not talking about hours and there's no guarantee that those Apprentice are going to be able to finish their work. And so that part is really, really important. And the city has actually had some some legal issues around implementing plays. And these are some areas where you can make sure that you protect yourself. I think that that was all of the main issues. But let me double check. 30% targeted hiring. We do feel like that local hire piece has to be with high unemployment zip codes because this is a policy that will help address poverty in the city. But it's only that 30%. You still have 70% for the rest of the city to apply. It's not locking out anybody else in Long Beach. It's just saying, let's give these guys a first chance. And and we have experiences with Expo Line Phase one and with MLK Hospital, where they fell short when they didn't have a job coordinator and they didn't have it as a requirement. And so I'm thrilled that I know that this has been a project in the works long before many of you were on this council. And I want to thank the sponsors of this bill to make sure that this is going to actually happen on your watch. Let's make sure if we're doing this big policy that we're doing it right. And I also want to applaud the building trades and all the community groups for all their work on on bringing this to our city. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go to a vote. I just I'm going to make I haven't made any comments are going to be a very brief comment and then we're going to go for a vote. One, I just want to just reiterate that sometimes democracy gets messy and and that's okay. And I just want to make sure that we've everyone up here has talked about things that are important to them. What I what I heard from everyone up here is general support for a citywide project labor agreement as far as how we get there. There's different viewpoints and that's okay. So I just want to make sure that I kind of that I reiterated that. And as you know, because we're in this location, it's also a little bit more difficult to for councilmembers to weigh in and. Q And so that's that creates a little bit more problems, but I think we got through that. Okay. So I want to thank everyone for that. I just want us to to remind us we're really here to do. Long Beach has and has had a very strong history with project labor agreements. You look at the port projects, you look at the airport, what we're going to do with the installation of a play at the Civic Center, which was done recently, the. History of the trades. Working with the city on labor agreements has been very strong. Quite frankly, if you look at the projects, they have come in on time. They've come in under budget or at budget. The the protection that Project Labor agreements bring to projects is incredibly strong and I strongly believe that if you look at the research that is out there right now on the value of project labor agreements, the research is incredibly clear that they provide stability, not just financial stability, but labor stability to the project. And so I think that the fact that we are going to get a city wide project labor agreement out of this discussion is a very good thing for the city of Long Beach. In addition, I want to concur on a couple of comments that talked about compliance. We have to put a lot of attention to the compliance piece because that is where we know that there are big gaps in the system currently. I think if you talk I know Mr. City Attorney, you've talked to a lot of the trades that are out there doing projects, and we know that the compliance piece is really important. And I and I needed to also mention that our city attorney has actually been doing a lot of work on this issue already. And so I want while we're all having this discussion up here, I think it's important to know that our city attorney is prepared. He has been meeting with the trades. He's been meeting with Mr. Miller and everyone else, and he's prepared to bring something back to council that is the protects the city, that is a model for for for the state of California. And that is going to ensure that we're doing projects in the right way. And so this council will have an opportunity to get the information that Charlie is going to bring back with the specifications of the agenda item. So we are at the end of the day, we are going to have a citywide project labor agreement and that's a good thing for Long Beach. So I want to with that, we're going to go ahead and go to the votes. We have a substitute substitute, which essentially is the most the main motion with the additions. The $500,000 limit is where we're at. We're going to do the annual review. And there is this option of the the compliance piece of contract of contracting that out. Right. That's the first the first part of that. So that is a substitute substitute. I'm going to call for a hand vote. All those in favor of the substitute substitute. Please raise your hand. And it's one, two, three, four, five and six. So that motion carries all those. Oppose that. Please raise your hand to oppose Mr. Clark. I believe the vote is six two. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming out and for providing your voice to to the debate. We really appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Next up is, I'm sure another one that won't be controversial at all, which will be which will be item number 32.
Speaker 2: 30.
Speaker 0: 32. Yeah. Yeah. They asked for 32. That's right. Yeah. So we're going to just take like a one minute recess to let those that need those of you to exit the room to exit. And we're going to begin in just a minute. Okay. Which items?
Speaker 4: 32.
Speaker 2: I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I just got to go.
Speaker 12: Well, let's just wait to.
Speaker 2: Everyone who would have known you would have died. Just kidding. But you had to stop to stop the car and go. Yeah, it was. You know, we just kept going. I just said, come on, keep going. This one was really fun. The tickets and tickets? Yeah. Yeah. Really good time. Of course. Of course. I just wanted to let him know that he still has. Most of the time he. So that's why I appreciate and that's like you said, he's really has been everyone has been doing a debate. That's right. As long as we know it's okay, it was good. And so I'm just trying to you know, I can't hear everyone very well. I'm trying to say it. It's an interesting situation. You want to go get a soda?
Speaker 12: Our. Here. Yeah, but. Somebody's got to run. Harvey Weinstein. I would love to see mix.
Speaker 2: I get really.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I know, right? Yeah. That's in the family tree. You got to take care of it.
Speaker 2: I see that. You want to get by on my way there now.
Speaker 0: Back in the classroom. Give me some.
Speaker 12: Snacks. I just think.
Speaker 0: I would. I would. 30 minutes.
Speaker 12: If he's done more equipment.
Speaker 0: Okay. We're going to we're going to restart the council meeting. We're going to restart the. So if I can have everyone take a seat. We're going to go and get started, if anyone coming forward.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: All right, everyone. If. If you need a chat, please. Let's take it outside. We're going to start restart the council meeting. If I can have the city clerk go ahead and do roar and then we're going to adjourn from a recess.
Speaker 1: Councilman Elina Gonzalez, Vice Masuda Lowenthal. Councilwoman Suzy Pryce. Council Member Patrick O'Donnell on Time. Councilwoman Stacy Mango. Councilman Dee Andrews. Council Councilmember Roberto Durango. Councilman Al Austin. Councilmember Rex Richardson. Mayor Robert Garcia.
Speaker 0: I'm here a guys. There's a lot of kind of noise out there. So for those people that are outside, if we can either just thank you very much. And is is the air conditioner on, by the way? Yes. If we can maybe crank that on and it's pretty hot up here, so that would be great. So we're going to Mr. or Madam Kirk, can you read the next item which we're doing? We're doing 32 and then we've had a request to move up. I believe it's item 22, which is the school district item. What is it? Well, I've been I'm only going by the by the request that I've officially received. So. Next item is 32 and I'll figure out what the other requests are after that. So item number 32, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Item 32 Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilman Andrews and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Director of Economic and Economic and Property Development to create a policy and to allocate all proceeds from the sale of city owned properties to fund and track properties. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to direct City Manager to negotiate a Citywide Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, and specified Craft Councils and Local Participants, and report back to the City Council within 30 days. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11112014_14-0963 | Speaker 1: Item 32 Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilman Andrews and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Director of Economic and Economic and Property Development to create a policy and to allocate all proceeds from the sale of city owned properties to fund and track properties. Property project areas where the where the former Long Beach Redevelopment Agency properties are located.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Rex Richardson.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So, first of all, thanks to everybody who hung out. I know it's been a long, long meeting. We're not quite finished yet. We still have a little bit more work to do. Secondly, before I get going, I hear that this is really noisy and just cut on so we can turn it off.
Speaker 0: Let's turn it off. It is kind of noisy, so it's hard to hear. Great. Thanks. We'll just. We'll just keep the doors open.
Speaker 3: Thanks. So this item was crafted in the spirit of the former redevelopment agency. And I'm going to give us a little bit of background here on where this has come from. So in 45, the California legislature enacted the California Redevelopment Act to assist local governments in eliminating blight through development, reconstruction, rehabilitation and a number of other activities . This gave cities and counties the authority to establish redevelopment agencies. The Long Beach Redevelopment Agency carried out its mission of enhancing the quality of life by improving blighted and blighted areas of Long Beach, revitalizing neighborhoods, promoting economic development, creating jobs, so on and so forth. In order to meet that mission, project areas were established to capture tax increment from property taxes within those project areas, to be reinvested within those same neighborhoods and focusing on blight removal within those established boundaries. In 2011, the state of California eliminated all California redevelopment agencies, effectively eradicating a vital tool to revitalize communities. And in 2012, the Legislature passed AB 1484, I believe, which outlined a process for local communities to dispose of former RDA properties. The city of Long Beach currently has roughly 50 properties that will be sold spanning north Long Beach, central west in downtown Long Beach. The successor agency is currently awaiting approval of its long range property management plan, which outlines the disposal of these properties. If authorized, the City of Long Beach may have an opportunity to direct one time proceeds derived from the sale of these properties to be spent in alignment with the original mission of former Long Beach RDA. For example, blight removal, economic development programs and so on. So the purpose of this item is to, you know, I think there is a thought here that we've got one last opportunity here with this redevelopment. These redevelopment properties. They were purchased with tax increment generated in the project areas. When we sell the sell these properties, it won't be a lot of money here, but we should carry out the original spirit in which it was intended. Now I want to. My motion is going to give some flexibility to the city manager. City manager will be able to come back with a recommendation on how he would purchase those. But what's the crux of my motion is that they should generally be invested within the project areas. The general area is now. When redevelopment was established, the boundaries were not. Perfect. People complain that the Port of Long Beach was in the North Project area. People complain that certain areas might have been cut out that might not maybe shouldn't have been cut out. So so I want to give some flexibility to city manager, just to say the North Project area, the West, you know, Central, all the project areas and the the sort of community and communities of interest around that, those areas, we should be able to think big about how we really want to invest along the spirit. So it may not be whatever comes back doesn't necessarily have to be tied down to the specific rules of redevelopment because we're not bound by those anymore. But the general spirit within those communities of interest. Now, here's an example. Let's say that a project area ends on the West Side, and and but there's a specific interest on a corridor on the West Side. And the you know, there might be an interest of a facade program, a business loan program that might extend just down that corridor right outside the project area. I don't think that that should be. That should limit the city manager on what he comes up with on his program. I want to give the flexibility, give the city manager some flexibility to come back and let us have a have a discussion about tangible things. That's it. That is my motion. So I'll move the item.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a motion and a second to the item. Councilmember Austin, I'm going to have then I have Councilmember Price and then you're Ranga.
Speaker 6: Then I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing this item forward. This is, as he mentioned earlier, this this item wasn't a brainchild of the city council. This is one that is borne of our community, our residents here, former North Pack members, Central West Pack members, project area committee folks who worked in the redevelopment process for many , many years to eliminate blight, to promote economic development, to to do some great work in North Long Beach and central area and including the West Side. This was something that they said we need to have happen. The city council is now listening. And I would encourage my my, my the rest of my colleagues to to hear those those cries as well. I like the fact that Councilmember Richardson is looking at communities of interest because our park areas are defined by specific redevelopment, areas were defined by specific boundaries. This extends that to to to to other areas that may not have been drawn in that park, but it gives the city manager the discretion to, for example, improve the Santa Fe corridor or to to add other areas of the West Side that may not have been cut into the park areas. And so with that consideration, I mean, this is an item that that really spans not only District eight and District nine and District seven, but the sixth District, the first District and the second district as well. And Fourth District. This is this is a this is an item that that can now benefit many communities throughout our city. And so I would ask for support.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Price.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Has there been a motion yet?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. I would like to make a substitute motion to adopt this recommendation, deleting the second paragraph of the recommendation that targets the proceeds to be directed to the project areas where former Long Beach Redevelopment Agency properties are located.
Speaker 10: Second.
Speaker 0: The reason there is someone has the floor. So continue. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 7: Sure. The reason that I'm making this motion is that I believe that, first of all, I think while I appreciate the spirit of bringing it forward, I do believe it's it's slightly premature because we have not received approval yet in terms of where the money can be spent or if it's coming back. So I think it's a little bit premature. Having said that, I think that the money should be used to support our citywide economic development discussions and efforts. We have talked this council since we took office. We have talked about the need to increase our revenue and promote businesses within the city. And I believe that any money from redevelopment should be used to support the efforts of the city to promote economic development in all areas of the city and to incentivize businesses wanting to establish throughout the city wherever they may want to establish. That money could be utilized to help small businesses establish through perhaps loan programs as the item calls for or a waiver of license fees. As we've discussed, this is money that can allow us as a city to help all businesses establish in the city of Long Beach, regardless of where they want to establish. I note that in 2012.
Speaker 4: There were a.
Speaker 7: Project, there was a Pacific Electric Right of way project in District six that was developed with RDA funds that was $9.5 million. Right now in the third district, we have a long stretch of the Pacific Electric right of way that is in desperate need for funding and to be redeveloped and we don't have the funding for it . This is an example of a citywide project where these monies can be used and there are no other moneys available for. Improvements in the area other than our general fund, which we don't have. So having said that, I believe that we should take a city wide as opposed to a district specific approach to this particular item. If and when the successor agency reports back in a manner that's consistent with the reallocation of these funds.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I have next I have in order to have council members you Ranka than mongo than Austin.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mayor. I too have issue with the second paragraph and how it reads, because the seventh district was basically a redevelopment a long time ago and was never really included. Council member Austin did mention the fact that we touch upon the seventh District is touched upon by the Central Park, the West Bank and the North Park . But very little redevelopment was present in the seventh District. Very small, very little. Those those agencies did not touch the seventh District at all. So that's before my time. I had no impact on it. But I think here's an opportunity for me to correct that. And so this is why I have two issues with both of these proposals. One was the the the thought about having a close proximity to communities of interest. Redevelopment. I have an issue with that because I'm not sure that that's going to work. On the other hand, having a citywide project, I have an issue with that as well because how do we work out the priorities? She has a right away that she wants fixed. I have a park that I need fixed. How are we going to prioritize that? So my and if I can, who is going to repeat who read back the the the the motion. The city clerk is not here but.
Speaker 0: Well, the what the what the two motions are.
Speaker 8: Now what what's what's what's the one motion that that's what we're at right now on the floor.
Speaker 0: The motion that's on the floor right now is a substitute motion by Councilwoman Pryce. That is essentially the recommendation is presented minus the second paragraph. So it's requesting the city manager to work with the director of economic development to create a policy that allocates the proceeds from the sale of city owned properties.
Speaker 8: No, I can't support that either. What I'm a friendly amendment or amendment is, is to take it back to the city manager, for them to come up and develop a plan that is much more inclusive of how and much more clear in terms of how these redevelopment funds will be used citywide, if that's if that's the plan . However, it has to be very clear that it's going to be inclusive, that the areas that are that are identified as being blight and now may be the areas that were there already. But there but there are there's there are areas in the seventh District that were not.
Speaker 2: Included.
Speaker 8: In those areas. And I want to I want to make sure that I have an opportunity to bid for or include a project in the seventh District that will that will be inclusive of all areas, not only in terms of of communities of interest. Communities of interest is a little vague for me at this point. So, I mean, that's my most.
Speaker 2: Point of order.
Speaker 0: So I. Hold on. Only one person has the floor right now. Let me. Councilmember, you're Ranga is wrapping up his motion. I want to get that clarification that I have a speaker's list. And I know that the authors of the motion are trying to make a clarification. So we'll get to everybody first. Councilmember Urunga, I believe you have made a substitute substitute motion or was it a friendly amendment? I'm asking Councilmember Frank.
Speaker 8: Nobody else, an amendment to take it back.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm asking customary ranking. You ask for friendly amendment. So you're asking for a friendly amendment. I'm I'm I'm I'm assuming of Councilwoman Price's motion or of the original motion.
Speaker 9: It would be to councilmember prices. The motion that's on the floor.
Speaker 0: So you're.
Speaker 8: Asking. Okay, in that case, I'm would substitute motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you're making a substitute substitute motion. And from what I understand, the substitute substitute motion is to ask the city manager to come back with options to the city council, for the council to look at as to how we could create some type of policy for how for the any sort of revenue or income we may get from the dissolution of properties. Is that right.
Speaker 8: And with with it with a plan of how those will be mitigated.
Speaker 0: So with with with plan and background as far as what those would look like. Yeah. Okay. So Mr. City Attorney. So just just to be clear, the substitute substitute is a motion to ask city manager to come back to council with a plan and or options as to how he would present the how would what his plan would be on the dissolution of the properties and the revenue created with some plans as to how that would work. That was about right.
Speaker 9: That's my understanding, because substitute substitute eliminates.
Speaker 0: Was there a second to that substitute substitute? Was there a second to that? There was not a second to that.
Speaker 2: Who stuck with the game to.
Speaker 0: Be vice mayor? Was that a second term?
Speaker 4: No, it's not. I have a clarifying. Okay.
Speaker 0: So I have a I have a couple of people with clarifying questions. So let me get to those. Let's go to speakers. Oh, that actually, I'm doing the clarifying questions first. Clarifying questions first was Councilmember Ashton. You had a clarifying question to clarify something, not something I because you're on the speakers another point.
Speaker 6: So I just wanted to clarify something because we we talked about communities of interest. And I think in the spirit of what Councilmember Richardson was, and I think he mentioned that in his remarks, in the spirit of what he was trying to achieve is is not excluding the west west side. And so would it be out of order for me to to to attempt to make a friendly amendment to Councilmember Richardson?
Speaker 0: Well, you're you're you know, you're you are coming up right after council after Councilman Mango. Why don't you make your friendly when you're up on the on the board? You can make the friendly really easy when you when you're up.
Speaker 6: Duly noted. Okay.
Speaker 0: So I have one more clarifying question and we're going to go back to the speaker's list. Vice Mayor Long thought that you have a clarifying comment.
Speaker 4: I did. In what I heard from what Councilmember Urunga had described, it actually sounds the same to me as the motion that Councilmember Mongeau and praised the motion the Councilmember Mongo made. Hi. Sorry, I'm looking at Councilmember Price, but I'm saying mongo. Yeah, it does sound the same to me. So if I could ask. Isn't that the same? No, no. How is it different? Because Councilmember Price asked for the item to be just the first part of the recommendation, which is asking the city manager to create a policy to out would you would the city manager not be coming back with this policy? He would be. And so the policy could be a set of options. I interpret that as actually the same. It's a nuance, but it's the same. And so instead of complicating it, I think we can take what Councilmember Yang is looking for, which inherently is in that motion, it's in that language.
Speaker 0: Well, if it if it's the same. Does anyone want a second? Roberto's substitute. Substitute?
Speaker 4: Only if we acknowledge that it's the same. Because I firmly believe it's the same.
Speaker 0: Listen, it. It sounds. It sounds the same to me, but I. But I want to make sure that contrary.
Speaker 4: So I think we can revert back to the original maker of that motion because the language is right here and I'm hearing would count. Well, my colleague, Councilmember Turanga, is asking for and I wanted to have the assurance that it's actually the same. And if I can hear from the city manager or the city attorney, what is your interpretation of the first part of that recommendation?
Speaker 0: Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 9: The way I understood Mr. Councilmember during his motion, and he can certainly correct me if I was wrong, is that he wanted the city manager to come back with a policy for the allocation of the sale of the city, proceeds with no limitation on it as to the blight removal, economic development, etc., which was the motion by Councilmember Price. So that's the difference that I saw between the two motions. I'm not sure if Mr. Rangel agrees with the way I understood his.
Speaker 8: That that is not my understanding of the motion, that that was not my intent of my motion. The language that's in the first paragraph is good. I mean, I have no issues with that at all. In fact, that's what it should be. That that's what it is. The issue that I had is with that second paragraph, obviously, and I to strike that. And that was a motion that that Councilmember Price is making. The issue that I have with that is the nuances of striking that and still goes into a general fund, yet not being able to identify priorities in regards to what we define as either communities of interest or which are the ones that are, say, in a 1 to 10 scale of blight and what what conservation, what comes next, and those priorities. That's what I have an issue with.
Speaker 2: If I could.
Speaker 0: Yes. Mr. CITY.
Speaker 9: And then I think council member or Vice Mayor Lowenthal is is correct in that the motion is the motion by the councilmember from the third District, and that the city manager would be coming back with a policy for consideration by the entire council on those items. So his motion is essentially the same.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Arango So at least the city the city attorney is interpreting your motion to be the same as that as Councilman Price's motion. So I just want to make sure that with that, before we move forward, whether you agree with that assessment or not. So. Mr. City Attorney, because I know that he was having a side conversation real quick here, can you just real reiterate one more time your thought of both motions, and let's let Councilman Ringa clarify.
Speaker 9: Thank you. The motion by Councilmember Price, second by Councilmember Mongo deletes the second paragraph and leaves the first paragraph in its entirety. The way I understood your motion is that you would like to see options brought back by the city manager, and obviously this requires the manager to bring back a draft policy for your consideration. So there. So you're really not committing yourself this evening until you see the policy that would be created by the city manager.
Speaker 8: Right. Well. In essence, what I'm wanting to say, what I meant by my substitute motion is that I want to take this document that we have before us right here. And take and give it to the city manager to come up with a plan.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So I think that I.
Speaker 2: Think that if.
Speaker 8: It's if it's if it means striking the paragraph two and that's it. That's what that's the interpretation.
Speaker 0: I mean, the way I read it in court from Richard Attorney, but that is essentially striking the second paragraph. So I think the first paragraph asked the city manager to come back with a plan for the council to review. It could include various options. Is that right?
Speaker 9: That that is my understanding, yes.
Speaker 0: So the substitute substitute comes from a hearing, according to the city attorney, in the way it's interpreted, your motion is identical to Councilman Price's motion. And it would be. It's on the floor. It's on the floor already.
Speaker 6: A point of order, Mr. Mayor. The motion died without a second. If we are reading this to death.
Speaker 0: Well, that's all we're clarifying. So. So that's the motion. Thank you. That's. We're clarifying. I want to make sure that everyone understands who we're talking about. So that was the motion that was made. There was no second correct account. Sum rearranges motion. Okay, now I have one. Mr. Mayor? Yes?
Speaker 4: If I might still have the floor.
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 4: I did.
Speaker 0: Have. But she did have the thing.
Speaker 4: Miss Mungo, I had the plaque for clarifying it. Just to be abundantly clear, it's not beating a dead horse, because it's very important for me to make sure that one of my colleagues understands that what he wants to see for his communities, for his district, is actually very much it's right in the motion that was already made . And that's very important to me. And I wanted to understand that from Councilmember Urunga. And I'm thankful for the time that we spent, and I'm glad that we arrived at that. It's not a waste of time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to go back to the speaker's list. So I have Councilmember Mongo, then Austin and Richardson.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you. I think that we are.
Speaker 4: Significantly.
Speaker 10: Ahead of the curve on where we have options. First and foremost, I want to thank the Economic Development Committee, specifically the staff members that brought forth a staff report that had this particular recommendation in it several weeks ago. And with the tweaks that have happened now, it kind of reverts back to Councilmember Price's motion. Really goes to the vision and mission of what Economic Development Oversight Committee is responsible for, which is helping set the policy for the city that has the greatest advantage for the whole city. The city that sometimes you could live on the border of a city and a job in the night or excuse me, at the border of a district and get a job out of the other side of the district. And so what I would like to say is thank you, Councilman Price, for caring through the vision that the three of us had at a previous council budget oversight I'm sorry, the budget oversight, Economic Development and Oversight Committee meeting, which is that we should be looking citywide to make the greatest impact for all residents when it comes to economic development, workforce, business growth, business support. So with that, I'm going to be supporting your motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Next I have is Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And let me just say that my mom lives in Detroit and she's the only person that I will allow lecture me. I don't need to be lectured by anybody on this diet. I think everybody here is an adult. Secondly, I'd like to just speak to the the equity issues in terms of distribution of public funds. The RDA areas were set up for the RDA areas and to improve blight and economic development conditions in the RDA areas. Let's be very clear about that. North Long Beach. West Side. Central areas do not benefit from tidelands funds. You know. No, we don't. We don't. I'm just going to say we don't benefit from them. And so the RDA was set up specifically and in these areas we're set up specifically to address conditions in those areas. We've we've utilized the tools and resources I think extremely well to the credit of great city staff or city management. I see Amy Bodak, our Development Services Department and a lot of hard work and dedication from residents who have spent a lot, countless, countless amount of sweat equity and brainpower working on behalf of this community. So with that, I'd like to offer a substitute substitute motion to. Include the recommendations, as has as originally brought forth with the second sentence, and include including the communities of interest, the West Side and Seventh District. Was that a second? Thank you.
Speaker 0: There's there's been a substitute substitute, which is the motion on the floor. And I believe the second was from Councilwoman Gonzalez. Okay. Next, I have Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I wanted to just have maybe a reasonable discussion. I feel like, you know, the first concern here with the substitute motion was that it wasn't the appropriate time. So I want to ask city staff, have any cities that received approval of their long term property management plan yet?
Speaker 2: Mike Canwe. Mayor, members of the city council. There have been a number of cities that have received approval of their long range property management plan. So far, so good. Most of those cities, though, have had very small number of parcels. We have 259 were a bit overwhelming, I think, for the state. There hasn't been an approval of a plan of our size.
Speaker 3: So some cities have received approval. They haven't gotten to the size of cities our size, but it would be appropriate, more so prudent to prepare for it as we were anticipating it. Correct?
Speaker 2: Preparation is always good.
Speaker 3: Are you preparing yourself for the approval.
Speaker 2: From the council? Richardson We have been drafting RFP in anticipation of approval so that we could issue them as quickly and prudently as possible. We also have a slate of of real estate brokers to whom we would issue the for sale properties and have them listed as well as soon as we have approval.
Speaker 3: So we are indeed our city preparing for the approval of the long term property management plan.
Speaker 2: That's correct. Okay.
Speaker 3: Secondly, before we get into heated discussion about like where this money is, I would like for the public just to know exactly how much money we're talking about so that we can really have an understanding on what what this discussions about. So could you please shed some light on what is the anticipated value of the properties that are listed for future future sale?
Speaker 2: I am sorry I don't have that number at this time. I'll have to report back to you on that.
Speaker 3: Well, let me let me let me ask this. Where do we have a.
Speaker 2: List of those properties? Yes, indeed. I think they were distributed today. Hmm. So yesterday.
Speaker 3: Would you mind just stating for the public where those properties are?
Speaker 2: Well, there are they are in former redevelopment areas. Is that so?
Speaker 3: In this item, there is a breakdown. There are two categories. This is for the future development, correct?
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 3: And this is for sale?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. And Central there are 946 FS, so there are 15 parcels in central Long Beach for sale. In downtown, there are ten for future development and one for fuel for sales. So that's 11. In North, there are eight for future development and seven for sale. That's 15 in West. There are six for future development and one six for future development and one for sale. So it's 15, 11, 15 and seven in central, downtown, north and west. So my question is, how were those properties specifically acquired by our city?
Speaker 2: First, I think I'd like to clarify. I don't believe those were parcels. I think those were sites like.
Speaker 3: Site, an accumulation of parcels.
Speaker 2: Accumulation of.
Speaker 3: Persons, though, likely be sold by site.
Speaker 2: And so future development properties were traditionally assembled and acquired by the Redevelopment Agency for Future Development for uses consistent with the strategic guide in that redevelopment area.
Speaker 3: So they were acquired by the art redevelopment agencies within by the budget within the project area? That's correct. How were the budgets within the project areas? How were those funds derived? Where did they come from?
Speaker 2: I'm assuming they would come from tax increment from the increased property values since the time the redevelopment project area was established.
Speaker 3: So the property properties can. So the tax increment came from those local communities central, downtown, north and west.
Speaker 2: Correct. I believe that's correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. So based on that. The city. It is very comfortable administering funds through, you know, by boundary. We administer our Titans funds that way. We have CDBG funds that we craft and have to spend in certain ways. We've established that this is not a new process. We're already making preparations to do this. I think the public just needs to know this is the fact is this is talking about taking about 50 the proceeds from 50 properties specifically located in low income, downtrodden, blighted communities and investing those in programs that aren't specifically targeted those communities. And secondly, the funds generated are not it's not going to be a lot of money. Whatever comes back, whatever we derive is going to be over a period of time. And the state hasn't even determined whether we can only keep 21% of that the taxable what the taxable proceeds are for the city. So we might be talking about, you know, not that much money over a period of years, so to say purpose that city wide, you really diminish the impact that you can make. Whereas there are still sitting there existing programs today that if we would invest money in facade programs, revolving loan programs and really target those a certain areas, it becomes a rising tide, lifts all ships and it also helps us to raise our property values. So I just wanted to, you know, I mean, my my motion is that what we're going to be voting on? I just wanted to make sure we go through that process and have that discussion, because I believe the the residents deserve to hear those those responses.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So I just want to reiterate as well, of course, this is not a new idea. We've been discussing this prior to many of us even being on the council. I've only been here for six years, but I know it's been an ongoing discussion and having these and retaining the redevelopment funds. And I believe firmly that this is a citywide policy. This is a citywide attribute that will benefit all of us. I'm going to give I'm going to run over a list of a few of the items that just have happened in my district alone to give the council an idea of how this really relates to citywide project . This isn't just us working in silos. We really have made great progress. Just in the First District alone. We've, I think, made progress of over 20, almost $25 million in seven years, just invested in the first District alone. So you can imagine with the other districts what that means. But we've done things like Armory Park, which will be taking care of the the most dangerous intersection in the whole city. We've done the courthouse. That's the city wide asset, I would believe. Pump Station on the west side, surveillance cameras. Harvey Milk Park, which is the first park named after an LGBTQ leader. Seaside Park, which is a park that is in one of the second highest in violent crime areas in my in my neighborhood. These are all collectively, I believe, citywide assets. And so we don't have access to other things like Tidelands. We don't. And we just approved a pool that was a city wide asset. I think that we need to make sure that this goes back to their original intent. And so, as I mentioned, we had about $25 million invested just in new parks, corridor improvement, small business improvements in some of the highest violent crime rates, some of the most impoverished neighborhoods and severely deficient buildings and blight issues in the whole city. So I would just ask for our support for your support of the council to make sure that we continue to move this forward.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Now I have Councilmember Durango.
Speaker 8: Okay. Since the my original motion. My motion, anyway, died of. Or, let's just say, was not approved. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think perhaps it was because I misunderstood. So I I'm going to make I'm going to probably ask a few questions for clarification from Councilmember Price in regards to her motion and what it means. Does that first paragraph still stand as is with with removing that second paragraph? Because if I heard you correctly, you're talking about the possibility of developing some areas that are not blighted and have no need for redevelopment or in those kinds of situations. When you're talking about that, that. Right away. I don't see any right away in the third district that really is blighted. I mean, it might be underdeveloped or not developed, but in regards to being blighted, I you know, I don't see that where there was blight in the sixth District when they corrected that, that right away, it was blighted. It was horrible. There were there were, you know, drug addicts there. Prostitution was taking place. All those types of things that that that we want to get rid of was I was corrected or addressed by redevelopment money. So that's where I guess I'm a little confused as to what your emotion is because when it comes right down to it, I don't see a whole lot of blighted areas in the third. In the fifth, there might be some in the fourth and there and there's a few in the second. But I don't you know, I don't see that type of blight in those areas that I see in my area in the seventh District. Then that's that's the clarification that I want to get.
Speaker 7: Councilman. Absolutely. The first paragraph should stand as is. It's supposed to address blighted areas as well as economic development. And I don't want to get into a subject subjective determination in terms of whose area is more blighted. I'd be more than happy to give you a tour of this particular right of way that I'm talking about, because I think you would agree very objectively it needs some help. But this isn't an issue of trying to grab what you can for your district. It's we as a council made a commitment to economic development. And economic development means increasing our sales tax revenue, among other things. And where in I would be more I love your suggestion that the city manager come back with ideas of how best we could use this money to support our collective mission of economic development. So it's not just about removing blight, it's about opportunities for businesses to bring in sales tax revenue for the entire city, whether that be in whatever district it may be. So that's you know, there are multiple things listed in paragraph one. I agree with every single one of them. And I do want to make well, it's probably not the appropriate time, but a couple of comments about the pool. I'm not sure how that relates to anything and Tidelands funding. I would love for staff to give counsel and education on how long the second and third districts and some of the will have received Tidelands in comparison to RDA funds and what the limitations of Thailand's are. So, you know, to have that discussion I think is unnecessarily divisive. The point of this was how can we allocate money so that it supports our collective economic development purpose?
Speaker 8: Okay. And that and that's part of the problem that I see there is that. And there's a mixing of words here that that are confusing me further. You know, I'm an old man, so, you know, sometimes I. I get lost in my own mind. Is that when you talk about the first paragraph in this in this motion here, and then you talk about the general issues of economic development, that's confusing to me, because when we're talking specifically about areas of blight and and the need for economic development, I think it's in those areas that are blighted, that need that economic development not as a whole lot in general. That that that's what I'm trying to address here. And that's why I'm concerned about just putting it back into a general plan for economic development. It doesn't ring with me because I still have issues in the seventh District that are specific to the seventh District, specific to the blight and and the and the economic development that I need in order to make my seventh District thrive. So that's that's where I'm coming from. Now, if I can ask now the attorney and the city clerk again, can I have a re affirmation of what the motion is that we're working on right now.
Speaker 0: Which is the substitute substitute.
Speaker 8: If you can read it back to me, you know, I may be a little selfish here, but let me get a reiteration of what it is.
Speaker 9: The substitute substitute motion is a motion by Councilmember Austin, second by Councilmember Gonzalez, to include the recommended staff action and the second paragraph, adding that it will also include communities of interest, the West Side and the seventh District.
Speaker 8: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to clarify.
Speaker 0: Yes, I have. Have you next? Have you next? Let me let me real quick. So city attorney. So. Cosby Renko, you got that. Okay. I have Councilman Richardson for clarification and then went back to the speakers list.
Speaker 3: So since all of the motions have included the first part of the original motion, I thought I would just re highlight the fact that the original motion was for the city manager to come back with recommendations. The discussion here is only about how wide we go when we target these resources. Therefore, I'd like to just say that communities of interest is not buy by my motion or by Councilman Austin's motion does not necessarily limit to districts. If there is an adjacent community, leave it up. Leave some flexibility of the city manager to say, hey, this is, you know, a priority for Cambodia town. It may not entirely be in RDA, but this might be a recommendation. This might be a recommendation. There might be a project on Santa Fe or in the downtown that might not be included. So it leaves that flexibility. At no point that we say this is specifically what you need to do and said, come back with a recommendation on the policy.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to go back to a few people that want to speak. I want to just make a couple of comments. And actually, Councilman Richardson and I think had a pretty good conversation yesterday about kind of my point of view on the item. And I just want to I think it's it's somewhere close to what some of the folks are talking about. I don't know that anyone here up here disagrees that there are certainly areas of Long Beach, particularly those that were formerly had RDA, areas that have more blight than others. That's a fact. There are parts of the city that have more blight than others. I think what the where the discussion where I'd like the discussion to go is what I think management's initial intention was, was to bring back a plan to the city that one would address the areas that are most affected by blight and that need economic development, which are the areas that we've been discussing, the north north area, the west area, central Long Beach. And there's certainly other pockets throughout the city that is I think everyone agrees that that need to be addressed. I think what some of the other members are trying to get across, and I would agree is there what what I mentioned the customer Richardson is I think that the initial motion, I think limits a bit the ability for for management to bring back some city wide ideas that could be part of this that could lift all boats. And so I think that there is that we can still address. There is no question that if we're going to do blight removal and address that issue, that's going to be focus in certain areas of the city. And that's going to be a big chunk of what is what of where this money is going to go. But I also believe that there are citywide programs and there are other parts of the city that are not. And I think, Councilman, your income makes a great point. There are huge portions of the seventh District that were left out of the RDA process, not just in West Long Beach. That unfortunately would not be covered by the initial motion. And so I think that there has to be room to have some citywide opportunities. And so I say that because I think there's I think there's a happy medium there. I think that we should recognize the fact that it's likely that a majority of these funds should go to the blighted areas. But we should all we shouldn't close off having some citywide economic development initiatives for the whole city. And so that's my $0.02. That's where I think the motion should go. I think that you should allow staff to come back with options for the council, but we should be able to come back and say, here are the options we can do. We can focus on blight removal in these parts of town which need it the most, which is going to be north, central, west parts of downtown. And certainly and there are parts on the east side as well that have blight issues. And here are some citywide initiatives that will help the entire city, which is also inclusive of the Northwest, but everyone, including East Long Beach and other parts that also need economic development. I want to remind the council that this council, through the budget, approved a new department. The department also needs some type of funding support. This this money, by the way, is going to be housed in this new department in economic development, economic development and property management. And so I think it would be nice for this department to be able to think creatively about what we can do citywide to help everybody. So I hope that's where we go and that's not where we at right now. But that's my $0.02.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: So at no point I'm not sure that this motion or councilmember price motion or councilman or my original motion. I'm not sure that any of them really preclude like let's say that there was a tool that's managed by our new department. And it does you know, it does support economic development activities. How would you approach it if you said, hey, look, open, open encounter, for example? This is a program that the city's interested in working on. It's going to cover all project areas in addition citywide. Would that be something like an option under either of the iterations of the motion that you could bring back as a recommendation? It's a question.
Speaker 0: Mr. City Attorney. I mean, I can't if I'm wrong, but I think the original motion, though, precludes that.
Speaker 9: That's correct. The while it's not a defined term, communities of interest, the discussion has been it has to relate or be adjacent to the redevelopment areas to follow with the spirit and the intent of the redevelopment law. So by definition, you would probably be eliminating some areas of the city.
Speaker 3: So if there were a tool that could work in these areas, like if for some reason the original the original motion passed, would you just like craft that tool to only work in certain areas? Or would you be able to come back and say, look, here's where the motion might need to be tweaked. This is what this is what we came up with as a recommendation. What could be adopted? Like, are you limited right now? Like and how you what your approach your what your approach would be?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. We're being told to come we're being directed to come back with a policy with options. Options, excuse me on how this money could be spent in agency, geographic areas.
Speaker 9: And communities of interest. That certainly would.
Speaker 2: Preclude.
Speaker 9: Us from going.
Speaker 2: Too far away from what we would consider a.
Speaker 9: Community of interest. Community of interest is.
Speaker 2: Really definitely defined in.
Speaker 9: Redevelopment law. It certainly wasn't a.
Speaker 2: Health and safety code and I don't think a community of interest would be if you jump three or four miles away.
Speaker 3: So if. Councilman so where I want to get to is what would be something that like what what do you need to hear in order to focus your, your resources into a certain area but still have the availability of think about certain tools that do impact the whole city? Like where's the balance?
Speaker 2: If we're just given the opportunity to come back with options, that would look at the entire city, maybe focus on the agency areas, but not but also look at other areas of the city. We could certainly do that. But right now, the way it's crafted, we again, we would be doing this, but he'd be precluded from looking at areas that are.
Speaker 9: Not a community of interest adjacent to a geographic boundary of the agency area.
Speaker 3: Okay. I want to hear public comment and maybe revisit that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I do have two other speakers I want to make sure I want to share. They don't want to speak now first or wait. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, did you want to make any additional comments? Okay. And Councilmember Mongo. Okay. We're going to go to public comment, so please go ahead and line up over here. Thank you all. Just over here on the on everyone's right. Please, and make sure that everyone can just introduce themselves for the record. And please begin.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Hi. My name is Sean Darren. I'm a system manager of the Uptown Business District working in ninth and eighth District. And I just wanted to lend support to Councilman Richardson's recommendation, speaking from someone who from the perspective of someone who works with businesses and property owners every day in the business district, this would directly impact the economic development within the business district. For instance, many businesses don't have enough money to improve their facades to get new signage. And so this some of these funds could be directly allocated towards the signage and improvement of the facade so that it attracts new businesses. So that attracts customers more importantly. And so and also it improves the look of the the area. Also, it would also help fund some startups. I get I get calls all the time from businesses who want to come into the district, but they don't have the funds to start up in there. They're always asking for city programs or any kind of funding that would be available to help them start their business. And also this would also help impact existing businesses who want to relocate to the area. And it will also impact things like security. We need to make the business district safe for residents to shop there and also for businesses to relocate there, which some of these funds could be allocated toward that as well. And and also things like security. We have a we implemented a private security firm which helps decrease some of the Long Beach Police Department calls that would redirect some of their resources. And also it would help fund some of the businesses to get security cameras and to have a more robust security system, which would also help impact businesses as well, and help customers come into the community and help it impact the safety of the community to have a safe business district for businesses to and customers to shop in. So I just wanted to lend my support in the business district, support for the initiative and to help some of these blighted properties, which there are plenty in the business district. There are vacancies which have, for what I understand, have been vacant for a very long time. And so we need to do something and we need to redirect some of these funds so that the original intent of the redevelopment agency to help some of these by two areas is is finally realized. Thanks. Hello. My name is Larry Cherish. I might ramble a little bit now because I'm tired and I think that's kind of thanks to you guys. I work for the city of Long Beach. For many, many years, I did. I worked in redevelopment. I did economic development. I was the senior economic development officer for quite a while. And then for a short while after Jerry Miller left redevelopment to go to the city manager's office. I was the acting bureau manager for economic development, and so I know a little bit about economic development. I created several of the loan programs I think that the city still has, and I think I was the one who did the first facade program studying down on Pacific Avenue in the seventh District, maybe six. At any rate, let me tell you this. The money that's coming out of North Miami Beach really ought to stay in North Long Beach to take money out of north Long Beach, which is really got terrible problems and spend them citywide and in districts that don't have terrible problems would really be wrong. You might be able to do it, but it would simply be immoral. It's like stealing. These are these are really low income neighborhoods to compare, say, A right away and the sixth district to A right away in a third district. You do like Roberta was saying, you just can't do that. The money has to stay where the money was generated. You're taking the money from the communities that absolutely need it the most. I'll tell you this. If you create if you take that money and you put it into a loan program, for example, you're going to get businesses lined up from shore, from the fifth District, lining up to get that loan money. And you're going to struggle to make those loans in North Line Beach because it's hard to make loans in North Line Beach. What you need to do with North Palm Beach money is spend money on businesses in North Long Beach and find a way to do it. You. You just can't be taking it away like that. I think it's just wrong. I came to this meeting to talk about the airport, but I just couldn't help myself when I heard all this. Why not? I worked there and put my heart and soul into economic development for such a long time. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Laurie Angel, Northland Beach's Project Area Committee Chair for North. And this is near and dear to my heart. I've worked on this for 15 years, and unless you've been here and you've worked on it, you really don't get how important it is. It isn't just a pot. It's not just found money. It's money with a purpose. It's it's money that was intended to fix problems. And if all things were equal in the city, I could say, sure. Just divide it up and give it to everybody. But they're not. We have a lot of catching up to do. And most of the serious problems occurred during the L.A. riots. And it has been a difficult struggle. We've lost all kinds of businesses. And I don't know if you have. Streets filled with empty, vacant buildings and lots. But I'm going to tell you, as Larry said, is that the folks that live in the wealthiest areas with the best businesses are going to be able to find money. People up here are not going to be able to find money to support their businesses. And I tell you, if you make this area productive, it will contribute ten fold to the city in terms of property taxes, sales taxes and business taxes. So to deny the ability to skid the grease, to give, you know, grease the skids in order to be able to help this area take off and contribute to the rest of the city, you are denying the city the additional revenue that you would have otherwise to help you in other areas. Thank you.
Speaker 13: You know, my name is Mike Maltz. I live in a nice district, but I'm a Long Beach boy. I've been here since the day I was born. My family's been here since 1918. I have most of my family buried in the Sunnyside Cemetery on Willow. I've been raised on the West Side. I spent 20 years in the seventh and eighth districts, and now I'm raising my grandchildren in the ninth District. I wake up every morning and I look at two vacant lots, one of which we're going to have taking care, of which is the library. The other. I look at the South and Atlantic corridor, which was going to be the village. Who knows what we're going to end up with now? We want to see the money kept where the money needs to go in the areas it was intended for. This is what everyone I have talked to in my area has said we need. I wouldn't start a business in this area. Because of the fact that the way it looks. You got to be able to do something to promote businesses in the area. And right now, I can't see it happening. We are getting some stuff done, Rex. Steven Neil Vallance worked on to get our streets looking better, to get the lighting up and the things that have accomplished on Long Beach and the Atlantic corridor. But the major issue I'm afraid of and what I saw back in the seventies was now you're talking about a civic center. And my biggest fear is the moneys we do get back from the sale of these properties will go back downtown and everything will go back to the way it was because we had to straighten this infrastructure out with redevelopment. That's my fear. I want to see. The money's come back up here so that my grandchildren and my great grandchildren can be happy to say they came from North Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 7: My name is Annie Greenfeld. I am the current.
Speaker 4: President of LBC PAC, which, by the way, included the First District. The Fourth District. The Sixth District. The seventh District. Okay. We did have certain certain.
Speaker 5: Areas in the seventh.
Speaker 4: District. We now cover everything from Redondo to the L.A. River. Okay. Pass the L.A. River over to two where the west side is. From Ward, from ward low to Ocean Boulevard, we are now discussing changing our boundaries to come up north because North doesn't have a park where a501c3 nonprofit. And we welcome working with the Economic Development Task Force or whatever committee there is. Now, let me just. Point out a few things that Rex pointed out.
Speaker 7: The tax increment came from the.
Speaker 4: RDA project areas. LBC back in 2010 celebrated 20 years. Of volunteerism and working for free to help our communities.
Speaker 7: North PAC did the same thing.
Speaker 5: They were around much longer.
Speaker 4: We have always been an advocate for the West Side. We didn't need to do Westpac businesses because they just represented the businesses. We represented the communities, the residents. So as far as I'm concerned, I've got. Cpec has most of the blighted areas in this city. You go up and down Pacific Avenue right now. And you will see more vacant storefronts. I just can't even believe I'm up here. Saying this to everybody when most people should know how bad it is in the sixth, the seventh areas of the fourth, if not for C PAC or Isabel Park, wouldn't be what it is today . If not for North Pack. Admiral Kidd Park wouldn't be what it is today. So this money grab is just beyond me.
Speaker 5: I can't even understand.
Speaker 4: Why you would even consider it. So I just want to remind you that I am in total support of the last.
Speaker 7: Motion that.
Speaker 4: Was on the floor. Keep the money in the project areas, please.
Speaker 7: Even though redevelopment is not here.
Speaker 4: Okay, we are still here. Thank you. Good evening again. Recap Village eighth district. You know, I have to say, first of all, I believe that the duty of city government is to build public safety facilities. But the city of Long Beach didn't have the money to build those facilities. So redevelopment money jumped ahead. Instead of focusing on the projects that were developed over many, many years. And they built the West Side Police Department. They built the North Police Department. They built Station 12. They're building the North Library. So all of those moneys that were put to those projects could have could have brought our community so much further ahead. But it didn't because it stepped back for the better of the entire city. I have to say, Suzy, you said that we have a need to increase revenue. And Stacy, you said that that it should be about the greatest advantage for the whole city. Then I want you to consider something. If property tax revenue is the number one source to the general fund, which it is, then further development to improve these neglected areas. And they have been neglected for a long, long, long time. Then when you improve those neighborhoods, you're going to improve the property tax values, which is going to generate more money to the general fund so that it can so that it can be provided for everybody. But if you don't take the time and you don't look long term for visioning and planning about how you're going to bring these neighborhoods that have been allowed to go down the path that they're down with no source of money coming in. And by the way, I think you ought to also be talking about a new source of revenue, or, as you stated, we're going to be in trouble. We're going to be in big trouble. The Tidelands, I know you don't like to hear that, but one, two and three benefit greatly. And thank God we have that. Or we'd be in No. One, not one. Okay. I'll take that back. But we got the Naples canals, we've got the pool, we've got the aquarium, we've got the beach improvements. We look really good to people that come to visit us in the downtown area. I encourage you to do something that Bonnie Lowenthal did with me when I first came on the council. She said, Let's take a drive through each other's district. I want you to see what my challenges are, and I want to see what yours are. And I'm going to tell you that for a number of you, for two, four, three, four, five, you don't come close to what some of these other neighborhoods are looking at. So I ask you, please keep the tax increment money in the neighborhoods that it came from. And let's find another source of revenue for the general fund. Thank you.
Speaker 2: John Doe Lottery, eighth district. I think when you look at the spirit intent of the RDA, when it first came out, it was basically meeting, I think what Councilman Mango and Price, I think it is what you're saying, bringing up the collective of Long Beach. Right. Is basically let's make these blighted areas, places where businesses want to go.
Speaker 9: And we can then.
Speaker 2: Start collecting that tax revenue. By keeping those funds there, we can accomplish exactly what you want to see happen for the good of Long Beach. More money coming in. Spend that money where it needs to be, where it was originally, excuse me, designed to be in these blighted RDA development areas. Thank you. Hello. My name's Phil, so I'm here. I was part of North PAC. I was the chair of the Economic Development Subcommittee for that PAC. And. I think a lot of things that were said have been said that I was going to say. But I would want to say that we attempted in North Park to try and get develop the businesses in the area there. And we did go in to ask the economic development. Officer for the city to help us, which was we got very little help. So we had to we were having to do it on our own. So that's where we were using some money. The one thing I want to bring up is. Something that no one else has. I think you covered everything else. I was on the planning commission up until about a month ago. And we'd have issues come up on the Planning Commission for different projects, low income housing. And also we had the. As the fifth District would know, the area, the mental health facility. And a lot of those things come up and people, they raise those issues. And between that and homeless shelters, what ends up happening is those projects, after all these discussions from other areas, they get dumped into the west and north side of the city. It's taking all the things for the entire city. The city has obligations, arena requirements for housing. It's for the whole city. But where does it go? It goes on the west and the north side of the city. We're taking a lot of the. The brunt for the whole city. And I think we'll also get because we just went through the. Marijuana ordinance. And part of that is on that is going to have farm sites for if we're growing marijuana. And it appears I would probably that most of those sites are going to also be on the west and north side . So I think. This Council should have an obligation to realize what the burden that these in this area has taken and try and do. Give them the money. It's a blighted area and give them money to support some of these things because they're carrying the load for the rest of the city on a lot of these things . Thank you. Good evening, Council Mayor. Staff. My name is Dan Press Burg. I live in the ninth district and I reiterate all the things that have already been said, but there are some things that some people seem to have forgotten. The North Park started originally when we started forming just a team was in 1996. It went until 1998 when we had our first meeting and Laurie Angell was there. Although she was not a pack member as part of the pack, I served as secretary for about two and a half years. I was the vice chair for seven years, part time chair off and on till Martha took over. And then I was her vice chair for a couple more years. I was entirely involved. Some of the projects we did did not start in our areas. There was a there is a necessary brownfield removal in the third district that is now a nice set of condos. We've done wayfinding signs in the second next to the Queen Mary, although it was considered part of the North Park. For two and a half, three years. We paid the rent in exchange with the port. For the aquarium bonds. And we also managed to scrape together $14 million. For the Middle Harbor project, which we'll never see, as well as moneys for the police stations that will never get back. And I'm sure Council Member Ranga remembers what the Green Monster look like, what it was like when we had to pave the streets going into Cabrillo. Rio, what it was like when that park opened and how much fun it was and some of the other things that have led to what we look like throughout the whole city . The only thing I can say is, is the money needs to stay where it originated. It needs to stay here. We need to roll up our sleeves and start working with it. I've seen many of these counties that many of the council members over here, they come up here, they visit. They all say the same thing. Just do what's right. It's ethical and it's honest.
Speaker 14: Good evening, Mayor and city council people. My name is Darlene Broom. I live here in the ninth district and it's been a challenge to live here in north of Long Beach. I set. And I've heard all your. What would I put this way? I've heard you say everything that affects you. But what affects me? You. You're talking about it right away. You're talking about fixing parks. Well, what about a grocery store? We don't have a grocery store. What about a restaurant? Where's the cleaners? Why do we. As Ninth District? Residents have to give our tax dollars from our property to the entire city. It doesn't make any sense. It's a known fact. If you want a community to grow, its dollar needs to balance in its community at least ten times. I've been to all of the districts here that have those businesses. Your dollars are bouncing at least 15 to 20 times. It shows it. What do we not? Earn that with our dollars. Do we not get to keep our money and fix our neighborhoods so our children can go to the store and not to the liquor store ? I'm so happy that you all had to drive up here tonight. When you got here, it was light. You saw where we live. Why does your neighborhood look that way?
Speaker 3: He's getting better. Darlene's getting better.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Jeff Roe from Grant Neighborhood Association, one of 11 neighborhood associations in North Long Beach here. I can't say I followed all of the substitutions and the friendlies, but and some of my colleagues from other neighborhoods of flood, I think it became past their bedtime. But I am sure that I am speaking for them when I say that, when you're considering how you're going to spend this money. If you would keep in mind that the legacy of the blight in the redevelopment areas is here and it's with us and we have to deal with it. So thank you for considering that. Good evening again, Craig Cogen with the downtown Long Beach Associates. And I really appreciate the spirit of dialog and the conversation. I think we all lost when redevelopment was dissolved. I think we all agree to that. Now it's a matter of how we manage life without redevelopment, and we're trying to do that in our downtown as well as other business corridors. And I think everyone agrees to the fact that we need to put our energies together to be able to address those issues that we are now really navigating uncharted waters. And for those of you that feel as though that downtown has benefited, you're absolutely right from redevelopment and from the private investment that's been made in our downtown, it is and does still continue to serve as an economic engine for the entire city. But if you feel as though downtown is complete by any stretch of the imagination, I will invite you to join Councilmember Gonzales and Vice Mayor Lowenthal and I to take a tour of some of the neighborhoods in their downtown. And I assure you that it's not complete. So, yes, the Tidelands have helped the waterfront, the convention center, the pike. It's polished, it looks nice. But I will take you to neighborhoods that don't benefit from it. Seventh and Daisy, North Pine Ninth and Elm, seventh and Alameda, serving as gateways to our center city. Those areas need help too. So whatever you decide. That's fine. We're going to work with whatever the decisions are. But the work is not complete. And I think all of our business corridors and all of our neighborhoods feel the same way. Thanks. Good evening. I am Jack Smith. I live at 50 Alma Avenue in the second district. That's an East Village. There are lots of places in town that need help. But there are only a few places that generated. This redevelopment money that we hope is coming back to the city. I can't imagine there's any question at all. As to where that money should be spent. I live in a family of four boys. Or a Brit was raised and lived there anymore. When I worked hard selling my lemonade or my cotton candy or running my festivals. And earned by money. I spent my money. Occasionally. I helped my family with the rent. But it was my money. And I decided what was done with that money. And that's how the PACs worked. This money was generated and earned by these areas that were part of the redevelopment areas. We hope it's coming back. And it needs to come back to the areas where it was earned. Not spent. Other places just because there are other needs in the city. We agree with that. But it was earned in these areas. That's where it needs to be spent. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you all for those for those comments. We're going to go ahead and go back. Let me just reiterate kind of where we're at right now. So we have three motions. We have a substitute. Substitute, which is the motion that's actually on the floor. I'm city attorney. The substitute substitute, I believe, was the motion by Councilmember Austin. Can you repeat the motion for the attorney?
Speaker 9: Yes. The substitute substantive motion by Councilman Ross and second by Councilmember Gonzalez to approve the recommended action, including the second paragraph and adding to the language of the second paragraph, so that it would also include communities of interest, the West Side and the entire seventh District.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: And all of these I know that we're short of councilmember, but all of these motions require five votes to pass. Is that correct?
Speaker 9: It's a simple majority.
Speaker 2: Support for this.
Speaker 0: Yes. So it. There. There are there are eight people here. So in case of a tie.
Speaker 9: Five votes or four for the motion would fail.
Speaker 0: That's what I'm saying. So you need five votes, correct? Okay. Same thing. So we have a motion. We have a substance. Substance on the floor. All those in favor of the substitute. Substitute. Please raise your hand. One, two, three, four. Motion fails. Okay. The next the next motion is a substitute motion by Councilwoman Susie Price, I believe it was, if. Can you repeat the motion?
Speaker 9: Yes. The second substantive motion was motion by price, second by Councilmember Mongo to accept the step, the recommendation with the deletion of the second paragraph.
Speaker 0: Okay. All those in favor of the substitute motion. And again, same rules applies. It's five votes. Please raise your hand. Okay. One, two, three, four. Motion fails. Now we have the original motion, which is a motion by Councilmember Richardson, which is essentially the the main motion that's been presented. What was whether you want to read that it.
Speaker 9: Was the main motion with an amendment to include communities of interest. Yes.
Speaker 3: I'd like to just point of order and I will now that is back in my wheelhouse. There was a lot of healthy discussion today. I think what I'd like to do so that all the failed motions don't fail. I'd like to throw some red meat out there and see if folks actually want to play ball. So the name of the game is City Manager is going to come back with some recommendations. I want to ensure that the main investments are made in these project areas along with the same spirit. Now, there were some legitimate concerns about that. I've heard about, you know, some of the lines being incomplete. So I'm okay, including some of the language that Councilman Austin said to change it as well as I've heard that there is an interest in the city manager said he is not limited. He is limited by my motion, the original language to invest in any city wide programs. So I would like to open up my motion a bit by saying 25% of resources can be invested on citywide programs in your whatever you come back with. But at least 75% of what happens needs to go back to the within the original spirit. Everybody's not going to be happy with this, but this is what policy and government is. So we did a little bit based on this discussion. That would be the change to my motion if the second year of my motion would accept it.
Speaker 0: Can I make one suggestion? And you may not like it, but I first of all, I want you to I mentioned I agree with the spirit of what you're trying to do. And I think that you're correct that if you think about where blight is, a vast majority of it are in the project areas. That is a fact. And so I think a majority of those resources should be addressing those areas. I wouldn't put a percentage on it. I don't know if you're open to the city manager just coming back with options.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 0: I just think a percentage is very is.
Speaker 3: I think this is prescriptive. I don't think everybody's going to leave here feeling comfortable. But if everybody gets a little bit of what they're looking for and we're speaking to the general spirit, we've we've already established this is not too premature. This thing could happen tomorrow. It could happen next year. We've already established that there is some interest in speaking to citywide priorities, given that every single dollar of these every single dollar of this was generated from the TAC, from the tax increment in those areas, it's only right that a majority of those funds be reinvested in that spirit. But we are part of the whole city, and the whole city should benefit whether whether these dollars came from District five, District three, District 98. So I do want to put a threshold if folks would be amenable and I'm open to some discussion. So we didn't waste all our time here on three felt motion. So I want I want to hear from some of my colleagues. I'm back in control of the motion and I want to pass something tonight.
Speaker 0: And I would encourage us. I mean, if all this fails, we're going to be back at this again. So if there's questions or if we can noodle something out, I would recommend we do that. So are there any speakers that I have, Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 7: I want to support Councilman Richardson on this. I think the spirit of it is to give our city manager some options. Obviously, the most blighted areas are the impacted areas. That's obvious. But as a city, you know, we don't keep our sale, our property tax revenues in the districts they come from. We share them throughout the city. And we look at city wide alternatives for four things. So there may be opportunities that they identify, whether it's to address blight or an economic development opportunity that's really good for all of us that would bring in a major company or allow us to have headquarters here for something that may fall outside of the specific boundaries of this area. So I think that I appreciate Councilwoman Richardson, you know, kind of moving a little bit on his item, because I think that's not just being collegial, but it's taking everybody's interests in mind so that we all feel like the spirit of your motion is honored, but that we also have that the city manager has some options and that might come. We have some options in terms of recommendations that they might make to us. So I support.
Speaker 2: It. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 10: I would also like to lean in the direction of support. I think that because of Brown Act requirements have been not able to talk to Councilmember Richardson about these issues since he brought forth an item that we had previously discussed in a different form. And one of the things that I thought was really important. Let me say my parents lived in the eighth. I lived in the seventh, my grandparents lived in the seventh. I worked in the ninth. There was a shooting across the street from my office when I worked. In the ninth. And so I've been all over this city. My grandparents lived here, my great grandparents. It's. There are all sorts of areas and our economic development and oversight, economic development Finance Committee has been talking specifically about incentives that I think would be most helpful to areas in the project areas. However, in in the idea of simplicity and helping small businesses, we've talked about things like waiving business license fees or reducing the cost of coops or whatever they are, and specifically in areas that have been vacant for 18 months or more, in areas that have been vacant for two years or more. And so what we want to be careful about is that percentage, because in all of those vacancies that have been vacant for over 24 months, etc., those areas need help. And the market has told us that they need help because no one will lease them for the prices that they're being set up. And so with that, I'd like the the city manager to come back with flexibility, especially in those areas of citywide programs that help specifically on rentable areas. And I think our original discussion, which I think was. Ms. understood in a future dialog was when I own a property and I want to sell it, what do I do ? I fix it up. And so I was hoping that we would invest in a cascading program where we would be fixing the blight around a property before we sell it. So if we have $1,000,000, let's invest that million dollars adjacent to the property we're about to sell so that it will sell for more. So we will have more money to invest in the next property in the RDA area, which would keep it in those areas. But I hope that the city manager and the Economic Development Chair will take that into consideration because my biggest concern is getting the highest dollar for the properties we sell. Both for property tax reasons, but also for direct revenues of the 21% we may or may not get from the state.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Austin.
Speaker 6: So can I have the motion repeated to me? On the floor.
Speaker 0: Mr. City. Attorney, there's only one motion on the floor. Can you repeat the motion for concern, Brosnan?
Speaker 9: Yes. The second was by Councilmember Austin of Councilmember Richardson's original motion, with the amendment that the city manager can come back with options, including up to 25% of the proceeds to be used citywide.
Speaker 6: I call for the question.
Speaker 0: Of questions being called because any other speakers, I think we can go to the vote. Is there one more? So do you have an objection if Councilwoman Gonzales makes final comments?
Speaker 5: I just say I don't think I could support this just because I feel like we have compromised so very much in our respective districts. And I think it's, you know, something that we're talking a minimal amount of money anyway, you know, and for us to divide that in a percentage into percentages, I don't believe would would do us any any good.
Speaker 2: But I'd like to see some dialog.
Speaker 3: What do you think would be more fair?
Speaker 5: Councilmember Well.
Speaker 2: Well, well.
Speaker 0: Before we, before we go there, the questions being called. So, Councilmember Austin, are you willing. Are you calling the question, are you willing to continue the dialog.
Speaker 6: You know, in the spirit of collegiality, let's continue to talk.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 3: So just because I want to be in a place where we can we can make a decision on this tonight, I want to be considerate of some of the interests. They are good ideas, city wide, the majority of these dollars. And my hope was that in my original motion was that a recommendation might come out that could help some citywide efforts. But this is focused on our area. Right. So if there was a platform or some initiative that does help and benefit the whole city, that these dollars could be used to support that as well. But City Manager highlighted to me that he was limited by my motion. So the reason I said I wanted to make sure that the bulk are it goes to what the original spirit is. That's why I thought that we can, you know, say a bulk is 75%. Now, if you think that they we should adjust that number, I think we should just be realistic tonight about what we can politically pass. But at the same time, I'm open to having that discussion.
Speaker 5: I just think that we have you know, there's capital improvement projects that we've had, you know, that have been citywide that we can look at. I believe that that we can find funding for if there is something that is of priority to the other districts. I think we need to look at it that way and find additional revenue for that and work on it that way. I don't see using this fund the you know, this these outdated funds for well, citywide.
Speaker 3: The citywide stuff wouldn't necessarily be investments, as I understand. It wouldn't be like investments in a project, so to speak. The 25% has to touch every part of the city. It has to be truly citywide, not district specific. So we need to be a citywide economic development investment. Then an example could be and maybe maybe the city manager could chime in on what he might. I mean, he's spoke the least in this whole line. And what I'm thinking is, like they've talked about like open counter is something all the districts can use that's not resourced . We've got a economic development department right now that will do work citywide and they're not resourced. There's a an economic development commission online is not coming online. It's not resourced. So the all of these things would indeed benefit every specific district, every city. So it's not that we're investing specifically our dollars into a specific project limited to one area. I think that's just the nuance. I want to say that we're not we're not going to get it's not that we're not going to get to benefit from those dollars. It's just everyone will be able to benefit from those dollars.
Speaker 5: Well, I can see more of that side of thinking, more of the the city infrastructure. I can support that. But I just don't want us to get into something that I.
Speaker 4: Get it free for all for everybody.
Speaker 3: I get it. Well, thank thank you.
Speaker 0: And just for clarity. I think so. Councilman Richardson, your motion then limits. So unless the project is completely citywide, your motion would then limit any projects to be funded that could be outside the areas it has to be citywide.
Speaker 3: 75% is targeted to the project. The geographic basis of the we said 25% is citywide. So citywide investments.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: If I can ask Mr. West, so you have that. That's the motion on the floor. It's my understanding that you guys were working on bringing something back. Some proposals are some options to the council. So is there anything else you want to add to this discussion at this point? I mean, are you hearing that what you're hearing were the motions at.
Speaker 2: I think we're hearing enough direction right now to come back with enough options for the city council to look at what we can present as options and take further direction.
Speaker 0: And any anybody I have council Marie Rangel.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 8: I think we watched this tonight, but I think there's a lot more scrubbing we need to do. I, I recommend that we table this item for the next meeting only because I mean, there's no clarity here. There is nothing that we are going to agree on here apparently tonight. We need to we need to move on. And I and there's a council member here who is affected by that, who's not here and hasn't had a he said on this on this issue. So I recommend that we table this issue to the next meeting.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you still have a motion on the floor. So we we have the main motion still we have to vote on.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 0: Don't know, unless I substitute.
Speaker 9: Unless there's a second to.
Speaker 0: The substance. So the substitute motion is to table this to a an upcoming council meeting. That's the subsidy motion, correct? Okay. Is there a second to that? There's a second by Councilmember Austin. That is a motion on the floor. It's a main motion. If there if there are no by summary law. So that you have a comment.
Speaker 4: I did. So was that allowed because the last one failed in terms of procedurally the substitute. Substitute?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 9: There's there's now room for the substitute motion. Okay, Councilman.
Speaker 0: I didn't know that. Actually, Vice Mayor makes a good point. I thought that we could make an additional substitute today.
Speaker 2: No, that that.
Speaker 9: That is correct. That is, once the substitute substitutes, you can you can continue until there's a call for the question. And then you have a vote on a call for the question to cut off debate. So you can continue offering to do motions until there's a call for the question.
Speaker 2: That's not accurate.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, that's the ruling. So I thought it was different, but I think I must've mistaken your creativity. Okay, so we have a we, according to the city attorney, Mr. Reynolds, able to make the motion. I understood Robert's rules to be a little different, but there's a motion, the motion on the floor, which is just to table the meeting the second. And you also want to comment for that before the vote is take a vote. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: So I, I can appreciate the desire to put this item over and probably come back to it when we're all a little bit more alert and fresh. But I do think we've had a really good discussion on it. Our disagreements don't suggest that we're necessarily exhausted by the item. I, i, i feel that our disagreements are very healthy and I truly appreciate where Council Member Richardson has arrived with his motion. It is a reasonable compromise. While I might not have preferred the percentage I can for the good of the order, support that and bringing this back another day. I don't believe we get to a better place. I personally, I know we're all exhausted, but I don't think we're exhausted for the conversation and the disagreements don't lend to that. And so I would respectfully request that our colleagues consider supporting Councilmember Richardson's item.
Speaker 0: We do have we do have a motion on the floor, which is the table. Any other comments before we move forward and vote on the tabling item? And then if not, we're going to go back to the main motion, which is Councilmember Richardson, the motion as amended. Okay. Okay. It's been withdrawn. Excellent. So now we're back to the main motion. Here we go.
Speaker 3: The call for the question.
Speaker 0: Right now, we're we're voting. The main motion is Councilmember Richardson's motion, which is includes a 25% citywide. Okay. That is the that's the motion on the floor. We finish from a comment. If you if you're in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Okay. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Excellent. Is that democracy in action? All right. And negotiation? Yes. Okay. I'm glad we resolved that tonight, Mr. City. We're now going to see that there was a request to do the school district Lombard Unified item, which I believe you had mentioned, was.
Speaker 10: Something.
Speaker 0: Was it with a 22?
Speaker 4: Let me have a kick out of this. Sweeter than that. Oh.
Speaker 1: Is that item 22?
Speaker 0: I think it was 22, 24, 24. Okay. Mr. Clerk, item 24.
Speaker 1: Item 24. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to Authorize City Manager to. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Director of Economic and Property Development to create a policy to allocate all proceeds from the sale of city owned properties to fund blight removal, ongoing economic development efforts, revolving loan funds for small business establishment and growth, local incentives for business to locate or expand in the City, and key infrastructure investments.
These proceeds should be tracked and directed to the project areas where the former Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA) properties are located. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11112014_14-0929 | Speaker 1: Item 15 Communication from Council Member Austin Councilmember O'Donnell. Councilmember Durango Recommendation to request city manager to include to schedule within 45 days an airport airport noise ordinance study session to educate the entire council as to the history, importance and background.
Speaker 0: Okay. Can I get a motion?
Speaker 6: So moved.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a there's been a motion. A second council member, I think. Austin O'Donnell.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. As we all know, we are pretty much at a critical juncture for the at the city right now as far as our airport is concerned. We currently don't have an airport director. And there has been rumblings in the press and throughout the community about a major customs facility potentially being developed at Long Beach Airport. This is this is a major concern to many of the residents who live in the impacted areas, particularly in and around the airport areas. And I think it merits our attention to to to to really focus on our noise ordinance and the importance of our northern ordinance, the history associated with the noise ordinance, the the strengths of our working noise ordinance, the the opportunities and the the challenges that that may face our noise ordinance with with potential change at Long Beach Airport. You know, as I look on as you look at this this this diocese, I don't think other other than one city council member, most of us weren't here during the major fights that crafted that noise ordinance that that actually dealt with airport the airport expansion issue. The the the the development of our new terminal and the noise ordinance is key to all of that. And so I'm asking the city manager to come back within 45 days with a study session for this council, this body. We've studied pension reform. We've studied our budget. We've done study sessions on our civic center and other issues that are very important to the city of Long Beach. And I can't think of any issue more important than our noise ordinance to the quality of life of our residents. And so I'd like to see a report back in 45 days, I mean, at least a study session within 45 days. And I ask for council support.
Speaker 0: That's been in motion in a second for the study. I know. Councilor O'Donnell.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just want to thank Councilmember Austin for recognizing the need to protect our most vulnerable ordinance. It is sensitive. He stated pretty clearly that nobody was here when the airport wars were going on. I see retired council member Gavlak out there who was a full participant and engage with some of the folks out there in the airport wars. And you haven't seen anything until you've seen an airport war at this council because what what happened in the last round of the airport war and there has been more than one is people's homes are threatened. Individuals in this community came with came forward with a plan that was going to cost $250 million and probably invite more flights into the airport. And democracy won. In this case, the neighborhoods stood up. The council changed probably because of it or in part because of it. So don't underestimate the value of protecting this ordinance. And, you know, I urge you, don't put it in danger or you will be in danger. And what we ask is that the study session take place. I don't believe we want it in 45 days. I think we want it in mid-January. We want to get through the holidays and then bring the study session forward. So we're thinking about mid-January, January 15th ish. The city manager could could schedule this in the ask again is not just that staff give a presentation we'd like some of the community stakeholders to be able to do do so as well. With that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Mayor. Is that a thank you?
Speaker 0: I just want to make sure not to veer off since I think mid-January. Okay. With you as concerned. O'Donnell stated.
Speaker 6: No, I don't want to disrupt anybody's holidays. And so I think January would be fine.
Speaker 2: I'm amenable to that. Okay.
Speaker 0: So that's that's the motion on the floor. Councilmember Ringa, any other comments from the council public comment? If you have a public comment on the item, please come forward.
Speaker 2: I got to do to make it one. Push a button.
Speaker 0: There we go.
Speaker 2: I think I can hear you. Like I say, my name is Larry Tree. I live in the flight path of the airport. So this is an important issue to me. I've lived in Long Beach since 1953, so the airport's important to me from just the citizens perspective. I'm really glad that you're having the study session. I want to thank Councilman Austin for putting it on the agenda, and I also want to thank him. Thank you, Mr. Austin, for the article and newspaper this morning to bring all of this to our attention. I think personally, I don't know what everybody else thinks by the customs facility could be really disastrous and start putting a real lot of pressure on the airport and Internet in the community. So this is a really vital interest. This, as Patrick was saying. I'm glad you're having a study session. I want to make sure that you put some thought into who's conducting this study session. You know, everybody's got a different perspective. So the person who's doing the presentation is going to have a perspective. You've got to make sure that you have everybody's perspective when you're doing your study session. You probably really ought to have members of the old wars. There was the organization called Hush. I think it was Patrick that you really ought to have somebody from Hush that that can stand there with the person, maybe from the city staff and tell you how the neighborhoods perceive this. So good luck with this. I'll be watching. And I can guarantee you all my neighbors will be watching. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Ray Gavlak president president of hush to just calm I am they reappointed me. Okay. First of all, Al thank you so very much. And Roberto and certainly Patrick. But Patrick, I have to say to you, I'm going to miss you being here. You know, we had a great partnership and leadership to get this city to a side where we could build a terminal that serve the traveling public. And that did a fine job of it. We didn't build it too big. We could afford it. And it protected the.
Speaker 2: I believe it was modernized don't super sized.
Speaker 4: Well, that was that was on some of those. Yeah. But you know, I think it's important for the new council members really to understand that it's more than the noise ordinance. Everyone will say, but we want to support the noise ordinance. A JetBlue says we want to support the noise ordinance. It isn't about that. It's about look at the history, the litigation history and where it started. It started in 1981 when 13 airlines were suing the city of Long Beach. They wanted in here they go where it's going to be the most economically beneficial to them. And so what we have to do and what you have to do for us is to protect the communities that live underneath those flight paths. And ultimately, again, sort of like the whole the property tax revenue is the number one source to the general fund. Well, you want to keep those property values high. And if you allow a challenge to this ordinance and we lose that protection, we could be looking at really a devastating result for the city of Long Beach. So I look forward to the mid-January study session. And thank you again. And Patrick, good luck. And you might have to join me on this side when you're in town. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 11: Hi. My name is Jane Naito and I'm a resident in the eighth District and I was part of the war that Patrick talked about regarding the airport back a few years ago, before Patrick and Ray became council people. And I look forward to helping you guys learn about the noise ordinance and how the fight to the original hush group and their hush to helped educate the city. Because, as Councilmember Austin said, most of y'all don't know anything about how that all went down and the importance of the litigation on the noise ordinance and understanding the ramifications if it gets changed. And like Ray said, JetBlue says that they want to protect the noise ordinance. And I think that's probably true because it helps them out with their mission to raise their dollars. So it's important for us to pay attention to the noise ordinance so that we can protect our properties and the well-being of our children and grandchildren and keep the neighborhoods beautiful. So I'm glad you guys are going to do this and I look forward to working with you on it. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I think that's all the public comment. I'm going to go back to Councilman Ross and then we're going to go to a vote. Got summarized a.
Speaker 6: Couple of things. I want to commend our airport staff because we have a great airport staff and they operate in the interest of this city right now. And so in no way do I want to say or anybody to imply or in for a walk away from here thinking that this council does not support its airport department because they do a great job and they are our our biggest monitors and defenders of our noise ordinance today. Secondly, I heard one of the speakers say, you know, he's concerned about who's going to be doing the noise the noise ordinance study session. Well, it will be our city manager, our city attorney, our city prosecutor. And in this language, it does say it leaves room for a lot of community input. And so I do expect to have a very robust conversation, a study session regarding our airport noise ordinance, and hopefully we can all walk away better educated and informed about this very important issue. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor to have this study session. So all those in favor, please raise your hand. Motion carries unanimously. I think any of our positions are abstentions. None of it was unanimous. So obviously, moving on to the next item, which is item number 16. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to schedule an Airport Noise Ordinance Study Session to educate the entire council as to the history, importance, and background on this vulnerable protection for our community. Said Study Session shall include but not be limited to City Management, City Prosecutor, and City Attorney staff. Community stakeholder input should be accommodated as well. This meeting shall be scheduled/conducted within the next 45 days. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11112014_14-0926 | Speaker 1: Item 28. Communication Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declared ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and campaign disclosure statements. Read the first time lead over to the next regular meeting the City Council for Final Reading City Wide.
Speaker 0: Can I get a motion?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: There's been a there's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Saying No public comment. Councilmember Price.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Just for clarification, Mr. City Attorney, I read through the agenda item. We had had some discussions at an earlier meeting when we were at Long Beach City College and we had talked about some increases in officeholder accounts and contribution limits and things like that. That's not part of the proposed item tonight, is that?
Speaker 9: That is correct, that those items were referred back to the Election Oversight Committee. They were placed on the agenda for October 14th, but their agenda didn't provide them sufficient time. So that's been held over until their next meeting and wouldn't come back to the council until the Election Oversight Committee has a recommendation.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 5: And Mr. Mayor. Yes.
Speaker 0: Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to commend our city attorney, Charlie Parker, in our city clerk's office, as well as the Elections Oversight Committee. We've been working very diligently. Each meeting at least an hour and a half or so at a time to be able to look at all of these inefficiencies and get us up to par in a way that certainly makes it a lot easier for us and gets rid of a lot of antiquated policies. So I just wanted to thank you all for for your hard work in that excellent.
Speaker 0: The motion on the floor. All those in favor say I and the opposition, the abstentions. CNN motion carries item number 29.
Speaker 1: Item 29, Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending subsection 10.12 .010.8.58 relating to speed limits read and adopted as read. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 2.01.210.B, 2.01.340.B, 2.01.370, 2.01.390, 2.01.420, 2.01.810, 2.01.1010, 2.01.1030, 2.01.1210, and 2.02.010; by adding Section 2.01.395; and by repealing Sections 2.01.330, 2.01.350, 2.01.610, 2.01.620, and 2.01.730, all relating to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and Campaign Disclosure Statements, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_11112014_14-0931 | Speaker 1: Next item item 35 Communication from City Prosecutor Recommendation to Authorize City Prosecutor to receive and expand grant funding awarded to the City Prosecutor by the United States Department of Justice in the amount not to exceed 203,000 and to increase appropriations in the city prosecutor department citywide.
Speaker 0: Can I get a motion here has been in motion. And the second is any public comment on the item. Mr. Prosecutor, do you want to say anything? You've been here all night.
Speaker 2: I will only say one thing, and that is. Earlier this year, the city council adopted a violence prevention plan. And this is one of the fruits of that effort by the city council and city staff. Over the next few years, I think the City of Long Beach will apply for grant funding and be more competitive than it ever has been before. This particular grant will help our office continue our efforts to engage in gang intervention, gang prevention, gang rehabilitation, which is extremely important to the future and vitality of our city. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor. I see no other public comment. There is a motion on the floor. All those in favor say I and the opposition are abstentions. See? None. Motion carries. Now we're going to go to new business and announcements. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Prosecutor to execute all necessary documents to receive and expend grant funding awarded to the City Prosecutor by the United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, for the Comprehensive Anti-Gang Strategies and Programs in the amount not to exceed $203,478 for a period ending September 30, 2016; and increase appropriation in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the City Prosecutor Department (CP) by $203,478. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10212014_14-0866 | Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor. First item involves the Bixby Knolls Parking and business improvement area, and it's a recommendation to authorize to receive supporting documentation to the record. Conclude the hearing and authorize the city manager to extend an agreement with the association for one year. And declared an ordinance approving the Bixby Knolls Parking and Business Improvement Area Program. Continued assessment for a period of October 1st, 2014 to September 30th, 2015.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. West.
Speaker 0: My comment is going to make this presentation.
Speaker 8: Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council, this item relates to the continuation of the Bixby Knolls Parking and Business Improvement Area Program and assessment for an additional year. The assessment was raised this year to cover the loss of funding from the former RDA and to reinstitute CPI increases which have not been implemented since 1995. These increases are necessary in order to continue the level of service that the business community has come to expect. As a result, staff request that City Council received the supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing. Authorize a one year continuation of the Bixby Knolls parking improvement area and I'm available to answer questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We're going to now first do public comment on the hearing. If there's any public comment on the hearing, please come forward. See none that I will take this public comment. We missed you there.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members, city management. We're happy to be here tonight to represent. Please introduce yourself. Oh, pardon me. Blair Cohn, director of the Big Four, Niles Business Improvement Association 4313 Atlantic Avenue. Happy to be here again to continue the momentum and the energy we have in Bixby and also to improve the business corridors and connect the community with our businesses. We've worked really hard. There's two of us, two and a half of us, really, that are dedicated to doing everything we can to make it a thriving business district and be a model for other, other neighborhoods, frankly. This year is a little different, of course, because we started to look ahead for the future, how we're going to continue to grow the association. We're in year four of our ten year contract and we said if we don't do something now to to save the association with the funds that we're receiving, the dominoes would fall, which means staff would start to leave and literally there'd be somebody just sitting by the phone in the office. So we did about a four month study comparing other bids in the city, their size, their assessment fees. And we found kind of a middle ground. And we found also we were the cheapest of all the the associations. And we think we provide a high level of service to our to our membership. So we found a level of of revenue we think we can hit by increasing up to $250 a year, which is still lower than some of the newer bids in the city and doing the CPI continually. So when the contract ends, the revenue remains where we are. We continue to do our clean team or our events and all of the energy we do. And and I thank all the Council for your support in the past. And currently, of course, seventh and eighth was we worked tightly together. So I have I'm here any questions. But thank you for the opportunity.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Any other. I think we've another public comment.
Speaker 5: Laurie Angel, a former PAC chair for North PAC, and Blair was the our vice chair and we were a great team and redevelopment really supported the B.K. BIA and I greatly appreciate that Blair is so forward thinking in addressing the issue with funding because there is a big dearth with redevelopment gone. But he does an excellent job. He's a leader in all the bids throughout the city and he has a lot of great ideas. And I know he served on your transition team and I think he probably did a great job. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Seeing no other public comment. We're going to go ahead and take this back back to the council and just start off with council member Austin.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the work of the Bixby North Business Improvement Association is pretty well known throughout the city of Long Beach. And if not that, the region, this is the first adjustment to their assessment rates since it was established in 1995. The new assessment rate provides a flat fee for all businesses and a discounted rate for nonprofit organizations. The rate is very competitive with all the other business improvement districts in the city. This assessment also provides a much simpler visa structure doing away with variable rates depending on the type of business as well as the per employee surcharge . I understand that there are some concerns from some of the small business owners, but by and large, I think it's very clear for almost all the businesses in the Bixby knows area that this investment is well worth their own commercial quarter's investment. Not only does the KBIA put on great community events such as First Fridays, which I'm pleased to say that many of my colleagues, if not all of you guys, have actually participated in first hand. But the Baker bill also provides many other benefits for the businesses.
Speaker 9: Along Atlantic and Long Beach Boulevard.
Speaker 8: That are not always so evident. And I don't know anyone who is able to get more for a dollar or be creative with maximizing resources than my good friend Blair Cohn and his staff. Chris The leaders in Tacoma, Ashcraft, the staff of the Bixby BIA, they provide security services throughout the business district. They have have they have a clean team that stays on top of litter, graffiti and other issues. And they have undertaken numerous facade improvements, landscaping projects and other beautification areas, efforts in the district. They also manage the Expo Art Center, which has become a hub of cultural and performing arts in the center in the city. And the Bixby staff and board have also done a great job in connecting the businesses with the community and raising the profile and prestige of the Bixby Knolls community. The Uptown Renaissance actually started right there in Bixby knows this assessment is critical for the BIA to continue.
Speaker 9: The level of outstanding services.
Speaker 8: That they provide to the businesses and the entire community. And with that, I would move that we accept the the recommendation.
Speaker 3: There's been a motion and a second seen no other council comment. There's been a motion on the floor. We've closed public comment. Members, please go and cast your votes on the hearing.
Speaker 6: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We will now be moving on to the next items, beginning the items that we moved up. So we're going to begin by going through items 16 and 17 and we will actually be taking three separate votes on six, taking two votes for 16, which I'll explain in a minute. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Ordinance No. ORD-06-0037, modifying the assessments to be levied with the Bixby Knolls Parking and Business Improvement Area, read and adopted as read. (Districts 7,8) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10212014_14-0856 | Speaker 6: Item 20 is a report from Parks, Recreation, Marine and the city manager's office with the recommendation to authorize city manager to proceed with revised requirements for the proposed Belmont Shore Beach and Aquatic Center for additional estimated cost for estimated cost of $1.3 million.
Speaker 3: Mr. WEST.
Speaker 0: Mr. Mayor and Council members, one of the most painful decisions I've made as city manager was closing the Belmont Pool in January 2013 due to seismic safety concerns. What followed was an amazing commitment from the Long Beach City Council. Within 30 days, they voted to unanimously fund and construct a new 50 meter temporary pool and begin the process for a new permanent pool complex. This began the long journey to get to the point we're at today. It's important to remember Belmont Pools ceased being a 50 meter pool sometime in the mid-eighties because of the bulkhead. Only ten months after the Belmont was closed, we once again have a 50 meter pool. The first 50 meter length in 30 years. I can't emphasize enough the incredible commitment from the Long Beach City Council. While initially led by former Councilman Gary DeLong, the pool has seen fantastic and exceptional leadership from current councilwoman Susie Price. Recognizing the commitment and leadership from the entire mayor and city council, both past and present, it is important to recognize the early input of many residents. Early on, leading the charge were people like Eric LaBounty, Richard Gilday and Rich Foster, who chaired the city's efforts in hosting the 2004 Olympic swimming trials. If you're here, please stand up for a second. Rich, I know you're here. We have incredible user groups who daily motivate, train and teach our youth in all things aquatic. Dr. Theresa Pascual, who for decades has been leading Long Beach swim team to create Long Beach champions. Hank Wise, former Olympic trials swimmer and as rocket fish program for early age youth and a master's program for those not so early aged and Long Beach Olympic water polo star Chai Cadel leading perhaps the most successful youth water polo program in the country. Shaw Aquatics. Chai Sara, I believe. And then Debbie McCormick from a famous Long Beach diving family with deep roots in Long Beach, teaching future divers in both springboard and platform. Now it's important to recognize our Belmont Poole Stakeholder Advisory Committee, who have taken their turn at the head of the lane line the past several months. First off, we've had representation from the USA groups. I don't believe they're here right now. But Frank Busch, the national team director for USA Swimming. Steve Foley, the high performance diver, direct diving director for USA Diving, Cathy Hatty Drum, a Long Beach Olympic swimming champion who competed in the 1976 Montreal Games. And Long Beach resident Ryan Bailey, graduate of Millikan High School right here in Long Beach. Ryan is a four time Olympic water polo star. He competed in the 2000 2000 for 2008 and 2012 Summer Olympics. Raquel Bartolo, a Long Beach native and graduate of Wilson. Raquel is a competitive diver and a state champion who competed for the University of Hawaii. John Norris, a recreational swimmer all his life, jumping into the Belmont pool every morning at 530. Now retired, he hits the pool much later every morning at 7 a.m.. Lucy Johnson, a masters coach and former competitive swimmer who is active and enthusiastic about aquatics in Long Beach. John McMullen senior, a former Stanford champion swimmer in the early seventies who has raised quite an impressive aquatics family right here in Long Beach. Shawn Ody, a former Long Beach lifeguard who remains active in aquatics and the community. Kiah Headland Kiah has been active in aquatics throughout her entire life and was very active in the 2004 Olympic trials here in Long Beach. Susan Miller, a member of the Belmont Shore Residents Association that is dedicated to issues concerning residents of our unique Long Beach, California, seaside community. Susan de Rossi, executive director of the Belmont Shore Business Association, which works to promote, protect and maintain prosperity for the Belmont Shore community. Dick Miller isn't here, but he's a former Long Beach lifeguard chief and board member for the aquatics capital of America, which serves to communicate and promote Long Beach as an aquatic destination for businesses, education, sports on a local, national and international basis. And finally, George Chapman. He's our director of Parks Recreation Marine for the city of Long Beach. George represented the interests of the public recreational users. And he will be charged with scheduling, managing.
Speaker 12: And maintaining the pool.
Speaker 0: So at this time, I'm going to turn it over to Deputy City Manager Tom Modica to go through the rest of the report.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council want to give a kind of a brief overview of where this process has come from and where we are today before we get to the recommendation. Essentially, we have the opportunity to create a facility that really is unlike any other municipal aquatics facility on the West Coast . It needs to be a facility that is in harmony with the neighborhood. We want it to employ an iconic and sustainable design. We want it to meet the needs of our local residents from all districts in the entire area of Long Beach. We want it to support the Coastal Act and we want it to be able to support competitive events as necessary. And so, as the manager mentioned over the past several months, the city is engaged in a collaborative stakeholder process to review the project and make modifications to meet those goals. This is essentially where we are in the project development process. Down and Blue returned to the Council for approval of a baseline program. But essentially a lot of work has gone in over the past year and a half to really get us to the point that we are today with public input and public meetings. And we were back at the City Council on June 17th and the last time, and then we have a number of steps on the right and we'll talk about those a little later in the presentation. But we have a long way to go in terms of the environmental review and the design in more public meetings and and planning commission and city council. But today is a very important day in the project. So want to talk a little bit about the site. It is a very complex site. I think we all know kind of where it is. But when you look at it from this perspective, you can really see that it is right on the beach, that it is it has so it has coastal issues. There's seismic, an earthquake issues to deal with. It is surrounded by two parking lots. It is surrounded by a business area. It has businesses right across the street from it. And most importantly, it is right in the middle of a neighborhood with houses in residential, the predominant use all around it. And so one of the most important things we need to bear in mind is the role of the California Coastal Commission because of its site down right near the beach. It is in the original jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. And so while the Council is going to have a significant role in developing this project and approving a project, it ultimately has to be passed and approved by the Coastal Commission who have the final say. And so anything we do, we need to really bear in mind what the Coastal Commission is going to be looking for in a project. And so the Coastal Commission really provides their mission is to provide public beach access, maintain beach use and provide recreational amenities. It's very important to them that any project maintain beach views and contain and minimize the building footprint. They have given us a definition of what they're looking for. And essentially, it is a public facility where the entire facility is primarily for public recreational use that can accommodate that private use when public recreational demand is low. And so they've told us very clearly that the design of the building should not be primarily for private and exclusively use, and that they place a very high priority on free or low cost public service and public use rather than exclusive use, which could be anything from a competition to even having some of our great competitive programs out there that teach swimming, that in their mind is a competitive use or a private use as opposed to kind of an open recreational swim where kids come in or seniors come in just to use the pool. That really is where their focus is. So in June 17th, we came and we talked about the baseline programmatic requirement. And you essentially see the design here that we presented to you in in June, and this is what it looked like on the first floor. So it essentially had an integrated 50 meter pool on the left that was inside a building, had a teaching pool, had a 5000 square foot restaurant on the right. It had an outdoor 50 meter by 25 meter deep water pool, had a recreational pool down at the bottom, had a banquet facility. And this was at a project cost of approximately $99 million. And at the top it also or on the second floor, it had 1250 seats indoor and 1250 seats outdoor. And you see the banquet facility there. And so what occurred on June 17th is the council took that design, that initial concept, and asked us to go out and work with a stakeholder advisory committee to hold some workshops, very specific workshops representing the aquatics, but neighborhoods and residents and businesses and have everyone really come together and be represented and really dove into the details. And so that stakeholder committee was formed. The manager mentioned the names 14 members confirmed to have no financial incentive in the project and really there to represent all of those stakeholders who who are really interested in this facility. And their goal was to make recommendations to Long Beach on creating that high quality aquatics facility within our end identified resources and constraints. And they held three working sessions through July and August to get to where we are today. This is just for the file. We have the names and all the groups that they represented. Again, they were designed to represent everything from the different disciplines in aquatics to businesses to residents. And there were a number of stakeholders who represented everybody, so that everyone had a chance to to have a voice. So I wanted to do a side by side comparison just to give a sense of what's changed. On the left, you see the June 17th design, and on the right you see the stakeholder design. And so, for example, one of the big issues was a separated diving. Well, that was not in the first facility. It is now included in the second facility. You'll see here the moveable floor is in the first it was in contemplated it in the June design but was really incorporated as a compromise in the stakeholder design to ensure both competitive deep water and the ability for recreational use. The restaurant was about 5000 square feet. It is now 1500 square feet. The training pool was over here on the left side and now it's over here down near the water. So it's not impeding the deck space. In the indoor facility, there was a banquet room that was there and also there were some comments about the shape of the outdoor recreation pool. It now has a new shape and there is a new banquet facility there as well. The banquet facility is gone excuse me. At the banquet facility has now been deleted under the stakeholder design. The original design had 1250 indoor seats and 250 outdoor seats. And the committee really felt strongly that it should have 150 seats, but essentially ran out of money. We asked them to come in with a $99 million and and they did that. And this was their design. But it came to about 650 indoor seats with the request that if more funds were available to look at the additional seating, we also, beyond the stakeholder committee, once they were done with their work, brought it out to the public and had about 150 to 200 people show up at a public meeting to talk specifically about this. We did speak up Long Beach and received comments via email and on the website and did a public engagement tool. We have a matrix of all those comments included in your packet. Essentially the common concepts we heard were, you know, the need to increase seating. There was discussion about the merits of a 25 meter versus 25 yard width of those 250 meter pools. Some concerns about loss of open space, mitigating the impacts to the residents, ensuring access for public recreation, support for building a world class facility that has a design that we can be proud of and concerns about the overall cost of the facility as well. One of the things the council asked for was an economic impact study. And so through the Convention and Visitors Bureau, we have contracted with Joe McAdoo, you know, to do a study of the economic impacts, essentially, of a 650 seat facility and the 1250 pool. Essentially, what he found is that 650 seats, you can host some competitions, mostly regional and local, and it'll generate up to $3.7 million in annual impact. However, if you invest in a larger facility with the seats, you can get up to $30 million in annual potential impact. These are things like hotel stays, food, lodging, and also includes some direct tax revenue, such as TOT and sales tax. And so what he really found is that the financial impact increases as the ceiling increases. And additionally, every fourth year, there are some there's some additional competitions that can potentially be held that would bring you 13 to $19 million. And so what we found is the impact on seatings really does the seats available is impacts the number and types of events the facility can attract. But 650 is for local and regional events, and 1250 can accommodate the larger competitions and is the recommended minimum number. There was some discussion about 25 yards versus meters and the pool width, and the stakeholder committee recommendation was for those 250 meter pools and then kind of the best of both worlds. One was in yards, one was meters. And that is the recommendation in front of you today to make both pools 25 meter wide. There is a cost to that. It costs an additional 1.9 million to grow the building. And one thing we did is we looked at all the pools that are out there and about 31 pools that we looked at or are under construction or built in the last five years. Only two are those 25 meter wide. And so before we look at the final design and have our architect go through it, the recommendation from city staff is essentially to approve the recommendations of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee. This is supported by Parks and Rec staff who are going to be the ones to actually run this facility when it's completed. And we recommend modifying the location of the indoor therapy teaching pool, modifying the conceptual shape of that outdoor recreation pool, and include 1250 permanent indoor seats. And we'll cover a little bit later where the funding for that will come from. And so I'd like to turn it over to Brant Miller, our architect, to talk and walk you through what the baseline programmatic requirements are.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and fellow council members. Let me walk you through what's been a phenomenal process with the city and the advisory committee. And this really represents a lot of work from everybody, a lot of expertize, which I'd like to commend the advisory committee on all their input over the last several months. And the expertize that they've brought to the process has made this project much better than it was when we first started out. So we appreciate everyone's input. Starting off with the site planning, you know, over the past year we really did set guidelines and priorities of how we were going to site the building. Those priorities have still stayed very similar to what we have been showing throughout the process. And once again, they are driven by certain components, the California Coastal Commission and then obviously input from our advisory committee and public outreach throughout the process. An important part of the connections through the through the project was the boardwalk access that we felt from an urban standpoint, this connection across the board access tie in to the front of the facility. So we wanted to maintain that connection. Another important aspect and what coastal is really driving is that we minimized the footprint of the facility on the site. And so we've done our best to to minimize that, that footprint. Obviously, the views are incredibly important to California Coastal. They have a designated view corridor which runs down Termino. And so you can see how our building is pushed over to the east and doesn't impede the view corridor. The other concern that Coastal has is just general views to the beach and to the ocean itself, and that is from the public side of the project. And so by turning the building north south versus east west, we really have provided an increase in the views from the city side of the project to the beach and so forth. Another important piece of the siting were the views from the interior of the facility and the users of the facility. By providing the pools and this orientation North-South, you can see that the users of both pools can now enjoy views out to the ocean and to the beach itself. Another important critical component that we heard early on was that from the outdoor pool, the sense of when you get out, you have very strong wind in Long Beach , that gust quite often. And to protect those. Swimmers and divers out in that facility and users of the outdoor pool to protect them from the wind. So the prevailing winds, you can see it coming really mostly from the west across the site, the way that we've located the outdoor pool on the east side. The structured indoor pool on the west side really does create a natural wind barrier, really allowing to take the best advantage of the site from a viewpoint and from wind throughout the throughout the field facility itself. Next. As we start to look at a little bit more detail of the plan itself, we have the main entry, which is right off that area that was aligning with the Boardwalk Access. You would enter into a main lobby. This piece here that I'm outlining is the building component. So everything here is an indoor part of the facility. And so as you would come into the main lobby, you then come down a dry corridor. We have support facilities, multipurpose rooms and offices off to the side. But really leading you down to a series of locker rooms from these locker rooms, users would then exit to either use the indoor pool or the outdoor pool or down through to the teaching pool or to the outdoor rec pool. The other piece of this is the exterior 50 meter pool, as Mr. Modica noted earlier. We have the 50 meter by 25 meter on the outside and the 50 meter by 25 yard pool on the inside. Here's a separate dove. Well, that we indicated was a result of the advisory committees suggestions, the diving platforms located at the North End. We have a small whirlpool that really is for general public use. But we do find is that divers within their programs, when they dove into the water and they get out, there is a cooldown period. So we want to make sure that their bodies stay warm. So there's a warm pool for divers at this end and for the general public. The teaching pool was relocated, as Mr. Modica noted, from what was really to the side of the pool down to the end. And that came from a variety of input so that the teaching pool could actually be in a separate room itself. It might be open during different hours, but it really needed to be in a separate area from the main auditorium itself. As you can see, the small restaurant, the 1500 square foot component on the left hand side, also within the teaching pool area is a little bit larger. Whirlpool, probably an 8 to 12 person whirlpool. And then outside the outdoor rec facility, which would really be a lot of family enjoyment, would have a mixture of short or shallow water to mid depth water within that within that facility next. So as we go up to the second floor, the lobby at the front below, you can either take stairs up or take the elevator up to a raised area that would then enter at the back of the seating. The 1250 seat that would allow a viewing of competition or just general viewing of public into the an auditorium itself. This is open all the way through to the beach side itself. We would hope to be able to open this wall up with windows and so forth so you could maintain views to the outdoor pool, to the east. And everything that you see in this half tone is actually down at the bottom lower level. It's really just this area here that would be accessed at that second level itself, and that is the basic general arrangements that have been put together at this point. And I think once again, it's been a phenomenal effort by the advisory committee and public input process to actually get to this point.
Speaker 4: Mr. McCann.
Speaker 12: So what we just want to show here is essentially this facility can meet any real aquatics need that is that is needed. And so the outdoor and the indoor pool have tremendous flexibility through the use of bulkheads. It can accommodate virtually every use and it will be a facility that that really is unique among facilities built by cities and on the West Coast as well. And so we believe that the facility proposed tonight enhances those view corridors, enhances beach access, has the maximum flexibility of water space for all of our recreational uses. Users can accommodate virtually all competitive events at that 1250 indoor seats. And it has the right size restaurant and beach snack bar, which is now at 1500 square feet and has an outdoor seating but has a fully commercial kitchen so that it can be a quality restaurant, even though it's a little bit smaller and just has outdoor seating now. One thing we want to point out is the open space comparison. The original. Today's building has a green space out in front and it has a lot of inefficient space for open space and it has about 113,000 total open space, although we're building a larger facility there. The team has been able to identify 120,000 of open space for the new facility. So you actually grow your open space. The existing vegetated area is about 60,000 square feet of that 113. And as we go further in the design process, we'll be working through the entitlement process to determine how much of that open space will be vegetated, will be green space and balance that with with plaza and and other types of open space. So to talk about the funding, the pool essentially is we've set aside approximately $60 million in cash. This just shows you kind of the five year work plan. And you'll see in FY15 that there's $39 million projected for the Belmont pool that gets us to the $99 million. And then we'll talk a little bit about the enhancement that's being proposed. I just want to point out that pools essentially do not pay for themselves. There will be a public necessity to to pay the difference between the operating cost and the revenues. Our old pool essentially brought in about 300,000 in revenue and costs 1.2 million an expense. The new pool is expected to bring in about $1,000,000 in revenue, even with some of those leases and and facility or events, fees and costs approximately 3.2 million. And so it will be more operating costs to operate and maintain. We will be including those costs in our long term projections for tidelands operating and make modifications as necessary to afford that. I do want to point out that the $99 million and the entire five year capital plan is really based on the price of oil. So the oil is assumed at $100 a barrel for those five years. Unfortunately, as of today, oil is actually at $77 a barrel and that's a 23% decrease. And it's seen a pretty rapid decrease over the last several months. And that $39 million we're hoping for 15 is really based on a $100 a barrel assumption. And so city staff will be developing a strategy to address the potential revenue shortfall. We plan to come back in December with some projections, updated projections and some options about what would have happened to this project, what would happen to other projects, what are some of the impacts? And it will likely be necessary to delay projects or reassess previously funded projects if oil continues this trend. So we do have to find $4.7 million to increase the seats up to 1250. What city staff are recommending is first to reduce the restaurant to 1500 square feet, which saves approximately $600,000 in project cost. Then we need to identify 4.1 million in cash in additional funding, and we're suggesting that 1.55 million come from unallocated projects. And that way 16 that 1.2 million are basically reallocating some extra project funds from other projects that are no longer needed. And then 1.3 million, three 5 million is essentially delayed or downsized projects. In the staff report, we have about 366,000 and projects yet to be identified, but I'm happy to share that this week we believe we've identified about $600,000 in money from a county bond that is specifically earmarked for Belmont Pool rehabilitation. And we believe working with our supervisor, we can ask for that to be dedicated towards new construction. So that will require some approval. But we believe that that'll be part of the funding mix and help not impact some of those delayed or downsized projects. So the next steps, if the council moves forward tonight, that gives us direction to move forward with the Environmental Impact Report, the design, the actual design of the facility and release it for public comment. And then we expect that to happen over the next six months. Will then be conducting community meetings and planning commission and Parks and Rec and a number of other meetings on the project and. Through a planning commission review, council review and approval, Coastal Commission review approval and essentially being ready to construct at the end of 2015 or the beginning of 2016. And so just in summary, we think through that collaborative process that the Council asks us to do through the Stakeholder Advisory Committee with with Councilmember Price and with our committee and with our stakeholders and with all of the public that have really been involved in this. We think we've got a facility that really will be unique among aquatics facilities, something that we can be very, very proud of provide. It's going to provide sufficient water space to meet nearly every aquatic need you can possibly imagine. It will enhance recreation in Long Beach. It'll support use of the city's coastal area. It will be that facility that provides some economic development benefit. Approximately 10% of our hotel room nights is what we expect for an increase at maximum capacity, and it will continue the very proud tradition of aquatics excellence in Long Beach. And with that, we're available to answer some questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I do have some questions, but before I ask my questions, I'd like to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation.
Speaker 10: Again.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 3: The motion in a second.
Speaker 7: Mr. Modica, I have a couple of questions that I want to ask you, so if you'll be patient with me. I did read all of the comments from the residents that's attached to this. And as you know, I've been very involved in this project since April. So as a result of that, I want to have some answers to some questions where I believe there's some serious misinformation that I think we should clear up tonight. So in regards to the funding, the $99 million is the amount of money that we had budgeted for this project, is that correct?
Speaker 12: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 7: And in order for us to accommodate the additional seats, that would have been the preference of the stakeholder committee. We need additional money. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. In regards to the attachment that you've included with the staff report attachment F, it appears that there are several projects that are identified as either being downsized and or delayed . Is that right?
Speaker 12: Yes. There are certain projects that are that are identified that could be either downsized or delayed.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I want to talk about those projects, because all of these projects here they are third district projects. Am I reading this correctly?
Speaker 12: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 7: Okay. So I want to go through them because we've gotten a lot of emails just today from people talking about major projects in the third district being delayed or deferred in order to make this pool a reality. And I just want to talk about that a little bit. So in regards to the Colorado Lagoon restroom, that's one of the projects that's going to be downsized. Is that correct?
Speaker 12: Yes, that's a facility that was originally planned for for teardown and and reconstruction. And we believe that while still putting aside some money, we can renovate the restroom. Have we done successfully with some others and still provide an upgrade, but at a reduced cost?
Speaker 7: Now, this is a particular restroom that we had discussed renovating as opposed to replacing long before talking about funding for the Belmont Pool, because this particular restroom is at the Colorado Lagoon and has some architectural features that are unique to that, the time period where the restroom was built. And so we had talked about that before. And is this 350,000 the amount that it would take to renovate that bathroom?
Speaker 12: Yes. And you're right that this had been talked about for a long time about what's the best way to address the need there? Is it to replace it completely and you lose that historic character or do you renovated? And so, you know, this would be a recommendation to renovate it instead.
Speaker 7: And renovating it would cost 350,000, replacing it would cost 600,000.
Speaker 12: The I believe it's 250,000. Yeah. That there's $250,000 to, to renovate it and you get a savings of $350,000.
Speaker 7: Great, great. That's right. And then the Belmont Pier restroom. Could you tell us what the city has done in regards to the restroom situation over at the Belmont Pier?
Speaker 12: So that's a project that we completed. It's actually up and functioning and it's working very well. When we had originally planned this budget or this item, it was to construct a brand new restaurant. I'm sorry, restroom out there on the Belmont Pier. The Belmont Pier is in pretty bad shape and is going to eventually need to be either fully renovated or torn down and replaced. And so what we did there instead was we actually put a trailer out there, a very nice trailer for the restroom, instead of building a brand new facility. So this is $400,000 that is already available. It's it's not impacting any project. And that restroom is there. It's just it's a savings from the different type of construction.
Speaker 7: And similarly, I see Marina Vista Park Restroom as the other project that is going to be delayed. The one other project that's going to be delayed. Can you tell us a little bit about that project?
Speaker 12: Yes, this is a restroom that really is only not available to the public on a normal basis. It's really just open for special events. It's actually directly across from another restroom that, you know, so it is directly across there. And so this is one that we think can be delayed without really any impact on the public.
Speaker 7: And I have to tell you that I've been out there prior to today's meeting to check out that situation, and I agree with you on that. And in regards to this, then, in order for us to be able to accommodate the additional seats, there will be no new projects funded in FY 15 out of Tidelands for the third District, is that correct?
Speaker 12: I believe actually it was no new projects in FY 1605 16.
Speaker 7: That's right. I wanted to ask you a few questions about. Noise mitigation. As you mentioned, this is a project that's in a residential neighborhood. And I would like to know what efforts or what proposed plans we have to mitigate the noise that would come from the facility, specifically the outdoor pool.
Speaker 12: So as we go through this design process, you know, that will definitely be one of the things that we will be looking at. There are construction methods that can be employed to do things like sound walls that can do light, you know, ways to read to, you know, to have light shine in a in a way that's not going to impact the residents. There are systems we can explore. There's some experimental ideas out there right now about underwater whistle systems, not yet in development, but maybe by the time we're constructed here that we can be looking at. And so there are a number of things that can be done for that outdoor pool to mitigate against sound. And I'd actually like, you know, those are really the the those are the construction items. But there are also programmatic things that can be done. And I'd like George Champion to talk a little bit about what we've already done and what can also be done in a in a new facility.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Councilwoman. Mayor and council. We have.
Speaker 6: Limited the use of the facility.
Speaker 0: For water polo.
Speaker 1: After seven. There's no.
Speaker 0: Water polo. We've issued whistles to all of the user groups that.
Speaker 1: Are about 90 decibels versus the 115 decibel whistles. And it makes a dramatic difference.
Speaker 0: In what the neighbors here. We've also been working with the groups to make.
Speaker 1: Sure they keep their noise level down when they're leaving, when they when they've stopped.
Speaker 0: Using the pool, because people have a tendency to kind of loiter and talk loudly.
Speaker 6: So we've done that as well.
Speaker 0: And we've also turned the overhead lights off during the summertime to mitigate the the light impact to the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: So we've turned those down as well. So but we may have to turn those up during Daylight Savings Time, but those are.
Speaker 0: Those lights were designed for low.
Speaker 1: Impact, as low as as illumination as you can possibly get by the designers of the temporary pool.
Speaker 7: And I understand it's probably premature at this time to talk about programing for the new pool, but will the staff make it a priority to think about programing in a sense that is most conducive to residents?
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: We will now have an indoor pool, so we will try to mitigate as much of that inside the pool and Indian indoor pool as much as possible.
Speaker 7: Is there anything at all, based on the research that you've done, both of you and any member of our design team that would preclude our water polo players, our water polo teams from practicing indoors in the evenings?
Speaker 1: I don't think so.
Speaker 12: No. That's something that we've really looked at as we looked at the 25 meter versus 25 yards. And, you know, both of those can be set up for a practice court course for water polo, for games. You require 30 meters. And so 30 meters you always are going to do in the lengthwise of the pool. But there's a lot of flexibility as we showed on that slide before that you can use anything from the diving well to the to half the pool to a quarter of the pool. There's a lot of different flexibility that you have to be and that George would be able to program whether you do it inside in the in the facility or outside in the facility.
Speaker 7: Now, while we have any stadium seating outdoors that would disrupt the residents.
Speaker 12: The the plan is proposed does not include any permanent outdoor seats.
Speaker 7: In regards to the open space around the pool. We currently have some large open space around the existing Belmont pool. Will we have the same amount of open space or more? Once the new pool is built.
Speaker 12: We'll actually have more open space than we do today. So it's approximately 113,000 square feet worth of open space in the current model and the new in there in the in the current project, in, in the new project that is being proposed will have, I believe, 120,000 square feet worth of open space.
Speaker 7: And can that open space be used? Part of that open space be used as greenspace so that people can walk their dogs and take walks and enjoy the outdoors?
Speaker 12: Certainly, and exactly how much and where it will be and what it'll look like, that'll be through that design process and through the environmental process where we're getting feedback about what are the features that people want out in those spaces and how to make it really an active, you know, plaza that people can benefit from and use . As we realize, there's not a lot of green space in Belmont Shore in that area, and that's going to be an important public space.
Speaker 7: In regards to the diving. Well, I, I know first of all, I want to thank the stakeholder committee who's here. They worked incredibly hard on this. And the recommendations that are presented tonight are as a result of them working together, really as a community, to do what's right for the city as a whole. So I want to thank them for their service. But going back to the dove, well, well, the pool at the dove will be able to be used for other programing functions. Or is it exclusive to competitive diving?
Speaker 12: Absolutely. It will be used for other function. In fact, in order to pass muster with the Coastal Commission, it will have to we will need to be able to show that they and the Coastal Commission is, as we mentioned, very cognizant of the fact that every pool needs to be available to the public. And so we will have to show an. I believe we will show that we can use that facility to do that, to do many different things. It can do swim, it can do water polo, it can do dove classes. We can have our junior lifeguards jump off the tower and do and do trainings there. We can have police and fire using that facility through their training. It can be diving, it can be a competitive diving, it can be public diving as well. So there's a number of different uses for that pool and it'll have to be kind of a shared space.
Speaker 7: Now, in terms of the project we've heard and again, I think this is probably something that's going to be addressed more in the air process. But we've heard a number of concerns about the number of mature trees that will have to be removed in order for us to build this new facility. Have you considered that? And what is the city's plan to replace those trees and make sure that no nests are destroyed?
Speaker 12: Yes. So that would definitely be something we look at very closely in the air. You know, we already have an arborist on staff that is out there through the demolition process and we're doing an assessment of all of those trees. It will be yet to be determined about whether or not we can move some of those trees and replant them. Whether or not they need to be replaced, where they would be replaced, but where the new project would definitely have trees in it. It hasn't yet been determined whether they'll be reported or remove or replace those trees or whether they're actually going to be transplanted.
Speaker 7: And finally, you talked a little bit about the $39 million being premised upon a $100 per barrel per barrel oil price. Was that a correct conclusion?
Speaker 12: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 7: And if, in fact, there continues to be fluctuation in the oil market and we are asked to go back and look at our five year plan for Tidelands funding. I want to make sure that that staff, as is clear, that in my opinion, this is a city wide asset. In fact, last week we approved a an agenda item which will allow children throughout the city to be able to swim at this pool for a dollar. So given that this is a citywide asset, I want to make it very, very clear that the two major safety projects that are in the third district, Naples seawalls and the marina rebuild will not be delayed as a result of any future plan with the pool. And I just want to make sure that that's clear and that staff understands. And if you have any concerns about that, perhaps you can share those with us now, because if those projects were going to be delayed, that would obviously impact my support for the pool.
Speaker 12: So that direction is actually very helpful as we come back in December. We're going to need to have some ideas from the council about what are the highest priority projects and which ones are going to be more important to fund first and which come other come later. And so we'll be looking comprehensively at projects that are currently already funded, looking at projects that haven't yet been funded and and bringing you some scenarios. And so that direction will help us as we, as we craft that plan. And then the Council will have the chance to make those decisions about, you know, which ones go where. At the end of the day. And so, you know, that direction actually is very helpful for us.
Speaker 7: And well, when will we expect to see staff come forward with some planning in regards to fluctuation in oil prices?
Speaker 12: So we expect by the end of the year that we'll have a better handle on whether this is a temporary drop in oil or if it's going to be prolonged. You know, some of the analysts are expecting it to be six months. It might. You know, oil is very mercurial. It goes up and down. And so we're not quite sure exactly how long it will last, but by December, we believe we'll be in a better position to give some estimates and then determine what that possible impact may be.
Speaker 7: I want to, just for a moment, acknowledge Councilmember Austin. I had a chance to talk with him briefly about this project. And, you know, I want to say that I think he and many of my colleagues understand the the citywide resource that this pool will be. And he has expressed to me early on his support of helping financially do whatever we can to make the citywide asset a reality. And and I know many of my colleagues share that. So I want to thank staff for preparing this report. And and I want to thank council former council council member DeLong for really starting this project and allowing me to be involved as early as April in this. I think this is going to be a great project and I envision that there are a few kids here today, tonight, but all those kids that will be going to college on swim scholarships will be able to proudly tell their college, college dorm mates and swim swim team, you know, swim team colleagues that they grew up in the LBC and swam in this amazing pool. And it will be a source of pride for them and not a source of embarrassment. So I'm very proud of that.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I you know, I, I mostly appreciated your comment that this is a citywide project. This is an asset that every district will use, and it's an important asset. You know, people might think this is political. This isn't political. This is absolutely good policy to rebuild this pool.
Speaker 0: But it's also personal.
Speaker 1: It's personal for me. It's personal for a lot of you. My own kids learn to swim in that pool. And I know many of your kids now swim that pool. Some you swim in that pool. I see the newly minted commissioners who want to try out there who's there probably every day of the week with his own kids, his own five kids out there, you know, involved in water polo and a lot more. And again, this.
Speaker 0: Proposal.
Speaker 1: Is largely consistent with the vision that was laid out in January. So I thank the committee for their input. And the way I look at this project, this project will benefit kids in our community. This is a long term investment. And this is important because I hear a lot of people leaving this community to go to other communities where they have amenities such as this. This is economic and it's about building families and about building community. So this is significantly important, more important than City Hall, quite frankly, because a lot more people are going to use this pool on a daily basis than that. And what I mean is residents coming to visit. I want to thank Susie Price for jumping into this. You know, Gary did a good job and you picked up on it. There's also a couple others I want to thank, shy crowd also out there. So I give everybody a wave. He's very passionate about the pool. He's very passionate about swimming. He's passionate about the kids that he teaches. He makes Long Beach a better place because of what he does, his commitment to our kids. My own kids have swam underneath him before and without him tonight, quite frankly, without him in the past, being active on this issue, engaging early on tonight, we would be talking about one pool because that was the original concept. And so he and I talked and we leaned on some folks. And I'll tell you what you want to know. A gentleman that can bring out a lot of people talk to him and he does a good job because he's passionate about what he does, and that translates into the kids. And so without your help on this, you know, we would again be talking about just one pool tonight. So you've done a wonderful job in advocating for our kids and ultimately our city. So thank you. Some others, Rich Foster. You know, I sat down with him and we heard his comments many a time. He's a quiet guy, but he has played a big part in getting us to where we are today. And I should also mention, Sheri Bath. I went in to get my teeth cleaned how many years ago? And I walked out and she had my cell phone number. She never let me alone since. And that's Sheri Barth. We love her because she loves, you know, really what her family does. Right. And this is just a much, much about what she what's important to her as it is to all of us. So thank you, Sheri, for staying on me. And she's very passionate, too. And we went and met with some folks at Long Beach State when Long Beach State was playing games with water polo. And, you know, she's done a lot of groundwork on this, so I appreciate that. With regard to the plan, the layout of the pool, I've heard some comments about moving the pool. So the inside pool would be where the outside pool is. Is that possible? Can someone respond to that? Do you need me to detail that question any further?
Speaker 12: No, no, sir. I think I understand the question. So our architect, Brant, covered that a little bit, but that's the concept of how best to situate this poor to, you know, to do what it needs to do and to satisfy the majority of users. And so our team really spent a lot of time looking at all different aspects and rotating it 90 degrees here and there. They took wind readings, they took sun readings. They looked at the shading, they looked at noise and looked at what coastal was really looking for as well, which is, you know, the view quarters are incredibly important to them and they've been very, very clear that a building that, you know, that blocks views is not going to pass coastal muster muster. And so at the end of the day, you know, the recommendation is to have it instead of being an east west orientation, to have it be a North-South orientation, as is the plan . So we have we realize that's an idea to turn it so that you mitigate some of the noise. We believe that there are other ways to mitigate that noise and to work with the residents so that they're not hearing the noise and still being able to use the pools.
Speaker 1: And just, you know, say, I hear with regard to the lights, have you put shields on the lights? So they are shining more in a downward direction and aren't, you know, creating light, light, if you will, that bleeds into the neighborhood, councilman.
Speaker 0: I believe they were designed that way so they really don't shine into the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: That was part of the mitigation measure for the temporary pool. And with regard to the temporary pool, is there any way to make that permanent as part of this project?
Speaker 12: So we get that question a lot, too, is can we keep that pool and actually have three pools? And what I think we would all enjoy more water space. The Coastal Commission was very clear when they gave us the permit for that pool that they want their space back, they want the parking lot back and they're sitting on about 129 parking spaces. So unfortunately, we will have to give up that temporary pool and have and have the two poles that are seen here today.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The only, you know, I guess you could always go back to the Coastal Commission, but that's something we can discuss at a later point. And that parking lot could stand to be activated, quite frankly. As you know, I used to work in Marine patrol and I was in there a lot of a lot of days. And what we could do to activate that parking lot a little further might might be good. But anyways, that's something down the road. And with regard to to third district funds, walk me through that. There was some some conversation behind the rail here and in the last couple of days with management about, you know, any any dollars over $99 million only coming out of a third district projects. You know, this isn't a district project. This is a citywide project. So can you walk me through what the solution proposed solution is there? I have a real problem with saying, hey, third district residents, whatever you have on schedule, be at seawalls or otherwise, you know, they might have to be held off. Is that true? What's going on there?
Speaker 12: So we absolutely agree that this is a citywide project and it does have citywide benefits. Historical practice, however, in the Tidelands has been to to the extent possible, the council has given us direction to invest equally in that area.
Speaker 0: So yeah.
Speaker 1: I have never heard that. If there's a look at the pier we're talking about rebuilding that the seawalls are very expensive. They're a third district project. But you know, the. Well, I am a little concerned about that. I really don't think that's the direction year to year. You're going to have an expensive project in one district and maybe the next year will have an expensive project, another district. But I don't think on an annual basis we should be splitting the dollars evenly. The infrastructure isn't the same.
Speaker 12: And that's certainly the direction that we can take from the fall city council past practice has been, you know, you do have those large projects. For example, when this one was funded, it didn't come just out of District three, it came out of the tidelands pot. However, on a go forward basis, the past practice has been that wherever possible to equally invest in both. And so as we look for that $4.7 million, we first looked within District three and we're, as the councilmember mentioned, we were able to find those funds with very minimal impacts to existing projects. I think if there had been larger impacts then yeah, I think that would have been something we would have had a different recommendation on.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, as we go.
Speaker 1: Forward and look for for more funding because this is going to exceed the $99 million mark, I just hope that we'll think more broadly and recognize that this is a citywide project for an entire city. And I would say the same for a project in any district. No district is an island. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So I just want to start by saying I've watched this discussion for a number of years. City Manager West Tom Modica great job on bringing us all the way to this point. I was wondering how many people would be lined up and ready, but I see a lot of smiles here, so that means somebody has done something right. Secondly, the the Pool Stakeholder Advisory Committee, I know that a lot of time goes into this. This is what civic engagement looks like. So congratulations on the work that you've done. And then I just want to go back and just talk a little bit about purpose. I've watched this from the beginning, and every council district participates in this discussion. And I want to make sure that and I want to I'm going to, you know, ask a question of the city manager. But I want to make sure that I'm clear on what my purpose is and what this council's purposes for doing this. And one of the major outcomes elements is to provide a world class resource, particularly for our youth. There are a number of stakeholders here, but when we have this asset of a Tidelands Fund and we should think about how we can really use this unique asset to bring something special to Long Beach families among these youth. So, so that said, Mr. or Mrs. City Manager, I know we've talked, we've spoken. And we talked about the last time this agenda item came up. But just walk me through the next level of discussion where we go into detail on how we make sure that the whole city connects to this and understands the value of this pool.
Speaker 0: Mayor Councilmembers Yes, this definitely will be a pool serving all 52 square miles, all 480,000 of our residents. It's certainly enough water to do that. There's deep water for competitive uses or shallow water to learn to swim and for recreational swimmers. One of the most important things happened was just last week when the City Council directed us to reduce the cost of the pool. Time for youth under the age of 17 at the Belmont is $3 per use, and now it's going to be $1 at Silverado and an MLK. It's two, it's $2 now. It'll go to $1 as well. The council also directed us to work with Long Beach Transit to develop a pool bus, so to speak. So we'll create a pool bus system working with Ken McDonald, Miami Transit, so that we will work with the council offices. I mean, but I don't want to presume where the stops would be and things like that. But once we had a commitment on what we can do, the funding sources that we can have to get a bus to or busses after school during the winter hours or all day long during the summer hours to get youth from all areas of our 52 square mile city to this wonderful resource. Those are things that the Council directed us to do last week, and we'll be doing those.
Speaker 1: And I just wanted to say that, you know, the more we can emphasize that lanes, when we speak about this in the public, I think the better off we are in reminding our residents that, you know, the next Michael Phelps or whoever world class driver is, they can live, they can go to Jordan High School, they can go to Poly High School. They're here and they're going to have access to that because we're taking these steps today.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank staff and the community for the process that we went through to get here and the amazing product that you have delivered to this council. I know you've all sacrificed your time. Many of you are not public servants in the definition that we are and probably did not sign up for that level of engagement to get something done here, but it is well worth it and I'm very thankful and I think everyone's done a great job. Councilmember Price has been working on this for some time, even before she was sworn in, and I'm very thankful for her leadership on this as well as Councilmember De Long's leadership on the funding. I'm very glad that we have come within the budget that the Council has has instructed and and indicated that we should add any overages . I'm glad that staff and the council office was able to make up that gap. I do want to share, while it's very important for us to get this city wide asset built, their sacrifices made throughout the Tidelands area. And I've been on this council for eight years and I think many of us remember significant city wide projects that have been stalled for very important projects such as the seawall and other priorities. And so I wouldn't want any of the new council members here to be left with the belief that the downtown or the downtown area or the second district area of the Tidelands has not sacrificed. The Convention and Visitors Bureau brings in about $300 million in economic development. That is a city wide asset. We have forestalled many projects several years in order to have the seawalls built, in order to have things built in the third district, which is very important to us . And so we have made sacrifices throughout and and those have been investments so we can make this pool happen. And I want to be very clear about that. I'm hearing some buzzwords about some folks chipping in and some folks not. I have numbers here exactly with the history of Tidelands funding, and that is the benefit of having served on the Budget Oversight Committee for eight years. Yeah, we we have a track record of contributing to make sure these projects do get built and, and the visitors, the CVB projects are not ones that we can afford to put off any longer. And so I'm thankful that Staff and Councilmember Price have come up with a way to to make up that gap without asking these other projects to be put off any longer. The public restroom facilities and all of they're all very important. But what's most important is that collaboratively this got done. And if the oil price does continue to go down, I want to remind all of us that while we may have the intent of wanting to chip in, it does affect our one time funding. We would have nothing to chip in with, and so that's important to remember to it. Those one time dollars that that each of our council districts is able to look at right now would also go away or at least be greatly reduced. And so we are all willing to chip in. And if anyone is interested, I'm happy to share with you all of the projects that have been forestalled so that we can make this pool come to fruition from the second District. And I do count that as our investment in our commitment to this. And so I'm very proud of that and I'm very glad that we're moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 10: I want to start off with a couple of thank you's. I want to thank each and every person who served on the committee. Each and every person who diligently emailed our office week in and week out with examples of things that will help us make better decisions here for you today. We appreciate those comments. We know that each of you want to make public comment as well. But I think that for me at least, I have a lot more time to think through the comments that you e-mailed in advance. So I just really want to thank people who took the time to sit down and thoughtfully outline their ideas in a comprehensive way so that I was able to, in advance of this meeting, have those dialogs and discussions with our city management to make sure that all of your concerns were addressed. Additionally, I do want to comment on the idea of this is a citywide project. This is something that we will all be very, very proud of. This will be a world class facility. We will be known around the world. Quite frankly, we are known around the world already for so many great things. It's just one more fantastic thing to add to the list. As one of the most experienced budget professionals in the room, I would like to say that in terms of discussing contributions of different types of funding, it's often important to remember the practice that most restrictive funding should be allocated first. When you have funding that is available for anything, you want to use that lasts. So an example of that is within infrastructure dollars. In the city, we have certain funds, whether they're measure funds or measure C funds, that can only be used on certain types of infrastructure. And if you look at the policies on a global level and the cities and counties and states that have done the best over time, they look at their most restrictive funds first and they allocate those to the needs of the city that fit in those categories so that they have more flexibility and balance both for good times and bad. And so I appreciate the methodology used by the city. I think it is that of the best practices of the country and has proven as well in good times and bad. And so I want to thank everyone for that and I am excited to support such a great world class facility here in Long Beach.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 7: Speaking of funding, there were in the comments that we received, there were some issues that I think we need to clarify right now in regards to those who may be watching at home, are reporting about this tomorrow. Are we using general fund taxpayer dollars to build this pool?
Speaker 12: No, we are not. The source of funding for this project is 100% what are called tidelands funds. And those are funds that actually belong to the entire state of California that we hold in trust. And so those are funds that are generated in the beach area, and it's primarily from oil revenue that is actually it's entirely oil revenue that is generating those funds. So there are no taxpayer dollars in this in this pool. No, no tax. Tax. Like property tax. Sales tax.
Speaker 7: So some of the comments that we received that I'm sure you've seen as why not use this money to hire more police officers, for example? We can't use this money for other services, correct?
Speaker 12: No, we can't use this money for any services outside of the title in the area.
Speaker 7: Now, when I started learning about the pool, the first question I had was, how in the world is it going to require $99 million to build a pool? I mean, that to me, that seemed like an outrageous number when you look at the square, the price per square footage of this pool. Is it comparable to the cost of pool construction throughout the United States?
Speaker 12: It is. That's something the council has to look at to make sure that we were getting a good value for the pool. And our team put together a very good analysis. I believe off the top of my head we looked at about nine different pools that were built at different times and we basically adjusted for where they were built and how they were built and the facilities that they had. And if you normalize for all of those things, what we found is that this pool is essentially, I believe, fourth out of fourth out of ninth in terms of cost per square foot. So definitely not the highest right in the middle part of the curve.
Speaker 7: Now, in terms of the temporary pool, with the given the understanding that it's going to have to be disassembled, it's a Murtha pool and it's going to have to be disassembled at some point. Can it be resold?
Speaker 12: Yes, we believe it can be resold. There are a number of ways to to do that. It can be resold to a government can be resold to ourselves. It can be resold on the private market. It could also potentially you could do a contract for someone to remove the pool and have that be part of the compensation for removing the pool can also be reused somewhere else. So that's something that will be continuing to look at over the next couple of months.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I have nothing further.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 7: I also want to thank the community for being here. It's often it's just great to see that community can build consensus. Stakeholder meetings that are organized and that folks are really coming together to discuss this very important, you know, citywide project. It's wonderful. What I, I did have a couple questions. I guess I am not clear on the operating costs for the recommendation of the staff's recommendation and where that will be coming from.
Speaker 12: So the operating costs are also not general fund because it's in the Tidelands area, it will be Tidelands operating. We essentially separate our funds into two different kind of buckets. One is our operating funds and one are capital funds. So the 99 million plus now the 4.7 is going to be paid for out of capital. But then our operating fund will need to basically absorb the cost of operating the pool. And so that's a long term projection. We won't see those costs until the ports open. Most likely, I believe in F y 18 and will be doing long term projections about how to either make reductions in other services or if there's potentially revenue or how to make that balance work when the pool is open in 518 and 1419.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. And I see here that the annual economic impact. So what we project for this would be about 30 million.
Speaker 12: And it's a total of up to $30 million if we were to receive all of the events that we had identified as this facility being able to host, which essentially is just about every event except for Olympic trials, those now are so popular that they aren't held in these types of facilities. They're held in like an arena that holds 20,000 people, and you import a pool into the arena. But essentially the $30 million is annually what we think we can expect an annual economic impact of which tot and we're going to receive some hotel bed tax and some additional sales tax if we were able to get that that amount. And it's an estimate. It's it's not a hard projection yet, but it's an estimate.
Speaker 7: Okay. And then what is the can you clarify the 600,000 in the Belmont pool rehabilitation funds for that requires county approval.
Speaker 0: Oh, councilman, that is from the 1992 property issue, park bonds. So back in 1992, you had to identify certain projects.
Speaker 1: That would be funded. So these are monies that.
Speaker 0: Come in from the county, from our tax dollars. It was for rehab rehabilitation of the Belmont pool. We've checked with the county. We believe we can have that designated for new construction.
Speaker 6: It's a it's a process that we'd have to go through with the county county board of Supervisors.
Speaker 1: And the Parks District. But we believe we can move that from rehab rehabilitation to mill construction.
Speaker 7: We thank you. And then I would just reiterate with what Councilmember Richardson said, because I think accessibility is very important for many of our districts who don't see water in their district at all. And so this is a city wide asset. But we certainly I'm certainly very proud to know that, you know, there are going to be, you know, strides taken to have that accessibility open for all of our residents. And our last council action last week certainly proved that. But, you know, continuing that that mission and that message, like Councilmember Richardson said, is very important. So thank you. And Councilman Price, great job. Thank you.
Speaker 12: And just one comment on that is we absolutely agree it needs to be for the entire city. It actually needs to be for the entire region as well. So because this is a these are tidelands dollars, it it really is in the definition of title and dollars that this is available for people outside of Long Beach as well. And that's something we need to bear in mind.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 7: I wanted to just clarify one thing regarding the moveable floor. I know that the Stakeholder Advisory Committee did something very prudent, which was to recommend setting aside some money for maintenance to cover the costs of the moveable floor. Can you comment on that a little bit? Because some of the comments we've received are that, you know, how much is that going to cost us and that's going to, you know, break the bank. And we've actually taken a conservative approach in regards to that.
Speaker 12: We have I think we came down to a very good compromise. There was a lot of reticence on behalf of the committee and and frankly, on behalf of city staff as well, that if we had a movable floor, how do you make sure it doesn't stick? We've had that bulkhead stick in the middle of the Belmont pool, and we haven't had a 50 meter pool ever since. But how do you make sure that doesn't happen with the moveable floor? And so what the committee did is they pre-funded the maintenance. So to make sure that we have enough maintenance money already, you know, guarantee that it's going to be there so that this floor needs, for example, divers to go underneath and maintain it once a month. And so it is a cost that we need to budget for. And I think it was very prudent that the committee set aside money to do that.
Speaker 7: And finally, you talked a lot about the Coastal Commission, and we met together. We met with the Coastal Commission early on in this process. How important do you think it is to the Coastal Commission and in the approval of this project that we're actually replacing a pool, that we're putting a pool where a pool was before because some people have said, well, why can't we put this pool next to the Queen Mary or next to, you know, the convention center or somewhere else? How important do you think that is? You know, given the conversations that we've had with Coastal Commission staff and that your expertize in that.
Speaker 12: Based on on our discussions with them and it really is kind of a feeling from all of our discussions with about this. The reason we get to do this project, the reason we get to have this idea is because we have a pool there already. The Coastal Act really doesn't envision this was you know, this facility was built before the contract was in place and doesn't really envision putting, you know, those types of facilities on the beach. But because we have one already, I think we get a very unique opportunity to replace it. I think it would be a very difficult proposition to ask the Coastal Commission to place a pool where one does not exist currently. I think they would they would have some issues with that.
Speaker 7: Now, with the 1250 seats, will we be able to host NCAA tournaments here? Yes. PAC 12.
Speaker 12: Yes. I think it's yes.
Speaker 7: And we can't host Olympic trials because we would need about 20,000 seats. So that's not even an option there.
Speaker 12: Correct. There remains to be seen potentially for diving. We can potentially have some work for have some trials there, but not for swimming.
Speaker 7: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 8: So I think most of the questions have been dealt with in. But I wanted to also thank the stakeholder advisory group, the committee, the community. When this process started several months ago, you you helped sell this vision to this council.
Speaker 9: And.
Speaker 8: You know, I think many of us were skeptical originally, but as we have seen this kind of process matriculate to where we're we're believers now and we see the value of rebuilding this pool to be a world class pool diving facility. And and, you know, the presentation here was was very, very encouraging. I'm optimistic about the future. I do want to congratulate and commend Councilmember Price for really taking the leadership on this, picking up a difficult issue as a new council member. Picking up where Gary DeLong left off and not missing a beat. And so you've done a great job that thorough questions are greatly appreciated, I know, by this council, but I'm sure by the public as well. And as far as the Murtha pool, the temporary pool, I have a recommendation.
Speaker 7: We will sell it to you.
Speaker 0: Okay. For $1.
Speaker 8: We'll take it in the eighth District. We have we have plenty of room for it. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: We're going to go to public comment here in just a minute. I also want to just say, if you think he's one, I want to start by thanking the committee who I know worked incredibly long hours and a lot of discussion on this issue. Believe it or not, Mr. Modica and Mr. West have been briefing us almost on a weekly basis on the status of what's been going on with the poor. I think I get a pool update from Mr. Modica. It seems like multiple times a week, but it has been great to see a real community process happen. And I want to commend Councilwoman Price for leading that community process. And I think that when she came on board this, it's very difficult to come into a a situation where a project has the process has somewhat begun. And to have the first thing kind of on your lap as you as you began, it was a lot of emotion behind an important project, as it should be. And so I want to commend her. I want to commend the community and also want to commend Mr. Modica and our city team, because they've done a great job at getting this thing to this point today. And in conclusion, this is this is an exciting project for the entire city and the region, as was said earlier. We're going to build a a historic world class facility. And it's going to be a point of pride for all of Long Beach. It's going to be used by people from all over the city. We're going to encourage that as someone that has on multiple, multiple occasions use the facility to swim and for recreation. It's a very special place with a lot of history, and it's going to be exciting to see the future of of the art space. So thank you to all of you. And with that, I'm going to open it up for public comment.
Speaker 5: Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 3: And please, as you come forward, if you can just identify yourself for the record and then we'll begin.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Susan Miller. I live across from Belmont Pool. The cost of the Belmont Pool plant continue to increase. The projected oil revenues may not be sufficient to sizable construction costs of the current plant are due to the location, the liquid vacation, soil geological makeup and the sea level. Rising construction costs. Building in another location would reduce and eliminate these costs, construction cost and ease the impact on the tide line funds. Dollars realized from eliminating the underground stabilization costs needed at Belmont Plaza could be used to fund more seating. Urban quality facility changed to another location mitigate the Harry Bridges Memorial Park, the Queen Mary as a new location for the world class aquatic facility. When the current Belmont pool is demolished, Belmont Plaza is eligible for open space to replace the Harry Bridges Park near the Queen Mary. This mitigation is in compliance with the California coastal. Locating the aquatic facility to the Harry Bridges Memorial Park doesn't have the negative environmental impact of the Belmont Plaza location. A key factor for the California Coastal Commission approval is the Environmental Impact and Aquatic Facility. Downtown has been an ideal, an idea for a long time. In Long Beach, as in any good Master City plan, there are main elements that should be the nucleus core of the downtown. Locating the aquatic facility downtown is a good strategy for the city. A world class aquatic center is a good idea for located in the right location and built at a reasonable cost. Aquatic facility of Queen Mary makes sense for logistics, infrastructure and Smart Master City Planning. The Harry Bridges Memorial Park of the Queen Mary has infrastructure and the land space. The location has public transportation, freeways, parking, hotels, restaurant, the Shoreline Aquarium. The world class facility should be located there to be the crown jewel for Long Beach and bring in all the world class aquatic events. Plus, the world class aquatic facility could be featured every night on Channel seven Eyewitness News opening webcam shot of the Queen Mary with our world class aquatic facility. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Dr. Garcia and members of the council. My name is Lucy Johnson.
Speaker 0: I live in the fifth.
Speaker 5: District and I've been.
Speaker 0: A an advocate of this project from day one, or probably even well before day one. I was one of the first people in the pool in 1968 when it opened.
Speaker 5: My team was brought down here with our coach, who was a five.
Speaker 0: Time Olympic coach.
Speaker 5: And I.
Speaker 0: Wanted to add one thing that city manager.
Speaker 5: Was sad about. Cathy had a.
Speaker 0: Drum. She actually when she made the Olympics, it was in Belmont Plaza Pool in the 1976 Olympic trials. Unfortunately, our most recent Olympian, I think, in swimming is Jessica Hardy had to leave the city to train because the facilities here were inadequate. Couple of points. Councilmember Pryce, I want to.
Speaker 5: Thank you for. Towards the end here on talking about the difference.
Speaker 0: Between the general fund and the title. It's on a lot of the comments I've seen on our Web page or Facebook page and on other Facebook pages about Long Beach have said, why are we spending this kind of money on school streets, tree trimming and everything? And I think Councilmember Price and Mr. Modica.
Speaker 5: Addressed that very well. It is not.
Speaker 0: General Fund, it is Tidelands Fund can only be used in that area regarding the pool operating cost. And also like to point out that when you say fiscal 12, all pool on the expense in revenue, please keep in mind that that.
Speaker 5: Was 150 meter pool.
Speaker 0: A 25 yard, six lane pool outdoors and then a little wading pool that is almost never used. And the little outdoor pool got used. It was actually almost abandoned for a number of years until some of the club teams went in and.
Speaker 5: Started using it.
Speaker 0: So you're getting essentially five pools, you're getting.
Speaker 5: To 50 meter pools, the recreation pool.
Speaker 0: The therapy pool and the diving pool, the deep water pool that is used for many more things than just diving. So for the same, for that 3.2 million in expenses, you've gone from essentially one functioning pool to kind of to five. So I think that's a tremendous.
Speaker 5: Advantage to our city to have that kind.
Speaker 0: Of of additional.
Speaker 5: Pool space.
Speaker 0: One of the things I've lived here now in the city since 1980, partly because I was swimming and training at Belmont Plus Pool.
Speaker 5: And one of the things that's been a shame in a city of our size that there's only.
Speaker 0: Three public pools in this entire city. And in the summer, Jordan is open and Millikan is open, but not during.
Speaker 5: The winter to the public.
Speaker 0: So I think this is a tremendous advantage and I'm really.
Speaker 5: Pleased to hear about.
Speaker 0: That, working with the transit to luggage transit to try and get additional opportunities for people to come down from the other parts of the city. Lastly, regarding the diving pool, I was on vacation this past week, three weeks, two weeks.
Speaker 5: And came back with a call. Sorry.
Speaker 0: But I was talking to a gentleman that lives in Charlotte, North.
Speaker 5: Carolina, and he kayaks.
Speaker 0: And he uses a deep water.
Speaker 5: Pool in his hometown for kayak roll.
Speaker 0: Training, rolling over and getting back up. So there are many other things besides.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Time's up next. Speakers, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Elaine Nasser. I am 11 years old. I started diving with the McCormick.
Speaker 5: Team.
Speaker 7: When I was eight years old. My dream is to be on the University of Indiana's diving team because they have an amazing Dove facility and a wonderful team. Another one of my dreams is to go to the Olympics and win the gold medal. Your vote today will help me achieve my dreams.
Speaker 5: Thank you for considering making the Belmont Pool a.
Speaker 7: Great diving facility. I can't wait to dove on the new platforms. The Belmont Pool will provide formal. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Excellent.
Speaker 10: Last few Olympians come out of USC right here in SoCal. That's right. You don't have to move far.
Speaker 0: To.
Speaker 2: Make speaker.
Speaker 5: Hi, my name is.
Speaker 7: Drew Coons and I want to thank city.
Speaker 5: Council members for supporting the sport.
Speaker 7: Of diving. I have two sisters who also have been dating for four years who also thank you. I've been diving for over three years and got to dove at the old Delmar Pool for about two of those years. I didn't get to jump off the platforms very much at the Belmont Pool because I was only eight years old and pretty new since being at the King Pool. I don't get to dove off the platforms because there aren't in this. Last summer I went to a diving camp at the University of Indiana and got to dove off those platforms. It was so much fun. Then this last year I went to a diving meet and so lots of kids my age competing off the platforms. I felt like I was missing out.
Speaker 5: Now that the new Belmont.
Speaker 7: Will have its own separate pool for diving in platforms. There will be a day where I can really be at a world class pool. I want to thank all of you and the advisory committee for helping kids like me work towards my goals. Thank you for building as our own pool and platforms.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 7: I'm not sure how I can top that, except that I'm glad that they're going to go to IAB Indiana University. My son went there and it's a fantastic school, so hopefully they make it. Anyway, I am a resident living in the neighborhood that surrounds Belmont Plaza Complex.
Speaker 3: And if you can also just identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 7: Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. My name is Ellie Harlowe, and I live directly across the street from where the outdoor pool is right now. And speaking of the noise, I want to thank Suzy Pryce first for bringing up all the questions that I know her residents or her constituents have been sending her, because I'm quite well aware of what's going on, and I thank you for bringing that up and talking about them. However, the noise problem is still the noise problem. It's not going to go away. As long as you have competitive swimming and in water polo, any kind of competitive aquatics will make noise. It will not go away if it's outdoors. That has to be all indoors in the new pool. You cannot have any of that outdoors. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that all the city council representatives are aware that this project decimates the only local park in the area. I'm here to talk about the park. This park includes grass paths and shade trees. And I mind you, these are old growth shade trees. And all they talk about is removing the trees and transplanting them. I'm sorry. You can remove palm trees, but you cannot remove old growth trees. They will die. And there were about 20 of them there. Come and see for yourself. It's a beautiful little park. Anyway, it's in a high impact neighborhood, devoid of greenery. Most people take for granted there are virtually no yards and absolutely no parking strips of any on the streets surrounding the pool complex. In June at the stakeholders meeting was was formed to make sure that the development plans meet the needs of the multiple interest. Interestingly, the vast majority of the committee members, 64% or nine out of 14 were those with only aquatics interests and only one.
Speaker 5: Commune.
Speaker 7: Committee member was a resident living in the immediate vicinity of the project. At the community meeting on September 17th, where the plans to eliminate the park were unveiled. We were told that we had an opportunity to give feedback which would be taken into account. Since then, multiple residents have expressed their desire to have the park preserved. To the committee, to the third District Councilwoman Susie Price and the city manager's office. Amazingly, the plans before you today are pretty much exactly the same as presented on September 17th, meaning our desires have not at all been incorporated into the development plans only the desires of the special interests aquatics groups. There are multiple.
Speaker 5: Solutions.
Speaker 7: Which would provide an excellent swimming and diving facilities while maintaining all or a significant portion of the existing park. Some that come to mind are eliminating the.
Speaker 5: Outdoor pool.
Speaker 7: Altogether.
Speaker 3: And thank you so much.
Speaker 7: The pool to another site. So, distinguished representatives, I'm asking you to represent us where our own council works.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 7: So stakeholders and advisory committee are not. Thank you.
Speaker 12: Hello. My name is Diana Reed.
Speaker 3: You were in a good shirt there.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you very much. Yes, my name is John Reed and I am a product of Belmont Poole. I started with becoming divers when I.
Speaker 12: Was ten years old and I went on to Long Beach Poly and I was able to dove and compete for them.
Speaker 2: I won a lot.
Speaker 1: Of awards.
Speaker 12: While I was there and I was able to go to Duke University from my first two years because of diving, came to my senses and I'm now at USC. But without diving, I wouldn't be able to do any of the things that.
Speaker 2: I do now or have any of the competence that I have.
Speaker 12: Now. And I know this new pool would definitely be able to offer the same opportunity to other other kids who stumbled upon diving like I did. I didn't know anything about diving.
Speaker 2: I kind of saw and thought it was cool and I was like, I want to try that.
Speaker 12: So because of that, I was able to accomplish.
Speaker 2: All of these things that I've accomplished.
Speaker 12: And I think that this new pool will be able to open up so many opportunities for other kids in the city just like me.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Mr. Mayor, City Council, City Management. My name is Richard Foster. Been a long time local, national, international aquatics person, also vice chairman of the Aquatics Capital of America Committee. As some of you know, I had some misgivings about this pool design, but I can tell you I'm very much in favor of it. I think Mr. Westen, Mr. Modell, that very nice job of presenting a competitive pool that also functions very well as a recreational pool. I recognize that the number one use of this pool is going to be recreation, but competition is also very good for the city. Economic impact, the impact it has on our children. Watching the Jessica Harvey swim, watching the Tony Acevedo play water pool, the Ryan Bailey's play water polo. Well, he's retired now, but I'm a little concerned. And I would urge Mr. West and Mr. Modica to look at the seating issue a little bit more carefully, because the seating right now is like the minimum. We've got $105 million facility, we've got 1200 seats. I don't know if CIA is really going to want to go to a sea meet there. I think we need to expand that. And then socially with no seating outside, we just I just urge it in this development process, I totally support your project , but let's see if we can do a little bit better job on the seating. One small point is Belmont Plaza pool is rich in tradition. It's known across the country, and we're going to call it the Belmont Beach Aquatic Center. I mean, it just doesn't. Let's let's keep that history. Let's keep the legendary, iconic status. Let's call it Belmont Plaza Pool. I mean, our community deserves that. And third, I know I do know that some of the residents are very concerned about the noise factors. And I can understand that the water polo whistles especially. But if we can do something to try to negate that the noise factor even more than we've done in the past, I think we can make the water pool people happy, the swimming people happy and the residents happy. So my congratulations, everybody just it's going to be a fantastic facility.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 4: Please.
Speaker 2: Dennis Dunne, the city manager, enumerated some advantages, but mostly they were redundant. What he did admit, however, was pools do not make money. Now, Mr. O'Donnell said it sounds like good economics to me. That sounds like debt to me and not fiscally sound policies. But then again, what city would buy three helicopters to deter crime when it takes many in the field to do that, maybe we should buy a fourth helicopter. I want to address myself to the reason required to the proposal of having a diving well. The pool is problematic. I won't get into some of the problems I have with that. However, the the diving pool diving will seem to me and extravagances are just not needed. Millions and millions of dollars are going to go to the construction of this diving. Diving? Well, now it's just not needed. Boys will suffice buoys in the water to separate the divers from the swimmers. You also have lifeguards to separate the divers from the swimmers. You also have swimmers who don't want to hit the divers who will separate themselves from the divers. Yeah. The separation.
Speaker 0: Occurs because they're there, mindful of the catastrophe that can.
Speaker 2: Happen. But what is a catastrophe going to happen? The worst thing to happen is a diver hits a swimmer in his dove. However, the water cushioned the fall and there would be no damage really made. And this would be very rare indeed. There's no injuries ever been listed. The deaths that that diving was responsible for any injury of a swimmer. I'd also like to add that the diving will also be used. People do not like to get out of the water. It's cold out there. I've been in competitive swimming, so I have some expertize. It's cold out there to wait for a dove. To wait to dove. And it does take some expertize. I mean, the diving board wouldn't be used much. Now, what I am saying is this do not eliminate, eliminate diving. I would never do that. But eliminate the diving well, which is going to cost millions and millions of dollars to make.
Speaker 0: Now, you know, it sounds very.
Speaker 2: Great and wonderful, but as I said before. Afford will take you for it is all you need to do to take you somewhere. You don't need a Rolls-Royce.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Council and Mayor Ann Cantrell. I find that tearing down a usable structure because of earthquake concerns and then spending millions to rebuild in the same location. Ludicrous. I believe that finding another location such as the events part next to the Queen Mary or even at the pike, remember, the plunge makes much more sense. However, tonight you're being asked to throw money at this project. So I will quote John GROSS, your financial advisor, which nobody mentioned in the staff report. He said, quote, In this even more uncertain oil revenue environment, it's beginning to appear likely that there may not be enough funding available in the short term to fund the proposed Tidelands budget and capital plan. The argument that competition will bring millions into the city does not address the possibility that these competitions may choose to go to other facilities. Nor the possibility that swim meet visitors may not spend as much on lodging and food as tourists do. The Coastal Commission has told the city that this pool must serve the public, not just those who want it for competitive swimming, diving, water polo and other sports. The staff report states there's a tradeoff with public versus private use. While the economic development aspects of the Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center are not inconsequential. They do do come at a cost, reduce public access to the facility. And this is from your staff report. Using the facility as a tool for economic development involves reducing public access. Like many other public versus private issue, the decision of speeding issues uses is to be made by our elected official. That's that's the staff's end of quote. This means it's up to you to be fiscally prudent. Denied this request for additional funds and find a better location for this aquatic center. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Hi. I'm Debbie McCormick. I'm a member of the acquirer capital of America. I coached the McCormick divers in Long Beach and has been at Belmont. I meant to say thank you, and I really meant to say that they first the advisory committee and the council members. I said it all along. I'm sorry. Okay. Anyways, and before I start, I did this again. I wanted to introduce Dr. Sammy Lee. Dr. Sammy Lee won the Olympics in 1948 and 1952. He was on the President's Commission for Physical Fitness under five presidents and won the Sullivan Award as well. Two Olympic gold medals. Dr. Samuel Lee Sammy has been here. This is the fourth time Dr. Lee has been here to support the diving. I'm so thrilled that you guys are doing all the right thing. I know a lot of people aren't real happy, but you really made my day. Today just happens to be the 19th anniversary of my husband's passing. And Glen McCormick was such an icon and very well loved by everyone in the sport. A little over a year ago, some of you that were on the council before had received letters from all over the world, from diving. You had a petition with 1500 signatures and one and a half days. The world of diving is so excited that you're doing this. They will come. U.S. Diving has pledged that they will want to come for all these meets as long as the pool is built correctly. And you do have an opportunity to have Olympic trials for diving. So that's not out of the question, which is millions more to the city. So I know. I had a cousin that could do it for one and a half, and I thought he was the coolest thing since sliced bread. And I want to learn to dove I a little boy that was going to talk to you tonight. He was six years old. He fell asleep, so he had to leave. Sorry, but if you're not exposed, he saw a splash on TV and he said, I want to dove. So he was so excited by watching it on television and he just loves the sport and dived in his first meet this weekend. Anyway, the Olympics is a dream that everybody can attain, but there are so many kids out there with dreams and hopes and you're going to give them all the opportunities to do something with their lives and you're giving them everything. So swimming, diving, water polo, we applaud you for doing the right thing. And I've never worked so hard in my life for anything, and I feel really good right now. Thank you, Susie and Gary DeLong and Lucy Johnson for everything. And Patrick, you were there from the beginning and helped make this happen. And I am very emotional right now, but thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Larry good you clerc as the address. I support this project wholly and in this location. It's just some random notes here on the trees. I'm not an arborist, but I like trees. And I know when we redid in 1995 a rebuilt the Pete Arthur Rowing Center, we had had a tree that Pete had planted out front back in 1968, and we, the city, found an arborist and relocated that it's now growing five times better. It's down next to that restroom that that Colorado gone. Secondly, in terms of seats. I don't know what the exact seating capacity is of that facility now, but I know the Coastal Commission would probably hold about to be required to have no less the amount of seats combined seating that there is there now. They would do that just as they do slips or parking spaces along the coastal area, i.e. you can't reduce the number as long as they're there. Although I do, I do support the the thinking that they probably would not support a little relocation to another area of. The last thing. Obviously, the dollar amount of this is enormous. And so you've got to ask yourselves, you know, is it worth the money? How do I make that decision? And it brings it brings to mind my experiences in the 1980s, where I spent half my life, a business life down in downtown L.A., sitting across a desk and talking to CFOs of of every Fortune 500 company in most companies. Wanting to know, well, how can I justify spending that amount of money on the largest Xerox, that Xerox base? One of the biggest the biggest blue applicators. And I'd always responded and was pretty successful in getting the right response from the customers. You've got three fundamental decisions you have to make. One, you have to evaluate the cost. Of your initial acquisition to evaluate the cost. The operation. And three, most important of all. Evaluate the cost to your reputation. For having made the decision. You did. And I think the best way the best decision here is to rebuild and follow the plan as it is now rebuild in that location for all the reasons that have been earlier stated. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Goodhew. Thanks, Speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, everyone. My name is Steve Everly. And I'd like each of you to think back in your history being in a public facility like this. And seeing some kid. Running around the pool deck. Her behind the bowling alley. Looking for mischief. Looking for trouble. When I was six and a half, seven years old, I was that little boy. And I woke up in the morning and said, What can I destroy today? Came from a family, ten children. My mother got a lifeguard job. We all got ushered to the pool. And I asked her one day, I said, Mom, did you get that lifeguard job so that you could. Watch over us closely. She didn't give me a straight answer, but that was answer enough. One day I saw the divers diving off the diving board and I gravitated toward that diving board, and the head guard stopped me and said. You need to be able to swim. I said, okay. So I took swimming lessons. The next summer, I tugged on a shirt and said, I'm ready. He says. Did you take intermediate swimming? I said, No. He says, Go take it. So I did. So about eight years old, third summer, I approached the lifeguard and he says, If you can swim the deep end, you can go off the diving board. To this day, I remember the first jump off the board. 26 years later and diving, reaching international status. Somewhere during that time. I woke up every morning. Passion. Passionately pursuing excellence. If you make this decision to go forward, you will change lives, countless lives, and make them productive. Leaving behind an economic benefit that's not quantifiable. In closing, I'd like to ask you to and I'll even volunteer to spearhead a committee or whatever is needed. But I'd like us to take a look at the revenue generating potential of a building like this. And I'm not just talking, naming, naming rights to a building that are glittering lights, like in Las Vegas. But at the granular level. At the granular level. You can sell seats with naming plates on them. Concession stands with people's names. Branded. To whet your whistle just a little bit. I'd like you to notice that. FedEx field. The Washington Redskins scans $7.6 million annually. Contract goes to 2023. Ford Field, Detroit Lions $1 million annually, Mr. Bailey. The list goes on. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 12: Hello. My name is Billy Day.
Speaker 2: I want to thank you all for everything you've done. This can be a huge project and it's truly appreciated in the diamond swimming community. I had the pleasure of diving with Dr. Sammy Lee over here, and I also had the pleasure of diving with Glen McCormick. Dr. Sammy Lee was a phenomenal coach and Lynn McCormick was a phenomenal coach as well. And he started the legacy at Long Beach, as far as I'm concerned. He was a remarkable human being. He was a very much a father image to anybody that crossed his path. He had a passion for the sport. And because of this reason, I truly believe down the road after the pool is built, that the diving world should be named in his honor. He had several Olympians that he coached. He was responsible for many scholarships that for like myself, that came along for the opportunity that he created. People were able to attain. And he was just a wonderful man and a phenomenal coach. And I truly believe that it would be a travesty not to name the diving well in his honor. Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Day. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Shai Cordell. I live in the fourth district. Patrick O'Donnell, thank you very much for those kind words earlier. Suzy Price, Patrick O'Donnell.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. And Councilmember DeLong.
Speaker 0: When he was here, you guys have worked so hard to get this thing up and going. Patrick West Thank you, George. Thank you very much. You guys have done a wonderful job. And also the committee, you guys have done an incredible job of putting a beautiful complex out there. During the last couple of weeks. I've met a couple of the residents in the area. We had some nice conversations about how we can lower the noise and and all that for the upcoming complex out there. But I really hope that we can also do something about the noise for the residents who live right across the street , because I do know that that new outdoor pool is literally going to be right across the street instead of another hundred and 50 feet down the road. But it looks it looks wonderful. The kids, we don't have them here tonight. It was a school night, 7:00 meeting. It's it's too hard to get them here. So but thank you very much. And also Councilmember Al Austin, you said if that pool is able to move over to your area, call me. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Isn't it still 7:00?
Speaker 8: Hello. Roberts Haven from Argon. What I want to mention your opening statements. You mentioned that you want your goals were to service all the residents.
Speaker 0: And from the comments, it doesn't sound like the water.
Speaker 8: Polo residents are being served. If you're going to stop the practices outdoors at 7 p.m., I understand you're doing a lot of mitigation with sound so far, the whistles and the lighting. It seems like they're not quite working. There are future plans, but they're not available yet. Your other opening statement mentioned the. To make harmony with the residents. So again, the sound, the big solution here that seems if you change the indoor pool to the 25 meters, go from the 25 yards to 25 meters. It sounded like a $1.9 million difference. This project's going to go over budget and definitely it's not going to stay here. That's what, one 2%, less than 2% of the total cost. And you can have the water pull indoors. All of your residents will be served. Long Beach is known for its Parks and Recreation. If you're not.
Speaker 0: Servicing.
Speaker 8: The water polo, you're not servicing all these people. As a father, my eight year old daughter, she just started playing water polo. So definitely want to make sure that the pool is available for her.
Speaker 0: My son.
Speaker 8: My youngest son, he's four, Rex. He's an avid swimmer. He's got Down syndrome. He's the one that Rex Fest is named after. That's Rex Fest Foundation. And we just want to make sure that this will be available. Also in addition, I manage an apartment on Argon and during the Olympics.
Speaker 0: Brenda Villa. I talked to her earlier today and she said that I could mention her and she was actually living in our one of our apartments at the time.
Speaker 8: That she was practicing. She already had the bronze and the silver medal, and she was practicing here in Long Beach when and living here when she got the gold medal and she said, go ahead and free flexi this.
Speaker 0: Feel free to mention my name.
Speaker 2: It would be a shame.
Speaker 0: To not make the Olympic sized water polo pool so much water polo history and Long Beach. I'm sure you as water polo would.
Speaker 8: Love to host events there and bring spectators and tourists. So thank you very much. And I encourage you to reopen the planning and try to make the an indoor pool large enough for.
Speaker 0: The water pool. All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Hey, I want to learn more about RECs Fest.
Speaker 4: Some info about what you say.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Council members, mayor, city staff. I'm Hank Wise and just so pleased to be here tonight to be at the threshold of this big, big moment. I grew up in Long Beach. Went to Long Beach schools. Born and raised in Long Beach. And as my parents were to Belmont Plaza was a part of my youth and part of my teen years, went on to Stanford University and then came back and went to Cal State Long Beach to get a master's degree in recreational leisure studies because 49 years and anyway, just just want to just want to mention just that I am overjoyed at the what we have here in front of us. This is amazing. Nothing short of completely amazing the amount of joy and learning and progression. And, you know, for adults, for kids, for just the whole public is is just it's it's wide open. It's just so wide open right now. And, you know, I like the idea of the I really like the idea of the bus service, you know, the pool bus. That's just that's awesome. You know, United States swimming. I'm a member of the United States swimming as a swim coach myself, member of USM as United States masters, swimming as a swim coach. And, you know, United States swimming is making a big push for make a splash. And you might want to look into that and make a splash is something wide open to teach swimming to all communities and wide open. So you might want to take a look at make a splash and everything that that's a part of the plaza is known formally nationwide as the Belmont. Just one word. When we talk about rock stars, we usually use one name, Cher, you know Bono, right? Okay. I mean Madonna. Right. So it's kind of like Belmont continues, you know, and it not only continues in the way it has in the past, it continues with five. And then there's that little room, that little Jacuzzi in the corner. So there's five bodies of water, plus a tasty little Jacuzzi. Isn't that just too much? No. Yeah. I mean, it's just it's just so great. And I. I totally hear the residents and, you know, city staff at Belmont is continually on top of us as the coaches out there and, you know, just please keep it down. And they're talking to us, and we're we're we're doing we're making those necessary shifts in our coaching. Anyway, there's the yellow light. I just want to say how grateful I am. Thank you so much and have a great night. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Mr. Mayor. City Councilor, Staff I'm Jessica Payne. I'm the president of the McCormack Divers Boosters Club. I've been involved with Belmont Plaza Pool since 2000, when my son walked through the locker room to join the recreational diving program. He saw the ten meter tower and said, I want to jump off of that. And now he, at 20 years old, is a diver at USC with Diane who was here earlier, fight on diving, got him into college diving. He's been diving with two different Olympic coaches because of Debbie McCormick. What I wanted to say is, thank you so much for doing this for Long Beach. Regardless of how you vote tonight. This is a huge gift to the aquatics community and we're all going to love it. Thank you so much, Patrick O'Donnell, for listening to us. You and Gary DeLong got this spearheaded. Thank you, Susie, for picking it up and running with the banner. Because around the world, as you said earlier, people know Belmont, people know Long Beach in the aquatics community. You say that you dove in Long Beach. They said, I went to Belmont once. They said, I know Debbie McCormick, they know people. The aquatics community is such a tight community and they will come. It's a gift to us. And if we don't add the extras, it will be what people fear it will be for a small community because it will lock out all of those people from outside. If we do it right and we build it with the right amount of seating, with the right diving wheel and the moveable floor, we will bring in that extra money, that $3 million in operational funds. When we rent out the pool for our events, we pay some of those operational fees besides bringing the tax dollars and everything into the city. So it helps to bring it into the community. It will help kids to be able to take that bus and to be able to swim there for a dollar. If you let us if you build it right and you let us bring in these events, we will help build a community. And for the next 50 years, when people here, Long Beach, they will still think of Belmont and they will love it as much as we do. So thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And I'm going to actually close the speakers list unless there's anyone else that's going to get in line for the speakers list. Anybody else seeing none. Then the gentleman in the end is to be the last speaker. Please.
Speaker 7: Hello. Hi. Thank you, Mayor. Suzy Price, Tom Madoka and the rest of the advisory committee. It's been really fun working with everyone. My name is Raquel Barlow, and I grew up swimming at the Belmont Pool. I started there. I think Mommy and me classes. And then I graduated into diving. I played a little water polo. I hate labels. I would say I'm much more than just the diver. My mom was a world champion surfer. I'm an avid surfer also. But I'll say. Right here, right now, Belmont Pool is where everything started for me. And, you know, I think I'm from the third district, but I'm not sure I am. I heard I am. Okay. Okay. But, you know, hey, this pool, it's just like diving. Okay? That diving. Well, right there, it's not just the diving. Well, it's got everything in there for water polo players practice swimming, synchronized swimming. Who knows? Whatever. There's tons of stuff you can use. Water aerobics. It's an extra body of water. I'm really happy with this project. The architects did a really good job, and I think this is something beautiful that we can be proud of. And I'll tell you right now. I've had a lot of awesome opportunities happen to me and without without the ability to have all these coaches and amazing coaches teach me throughout my life . Like, you know, Klaus Barth and I worked for Hank for five years at the Long Beach Yacht Club, and I feel really privileged to have these mentors and coach coaches and teachers in this facility that's world class facility is only going to bring better teachers and better mentors to our city and build build this community. And I'm just I can't tell you how excited I am for this project, and I just want to say thank you. And I think this is going to be really awesome.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: I would make it short and sweet. I just want to say thank the council for all your help, especially patent.
Speaker 2: Suzy worked with you guys.
Speaker 8: Thank the advisory committee here. They've done a wonderful job. Thank the parks and RECs department.
Speaker 2: Especially Lori and Todd and their group. They've done a fantastic job while they've maintained that facility.
Speaker 1: While we've been there, whether we've been there for practices or whether we've been there for high school games, I mean, we had our first high.
Speaker 2: School games there about a little over a month ago and it went off without.
Speaker 1: A hitch. And everyone that showed up there.
Speaker 8: Were just they were just in awe of that facility and just can't wait until we build a crown.
Speaker 2: Jewel. But everyone.
Speaker 1: Walked out of there with smiles on their face, going, God, you guys get to play water.
Speaker 8: Polo.
Speaker 2: Here. I mean, in all honesty, I mean, people that came up from Coronado just this last weekend.
Speaker 8: I mean, we had people from all over. So something for you all to be proud.
Speaker 2: Of and just wanted to say thank you very.
Speaker 1: Much for.
Speaker 8: All of your help and all your hard work.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Name for the record.
Speaker 0: Pete Zuanic.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Commissioner.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Bill five. I'm in the third district. I know I'm there. I want to say that I know there's a lot of planning that's going into this and there's still a lot more planning to go. This is not the end of it. I'm definitely on the indoor pool being 50 meters long by 25 meters wide. That keeps the city of Long Beach on the world stage. Whether it's regionals, nationals or world competitions, that's going to bring the revenue into the city, utilizing the pool, restaurants, hotels, everything. It keeps it going for swimming, diving, water polo. We can maybe get the girls in and do synchronized swimming, introduce water, aqua yoga aquatics into the group. Haven't done that before. There's other cities doing that. I believe that some of the comments made about the busses going to the pool, I think that's a great idea. But I don't want to see Martin Luther King pull neglected. I don't want to see sort of auto pool neglected because they serve their uses in the communities where they're at. I'd also like to see Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Garcia, if you guys can reach out to Ms.. Connelly at Cal State Long Beach and see what they can do to up the level of the facilities at Cal State Long Beach to make the city a powerhouse in water polo, a powerhouse in diving, and a powerhouse in swimming. I think we need to bring the entire city, including Cal State, Long Beach and Long Beach City College, into this mix. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor Garcia. And let me just tell you, we did reach out not too long ago and there was a change in the president's there was a change in attitude at the school. And they're much more accommodating with regard to the water polo and swimming uses over there. And they've opened up their pool more hours. So there is there is seeing more use by the community rather than just the college folks. It's not sitting dormant like it was for for a couple of years there.
Speaker 0: It'd be nice if they could bring back the diving that they had at the smaller pool at Cal State. Long Beach. Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I want to thank everyone for the comments that they made tonight. And I want to I want to just take a moment to really. And I know she's talking, but I wanted to make sure that he I wanted to respond to some of the comments. I want to thank our aquatics community for coming together and understanding that there had to be some compromises that were made in order to make this project move forward and make it something that we could really say was in the best interests of everyone. As you heard tonight. And really the comments you heard tonight are just a fraction of the emails that I get every single day about the pool every single day. And as a result of that, I think the staff can attest that, you know, I have spent countless hours researching the size of pools around this nation, the size of pools that would be required for competitions and really making a decision that was in the best interest of everybody. And despite what what Ellie and Susan have to say, I've responded, you know, met with them several times, responded to emails trying to really do my best. And despite what they've said, one of the primary reasons that the sizing of the pool is what it is now as being recommended is because anything else would increase the footprint, and anything else that would increase the footprint would reduce the number of greenspace areas that we have available for the residents. And that was a major factor that we took into account in terms of determining what we were going to do. And as a result, before I walked into this room tonight, I called the USA representative for diving, swimming, water polo. I contacted pools around this nation. I sized up exactly how much they are everywhere. And I can tell you that we are one of the only facilities in the United States that's going to have one of each size pool, and that is phenomenal. We are going to be able to host almost every competition more than most other facilities can, and we will be able to practice in every single pool. Is it ideal for everyone now? Everyone is having to compromise a little bit in order to make this happen. And that's what happens when you're a city. That's what happens when you're a community. Everybody gives a little bit. And so I want to thank the aquatics community for uniting here tonight and understanding that this is a $100 million project and it's a big deal to the residents of this community. And if we can come together and collaborate in a positive way, we can make it a very successful project for all of us going forward and to all those kids. I mean, if you're a parent and you drive your kid to South County so that they can compete in club activities at these amazing facilities all over South County, and you think, why don't we have that in Long Beach? Every decision we make in this city should be about what's best for our kids and for their kids and for generations to come. And this is a step in doing that. So.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Believe there is a there's emotion on the floor and public comments included. I don't see any more council discussion. Again, thank you all for being here. Let's go to a vote.
Speaker 6: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 3: Okay. We're going to go ahead. And at the request of Councilmember Andrews, take item 19 real briefly. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to proceed with the entitlements for the revised baseline programmatic requirements for the proposed Belmont Beach and Aquatics Center, incorporate the recommendations from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and to increase permanent, indoor spectator seating from 650 seats to 1,250 seats with an additional estimated cost of $4.7 million, for a total estimated project cost of $103.1 million. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10212014_14-0877 | Speaker 6: Harry Martinez report from the office. Mayor Robert Garcia with the recommendation received from the report on the proposal of the Los Angeles County District Attorney to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to create a support program for people with mental illnesses.
Speaker 3: This is actually a request from our district attorney, Jackie Lacey. So she had asked if we would place this on this agenda, because this issue is coming before the county supervisors and she want to ensure that the council is aware of it. So I added it onto the agenda and I believe I'm going to turn this over to our director of health, who is going to give us an update, a brief update on what the city is engaged in on this on this task force. And I believe also Deputy Chief Luna is also involved in that.
Speaker 0: Please.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: We've been working very closely.
Speaker 5: With the Department of Mental Health, with Jackie Lacey and a whole lot of others as part of their team. They are looking at setting aside $20 million.
Speaker 0: Of the what would otherwise go to a larger jail facility.
Speaker 5: For L.A. County to.
Speaker 0: Divert people with mental health into better programing. The group has.
Speaker 5: Been there's been a seven that's been convened its activities judges, law enforcement advocates, providers of service for people with mental illness, prosecutors, public defenders.
Speaker 0: All of them looking.
Speaker 5: At different alternatives. Nationally, we're finding that about 70 to 80% of inmates.
Speaker 0: Have a mental.
Speaker 5: Health or substance use disorder. We estimate that to be about 50% for Long Beach.
Speaker 0: Those diagnosed with mental illness spend on average three times longer in jail than those.
Speaker 5: Without a mental illness. 25 days compared to 7.5 days.
Speaker 0: It also costs a lot more.
Speaker 5: For the county and in Long Beach to treat people in jail instead of in the community. Because you can not use insurance dollars, either Medicaid or other to treat people within the jail.
Speaker 0: So it requires public service.
Speaker 5: 95% of the inmates with mental illness in the Los Angeles County jail have offended before and cycled through.
Speaker 0: We see the same thing in Long Beach.
Speaker 5: And it's estimated that it costs on average about a $2,000 per arrest with jail time and court time. So when people are cycling through, it gets very expensive.
Speaker 0: And what we're finding.
Speaker 5: Is that when you do implement alternatives and diversion from jail for people with mental illness, you see significant reductions in incarceration, shelter, use and hospitalizations due to mental health diversion programs. Demonstrated outcomes include up to an 89% reduction in arrests and 86% reduction in jail time. The benefit to cost ratio for some of these programs is over 30 to 1.
Speaker 0: So Mayor and the members of the city council as a result of underfunded mental health care systems across the nation state and here in our county, police officers have increasingly become the first and often only responders to people in crisis due to.
Speaker 1: Untreated mental illness.
Speaker 0: The committee's goal is to achieve our public safety mission by getting low level mental ill offenders the treatment they need while attempting to avoid court and jail three through pre-booking and post booking diversion programs. The mentally ill violent offenders will still be jailed and subject to treatment while in custody. This project will also attempt to reduce negative law enforcement contacts with the mentally ill by creating consistent mental illness training in the county of Los Angeles to respond more effectively and appropriately to individuals in crisis. So just as an example, the law enforcement portion of this committee that we're proud to serve on has identified several priorities. Number one, training. Number two, develop a resource guide for improved communication and coordination for service delivery. Increase the number of code deployed teams in the county, such as police officer and clinicians. Improve the lack of dedicated mental health care facilities, which means space, basically bed availability and space for police officers that drop off some of these mental ill clients. And of course, this will take time. And just real quick, here in Long Beach, we're way ahead of other jurisdictions, but we were always looking for ways to get better. And here at the Long Beach Police Department, we actually have four code deployed teams known as my mental evaluation teams, which started back in 1996. We also have a quality of life team, which also works with the.
Speaker 1: Clinician from L.A. County Department of Mental Health.
Speaker 0: These officers are skilled in deescalating crisis involving people with mental illness while bringing an element of understanding and compassion to these very difficult situations. And we are always working hand in hand with our health department and other city departments in a productive and innovative partnership.
Speaker 2: And we stand. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ken.
Speaker 0: So the group that we've been working with locally is that we've been part of a broader.
Speaker 5: Summit in L.A. County. But locally we have the Health and Human Services Department, police department, fire department and the city prosecutor. And we've designed a best practice model as a result of these conversations. So we feel like we know how to do it. We're not clear on how much the 20 million would be designated for Long Beach, but we know diversion is the right thing to do for the community and for public resources. In addition, inmates from Long Beach are generally transferred to the county jail after a couple of days. So supporting change and L.A. County supports Long Beach. We plan to approach the county Department of Mental Health about potential funding options, as well as seeking other grant opportunities. We can provide additional.
Speaker 0: Information on this model as resources become.
Speaker 5: Available.
Speaker 0: And mental health.
Speaker 5: Diversion programs.
Speaker 0: Allow public safety to spend more.
Speaker 5: Time supporting community safety and reducing violent and property crimes while improving opportunities for.
Speaker 0: Success for those with.
Speaker 5: Mental illness. So we want.
Speaker 0: You all to know what we're working on and to support those efforts going on at the county level. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And excellent work, Councilman Price.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I am very involved in collaborative courts and what I do my work. And I think that this is a welcome addition to the criminal justice system in terms of trying to rehabilitate and work with folks who can use the help. And so I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention. My question would be, are we are we to approve this item.
Speaker 3: To receive in final.
Speaker 0: Approval?
Speaker 7: Okay, then I would move to receive and file second.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 3: There's a motion and a second. Based on my long thought.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Just briefly, I wanted to thank both the district attorney, as well as your office for bringing this forward. I know that there's tremendous support here, and certainly we have an opportunity to lead on this issue, focusing on treatment rather than simply incarceration. And so I'm very thankful for that. And thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 10: I would like to echo the words of my colleagues and potentially consider a friendly amendment to write a letter of support to the Board of Supervisors on this item.
Speaker 3: With the maker of the motion.
Speaker 7: Yes, accepted.
Speaker 3: Okay, so there's a friendly amendment on the item. Any public comment saying nonmembers? Please cast your vote.
Speaker 6: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 3: 21.
Speaker 6: 21 is a report from the City Manager and Parks and Recreation Marine with a recommendation to authorize the city manager to. Oops. Wait a minute. 21. Sorry, I went a little late. To report from the city manager with the recommendation to receive and file the fiscal year 2015 budget for the Long Beach Downtown Parking and business improvement | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file report on the proposal of the Los Angeles County District Attorney to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to create and support programs for people with mental illness diverting them out of expensive jail treatment settings and into effective community-based treatment. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10212014_14-0859 | Speaker 6: Recommendation to declare a city owned property at 2 to 7 Elm Avenue has surplus property and authorize the sale to the sale and Purchase and Sale Agreement with civic communities for the sale of the property in amount of 1.3 to $5 million.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor Alonzo.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to convey my appreciation for the city's efforts to move our successor agency process forward. I'm really excited about the development of this block, sometimes referred to as the Broadway block. Many of you are very familiar with this because it's contributed to the disconnect, to a disconnect between the East Village and the core of downtown. If one looks out a few years from now. However, I think what we'll see is that this disconnect all but disappearing as the Edison lofts come to fruition and the Old City Hall East Building is built, the American Hotel is restored for commercial and dining, and hopefully the Edison Theater is adaptively reused. Thereafter, the Beachwood Brewing and others set and others are set to renovate commercial spaces on the west side of Long Beach Boulevard and third, and the Broadway block begins to take shape with this and other exciting projects to come. And so when we play the life cycle out of of these actions and this action tonight, it's something that's very exciting and something that we have a lot to look forward to. And so I hope very soon that we won't see this disconnect anymore. And we'll look at the Broadway block as vibrant and a core part of our downtown efforts. And with that, I'd like to make the motion.
Speaker 3: It has been in motion in a second. Any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 4: I mean. Yes.
Speaker 6: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 3: 26. | Contract | Recommendation to declare the City-owned property located at 227 Elm Avenue as surplus, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with CV Communities, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Buyer), for the sale of the property in the amount of $1,325,000, and accept Categorical Exemption CE 14-045. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10212014_14-0880 | Speaker 3: Okay. Now we are going to item 33, which is the last item on the agenda.
Speaker 6: Item 33 is a communication from Councilwoman Stacey Mingo, chair of the Economic Development and Finance Committee, with a recommendation of the committee to consider changes to the city's sales tax resolution.
Speaker 7: So moved.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Can I get a second?
Speaker 0: Second?
Speaker 3: Okay. There's been a motion and a second.
Speaker 10: It's important for council members to know that this does need to come back to the council a second time next week. So if you want to discuss now or then, those are both options. And I think this is the first step in a long pathway to revising first our 1976 ordinance, which I'm so thankful to our city attorneys who dug it out of the old files and a fax version that we were able to interpret. And I look forward to next steps being a revision to the 1992 economic development policy and a citywide plan where we can invite great business leaders to invest in Long Beach so that we can invest in ourselves. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: You just want to be clear, is this the item that would allow sales tax receipt data to be reviewed by public officials? Is that is that the intent of this items were.
Speaker 10: So so they're the new verbiage of the way that we decided as a committee to present this to council is better in line with what is currently happening in our neighboring cities Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, Corcoran and several others. And this broadens the scope to include the Economic Development Department. It changes the purpose usage from strictly for revenue recovery to revenue recovery and economic development. As many other cities in the state of California have done. And then it gives the power of the city attorney to, when necessary, for police specific reasons, to open up certain data for those considerations. Currently, for us to review the data for the whom an agreement this evening we would have needed. Mr.. We would need a human to present the data to us of his own accord. This would allow us to, in closed chambers, review that information in a timely manner. Right now we trust the businesses, and while we would like to trust the businesses. We also trust and verify. And we would be able to do that with this new ordinance resolution.
Speaker 1: So so city staff couldn't look at the human data.
Speaker 10: Not for economic development purposes, unless otherwise provided by the business which was requesting the agreement.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, the the where I'm coming from, I don't I'm not comfortable with having councilmembers see data from specific businesses around the city. That to me gets a little scary. I think it's scary for the business community, too. Could be very anti business, could scare them out of Long Beach. So, I mean, maybe the city manager or the city attorney can address my concern that elected officials would then be reviewing certain businesses tax data. And that's reminiscent of a, you know, command economy, from my perspective. And it could be kind of anti-free market and could go to places where it could be used against certain businesses.
Speaker 0: Will this allow this or this?
Speaker 1: This is a new policy kind of take care of my concerns.
Speaker 0: Mayor members of the Council of Councilmember McDonald, the. O'DONNELL and I. MCDONALD Yes, sorry. The as proposed the revised resolution would authorize review of the data.
Speaker 12: For additional.
Speaker 0: Financial planning, economic development and business tax compliance. Misuse of the information is a misdemeanor pursuant to 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. So there is limited use in addition to the collection of sales tax information in which we verify that they're paying the appropriate tax for use of this data. The proposal would allow the city attorney to determine on a case by case basis when access to retail specific sales data is appropriate for elected officials for policy formation in compliance with either financial planning, economic development or business tax compliance. That's the proposed resolution with the business.
Speaker 1: To be notified when a specific elected official has reviewed their sales tax data.
Speaker 0: The specific business is not required to be notified, but the body is required to be notified. So we would our office would submit a letter notifying the board of Equalization that the designated official has been given the authority to look at the data.
Speaker 1: Listen, I'm comfortable with using this data on an economic development basis. I'm just concerned about the, you know, the SPI factor here and what ultimately could happen with this data. That's my concern. That's always been my concern. Are you relatively comfortable or more comfortable with this policy as it sits this evening?
Speaker 0: I think both ways are legal. So it's a policy decision for the Council to decide on. If you'd like to expand who has access to this data.
Speaker 12: And use this data, but we.
Speaker 0: Are comfortable that what is proposed as a draft resolution is a legal alternative for the Council to consider.
Speaker 1: Not so concerned about what? Well, I am concerned about what's legal, but are also concerned about what sound policy. So you're saying that the policy has as put forward tonight, as has a number of safeguards put in it?
Speaker 0: Yes, the safeguards that are put in it are notification to the individuals who are going to have access to this data. That misuse is is a misdemeanor. And then also the notification to the VOA. Obviously, there's always the chance that the data is misused or is released to those who aren't entitled to it. But we believe the resolution addresses those issues as as other cities have. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So if I go back to the initial discussion on this, I think some of the direction in the discussion was to see if there was a way to arrive at the outcome, the sought out outcome, without actually releasing that data to electeds. For example, if it were if we're discussing sales tax leakage, which was what I understood to be the purpose, could city staff craft a report based on the data to show where we need to place a specific area of focus? And I've seen that report and they did that. So the first question I have is, barring that that specific case where city staff can provide a report without actually exposing our city to that liability, what other circumstances would the city attorney need? And this is a question for you, Charlie. What circumstances would you anticipate the need to include that specific elected officials have that specific data that I.
Speaker 0: I don't have a specific example for you. I would anticipate that someone who is on or trained for economic development or business tax compliance may be asked to look at that data. But as a specific case, I don't have it.
Speaker 1: Okay. So then I'll ask the maker of the motion. I think we need to determine. I want to better understand. I don't think has been articulated clearly enough for me what the purpose of this is and the specific outcomes that we're seeking out by taking this path. Because, in my opinion, heading this pattern, heading down this path and exposing ourselves to potentially exposing ourselves to these this legal scrutiny needs to have a justified purpose and specific outcomes. And we need to evaluate other ways to get there before we take this. Like this is like the nuclear option, right?
Speaker 10: I think I would completely disagree. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 1: So help me understand a specific purpose and specific outcomes.
Speaker 10: Would our finance staff like to go through some of the details of our previous discussions which led us here? Or would you like me to take that?
Speaker 0: I'll turn it over to Leah ERICKSEN.
Speaker 5: To counsel women Mongo. There were just discussions trying to for the council women to understand better the picture.
Speaker 10: Of of sales tax and in terms of of.
Speaker 5: Trying to craft an.
Speaker 10: Economic development strategy.
Speaker 5: And she found that she couldn't couldn't ask. I couldn't give answers that provided some some.
Speaker 10: Of the specific data. So there were some scenarios.
Speaker 5: There where we could, using the current rules, tap dance around it. But this resolution provides.
Speaker 10: A little bit more broader access. The other thing other.
Speaker 5: Points were that the resolution.
Speaker 10: Doesn't clear right now. It does need to be changed because it doesn't clearly say economic.
Speaker 5: Development is allowed. So, you know, just to.
Speaker 10: Strengthen the resolution to allow economic development is is actually recommended by the administration, because that that was a of a concern of the older 1960 resolution, because it didn't quite specify that. I think times have changed over the years and how the data has been used as the chair of Economic Development Finance Committee.
Speaker 5: I could envision that the chair would have more more cause to be asking. But what would not.
Speaker 10: Happen with this data.
Speaker 5: Because of the controls that are put in this resolution, that we would not be turning over reports monthly? You know, with all the sales tax data, it would be on.
Speaker 10: A specific case by case basis related to council members official duties. And as the city attorney has mentioned, it would be disclosed publicly who has access?
Speaker 1: So what is this specific example of one of those questions that could not be answered?
Speaker 7: No, you can't do that.
Speaker 10: So specifically right now. I can't recall exactly the questions, but I've sat in rooms with John GROSS and Leah Erikson, and we've talked about potential revisions to the 1992 policy, which dictates the sales tax revenue agreements that we offer to organizations and businesses that can help grow our tax base. And there were several times during the conversation where he said we would be in an uncomfortable position answering that question at this time. So specifically, we lost Nordstrom Rack. What kind of financial economic impact does that have on the budget by quarter and annually? I can't answer that question. Why can't you answer that question? Because that would give too much information about a specific business. However, if you call a broker and most of the brokers and developers in the area will tell you a business of this type can bring in gross receipts of the state of the other. But our own city staff cannot tell us that information under the way the rule is currently written. However, what we're looking to do in this case is come forward with specific questions. Prepare them for John and the city attorney. The city attorney will review them and ensure that the questions are within the outlines of the updated resolution if we pass it here next week. Then we would take that information. He would be able to answer our questions and then we would be able to revise the policy. Currently, the policy to bring businesses here is very restrictive and we're in discussions with certain businesses that would like help but are would need a different and more diverse policy. And while we want to trust every business to bring forth information, it actually is quite a burden to them to gather and provide the data when it's easily available to our staff, and we're just not able to see it at this time. And so I'm also uncomfortable that in the past sales tax revenue agreements and the documentation were discussed with council. And from what I understand, we were kind of teetering on whether it was economic development or whether it was within the code of the 1976 resolution. So I think that this clears all of that up and puts us in a safer position. It allows the documentation of who's receiving what and when to be reviewed by the city attorney, which would be a public document which would be available to the public for public records requests. So I hope that that cleared that up. And I know that on your previous question, Councilmember Price, the maker of the motion, may have had something to add, and I know she's cued up next.
Speaker 1: So just to get clarity before I release the floor. The example, specific example you gave was a specific business leaving. How would that question inform a strategy to attract a similar business, to restore that sales tax that was lost? And secondly, I've been involved in conversations, numerous conversations with city management staff where I can ask a general question to bring a big box to the community. What is the general impact, sales tax impact that we will receive as a city? And they can give these numbers. They can say on average to bring you know, we would project to bring a best buy to the city of Long Beach. This is the impact to the general fund. This is this is what the benefit is. And so so I guess I would feel more comfortable just to bring this to where I would feel more comfortable if there was a larger discussion about specific purpose and goals of this policy before we start crafting out who gets what information, because that's a longer conversation and we're having an 11:00 at night and it's our second time attempting this while in general, I think I understand where you want to go, but this is the Constitution. The United States was put in place for certain protections. Right. And this bill, this law was put in place to protect the city. Right. And we can update it. We can certainly update it. But the reason has been in place since the 17th is to protect us from this liability. So it's warranted. The discussion is warranted. And I'll just end it there.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Well, I appreciate all of your comments. Council Councilman Richardson and Councilman O'Donnell. I will say that staff put together a very comprehensive report here. It's it's dense. It takes a while to go through. But I think it's really educational in terms of what this resolution does. There is a lot of information that with this revised ordinance, staff will be able to provide for us by by virtue of the purpose of the data, which is economic development. It's all spelled out here under Section two. For the purposes of financial planning, economic development and business tax compliance, we will have access if you.
Speaker 5: Look at the page.
Speaker 7: 20 of 23 of the report that was prepared. I'm sorry. Page 22 of 23 of the report. It talks, for example, of economic activity reports. These are reports that staff will be able to provide for us without the city attorney having to make that determination on a case by case basis as to whether or not the electeds should have access to the information. So the circumstances wherein the electeds would make a request for access to information would be extremely rare, because if you look at the the data that would be provided by virtue of this ordinance, current sales tax performance and sales tax leakage by sector top 25 sales tax generators and top 25 fastest growing sales tax generators. If you go down to these number of business licenses issued, all of this data will be available to us as a council and on Economic Development Committee in terms of the economic activity reports. This data here doesn't require the city attorney to go in and do the case by case analysis to determine if the electeds would get access to certain information. So, like you, I wonder what would be the scenario where we as electeds would want to have specific data? I think that scenario would be very rare because what this information will allow us to do would be to draw some conclusions regarding trends and patterns and things in terms of leakage. I also note that the report is very inclusive in terms of talking about the amount of leakage. It's not as much as we talked about at the last time that we were here. They actually did a pretty thorough analysis of what the leakage really is and what specific industries we need to target as a city. So, you know, when.
Speaker 5: You look at what.
Speaker 7: The ordinance needs to be revised, I mean, it just does it's it's it's it's it's consolidating out of date language. And so it's consolidating and it's cleaning up. If you look under section two, the only part that impacts access to electeds is under subsection three, which says, furthermore, allow city attorney determine on a case by case basis when access to retail.
Speaker 5: Specific sales tax data is.
Speaker 7: Appropriate for elected officials for policy formation and decision making related to the above governmental functions and Grant said access so the city attorney would really have to determine is is a specific information about of one particular retailer something that cannot be provided under the access and public information type access that the city staff would have. Is it something that beyond goes above and beyond what we would get otherwise? And that would be his determination. And I think that puts into place a safeguard. So for me, I felt very comfortable with that particular language because I think it does take away what's a concern that many of us had, which is, you know, we don't want a specific elected to have access or to specific electeds to have access. That doesn't seem right. This would be all electeds would have access at the determination of the city attorney, which is a person that we entrust to make those calls. The other thing is that, you know, I think after reading this this memorandum, it really brought home to me that we actually, you know what, we actually pay our staff to have specialty in this area. And by revising the ordinance and requesting the regular economic reports, our staff is actually we're allowing them to do their job, which is something that that, frankly, we haven't really focused on in terms of this issue. So I think our staff is more than capable of doing the analysis here and directing us as a council on where we can improve our leakage issues. But I do want to say that, you know, if you look at it very broadly and take it out of context and think, oh, my gosh, electeds are going to have access to sales tax data, then it does sound a lot more concerning. But if you look at the actual language, I'm comfortable with it because of the city attorney safeguard.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm going to I'm going to pass on this again. My my main concern is not that we update an ordinance and not that we allow staff, especially the economic side, to have the information they need to do their job. That, to me is a no brainer. It has always been the specific allowance for elected officials to review specific tax data from specific businesses. That's always given me a scare. So with that, I think I've made my point, and I think the city attorney's drawn up some some some language to address some concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Captain Ranga.
Speaker 2: And I'll make this very short. As a third wheel in the in the in the committee. I too, raised those questions when we were having a committee meeting, and I was very much impressed with the fact that this.
Speaker 0: Ordinance has, as it is currently proposed, it does cover those safeguards. It's more of a it protects.
Speaker 2: The elected officials.
Speaker 0: In regards to reviewing any kind of data and where and what they're going to do with.
Speaker 2: It. It's a it's a also a proactive way of allowing the city when we're looking at establishing an economic development and business development department. We need to have this in order to be able to go out and attract businesses to come into Long Beach knowing what the tax base is going to be. It's a predictor. And I think if we are able to know what we need to go after, for example, auto sales or retail sales.
Speaker 0: We can we can use.
Speaker 2: That data to to.
Speaker 0: Go after.
Speaker 2: A Nordstrom's again or maybe put them in a better location. We have that that information there that will only be accessible.
Speaker 0: At the at the.
Speaker 2: Recommendation of the city attorney, because we want to see that that and we want we want to approach these companies.
Speaker 0: So that that's.
Speaker 2: How it's helpful. And I think.
Speaker 0: Without this ordinance.
Speaker 2: Our economic development department, newly created, will be able to have the tools in order to do that. In terms of.
Speaker 0: Projections for what a company.
Speaker 2: That wants to come or relocate into line with can can do. So I support this this amendment.
Speaker 3: And finally, we have Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 1: So I just wanted to chime in and say I think that so I think it's number one is bold, very bold and courageous. And I think this is a very worthwhile discussion. So I want to just say thank you for driving this. And but I feel like it is my responsibility to bring up some of these questions and talk through it. I do understand committees go through some of this stuff and they do. And this is just a big issue. We're all passionate about it, all interested in it. I think I want to encourage you to keep pushing and keep driving. I think what ultimately is going to come through this process, what ultimately is going to come out is going to benefit every part of the city. So I do want to just jump out jump out and say I do acknowledge I do acknowledge and admire your effort on this. Councilmember Mundo.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Parker, in your final comment.
Speaker 0: Yes, Mayor, remember that just for point clarification. The motion, then, as I understand it, will direct the city attorney to prepare and bring back to the council a revised resolution. There's been discussion here of an ordinance. There is no actual ordinance that is related to this. It's a resolution. And so if this motion carries today, our office would bring it the next scheduled meeting, a resolution back to the council.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 6: Motion carries nine votes. Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. We're going to have a new business council in Boston. | Agenda Item | Recommendation of the Economic Development and Finance Committee to consider changes to the Sales Tax Resolution, including consolidating the current ordinances into a single ordinance and clarifying the appropriate staff and officials who should have access to this information. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10142014_14-0820 | Speaker 2: Hearing number one is a report from the City Manager recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and Adobe resolution approving the Long Beach Tourism Business Improvement Area Program and assessment for the period of October 1st, 2014 through September 30th, 2015, and authorize City Manager to execute an agreement with the Long Beach Area Convention and Visitor Bay Area for a one year term. Districts one, two, four and five.
Speaker 7: So moved.
Speaker 5: Back in.
Speaker 3: Case there's been a motion and a second by summer. Langford You wanna make some comments first?
Speaker 7: I do. I wanted to compliment the CDB. I know that Steve Goodling is out of town for work back East, but I do want to thank them for their tremendous work in keeping Long Beach at the forefront of the convention industry. And that's actually what he's doing back East right now. As we all know, conferences are a critical part of the downtown's economy, and I wholeheartedly support this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And Mr. West, did you have any any comments on this item?
Speaker 1: None. Although, Mike, can we start to ask answer any questions, if you might have any.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm sorry if I submitted you with your motion on that. Okay. And the motion in a second on on that item, is there any public comment on the hearing? See, none of them, Gordon, come back and close the hearing and see no additional councilmember comments. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes.
Speaker 2: Councilman Andrews. Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 3: Okay. We're going to go on to the second hearing. And this does not require an oath either. Madam Clerk. | Resolution | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and adopt resolution approving the Long Beach Tourism Business Improvement Area program and assessment for the period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015, and authorize City Manager to execute an agreement with the Long Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau for a one-year term. (Districts 1,2,4,5) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10142014_14-0821 | Speaker 2: Item two is a report from the city manager. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and Adobe resolution concerning the East Anaheim Street Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment for the period of October 1st, 2014 through September 30th, 2015, and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with East Anaheim Street Business Alliance for a one year term. District three and four.
Speaker 6: Councilman Price would like to make a motion at this time to approve this recommendation. I have a few comments.
Speaker 3: There's been a motion and a second. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I want to take a moment. I'm not sure if there are any is the people here tonight, but I wanted to take a moment to welcome you and just acknowledge the great work that this group has been doing to revitalize the business, the businesses that.
Speaker 5: Operate.
Speaker 6: Along this corridor. I've had a chance to meet many of the leadership of the organization and attend some of their functions. And I believe they are doing a tremendous service to the community and to the business community in the area. And I'm happy to see that the the bid is working out well for the for the business community and want to support your efforts in any way that we can. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. The staff, any comment on that?
Speaker 1: No, just to recognize that the CEO, Rod Wilson, is in the audience. So thanks for being here, Rod. Well.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you, Robert, for all the great work. Any public comment on the item? Seeing no public comment and no additional council comment. There's a motion on the floor, so please cast your votes.
Speaker 2: WEISS We are such a low income. Motion carry eight zero.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We're not going to go into public comment and therefore members of the public wishing to speak so all four can please come and line up. First is Dennis Dun, secondary Goodhew, then Larry Boland and then Scott believe it says Scott McCreery. | Resolution | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, and adopt resolution continuing the East Anaheim Street Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment for the period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015; and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the East Anaheim Street Business Alliance for a one-year term. (Districts 3,4) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10142014_14-0831 | Speaker 2: Item 11 is a report from Health and Human Services recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement with the State of California Health Benefits Exchange to accept funding in the amount of 225000 to 67, to facilitate outreach, enrollment and retention into the insurance programs offered through Calvert, California Citywide.
Speaker 7: So there's been a motion and a second. So any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 11 seeing none. Are there any questions for staff? Would anyone like a staff report?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'd like a quick staff report, please.
Speaker 7: Council member Austin Kelly Colby.
Speaker 5: We return the microphone to Cheryl Barrett, who's the, ah, director of Bureau of Policy Prevention. And I'm just going to learn that now about policy funding and prevention. And she is the one who is leading this grant. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief staff report on this. So we're excited about this grant with Covered California. This strengthens our position as a certified enrollment entity in the city of Long Beach, but this actually provides us reimbursement for those enrollments under Covered California per say. So this is an effort of community as well as the Long Beach Health Department to work with the California Health Benefit Exchange to recognize local health departments as groups that should also get reimbursed for the work that we're doing. So in addition to the work that we're doing under Medi-Cal enrollment, we are now able to get recognized and also get reimbursed for the enrollment, retention and utilization work that we're doing for those eligible for subsidies. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Councilmember Austin, is there any further discussion on item 11? Seeing nonmembers cast your vote, Madam Clerk. I'm a yes.
Speaker 2: Motion carry eight zero.
Speaker 7: Item 12.
Speaker 2: Item 12 is a report from Police and Financial Management recommendation to award a contract to legacy inmate communications to provide inmate telephone and video visitation services at the Long Beach City Jail. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary agreements, and any subsequent amendments, between the City of Long Beach and the State of California Health Benefits Exchange (also known as “Covered California”) to accept funding in the amount of $225,267 for a nine month period from October 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, to facilitate outreach, enrollment, and retention into the insurance programs offered through Covered California, with an option for a one-year renewal and cash bonus contingent upon achieving enrollment goals (Bonus Pool = $7,500 per 100 effectuated); and increase appropriations in the Health Fund (SR 130) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HE) by $225,267. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10142014_14-0832 | Speaker 2: Item 12 is a report from Police and Financial Management recommendation to award a contract to legacy inmate communications to provide inmate telephone and video visitation services at the Long Beach City Jail.
Speaker 1: City Summer.
Speaker 0: Thank.
Speaker 7: There's been a motion and a second set of staff report. There is not. So any member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 12. Is there. They don't see us.
Speaker 1: We certainly can have one. Deputy Chief Robert Luna can address it.
Speaker 7: Well, I have some council members that would like to address the issue, and perhaps there are questions for Deputy Chief. Councilmember Price.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Deputy Chief Luna. How many other local city jails are offering this service? I guess two inmates. It's kind of like a Skype. Is that what it is?
Speaker 3: We've provided the video services to vice mayor and members of the City Council. We've provided the video service for the last ten years, and I don't know exactly how many other cities offer this. We can definitely research.
Speaker 1: That for you and get back to you on that.
Speaker 6: And since I'm not familiar with what happens at our local jail, is this something that is a remote access or does the visitor have to be in the jail facility to have the contact via video?
Speaker 3: The current system that we have, you have to be in the facility to facilitate this. The new system that we're going to, which we're pretty excited about, you can remotely do this from other locations. That's one of the benefits that we get from the new system, other than I mean, there's different things that we're getting with this new system. Like I said, we're excited about our number one. The current system only offers two languages, and the new system will offer actually 20 languages, including Combi.
Speaker 6: So does this impact at all the inmates access to the telephone? Because I know that in some city jails, most facilities, they have limited access to being able to communicate with loved ones, which is part of the punishment. So how does this affect that?
Speaker 3: The current I'm sorry, the new system that we're going to will give more access to the prisoners because the you'll be able to get it in from different locations.
Speaker 6: I notice that it says in the in the staff report that 72% of all the revenue generated is going to go to the prisoner welfare fund account. What is that account?
Speaker 3: Are you talking specifically the prisoner welfare fund? What does that go to? Yes, that's used to purchase items or make repairs that benefits the inmates while they're in custody.
Speaker 6: And there's no it says there's no fiscal impact on the city's budget. How is that? Why is that?
Speaker 3: We currently do not.
Speaker 1: Pay for.
Speaker 3: The current system. As a matter of fact. The current system, as it sits now, ranges between zero and 42% of the funding that goes to the welfare fund. And that's exactly how the vendor draws the money for it. With the new system we're going to, 72%.
Speaker 1: Of that will.
Speaker 3: Will come to the prisoner welfare fund.
Speaker 6: And this is a service we provide so that we're user friendly for the inmates. I mean, what was the.
Speaker 5: What was the.
Speaker 6: Intent behind this to make it more accessible for them to talk to their loved ones?
Speaker 3: Ah, yes, absolutely.
Speaker 5: I have no further questions.
Speaker 7: So Councilmember Price raises a couple of questions for me. And I'm wondering in this might be helpful. There's no there's not very much background or explanation in the staff reports. So at this juncture, I'm curious, why is this service being considered? Not that it's not valuable or necessary just to understand why are we considering this right now or how did it come about?
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, the the new the current system, the new vendor provides similar services to the current vendor. So the basic operation will remain the same. But going to the new vendor, number one, the current vendor offers two languages. The new vendor offers 20 languages. We also the there will be an increased commission rate that will be paid to the prisoner welfare fund. Currently, the current vendor ranges between zero and 42%, depending on the service. The new vendor, 72%, will go to the prisoner welfare fund. Web based teleconferencing also is added. As stated earlier, the person doesn't have to come to the public safety building to talk to speak to their loved one. And the.
Speaker 0: Last is the.
Speaker 3: Ten new video stations, 36 new mounted jail cell phones, three which are free to inmates for their free calls, three phones mounted on wheels to allow inmates in isolation to make phone calls. So it does increase the accessibility to the inmates to use the the video teleconferencing.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Deputy Chief Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I just had a couple of questions. So who who actually will be monitoring this site? I mean.
Speaker 3: Now, when a prisoner uses this system, there is no expectation of privacy. So the person in custody and the person out of custody who's talking to the to the prisoner understands that there's no level of privacy. The video is recorded for a limited time, 90 days, and our detectives have.
Speaker 1: Access to it, if so needed.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 5: Deputy Chief Luna. Sorry about my voice. Deputy Chief Luna. Would you say that this system actually increases the security and access for our prisoners so that there's less necessity to have the one on one face to face contact and all of the risks that come with bringing people in and out of the jails to talk with their loved ones.
Speaker 3: Yes, it does. And one of the reasons we've had this system for the last ten years is we were trying to prevent any contraband from entering the custody facility. And by doing this, it prevents any either weapons and or narcotics from entering.
Speaker 1: The Long Beach jail.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Price.
Speaker 6: I guess the question I have and you've been doing it for ten years and apparently it's working, but is there any sort of limitation on the number of calls or access that a prisoner can have because that's inmate. That's actually considered a privilege. And so does the severity of the crime impact, how frequently they can, you know, videoconference with their loved one. Does everyone now get as much access as they want? Are there any limitations to their access to the outside world? Do we now? If we don't, that's okay. I'm just curious because I know that a lot of times you get court ordered phone calls or you get a certain number of phone calls a day. And so for increasing their access, you know, my question would be, you know, why are we doing that? Is that because we're trying to be more inmate friendly as a city?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm going to have our jail administrator come down and answer that specific question for you.
Speaker 6: It's inmates.
Speaker 3: Says Rollie Siebert, our jail administrator.
Speaker 6: Now. And this is for anyone that's serving time at the jail arrestees, as well as people who are sentenced under AB 109, correct?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 6: Right. So convicted folks, as well as people who are pending trial on open matters.
Speaker 3: We don't have.
Speaker 0: Convicted folks.
Speaker 3: In our jail. It's pre-sentencing or pre arraignment pre-sentencing.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 6: So that means they're convicted, they're awaiting sentencing.
Speaker 3: Go ahead and answer that.
Speaker 1: They're pretrial and the video conferencing is limited by our visiting hours. So the inmates will be allowed. Actually, the people from the outside will be allowed to set up the visits through the Internet to visit the inmates. The phone system is going to be virtually the same, except the city will get a higher percentage of the of the revenues in the prisoner welfare fund. The rates are going to remain exactly the same. And so it's no it's no real change other than video visitation for the parents, grandparents, etc.. They can't make it to the jail. And we only keep the people for up to 4 to 6 days, depending on when they're arrested.
Speaker 6: Okay. So that the amount of stay that they would have access to this is 4 to 6 days. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 0: I think if the I think where the debate just ended. So I think we're good here.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I agree. I just was wanting some clarification on terminology versus inmates versus arrestees and what that meant. And I think that was clarified. I'm ready to vote. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Seeing no further discussion of the. I'm sorry, members, please cast your votes. I'm a yes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight zero. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP PD14-029 and award a contract to Legacy Inmate Communications, of Cypress, CA, for providing inmate telephone and video visitation services at the Long Beach City Jail, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10142014_14-0867 | Speaker 2: Item 15 is communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Arango and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request the city manager to provide a report on President Obama's My Brother's Keeper Community Challenge and Methods on how the City of Long Beach can support the initiative to improve conditions for boys and men of color in Long Beach.
Speaker 3: I thank you, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Many of you know that in February of last year, President Obama announced the My Brother's Keeper initiative to address persistent opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color in our country, and to ensure that all young people can reach their full potential. This is an exciting program that brings attention to the population of youth who are oftentimes overlooked or don't have the equal opportunities or some of the same opportunities that others might. Most recently in September, President Obama issued the next step in the initiative and declared a community challenge, asking local communities to take action and become a part of My Brother's Keeper community by enacting sustainable change through policy programs and partnerships. The goals of those changes are to improve the life outcomes of all young people, regardless of who they are, where they come from, or the circumstances into which they're born. I feel that the Long City of Long Beach is well suited to meet this challenge. While we have areas of need in a large, diverse and complex population, we also have a history of working collaboratively to make positive changes that benefit our great city. We have a world class school system with Long Beach Unified, LBC, Cal State, Long Beach. We have a number of local, robust programs that center on improving outcomes for boys and young men of color like the NAACP XO program. The CC will be an elbow as the Urban Math Collaborative in Jordan High School and the Street Community Association. Our efforts for violence prevention, healthy Long Beach policy. We just we just passed tonight the great work that school board member Felton Williams is doing within school district. Most recently I had the opportunity to go to D.C. and hear President Obama speak on the My Brother's Keeper initiative, and I was deeply inspired by his words on the importance of this initiative. I want us to meet and exceed this challenge as a city and show that when we all work together collectively with a purpose to create better outcomes for our youth, we can be a model for other large urban cities throughout our country. There are a number of council members in. Our Mayor has also indicated they're willing to participate in this challenge. I hope that tonight we can talk about formally accepting it by investing our boys in young men of color. We're investing in our city's future. Our future prosperity depends on our young people having a fair chance to thrive and succeed. As outlined in the challenge, there are four key steps and accept a local community accepting the My Brother's Keeper. So that means one we are we formally accept the challenge to we begin to convene a local action summit. And three, we do some sort of a policy review and create recommendations. And then we put our plan in action. So that's that's my recommendation tonight. And I move the item.
Speaker 3: There's been a motion. And the second councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: Just want to thank Councilmember Richardson for this.
Speaker 5: This is wonderful. I have a two young boys at.
Speaker 6: Home, another young boy on.
Speaker 5: The way. So it's you know, we.
Speaker 6: Often focus on young women and that's wonderful, but not a.
Speaker 5: Lot of focus on young men. And so.
Speaker 6: Knowing that as a mom and having that prevalent in our.
Speaker 5: City, I think this is so very important that we're mirroring something that the president has brought forth to us. And I think your leadership on this is really key. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you. I mean, I also would like to. Thank you, Mayor. I also would like to thank, you know, Councilman Richardson for bringing this forward, because I think the initiative is great from President Obama because it does improve the future of Long Beach when we help our youth. I mean, we're investing in our future. And I think this is a wonderful, you know, item that you brought forth and congratulations.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Ringa.
Speaker 8: Thank you all. I, too, want to add my voice in thanking Councilmember Richardson for bringing this forward. We always hear to talk about how our young men are being misguided, misled and led astray by other sources around in the communities. And I think that getting this program together will be of great benefit to the city of Long Beach and to our community. I look forward to having those discussions in the future in terms of maybe a conference or a some kind of of a study session that might not not only be here in the council, but also on the committee, and to invite the community to participate and give them a broader perspective as to what we're trying to do with this with this initiative. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 8: Thank you. And I, too, am very proud to sign on. And second, this this great agenda item. I want to congratulate and thank Councilmember Richardson for bringing it forward. Obviously, as a parent of two young boys and future young men of color, I am happy to accept this challenge. But I'd just like to say that, you know, I'm proud of the city of Long Beach, because I think we are we're cutting edge and and and moving in the right direction and have been moving in the right direction for some time. And so this challenge is going to be something that that I'm sure, like Councilmember Richardson said, that we will be able to exceed, meet and exceed in short order.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I also want to thank all the signers and Councilman Richardson for bringing this forward. And just as a small point of up here as well, we had a conversation with the White House possibly about two or three weeks ago about the My Brother's Keepers challenge. It's a great program, etc.. I think it's fantastic. The council is moving forward to support this really important program. The initiative has also asked mayors to sign on as a support and supportive of this important challenge from the President. And so I went ahead and signed about three weeks ago for myself, and I think that with the Council moving forward and putting this in place, I think it's a good opportunity for all of us to work together to address these incredibly important challenges. Oh. Any public comment?
Speaker 0: All right. My name is Howard Perry, along with 100 black men of Long Beach. And this is my associate, actual mentor and chairman, Lance Robert. As you guys know, the 100 black men is in relationship to the My Brother's Keepers. We've been doing that kind of work since 1963 in New York when we started. And as you know, we started here in Long Beach in 2008, and we have a mentoring program we started in 2008. We have it every Saturday at Cal State, Long Beach and every.
Speaker 1: Thursday of.
Speaker 0: The month. And we've been doing it since 2000 and we've never missed a Saturday. And we've had over a number of kids has gone on to graduate and go to college and they're doing real well. We got some exceptional stories that we can tell and so we want to be more involved in this process because we think we're touching the kids, the young men every day. So we kind of know the problems that they go through and and actually know how to help them through those issues. So we would like to be a part of the process. And I'm like a brother. Robert, speak a little.
Speaker 3: Bit more well-stated, Brother Perry and I'll just take the remaining minute and a few seconds here. But I am the chairman of the Mentoring Committee for the 100 Black Men of Long Beach and very proud of the work that we do and loving those young men and moving them to adulthood successfully from young men to adults, our boys, we tell them to manufacture strategies for success. We say boys make excuses for failure, but men manufacture strategies for success. So it's been our passion for the last six years. I'm even working on my dissertation and relevant to the work that we're doing with these young men, and we're making great strides in helping them to come up with a growth mindset with, with, with moral training that is beyond compare. These young men are doing it. And so I just wanted to say we're an exact match for what the President has called for. We've been we were on the front lines in the city of Long Beach doing this work in the community when our summer academies and we just want to be included in any conversation that goes on with the city council about boys of color in the community in the city of Long Beach. And that's why we're here this evening, that you would please include us in these types of conversations, because we're working hands on with them every day and we spend a lot of time. Everything is volunteer that we do. We don't charge for anything. We just give our service. We give our lives to the young people and we've been with them six years. We never charge for anything. So we're not here to sell anything. We're just here to uplift and and to support our young people. So thank you. Thank you. And thank you for for all the work you guys do. Any other public comment?
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Kim Evans and I am a resident of the city of Signal Hill, but I am a prior manager.
Speaker 7: Of Forest Lawn Memorial Parks and mortuaries here.
Speaker 5: In the city. And for the ten years that I served at the Vice President under my.
Speaker 7: Watch, we buried a multitude of young men of color.
Speaker 5: And I was so excited and thank you.
Speaker 7: Member Austin for the emails that I get on a continuous basis, letting me know what the topics that are going to be discussed here. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Member Richardson, for bringing this up. I was in D.C. two weeks ago sitting in the White.
Speaker 7: House discussing this.
Speaker 5: As a faith based member. So I want to thank you and I encourage all of you.
Speaker 7: To step forward. I looked at this one bullet point where it says that to evaluate.
Speaker 5: The ability for the city to.
Speaker 7: Accept the MBK community challenge. I don't know how we cannot not accept this challenge. We have a choice today, and I ask that you would please be favorable in making that choice. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Any other public comment on the item? See? None. There's been a motion made on the floor in a second. So, members, all those in favor, please go and cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Motion carries a to.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Makes that in, please. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to respectfully request City Manager to work with President Obama's administration on providing a report within 90 days on the My Brother's Keeper (MBK) Community Challenge and methods on how the City of Long Beach can support the initiative to improve conditions for boys and men of color in Long Beach. This report should include the following components:
· A thorough summary of the MBK Initiative, with specific focus on matters related to youth jobs and internships, living wages, violence prevention, and community-oriented policing;
· A review of which current programs and policies within the City of Long Beach support the goals of the MBK Initiative;
· An evaluation of the ability for the City to accept the MBK Community Challenge;
· A strategy of how to better connect City programs to community-based programs that align with the MBK Initiative;
· A recommendation of how the City can collaborate with the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) on their similar efforts and programs; and
· Recommendations on potential next steps in accepting | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10142014_14-0818 | Speaker 2: Item 17 is communication from Councilman Austin Chair State Legislations Committee Recommendation to request City Council to support Proposition one. The Water Quality Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014.
Speaker 3: Second, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Yes, the state legislature committee met on October 7th and recommends this particular item for your consideration. I'd like to move to accept the recommendation of the committee, but don't get to say thank you and then get a quick staff report.
Speaker 3: Mr. West.
Speaker 1: Diana Tang.
Speaker 5: Mayor, members of the city council. In November, voters will have the option to vote on Proposition one. This is the statewide ballot measure for $7.5 billion in water bond funding. The city was instrumental in negotiating a couple of pieces of this this bond measure. First, we have 30 million to the arms. See, that is the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, of which Long Beach is the member. There's also 200 million available for stormwater funding through integrated regional water management plans and Long Beach as a member of the Gateway Authority and can apply for that funding. So if this measure does pass, the city will have will as well positioned to apply for funding in the water bond and it is for 7.5 billion.
Speaker 3: McHugh comes from Boston.
Speaker 8: Yes. And I want to thank our staff, support Diana Tang for her great work, particularly in supporting the committee and giving us all the great information that we need to make a decision here. The supporters of this measure include the Beach Water Department, as well as the League of California Cities, Governor Jerry Brown, both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and a host of other responsible organizations. And so I would encourage your support as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Watching Kerry's eight zero.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Now, I believe we have announcements, so we're going to go ahead. I want to begin by just doing some adjournment in memory of a few folks here. First, I want to honor the passing of someone very close to our City Hall family, and that's Luann Lawanda Reynolds, who was known to all who loved her as | Agenda Item | Recommendation to respectfully request City Council to support Proposition 1 the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0779 | Speaker 6: Communication from Councilwoman Austin, recommendation to request to report on the status of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee and an overview of the city's school crossing guard program.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I think the agenda item is very much self-explanatory. I received many kind of constituent calls over the last few weeks. So as school has started again and many of them are concerned, many of my constituents have expressed concerned about safety around schools, roads, pedestrian safety, the safety of our children, the high traffic volume. And we we wanted to to look into the pedestrian safety advisory committee, understanding that this was something that was brought forward by the voters back in 1978, a time where we had a population of about 360,000 residents. Today we have 100,000 more residents. And it's it's apparent that that these safety issues are still a major concern in our neighborhoods and around our schools. And so I wanted to see where we were with the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, and we'd love to hear from staff on that and what we can do and how we can start working as a city council to start improving those conditions in and around our schools. I'd love to get a staff report from from staff on where we are with the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee today.
Speaker 2: I think so. Mr. West, I wanna make some comments.
Speaker 5: Certainly, Mayor Council members are traffic engineer Dave Roseman can give us a quick report. The Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, as the councilman mentioned, started in 1978. We're one of only a few cities that have in California actually have an ordinance that specifically outlines when crossing guard should be deployed and not. And I believe we're the only one that has a citizens committee that makes the Approvals Peace Act is essentially a 13 member committee comprised of one member representing each council district one member from L.B. USD, one member from the PTA, one member representing NONPUBLIC schools and myself as the city traffic engineer. And in order to have a meeting, we need seven members to have a quorum. The last meeting of the committee was in November of 2008. Unfortunately, with the advent of the Form 700 reporting and ethics rules applied to committees at that time, we lost most of our membership because they felt that those requirements were too onerous. We are actively seeking additional members. We have nine potential members now, of which only six have actually completed the appointment requirements, which is a form 700 and the ethics training. The last meeting of peace in 2008, they set out a plan for us to study 14 locations for potential new crossing guards or reallocation of existing crossing guards . Those are throughout the districts, and that's about how many we were studying. We're studying about 12 to 15 locations a year piece. Also recognize at that last meeting that membership was a problem. Many of them felt that they would not continue and they suggested a few things to us at that time. One was to move the meetings to an evening because we were having the meetings during the day, which I think is a good idea. They also suggested having meetings in a central part of the city, perhaps around the airport area, rather than at city hall, to make it easier for them to get there. And the third item was they suggested that perhaps the city should consider some compensation for membership because of the Form 700 and the other requirements that they would have to be exposed, their financial information exposed to the public. And that's essentially where we stand now. We're actively trying to get the additional members, the three that would names that we have completed through the process so that we can start up the committee at that time. You also asked about how many cross. And guards. We have currently we have 82 personnel positions. That's through the police department. And I think it's 68 locations that are covered by crossing guards at this time. And that concludes my report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. At this time, Mr. Austin, going to take to the public, unless you have any comments. Any members of the public that want to comment on the item, please come forward.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Janet. What? I'm a parent with some Long Beach Unified School children and other schools. Here to talk about the issue, I'm very glad this has come before the council. My children walk and or bike to school and beyond just walking. I think we need to look at the bike lanes yet again so that they can transition there safely without my supervision. So I'm going to say that as a preface as I know they want to speak.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Uh, I want to pull the mic down. Just. There you go. And just introduce yourself.
Speaker 4: Hello. I'm Pierce White. And it is an honor to meet all of you. And I go to Little Cerritos Elementary, and there is such a problem with the bike lanes, and there are no bike lanes. And so it's dangerous for me to ride in the street because a car could hit me and I could get seriously hurt . And so I go on the sidewalk, which is also dangerous for the other people around me, because I could run into them and hurt them, too. So I really appreciate it if you put some more bike lanes in to the schools and the city so I could ride around more safely because I enjoy my time spending and bike riding and stuff. So. That's all.
Speaker 2: That was an excellent presentation, actually. So. Yes. Excellent. Next speaker, please. Miss Kerr. That's a tough.
Speaker 4: That is a very tough act to follow.
Speaker 7: I won't even try. Good evening, Honorable Mayor. Council representatives, city staff. My name is Megan Kerr. I'm a member of the Long Beach Unified School District Board of Education representing District One. Happy to be here. We finished our meeting and I managed to get to back to school mate tonight. So I'm kind of glad that it was delayed. Personally. So thank you. I'm here to speak in support of this agenda item, which is an overview and update of pedestrian safety. The school district works closely with the city and agencies such as the police department and Long Beach Transit to ensure the safety of our students not only while they are at school, but on their ways to and from school traveling with their families. Our schools take a number of precautions and proactive steps related to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. And we welcome the periodic review with the with our efforts with the city, its residents. And we're always open to new ideas that might improve safety for our students. Thank you, Councilmember Austin, for bringing this item forward. I encourage you to keep the school district appraised of your review process as our input can be very important to you in this effort. And please let us know if we can be of any further assistance to you. Thank you so much for your time tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any other speaker? I think we had another speaker up. Yeah. Come forward, please.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Elise. What? I'm 12 years old and I'm a seventh grader at Intellectual Virtues Academy. Today I will be speaking for the bike lanes. When I rode my bike to school in the mornings with my friend Alex, we felt as if we could not be safe while riding in the streets, considering that they were so busy. So we rode on the sidewalk when there was a driveway. As adults always say, we looked both ways. Halfway across a car comes turning into it. And before and when he finally notices me, he's a foot away from hitting me and my bike. Consequently, I feel I'm feeling less safe while riding my bike in the city. In summer, my mom, brother and I rode to Jamba Juice on our way back. I rode through the entering and exiting of a parking lot a few minutes late. A few moments later, a car exited. Once again, I was almost hit by a car because I was on the sidewalk since bike lanes were not available. Lastly, in front of this building, it says that Long Beach is the most bike friendly city in America. This, though, is hard for me to believe, considering that twice I've nearly been hit with cars and two years ago I spoke for the bike lanes, yet they're still debating whether or not to put them in. Thank you for.
Speaker 2: Another excellent presentation. Give her a round of applause. Two. Very good. Very. Any other comments? Please come forward.
Speaker 0: Mr. Mayor, council members, my name is Michael Jensen. I am a long term resident.
Speaker 5: Of the eighth District. And I also would.
Speaker 0: Like to voice my support for Councilman Austin's proposal. I think that anything that we can do to improve the traffic and safety infrastructure of our community is.
Speaker 5: An extremely valuable investment. I think anything that we.
Speaker 0: Can do to expand the bike lanes will improve safety for bicyclists, as well as students who ride to our local schools.
Speaker 5: And I think anything that we can do along these lines will make our community a.
Speaker 0: More attractive place to live and will help the values of our property and make Long Beach an even greater place to live. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Any other comments on the site and from the public, please?
Speaker 0: My name is Alec.
Speaker 5: Watt and this bike lane put in and encourages the biking and this there's the environmental aspect of it which is it decreases people driving around, which decreases carbon emissions.
Speaker 0: There's also the.
Speaker 5: Danger to both bikers and drivers. When the bikers are on the side of the road or on the sidewalk, there's more of a possibility to get hit by cars or to hit other people and also cars if they see a biker. They'll often move more to the middle of the road or someone comes around the corner. A car could swerve to avoid hitting anyone and hit another car instead. Putting the bike lanes then would also decrease the traffic of cars because more people would be on their bikes and having all the people out on bikes in the neighborhood builds community.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Very good. Thank you. And seeing no other public comment on the I don't want to take it behind to the council, starting with Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 7: I just want to thank Councilmember Austin for bringing this forward, because I know this is something that we've talked about many, many times in the first District, particularly because we have two schools, elementary schools. And I know I've talked to Dave Roseman about it many times. Chavez and Edison right next to the 710 Freeway. So it also may be good to look at. I mean, I know there's current accidents that we have that have occurred, unfortunately. And looking at those, I'm sure, which you will. But are those factored into or how are we working with that exactly?
Speaker 5: Actually, when the committee was in existence or meeting regularly, they really drove how we conducted these studies because in the past we would just look at the pure numbers, but it's not all about numbers when it comes to safety around schools. There's a lot of other elements. So the Peace Committee also requested us to do traffic signal studies. We've installed a number of traffic signals because of Peace Act requests. We've done other all way stops. So the crossing guard is a element of safety around the school. And so it would be really good to be able to get this committee back together, to be able to help guide that discussion within public works as well.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And back to Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 1: Yes. I want to thank the speakers who came out to speak this evening on this very important issue. They speak for several people in our community. And I want to just say well done, especially to the youth, takes a lot of courage to get up here and speak as eloquently as you did right before the city council here this evening. And I think you were solution based with your comments talking about the importance of of laying out infrastructure to make school zones a lot safer. I think bike lanes can do that. If we could do that throughout our entire community, I think we'd be better off personally. But I want to get back to the core problem, and that's the fact that we have a committee that hasn't met since 2008. This agenda item asks for the city manager to review our crossing guard program, including how many and where the crossing guards are, where they're currently deployed, and at what cost and when. Well, as as well as the city's overall effort to ensure traffic safety in school zones. We have asked for a report back in 60 days, and I'd like to move the item. With that said.
Speaker 2: Kay, there's been a motion in a second by Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you for all for speaking for the motion, seeing no other council comments, please cast your votes, members.
Speaker 3: Thanks for.
Speaker 6: Watching. Case eight zero.
Speaker 2: Excellent. We're going to go ahead and move on to the consent calendar, but we're going to pull item number six at the request of one of the council members. So can I get a motion? There's been a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to provide a report to the City Council within 60 days on the status of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, an overview of the City's school crossing guard program, including how many and where crossing guards are currently deployed, and what the cost, as well as the City's overall efforts to ensure traffic safety in school zones. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0795 | Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Now we're going to be moving on to item six, which was pulled from the consent calendar by Councilmember Urania. I'll turn this over to Councilmember Durango.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. The reason I pulled this out, because I basically want to commend city staff for their efforts in helping the residents in the Walnut Avenue corridor and supporting the their concerns about the level of speed of drivers who drive down that street. It's a very unusual when you do a survey of a traffic corridor where the speed limit might be 30 or 40 or 35. Usually when you see any adjustments to the speed limit, it's usually something that goes up because the level of tickets, the speed limit cannot can allow something to go faster. In this case, we're looking at a situation where the speed limit is actually going to be lowered by five miles per hour from 30 miles to 25 miles per hour from the section of of Wardlow Avenue to Carson Street on Walnut. So I want to commend staff for their excellent work and service and working with the community along that walnut corridor and making sure that the safety of the residents and the pedestrians who are living that walk in those neighborhoods and ride a bike in those neighborhoods, that the speed limit is not going to be a major factor for safety because you're going to be going a little slower. So I want to commend traffic engineer David Roseman for his work on this effort and and appreciate it. But if Mr. Roseman has a comment or two, I appreciate that as well.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Are there any comments from staff?
Speaker 5: Yes. Honorable Mayor and members of the city council. The setting of speed limits is a very complicated process that's outlined both in state law and Caltrans procedure manuals. If we don't follow those laws and procedures, we not only can can't enforce the speed limits, but we can place our roadway maintenance funds at risk. We have about 400 speed limit segments in the city, each of which has been studied every five years in order for them to remain enforceable. A few years ago, there was a move by the federal at the federal level that was supported by Caltrans director at the time and a number of Orange County cities to change the way speed limits are set in California, which would have resulted in about 75%. And I'll say that again, 75% of our speed limits rising across the city. Working together, the city manager, the chief of police, the city attorney and US in public works said we had to fight back and we did so by creating alliances across the state with cities like San Jose, 8000 Oaks, Glendale, Glendale and others. Ultimately, working with Tom Modica and his staff, a new legislation was introduced at the state level that restored some engineering flexibility to the process of setting speed limits. The good news is that using that flexibility, we were able to retain our speed limits. And in some very limited cases, such as before you tonight, we were able to recommend a lowering of the speed limit. I would like to just take a minute and acknowledge a very special engineer in the audience with us tonight, Amir Kazmi . Would you please stand? Amir is a senior traffic engineer that's worked for the city for almost 30 years now. He'll be retiring later this year. Amir has been my right hand man in fighting the good fight with the state at the state level and with Caltrans related speed limits. He also came to me a couple of years ago and said, rather than using consultants to study our speed limits year after year, I think we can do better in house. We are the ones that know the streets. We're the ones that know the system best. He has almost single handedly reviewed all 400 speed zones in the city and solidified our study process so that we can retain our speed limits and have the documentation to withstand the test in court. Plus, he did in this case before you tonight, he has worked with the community in using unique engineering techniques, which I will not discuss to influence driver behavior, to get drivers to reduce their speeds and in turn allow us to legally lower the speed limit. Thank you, Amir, for all that you have done to make the streets of Long Beach safer. And that concludes my report.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. So we have a customary ranga.
Speaker 3: Therefore, I would like to motion that we adopted the the recommendation to amend the code section ten 1.12.010 to lower the speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour on Walnut between Waterloo Road and Carson Street.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 2: There's been a motion and a second, any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 6: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Now we're moving on to the regular agenda. We'll start with item number nine. An item an item number nine is a recommendation to receive and file a report that from my office. So I'll introduce this this item and then we'll we'll get started with it. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the Long Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.12.010, relating to the 30 miles per hour speed limit on Walnut Avenue, between Wardlow Road and Carson Street, as recommended by the City Traffic Engineer. (District 7) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0813 | Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Now we're moving on to the regular agenda. We'll start with item number nine. An item an item number nine is a recommendation to receive and file a report that from my office. So I'll introduce this this item and then we'll we'll get started with it. I want to take us back to our retreat. We one of the items that we discussed was the importance of ensuring that we have a transparent and innovative tracking solution for our commission application process and commission system. We all know that our city commissions are an important part of our local democracy. The men, women, and in many cases teenagers that serve on these commissions do so because they love their city. They're committed to the community, and we expect them to do great work, which they do, and in turn, they expect to be part of this democratic process. I think that the commissions and those that have served have served the city well. We discuss the how the commission process up to this point has been done on a paper system and it has been quite antiquated. And so I'm going to we're going to briefly present to you the the final product of the new commission system will be launching this tomorrow. And then soon after that, there will be opportunities for the what we call the back end piece, which is the dashboard for the council members to go into that system and then begin to look at data and information that that's available to them as well, which will also be available to the public . So to just walk everyone through the commission process briefly, we have Devin Cotter who worked on this project with the city clerk, and I want to thank the city clerk for the incredible work. This they had to go back and manually put in all of the history of our commissions into the system as well as get us up to date. So so thank you all for the hard work. And I'll turn this over to Devin Cotter.
Speaker 5: Mr. Cotter Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, counsel. And so on. The projection behind you, we have the first part, which is the boards and commissions application or actually sorry, the listing of all the different boards and commissions for the city. And this is going to be the new porthole for the public to be able to gain access and information. And so what we have here is, you know, a nice listing of all the city's current commissions and a brief description and what's going to be you know, what's great about this is that every point there's an apply button so that you can jump in. There's also a listing of all the vacancies in every single commission. So that way someone can know which positions have vacancies and which ones don't, and, you know when they can apply. They also have listings for some of them and seem to be all of them of the criteria for that position. So if there's a council office who the appointing authority is and you know, when those what those terms are. But going back to the the list of boards, what this does is it consolidates a few different points of information in the old system from, you know, where they meet, when they meet and how to apply. So if we look at, say, the airport commission, we have the fact that there's one current vacancy, we have their terms , the term limits, and then we also have, you know, minutes and agendas and agendas. So if you're interested in what's going on in the commission, you get a link in this pool, pull up all the records that are available currently online. So the airport commission is great because they also upload the video. So you've got the video of the minutes and the agendas and information on the next meeting. And then of course, the big part that's going to be helpful for us is applying for a board. And this takes you to a new online application. And this also simplifies the process because instead of having multiple copies of paper applications, maybe one going to the council members office, one going to the mayor's office, one going to the clerk's office. They now are all centrally located on the system. We have, you know, basic information, including in their name and whatnot. What's nice is that they, you know, enter in their council district. So we know exactly, you know, who we wanted to get a recommendation from and all that. And unlike the paper applications, unified multiple boards at once, it indicates which ones are available. And you have spaces there highlighted in blue, which ones don't. But even if it's if there isn't a vacancy, you can still apply in the application will be kept on file. And then once someone does, you know, finish their application, they have the option of then saving it, printing it out, or going ahead and submitting it. And once it's submitted, it's automatically emailed to the mayor's office in the clerk's office for follow up. And you I have to say that the the amount of work that the clerk's staff did to help get this up to speed was fantastic. And I really appreciate their help with this. And and also, you know, we've got information on current board members. So if you're interested in, you know, who's serving on the board, you can get information on when they how long they've been serving and information such as, you know, which council district they reside in. So this will be going live tomorrow and moving forward if a council office has questions about, oh, who's applying for my district, who's currently serving for my district, you know, who's applied to this commission? It's going to be a much quicker, easier process to then produce a packet of applicants that can then go to each council office and then also before the council if they get appointed.
Speaker 2: So quickly, Mr. Carter. Thank you. And what allowed in addition to that is this this is this will be certainly incredibly transparent and open for the public as well. And so the public will have all this access to to look at who's who serving on our commissions, how to contact commission staff, what district they're in. And there'll be demographic information and we'll be able to very easily produce reports. And so the idea beginning tomorrow is if a council requests any type of report on who the commissioners are or how long they're serving. Mr. Carter will be able to produce that or our office working with the clerk's office so that it's it's done in a way that's it's organized and efficient. And the last piece also add to this is this is really, I think as a city, we want to move in a way that's innovative and that embraces technology, I think is one way of ensuring that we that we keep really a positive conversation about and encourage encouraging civic innovation . I think this was just a small example of doing that. So I want to thank I want to thank Mr. Cotter and the city clerk and his staff for for all the work that went into this. We appreciate that. And so with that, Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 0: Yes, I want to thank the mayor also, because I think this is a great idea and updating our system will, you know, keep our residents informed on the commission application process and as well engaging the residents, you know, to be engaged. And I think this is a great job that the mayor went and did. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: You council Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 7: I want to echo that sentiment and thank the mayor's office for bringing this this program to us and thank Devin for the hard work. I know he's been working really diligently on getting this program updated and to the point where we can actually use it. I think one of the observations that I've had with the city is that sometimes it takes a long time for commissions to be filled and we have a lot of people who are interested but lose patience when that process takes a long time. So I want to thank the mayor for being progressive and bringing this new technology to the city. It was long overdue. I'm looking forward to taking advantage of it as we help recommend people from the third district to fill some of those vacancies. So thank you, Mayor.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 4: I too am excited about this innovative application and I look forward to seeing the citizen engagement. We often hear constituents say, I want to be involved, I want to serve my community, and this makes for a very transparent and open process that everyone has equal access to. And I think it really speaks to what we've said we would do as a council. And thank you for your leadership from the mayor's office.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'd also like to commend you and your staff for helping to streamline the commission application process. As a former city commissioner, somebody who went through that process several years ago, I can tell you that this is this is much more transparent. This is a much easier and user friendly process for our residents, and I think it's going to be a great hit. There was one question that I did have of I guess, Devin is do we know who's in the queue or how many applications are on file? What is that information available as well?
Speaker 5: Mr. CARTER We were still, you know, up until tomorrow using the old paper system. So of course we can, you know, produce that report. But once this new system is in place, it will be a instantly generated packet. So you could request, you know, who's every applicant for city y, you can request a report on for a specific commission or from, you know, say, the people residing in your council district. So it'll be a much quicker and easier system. And one of the other things, too, is that if there is a council district requirement, say it's a seat for the eighth district that'll be present on the site so that instead of getting a call either to your office or to the mayor's office for oh, I'd like to apply for this commission only to find out that , you know, they don't have a spot for an eighth District resident. That'll be apparent from the beginning.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 8: Congratulations, Mayor and Devon, on pulling this together. I think this is going to make our government much easier for folks to get involved in. And I look forward to seeing some of those reports on the back end. This is really exciting. It reminds me of some of the some of those platforms that are already out there, Nation Builder and all those database programs. This is this is a really exciting I would imagine there's going to be a flood of new applicants now that this process is so clean and transparent and open.
Speaker 2: Q And I believe Mr. Carter is going to produce an initial report for everyone. So you all have the kind of the new kind of where we're at currently, and then what's what's it moving forward? Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 7: I just want to say thank you as well. I know it's a lot of hard work put into this and we're finally moving into an age where this is really important. And it also gives us a profile as the city as to how we're doing, you know, with our with our appointments and demographics and everything like that . So do I just had a couple questions. So the term is that on every single applicant, you'll will be able to see the term and how long they've been a commissioner.
Speaker 2: Mr..
Speaker 5: Carter Yeah. So for every single sitting board. Commissioner Fine. So this mess is a little unwieldy. You can look up every single current commissioner and it'll have their terms and then you can, you know, go also go by the board itself and see, you know, who's served for how long or, you know, when the terms are up
Speaker 7: . Okay. Great. Thank you. Great work.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Arango.
Speaker 3: I want to echo Cory, all the comments have been made regarding this issue. I mean, it's wonderful application. We've been not bombarded, but we've been asked quite frequently about what are some vacancies out there in the interest. And I really do appreciate the fact that there's going to be multiple possibilities of getting not only considered for one commission, but also for another. And it's not a re a recent middle of an application one after another. It really seems like it streamlines it. And I'll beat an old and old guy and not always computer savvy as to what's going on here. I hope that there's an education piece behind this. For those of us who are technologically challenged and being able to access the application process for our for commissions, I know that's something that I will have to do with through my office as well. We'll be sending out some information to our constituents regarding the application process. It's new and it changes, streamlined and much more effective than what it used to be. But in the long run, I want to thank you and staff for putting this together.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And also customary ringa. If there are those that don't have access to computer or still want to do the paper version, I will still take paper versions. And then what will do the inputting on the other side? Okay. See any public comment on the item? Okay. See none again. Thank you all. It's going to be a great system launch. And if someone can make a motion to receive and file a report card, there's been a motion by Councilmember Andrews and a second by Council Brosnan. No public comment on the item. With that, please cast your votes to receive and file.
Speaker 6: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I don't know. Ten.
Speaker 6: Communication for Mayor Garcia. Recommendation to cancel the City Council meeting of November four, 2014 due to the general election. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file report on the new system for tracking commission appointments and receiving commission applications. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0812 | Speaker 6: Motion carries eight zero. Item 11 Council Communication from Councilman Andrews. Councilwoman Price. Council Member O'Donnell. Recommendation to refer to the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider naming the park located at 2300 Martin Luther King Jr Avenue and ACP Freedom Park.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for this. Over to Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 0: Yes, thank you, Mayor. First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues for signing on with me with this item. And it's definitely a pleasure for me to be able to, you know, read this item because the fact that it plays a very important part, I think, in everyone's life. You know, it was founded in 1909 in the NAACP. It's the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization for over 100 years. This organization has vowed to bring civil rights and justice to the new level of acceptance for all our national people. Local and Long Beach branch of the NAACP was started in 1940 by the late honorable Mr. Ernest McBride Jr. The policies and procedures brought forward by this local branch causes changes in language, education, economics, development, housing and the labor industry. I want to thank the thousands upon thousands of members that served to bring about the change that we see in our world today, not only for blacks, but for all colors that have been integrated into the movement towards freedom, equality and justice, which this is the part that will stand for Long Beach as well as for the United States. And the first park named in honor of the NAACP. And at this time, I would like to show a small film sent to us by the national president of the NAACP. Thank you. Would you please take the time to look at this? I am the largest.
Speaker 4: The oldest.
Speaker 0: I am the baddest. The boldest.
Speaker 4: I am protecting our voting rights and our environment. I am ending racial profiling.
Speaker 0: And fighting HIV aids.
Speaker 4: I am advancing economic equality. And for all. I am. I am. I am. I am. NAACP.
Speaker 7: Are you.
Speaker 8: Take a stand. I am.
Speaker 1: NAACP.
Speaker 0: Dawg. Thank you. I like to move to approve the asylum.
Speaker 2: Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Let me first begin by taking public comment on the item. With any public comment, please come forward.
Speaker 0: Good evening.
Speaker 1: Honorable Mayor Robert Garcia, City Council. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm here on behalf of Naomi Rainey, president of the Long Beach Branch NAACP.
Speaker 0: My name is Jesse Johnson. I'm on the executive.
Speaker 1: Board and a lifetime member of the NAACP. We thank you for this consideration. Some of my speech has been given already with the history of the NAACP by our councilman at the Andrew's. We especially want to thank our Councilman de Andrew's council member, Susie Price and Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell for putting this item on the city council and especially to our honorable mayor Robert Garcia and the full city council.
Speaker 0: The state in.
Speaker 1: ACP President.
Speaker 0: Alice Huffman, as well as our new.
Speaker 1: President and CEO at the national level, Cornell William Brooks. Send their congratulations for this consideration that the city is giving and naming this part of the NAACP, Freedom Park. It was mentioned about the history so I can I'll pass over that.
Speaker 0: And last but not least.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. I'd like to mention also that.
Speaker 0: We had several.
Speaker 1: People in the audience that were here earlier, including the president on Naomi Rainey.
Speaker 0: But she had another.
Speaker 1: Engagement, and that's why she's not here.
Speaker 0: But we still have.
Speaker 1: A have some community.
Speaker 0: Leaders as well as pre the previous members and board members were you raise your hand.
Speaker 1: And everyone know Evelyn Knight. Of course.
Speaker 0: She's. She's also a lifetime.
Speaker 1: Member and and a civil rights leader nationally. She walked with Dr. King and many other things. And she was instrumental in a lot of the civil rights that happened here in the city of Long Beach. When I thank you for holding out with this presentation.
Speaker 0: And last but not least, Sylvia.
Speaker 1: Several of you have already committed.
Speaker 0: To attend our annual.
Speaker 1: Fundraiser. And this is how we are able to.
Speaker 0: Ensure the programs.
Speaker 1: And the civil rights that we do in the city continues on.
Speaker 0: It's happening is our 35th of Founder's.
Speaker 1: Celebration Dinner and awards presentation. It's this coming Friday.
Speaker 0: At the Hilton, the president's reception.
Speaker 1: And you all are welcome to attend as at 530 in the dinner and the program starts at 630 and then it's at the Hilton. And thank you so very much for this consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And the other public comment came to get back to the council, Councilmember Ranga.
Speaker 3: I want to commend Councilmember De Andrews for bringing this forward, having been a long time community activist, myself in Long Beach before being an elected official, I have worked very closely with our Long Beach branch of the NAACP for civil civil disobedience issues, as well as some issues are very important to minority communities. And the NAACP has been one of those organizations that has extended its arms to embrace all the other cultures in this community as well. So I want to commend the NAACP for their efforts also in terms of being inclusive in their civil rights issues. It's not about one, it's about all. And we are one Long Beach. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I think we have another public public speaker. So let me let me take the next speaker, then we'll go back to the council, please.
Speaker 4: My name is Evelyn Knight, and I would just like to say that I most appreciate the kind of consideration, because not only has the NAACP and many other organizations, civil rights organization, had a tremendous job in making things better for all people. But also, I would like to remind to remind us that that struggle continues because we still have a lot of rights and responsibilities that's on everybody's plate to make things better for all people in the United States of America. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And thank you for all that you've done. Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I want to thank Councilmember Andrews and his staff for giving me the honor to cosign on this particular item. One of the objectives of the ACP is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality for all citizens. And I think it's appropriate that here in the city of Long Beach, that is to our mission and that we have a park. And with that mission in mind and with that namesake. So thank you for being here. And thank you, Councilmember Councilman Austin.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I also want to express my my gratitude for to my colleagues for bringing this forward. I want to congratulate the NAACP, the Long Beach chapter, Naomi Rainey, State President Alice Huffman, and the many members of the NAACP locally who who labor away for the mission. And Evelyn Knight, you said it best. The struggle does continue. The struggle continues in education. It continues in the political realm, but it also continues in the labor and industry area. We have one in high unemployment rates where we're looking to bring up wages of workers. I hope we can we can continue to work together and be partners on those issues as well and be cognizant of the importance of standing for those issues. I'm thrilled to 2 to 2 to support this item. And and I would encourage everyone else to as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilmember Andrews, for bringing this forward. And we a number of us stand on the shoulders of many of the folks who've come before us. But I think Councilmember Alston articulated it best. We are in the midst of a major discussion in our country around equality and and wages and fairness. So I would hope that moving forward, we can, you know, count on the NAACP as a partner here in Long Beach as we take on some of these some of these campaigns and challenges.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And with that, I believe there is a motion on the floor. Yes, it is. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. I want to thank everyone, everyone for coming out. And if we can take a roll call on a roll call a vote, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 4: Writes.
Speaker 6: Vice mayor.
Speaker 4: Here. Now you want to voice, vote and.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 4: What are we doing now?
Speaker 2: It's just a regular vote. Oh, Castro does.
Speaker 4: One.
Speaker 2: Voice. And then I said, I'm sorry about the regular vote. Yes.
Speaker 6: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. Moving on to congratulations. Very good. Moving on. Item 12 has been withdrawn. Moving on to item number 13. Madam Clerk. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to name the park site located at the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way between Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Lemon Avenue "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Freedom Park." | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0798 | Speaker 6: Report from City Manager, Financial Management and Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to award the contract to PAL Constructors for construction of the Beach Pedestrian Path Project for a total contract amount not to exceed the $6 million and increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operations Fund by 2,523,428 districts. Two and three.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Can I get a motion to approve? There's been a motion. Any second. Any public comment?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Hello. Honorable City Council. My name is Bill Napier and Mayor. My name is Bill Napier. And. At the California Coastal Commission meeting about a second path on the sand of our beach. They also told you that if anything was to change about the beach here, that you will have to remove the new path. Well, I'm here to remind you that the Army Corps of Engineers of the federal government promised Long Beach, California, a study of the Long Beach breakwater, and I'm sure that they will keep their promise. And so the city must be ready to remove the new path at any time. And also, remember, when you have a beach. That's right. You will meet your surfer girl. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Hey. Thank you, sir. Mr. Goodhue.
Speaker 0: Very good. You click as the address. This is a very most instructive item in a number of ways. First of all, it is a classic example of one of the biggest problems this city faces, in my view, particularly with Thailand's area. The failure of people to understand this council and other councils and too much of the staff. The failure to understand human use patterns. And common sense. Only a close cousin of a buffoon would could conclude that putting in a second path would any way seriously in any right or reduce any problem. They will migrate back and forth. That's human nature. That's absolute human nature. And this is secondly, a classic example of what I say is one of our biggest problems, which is not a shortfall of money. It's a shortfall of common sense. This is no different than it's a self. City council together stood up on the. Bluff. Unzipped its collective fly and engaged in an activity you'd probably be arrested for. It makes absolutely no sense. But the final point I make, and I think it's I would hope you would take judicial and constructive notice of this is the format of this. The way this is formatted and presented to you today is excellent. Outstanding. It is not a black ops backroom type of presentation. This is the type of format. The issue that I discussed earlier should have been contained in whether it be dealing with a bike path removal, construction of a building. Period. And that should always be if you don't see something like that, you know, you've got some trucks running around. But again, stop and think about it. And it should start with this path. Human use patters, people, you people do what the crow does. They use common sense. And there is no way you're going to stop people from migrating back and forth. This is tantamount like saying, okay, I'm fine avenue, if you want to go north, you can only stay on the east side of the street. And the converse for the west side of the street are the same thing on Broadway. Most people generally are not stupid expecting people not to migrate back and forth. And the solution is, I bet you six months from now, a year from now, somebody's going to come up with an idea of spending a few million dollars putting up a fence, period. The areas, unplanned, uncontrollable, will always be like that. Rethink this.
Speaker 2: Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Did you. Did you want to comment? Okay. I thought this was your call. Before we vote, Councilwoman Pryce, and they will go to a vote. You mean it? She made a motion early on.
Speaker 7: It's taken. I was listening to Mr. Goodhue and lost track of my thoughts. I wanted to, just for a moment, to thank our staff for the countless hours that they've put into this project. Eric Lopez, Tom Modica, I've talked with you. You've briefed me on this project, and I want to thank you and the other members of our staff who have worked on this. I know that there have been several revisions to this path, and at times I'm sure that must have been frustrating, but I think we have a better project for it now. It did have a couple of questions that I want to share with you or ask you. Now, we have received many, many emails in our office in support of the pedestrian path. Many people are looking forward to being able to use this path exclusively for walking and running and view it as a benefit to our city. My question for you is, what is the timeline? Can I just share all the questions with you now, or do you want to go one at a time? Okay. So what is the timeline? There are have been some concerns about since we're taking portions of the beach, whether or not we've given a fair thought to the size of the path, the with the length of the path to make sure that it's minimal intrusion into the beach. So if you could just elaborate for us briefly on what has happened in regards to that and how that conclusion was reached and and whether or not there will be an opportunity at some point down the road for any displays of art along that path. I know that's a discussion that had been brought up in the past. So. Thank you. With that.
Speaker 2: Mr. West.
Speaker 0: Tom Modica Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of City Council Councilmember Price. I'll try a brief description of those three questions and then Eric can help out with anything that I might miss in terms of timeline. If this is approved tonight, I will be looking to start construction very shortly before the end of the year with a goal of being complete before summer 2015 so that the path will be open and available during our highest use time, which is the summer. In terms of the size of the path. You're right, it has gone through a number of iterations. The path has actually moved. The original proposal was south and towards the water for the pedestrian path through the the Act of the Coastal Commission and what the Council approved in February. It's now been moved to north of the path. The buffer between the two paths has actually been shrunk. So that's down to six feet. Where previously I believe it was ten. Ten. Correct. And also one thing that we gain out of this project is by realigning the paths, we actually are getting a net gain of water or a beach space that is accessible. And so you actually increase your sandy beach area adjacent to the water by about 300,000 square feet. The pathway itself takes up about 154,000 square feet. And so the net gain is actually 146,000 square feet of actual beach area that can be better utilized. And then as to the question of art, in February, when the council passed this item, they asked us to take a look at the art separate from this item, not as a condition, but separate. One of the things we've done on art is on any major project. Now, moving forward, each one of those projects in the Tidelands is going to have an art component to it. And so as we look at the Belmont Pool, as we look at Cherry Beach, as we look at.
Speaker 5: Some of the concession stands, there will be art associated.
Speaker 0: With each one of those projects at the major nodes. And as part of those projects, we can potentially look at some other art up and down on the on the path as well, trying to achieve that balance of keeping a natural area while also providing some artistic elements in the appropriate places. I hope that answers your questions.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Any other questions or comments? Councilmember. Consumer price? No.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Then we have a vote and we have a motion on the floor. Members. Joaquin Castro votes.
Speaker 6: Ocean carries eight zero.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next item. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6914 for construction of the Beach Pedestrian Path project; award the contract to Powell Constructors, Inc., of Fontana, CA, in the amount of $5,519,700, and authorize a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $827,955, for a total contract amount not to exceed $6,347,655; authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into a contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; accept Categorical Exemption No. 12-044; and
Increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operations Fund (TF 401) in the City Manager Department (CM) by $2,523,428. (Districts 2,3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0800 | Speaker 6: Motion carries eight zero. Report from Financial Management and Development Services recommendation received supporting documentation to the record regarding the tip public hearing and adopt resolution of benefit of limited partnership sponsored by Volunteers of America National Services an amount not to exceed 30 million District one.
Speaker 2: Can I get a motion? Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Oh. Oops. What did I do? Sorry. So. Okay.
Speaker 7: I just want to say, I'm really thrilled to hear that the chemist senior apartments will be getting refurbished. I think this is the third or so building in our district. That's that's done this and it's wonderful. I just had a question, though, as to the TEPHRA funds. When we received that loan, back with interest. How I know it will be going back to our housing fund, but is that reallocated back into the same district or how is that how is that appropriated?
Speaker 5: Councilmember I'm going to turn this over to our city treasurer, David Nakamoto. But again, this is one of our policies for affordable housing which are real. Glad to present tonight. So, David, thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Garcia.
Speaker 1: I'd like to make a comment.
Speaker 4: That was the former mayor. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Excuse, Councilwoman Garcia.
Speaker 4: It's okay to the council. My apologies. That's okay.
Speaker 7: There was a Garcia here in the first before, so. That's all right.
Speaker 1: I'd like to make a correction in that these funds are not issued by the city at all. What they are. It's a bond issue issued by a Joint Powers Authority, in this case, the CMC, which the city is a member of. We have no taxing authority. We have no financial obligation to support these bonds.
Speaker 0: Our role is merely to hold a.
Speaker 1: Temporary hearing to allow the agency to fulfill its regulatory requirements and then issue the bonds.
Speaker 7: Okay. But I see here and maybe that's where I'm a little unclear as to the I guess, the city loan. And it says from what we received from a staffer, funds will be deposited back into the city's housing fund and reused for affordable housing purposes.
Speaker 4: So, yeah.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Gonzalez, I know you're.
Speaker 1: A members of the council. There's about $140,000 loan that is existing on the building from when it was.
Speaker 0: Originally built in 1993.
Speaker 1: That loan with interest will be repaid. Those funds will be deposited into the housing fund to be used citywide for affordable housing purposes.
Speaker 7: Okay, so it is city wide. Okay. Thank you. And thank you so much for the thorough information on the Simas Towers. We're really looking forward to that and the district's that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any members of the public who wish to comment on the item? CNN members, please go and cast your votes.
Speaker 3: God, how are you?
Speaker 6: Eight zero.
Speaker 2: Motion carries an excited and pleased.
Speaker 6: Report from Human Resources recommendation to execute the renewal of contracts with seven health care providers for coverage of health, dental, vision, prescription and disability to maintain current benefit levels in compliance with state and federal laws on our plans citywide. | Resolution | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record regarding the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) public hearing; and adopt resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) to benefit a limited partnership sponsored by Volunteers of America National Services, in an amount not to exceed $13,000,000. (District 1) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0806 | Speaker 6: Report from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance adding Chapter 2.5 to establishing the Technology and Innovation Commission met for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide.
Speaker 2: Okay, there's been a motion in a second to accept the motion. I'm going make a few comments on the motion. This over have a question. First of all, I do want to just begin by thanking the city attorney for for working diligently on this on this item. And also, this is a continuation of a budget item that was already passed by the council. So the council has already, as part of the budget, funded the establishment of a new commission, which is the new Technology and Innovation Commission, which is something, as we know, is greatly needed in the city of Long Beach. This commission is going to be charged with looking at innovation in government technology, working with our Technology and Innovation Department, as well as the new director of technology and innovation. And there's a lot of exciting things in this area. Cities across the country are bringing and putting together commissions and groups on technology and innovation. And this will ensure that we are a 21st century city and that we're leading the way. And so it's and it's an exciting time. And I want to again thank the city attorney and the council. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to first of all say that, yes, I did vote for the budget. I passed it. And I have no problem moving forward with the Technology and Innovation Committee. I was a commission. I was on the issue enough when this particular item came before the and commission committee several months ago. But when this agenda item came to the City Council to establish the Technology and Innovation Committee, the makeup of the commission was supposed to be 11 members, one from each council district and two At-Large members. And on this, this particular ordinance reads it, read seven members. I can can somebody explain how we how we changed?
Speaker 2: Well, I think the initial ordinance was presented by the city attorney's office. And certainly we reviewed the ordinance. I don't remember the or recall the exact language of the of the motion. But Mr..
Speaker 0: City attorney, the.
Speaker 5: Mayor's member of the Council of Councilmember Austin, you're correct. In September of 2013 and the item that was referred off to the committee, the the composition was 11 members, one from each district and two at large. Then the item was went to the committee for the analysis that was done. It was received and filed. Then the item was brought back as part of the budget approval process, as the mayor mentioned. At that time, we did not follow this recommendation from council. We were working with the mayor's office on the new composition of the committee that's before you tonight. So there is an inconsistency in the from what came from the council to what you have here before you tonight. I can't explain exactly how that happened, but our office was working with the mayor's office and we thought we had it, however, how it was supposed to be. But you point out that we do not have that, as you indicate. So we have two options this evening. You can consider and adopt the commission as presented. We could certainly take it back and revise the makeup of the committee to reflect the previous actions of the council and bring that back to you for a new first reading.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And actually and Councilman Brosnan, I appreciate that. In retrospect and looking back, I made the motion I brought the agenda item to the council, including what you're describing as the makeup of the commission. So I obviously, I that's where it where it began in the discussions with the city attorney. And so in what the attorney presented to us initially was a seven member commission. We looked at that. We're supportive of that. Looking at the other commissions, they are set most most are seven member commissions or smaller. They're not. Well, I think we have one with one exception or two. We have 11 member commissions. I think that's why the number was was set. As far as the makeup of the commission, to be quite frank, I'm not married to it either way. If we want to go back to another system, I have no issue with that. The only thing I would caution is in the discussion with the city attorney's office, because this is focus on innovation and technology, and it's such a specialized type of of experience and commission. We want to ensure that we're kind of putting together the brightest minds on innovation in the city. And certainly, like every commission, we want to make sure it's diverse and has representation from the whole city. So I think that as presented by the city attorney and in the discussions, I'm very comfortable with the seven member commission as laid out here. If there is interest in having those also be the Council District piece, I'm open to that, but I want to make sure that could limit. I think some of the the ability of the commission.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't want to second guess you and your wisdom here, but like you said, you brought it forward to begin with with 11 members as a city council member. And the city council was the policy setting body of the city. With all due respect, the mayor's office has a lot of influence here, but we are the this is the body that that does that. And so I don't in terms of form, I just like to to respect the the the the vote and the position in the direction that the city council laid down to to establish this commission. And we respectfully move to to amend this to include the 11 members as originally laid out by the city council last year.
Speaker 2: That is a second on the amendment. I think there's a second councilmember mongo.
Speaker 4: Having not been privy to the 11 member original. Counsel item, did that have the flexibility that this one has where some of the technology gurus of our region may not live in Long Beach at this time, but could be huge contributors? Because one of the things I really liked about this was that five members will live in the city of the seven. And instead of really trying to divide by nine, again, it really thinks about the city as one whole, the way we kind of talked about at the original visioning session. And it talks to the different components of our city mobile applications, networking, technology and education. I just watched on the screen a presentation about our districts and the one that they showed was about the airport commission and the airports in my district. And I don't have an airport commissioner living in the fifth, and I'm okay with that because we've done an excellent job selecting people with a city wide vision. And so specifically it was nine members that live in council districts and two members that live in the city are at large but don't have to live in the city , have expertize in what area? I mean, where the expertize is required. I just know that having served three years as a budget director for Community and Senior Services, which manages one of the largest bodies of commissions, which is a 40 member Workforce Investment Board, fulfilling all the requirements and maintaining a quorum is a huge component of being able to be successful. And so I want to be mindful of both of those balances.
Speaker 2: Q Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 4: And I agree with that. I know that there are several commissions where I would definitely advocate for representatives from each council district. But as it relates to technology, I am not wedded to having someone specifically come from the second District. I am open to having these experts coming from outside of the city, as Councilmember Mongo indicated. And I also would support having a much more manageable size. It's hard to I think this may have been said earlier, it's hard to get a quorum when the group is larger. I think that's difficult. We found that maybe not in all our commissions, but it is difficult to get a quorum when the number is larger. So I'd support it as it's presented today, even though as a council we did approve it. I don't feel that I have to approach it in a formulaic way as a divide by nine, make sure every council district is represented, especially when it's a very specific commission, especially specific to an industry and an expertize. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilor Richardson.
Speaker 8: So I, I seconded this because I was a little caught off guard on the disparity between the 11 versus the seven. I thought it was worth discussing. You know, we had to use the airport commissioner as an example when we found out that we have a vacant ninth district position for the airport commission. We found a pilot in the ninth district and he was really excited about it. And it was a and so he's one of the people on the commission that comes back and reports, notes from the meetings, and he's interested in serving other capacities. So from that standpoint, I could certainly and totally see the value in ensuring that we do have representation not only geographically but from different perspectives, because who knows who could benefit from being at the table in these discussions? But also, you know, I'd like to see a point of order. I seconded both motions. Is that okay?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Got it. So. So the other thing is, I know that like the planning commission gets they've got, what, seven commissioners on the planning commission. Right. And thereby planning district. No. Is there a way to ensure that there's or maybe some other commitment we can make without creating an 1111 person commission to ensure that we still have balance across the city? Because I can tell you, of the 100,000, 95,000 residents north of the Alamo, I'm sure there are multiple people who could, you know, represent on this commission very well. And I would want to make sure that we if seven if is nine, is this 11, that we do maintain a commitment to to ensuring that we have some diversity and is the standard, because as a new commission, I think is the first new commission we've put together as a new council. So my question, Mr. City Attorney, is, is there some other standard that we could use, some compromise standard to ensure that? I mean, is the planning districts something we can do?
Speaker 5: We could certainly look at various options and with the mayor's office on how the selections are brought forward to the council. But yes, there are other options.
Speaker 8: Because what I think I might want to do is substitute, substitute, I guess, to see if there's if there's like another way to if it's a nine person commission, maybe seven of them, by planning, planning district or ten, you know, and two citywide so that we can bring in expertize from maybe the colleges or different areas. So I guess that would be my my substitute to look at a different formula. So maybe by planning district with some at large just thrown in there as well.
Speaker 2: Mr.. Mr.. City Attorney Yeah. He, he can substitute items seconded, right? Is that correct.
Speaker 0: That yes. Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay. There's a substitute substitute. I want to just say a few things in Mr. Mr. Park and then and we'll go to the rest of the speakers.
Speaker 5: There's I'm sorry, there's a question by Councilmember Mongo on the action that the councilmember from the eighth District referred to. And yes, they would be comprised of Long Beach residents. The 11 all 11 would be required to be Long Beach residents of the former.
Speaker 2: And I think that one and to be I mean, to be frank, I think when the discussion came forward from from the city attorney, we wanted at the time with information, we had to make the best commission possible. We certainly there are some there are some folks in in the city right now that are doing incredible work with innovation, that aren't residents. And I think when you look at economic developed commission, I think we have two or three commissions, including the Web and others that encourage those that work in the city but not necessarily live in the city. And so the original motion also kind of limited that. So at this point, I think the commission makeup right now will allow for us to put together seven outstanding commissioners. And I think we'll do everything we can to ensure there is diversity of all types on the commission. But we want to we don't want to, I think, at this point want to keep that as innovative as possible. And I think as presented by the attorney, I think that that presents that. So those will be my comments. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And so I'm not wedded to 11 I'm not wedded to a number. I'm not wedded to the makeup. What I am wedded to is the process and making sure that the integrity of the processes is clean and clear and that when we put forth when we make a decision as a council, that that that that's what the decision is. I've never. This is the first time that I've experienced a council decision. Being something different. So that said, I'm not stuck on anything, but I did have a couple of more questions. Did the city council receive a copy of the Fiscal Impact Analysis report that was prepared when this commission was was proposed?
Speaker 2: Mr. City attorney, I I'm not aware of yet.
Speaker 5: Yes. The city manager prepared the fiscal impact report on November six of 2013. That was presented on April 1st of 2014 to the EDF Committee. Item two.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, when we adopted the budget, it was $100,000. I believe the mayor's recommendation for this commission and the the when reviewing the fiscal impact report identified the cost for staffing for the commission to be between 142 and $221,000 annually. Where are we going to make up the difference?
Speaker 5: Mayor. Council. Mayor Council members. When the mayor put forth this in his budget message, we produced a budget of $100,000 that we felt we could manage this commission on a pilot program for the first year and then sustain it in next fiscal year.
Speaker 1: Okay. And it also discusses how there's currently a citizen technology advisory committee that was created in 2004. The SeaTac advises technology services on identifying and applying new information and communication technology to improve service delivery to the city and the public. This commission is established. Would we be eliminated in eliminating the seat tag and is a separate council action required to do so?
Speaker 5: No, sir. We would not be eliminated in that.
Speaker 1: That Cabinet committee will will still advise technology services. And the Information and Technology Commission will act on this on a separate track and do something altogether different. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: I don't want to say all something altogether different because it will still be technology and innovation, but definitely two different tracks.
Speaker 2: Clarify. The Citizen's Commission to refer to Council member advises the Director of Technology civically when it comes to staff projects or staff initiatives at the department level.
Speaker 1: Solely in the Technology and Innovation Committee will advise the council.
Speaker 2: Like all commissions, it will be a body that brings forward council issues. We could think things could be asked of them to provide reports for us, but certainly there will be tasks that looking at ways to innovate, not just the confines of City Hall, but looking at technology innovations, city wide, like all commissions do.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's worthwhile for us to move forward in this direction. Like I said, I'm looking forward to to consistency and integrity of the process in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And I'm sorry, what was the substitute? Substitute, just so I can be clear on that. And did you get a second for that?
Speaker 8: Yes, I got to say. Okay.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to make but.
Speaker 8: But, you know, I cued up because, I mean, after I made my motion, the mayor made it said that he would make a commitment to ensure that we bring in different perspectives and we make sure there's geographically based as well. If we can do that, then I'm comfortable withdrawing my motion. My second, whatever. I mean, I'm on every every motion and I'm comfortable. I'm comfortable going back to the original motion as long as we have that verbal understanding.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. And absolutely. I think certainly support the original motion. And we would absolutely look like all commissions. And I think you're going to see in all commissions diversity of every type, especially geographically.
Speaker 8: All right. So to be clear, I'm withdrawing my substitute. Substitute.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 5: There, there. It has to be the second has to agree to the withdrawal of the substitute. Substitute it was in.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And now we have the substantive motion of Mr. Austin to send that back to the city attorney to prepare as presented by the council and approved by the council in September of 2013.
Speaker 1: That doesn't seem to be the support from a council to do so. So I will remove that, but I will maintain my position that the process should be reversed in the future.
Speaker 2: Okay, so now we're back to the original motion as presented by the City Attorney Ordinance. I see no other cues up any public comment on the item. See nonmembers, please cast your votes.
Speaker 6: Motion carries 80980.
Speaker 2: Next item. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 2.50 establishing a Technology and Innovation Commission, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09232014_14-0765 | Speaker 1: Okay. Moving on to consent, calendar item number five, Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I wanted to pull this item. We received a number of emails today from residents in the third district who were concerned about this particular item, specifically the planning of the demolition, the truck routes, the traffic related concerns that would arise as a result of the demolition. And I'd like to ask staff to address some of those concerns. I have forwarded several of the emails that I received today to members of our staff, and I'm hopeful that they can help address some of the concerns raised.
Speaker 1: Mr. WEST Mayor, council members, I'm going to turn this over to our development services director, Amy Bolduc, to respond to those issues.
Speaker 3: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council and Mr. Mays. Hello.
Speaker 4: Sorry for that. We. A couple of the issues that were we've addressed.
Speaker 3: Related to the truck routes. That is something that we are working on with our Department of Public Works Traffic Engineer. That truck route will be something that is.
Speaker 4: Responded to and dealt with through our traditional process. In general, when we deal with demolition of buildings, there are a number of protections.
Speaker 3: That are required of any demolition site or any construction.
Speaker 4: Site, and that does include things like haul routes, how.
Speaker 3: How the construction activity is staged.
Speaker 4: How the area is fenced off and protected.
Speaker 3: So that.
Speaker 4: Members of the public that do not access the construction area and how we protect the surrounding environment. We have a number of municipal code regulations that also dictate how those demolition.
Speaker 3: Activities also occur. Back in April, to a point that was raised in one of the emails that Ms.. Price is referring to, back in April, the City Council executed an adopted a statutory exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. So for all intents and purposes, CEQA has been done and and the.
Speaker 4: Project has complied with Sequoia.
Speaker 3: In order for us to proceed with the demolition phase only. I want to make it clear that we are only talking about the demolition of the existing pool. We are not discussing the new construction of the new pool because we don't yet have a program that has been approved by the City Council for us to move forward . Any discussion about the.
Speaker 4: Long term location.
Speaker 3: Or quantity or quality of vegetation, landscaping and the eventual construction of the pool, all of those issues get vetted through a separate, secure process for the new construction of the new pool. So related to the demolition, we have cleared the demolition project under Sequoia. And the item before you tonight is allowing us to issue a coastal development permit because this project is in the coastal zone and because it is in dual jurisdictions of both the city and the California Coastal Commission, there is a process that allows us to request that only one coastal development permit be issued, and we give our authority to the Coastal Commission that does streamline the process and it does make sure that the conditions of approval that are placed on a project are consistent. If we were to do this separately, we might put on one condition of approval and the Coastal Commission may have the ability to put on a separate, conflicting condition of approval . So by doing.
Speaker 4: A.
Speaker 3: Consolidated coastal development permit process, it does streamline that process and allows us to act as one agency. If you proceed with the adoption of the resolution tonight, we are hoping that we would go to the California Coastal Commission in October, and if they approve the coastal development permit, then we would initiate demolition activities by mid to late October. We have committed to the Coastal Commission that we would maintain protections above and beyond those required at this time for the vegetation surrounding the area, particularly related to trees and bird species. And we have done surveys on what birds are out there, whether they are nesting or roosting. And we have also had a certified biologist go out to the site as well. All of those issues have been cleared. We've shared all that information with the Coastal Commission in anticipation of of their reviewing this item in October. Hopefully that addressed the issues that were raised. And I'm here to answer any.
Speaker 4: Questions you may have, Councilwoman.
Speaker 3: In terms of the truck routes necessary for the demolition process, will there be obviously we want to make sure that we pick. Roots and a path that's least invasive to the residents there. So what kind of meetings or discussions are we going to have to make sure that we pick the route that's least invasive? So typically the traffic engineer looks at the existing truck routes within the city and we try to keep the all the trucks on those mapped existing truck routes. Clearly, there is not a direct truck route that goes to this facility. So the.
Speaker 4: Traffic engineer.
Speaker 3: Is tasked with coming up with options to get the trucks to the closest truck route possible. It will go through a couple of local streets, but that is the discretion of the traffic engineer to look at the various options and pick the route that is least invasive to the residential neighborhood. Thank you. I have nothing further.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Katherine Mongeau.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to comment on the path that's used in my district for another project that the city traffic engineer has been instrumental on, and that the residents have been very appreciative of the responsiveness and the penalties to contractors that do not abide by the guidelines and rules. I think the city has been very proactive to make sure that the neighbors are kept apprized of the situation and it seems like we've come to a great resolution. So when our area was destroyed, we're actually under construction now. Everything went very well and everyone was very responsive. So I look forward to that same thing with the blah blah.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Can we get a motion to approve some? There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Very good. Clark has the address. So if I understand this correctly, what we're but what we're dealing with here is only only only that which is related to taking down the building and working out the traffic patterns. Is that correct? Of how the what is removed goes, which is which is central? We've been through that with the Terminal Avenue Storm Drain Project. And just in case I'm not here, when other items come up, the import of this is obviously it's going to take more than a fortnight to get this done. And history demonstrates, quite frankly. And some people may take it personally. Sometimes the staff can't be trusted. The majority of them can. So what we will end up with, what I want to try to avoid is a year from now, two years from now and down the pike, they have a permit for X, Y and for one , two, three, four components and then slip in six or seven. That might be contentious and people may try to slip that in underneath the radar. And that has happened. And we don't have to go too far back in history to see that. So as long as we're confident, as long as there's an understanding now that this just has to do with the removal. That's fine. The only other comment I would have made, I would hopefully deal with that. We take a look at maybe just putting that stuff on a barge and taking it whatever it is, and remove it from our area that way and obviously not dumping it in the water, but maybe instead of a truck, we use a barge. We've got a pier there. Run the truck out there. Thank you. And they won't have any traffic lights. Thank you. No other public comment on the item. Members does go and cash your boats.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 1: Keep moving on to item number nine in the regular agenda. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution allowing for the initiation of a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit process pursuant to Section 30601.3 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) in connection with the demolition of the Belmont Plaza Pool facility at 4000 East Olympic Plaza. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09232014_14-0777 | Speaker 2: We have a report from the Office of Vice Mayor Susie Lowenthal with the recommendation to receive and file a report on actions taken at the Metropolitan Water Board District meeting in September 9th.
Speaker 1: Circuit OC Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 4: Just briefly wanted to mention that Assemblymember Rendon was here to discuss Proposition one, which is the Water Quality Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. And one of the items that the Metropolitan Water District took up at its September 9th meeting was to approve support for that measure and to convey that to the legislature. But the summary of the remaining parts of the meeting are there as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. There's a motion and a second public comment on the item. CNN, Please cast your votes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries seven votes and one abstention.
Speaker 1: Keir Starmer Let me quickly go, Mr.. Mr.. City Attorney. I know we had a we just need a can we can call for a revote on the real briefly.
Speaker 4: Yes, I tried to uncool myself.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: Please cast your vote again.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Andrews, you realize it was so controversial.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to I know that the suggestion is related to do a report out on the closed session. So let's do that quickly. Then we'll go back to the agenda. Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the City Council pursuant to section 54956.9 this evening in closed session, City Council authorized the settlement of the case of Rockwell versus City of Long Beach by a unanimous vote of 8 to 0 to. And the settlement includes injunctive relief to make a number of minor structural changes instituted over the next five years at Queen Mary and the payment of $80,000. Thank you. Thank you. And now going on to number ten, Mr. Quick.
Speaker 2: To report from the office of Councilwoman Susie Price, Councilwoman Stacy Mango and council member Roberta Ranga with a recommendation request at the city manager. Report to the City Council within 30 days, identifying the fiscal impact of a search associated with waiving the business license fees for a new business hit for the in their first year. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file report on the actions taken at the Metropolitan Water District Board meeting held on September 9, 2014. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09232014_14-0778 | Speaker 2: To report from the office of Councilwoman Susie Price, Councilwoman Stacy Mango and council member Roberta Ranga with a recommendation request at the city manager. Report to the City Council within 30 days, identifying the fiscal impact of a search associated with waiving the business license fees for a new business hit for the in their first year.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I want to speak a little bit to this item because I want to make it clear what the intent and purpose behind this item was so that we we can move forward with no miscommunication in an effort to come up with ways to attract new businesses to this city. One of the things that I would like to do is to determine what the impact to the city would be, to waive the business license fee that is paid to the city for the first year of a new business. And the reason for the request is because over and over again, when you hear from small businesses who want to establish in the city and in other cities, what you routinely hear is that they get hit from every direction and that it's very stressful and difficult for them to get established because they're paying fees to get established to all sorts of entities. And so I want to find out what would be involved with our city waiving the fees for a year to allow these businesses to establish and perhaps encourage them to establish here in the city. And the costs associated for that business are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, but can be very impactful to a small business that's trying to establish itself within a city. It is not contemplated and was not contemplated at any time that the analysis would involve any sort of detrimental impact to our business improvement district. Certainly the assessment fees that they collect, this really is purely an analysis of what the fees paid to the city are to get a business license and how much the city would be impacted if those fees were waived for one year based upon the number of businesses that were traditionally used to seeing in the city. So establishing kind of a range of businesses, the number of businesses that we expect would develop in the city and figuring out what the fiscal impact would be. This is an educational request so that we can get some information so that as a council and potentially as an economic development committee, we can think about what some programs and incentives would be that we could offer to businesses that want to establish here in the city. So with that, I would like staff to take a look at this issue. And I will say that I am mindful that this is not the first time the issue has come before the city council, Long Beach. And I understand it's it's a it's an issue that keeps coming up in terms of a possibility that of something that we can do as a city to make ourselves a little bit more attractive to new businesses who want to come in. It's an information gathering request really is what this is. And I look forward to staff giving us some information regarding what the impact would be to the city. Knowing that having a revenue source is very important to us and not taking away from our revenue source is very important for us in terms of continuing our services to the people, the city of Long Beach. So we'll have to balance all of that, but I'd like to balance it all with full information and reporting from staff. So thank you.
Speaker 1: And thank you, Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 4: I'm really glad that we're bringing this up again. We have five new faces on the council and we're looking to do things creative and different. I also want to comment that there are other motions in the works for our existing businesses. We don't want to limit opportunities to grow to new businesses. We also want to let other businesses that are already here know that we are looking out for them and that those motions are a little more complicated and they're going to take a little bit more time as we're working through some of the staff on some of those matters, but that they are not forgotten and they are appreciated and that we will be reaching out to them. Sector by sector, some sectors have already been contacted and we'll be providing more information to come. But both new and existing businesses are very important to our success in the future of language.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Andrews. Yeah. Yes. I'd just like to kind of chime in on that, because I believe that we did bring this topic, you know, in the past and it went to the committee. You know, in the back in 210, we brought forth the amnesty program, which gave business owners an opportunity to avoid, you know, the pay and penalties as a result of non-reporting, you know, an underreporting in business taxes and license fees, you know, which is very beneficial. And I think it's very I think we definitely need to continue to, you know, look to new ways to keep the Long Beach businesses, you know, friendly. Thank you. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So council members, I want to commend the council members, Price Mungo and Tauranga for bringing this forward. I fully support the mindset of supporting and creating incentives, incentives to bring new business and start up new business here in the city. I think it's just it's long overdue for us to be thinking like this. And I commend you for the thought. I'm very interested in supporting this item and getting feedback from from city staff in terms of the information requested. I, I want to know really what the impact of this is going to be. How much is the average business license? And how far does this go to really incentivize a new business to come to an empty storefront in downtown or or north Long Beach or on the West Side? I mean, we have to have some some real and realistic expectations here. And I'm also concerned about, you know, the businesses that have toiled away for many years and who who are looking for some relief as well. And so I'm glad to hear that they're we're looking in that direction as well. And so I will I will support this motion. And, you know, I commend you for bringing it forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: I want to thank all of you as well. We have a couple business improvement districts in our in our first district. I know a couple of questions that I had. I don't know if this had been thought about or perhaps it could be reviewed as well as the are we talking this is all brand new businesses. Is that correct? Is that the intent? That would that was the intent for brand new businesses to waive their fee for the first year to.
Speaker 4: Long Beach so they could have a business in another city, say, another neighboring city. And if they opened a location here, that would be a new business.
Speaker 3: And then the types of fees as well is something that I often hear about from our downtown businesses is the special events fees. Because so many events are going on, they already have a business license fee just for starting their business, but then there's another fee for just having a special event. And so that's perhaps something that could, you know, be included in that as well. And are there thresholds for the size of the business or. I know there's a lot to think about, but I'm just. Those are things that are certainly important on on our end. So. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Vice Marie Lowenthal.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also wanted to be sure that when staff does come back with their report, when they're looking at other cities, if they could provide either a summary of any studies that were done or any of that data, I think it'd be helpful for at least it'll help me if I'm able to see that kind of back up in your in your report. I don't know exactly what your thoughts were on how you would report back, but it would be it'd be helpful for us to include any studies of measured values stemming from cities that may have wave fees in the past. I think I'm supportive. I think it's it's a great idea. And it's definitely one that could help incentivize businesses and encourage them. But I do want to know what other cities experiences are. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just in response to Councilwoman Gonzalez. You know, I. One of the things that I'd like to be included in the staff report would be just an analysis of what are the fees. I understand that the fees vary depending on the number of employees. So obviously the fees of one that one business is paying may not be the same as another, but that's some information that I'd like to receive as part of the report so that we can move forward with all being on the same page. So the size of the business, really, I'd like to know how our fees impact the business size. And in regards to other cities, I think it's important to know what other cities have similar size charge in terms of their business license fees, because one of the things that we hear repeatedly, especially from small businesses, that is that Long Beach is not business friendly or that the fees are too high to allow them to get established. You know, that may be accurate or it may be a myth. I don't know. And that's one of the reasons we need a report like this, because it's really important for us to be able to answer with full information in regards to what other cities are doing and really what we can do. And to even look into this issue and to try to do something to help some of those businesses that are concerned about the additional $300 or thousand dollars that they have to pay to establish is really the intent behind this. This report is what can we do to help them out and help them get established. So with that and in regards to the bids, I do want to talk about the bids. You know, the bids. I don't think there's anybody here who would disagree with the value that the bids bring to each and every one of our communities and to the businesses that are within their organization. So it's not the intent of anyone to impact the service of the bids or to impact their operations at all. This really is about what we can do as a city to help small businesses get established in the city or even large businesses. We don't want the fee to be such a deterrent that they don't want to do business here. And whether it is or not, I don't know. That's one of the things that the report will hopefully convey. So with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve this agenda item. Second.
Speaker 1: There's been a motion and a second, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 7: Thank you to my colleagues for bringing this forward. I think particularly with the small businesses in North Long Beach and the vacancies that our property owners are facing, anything we can add now that we don't have tools like redevelopment enterprise zones, the tools that we can throw into the into the the the, you know, the shed into the toolbox. Anything we can do to help inspire folks to come here and invest, it's certainly a step in the right direction. Now, I want to, you know, just ensure that we're thinking about, you know, are we are we you know, should we limit this thing, this whole conversation to two small businesses? I mean, and, you know, and we and make sure that we don't expose ourselves to any kind of fraud or folks who might want to, you know, open multiple businesses under multiple names and, you know, and change business licenses every few years. You know, activities like that happen so where they can keep, you know, exposed in the system. So just let's make sure we evaluate that in this study as well so we don't, you know, create a loophole that we got to get ourselves out of. So it may be a way to do that, is when we actually talk about a policy, when it comes up, you know, we ensure there's some flexibility for staff to exercise some judgment there. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Just a few comments. I just want to start by just Mr. West. I want to make sure that we also convey to to the staff that's down there of the incredible hard work that they're doing every single day. I know that our whole business licensing division and the finance group down there and the new business folk that they always get from, for many of us as well as the community, a lot of grief often because it's a very difficult job and a lot of our businesses do go through a difficult process on occasion. But I do want to make sure that we note that the improvements have been made down there over the last, you know, six, seven, ten years have been evident. I think that, in fact, the county recognized the city on a couple of occasions for the improvements made to the system and for moving in the direction of being a business friendly counter and for having service are a few superstars down there. And we hear those stories as well as some of the stories that that we don't like to hear. But certainly the ones that I often hear are of how things have improved, that things are going in the right direction. And so I just want to make sure that as part of its discussion, I also want that relate to them that they are working hard and we're thankful for for the improvements that are being made down there. And I think this is a really good item that this time has come again to have a discussion about. I also am hopeful that as the guiding principle of the Council and ICO and as well and the Economic Development Committee, that we that we look not just at this fee, but what are all the fees that we get to business. And so what makes the most sense if there was going to be relief? What is it that makes the most sense? Because I imagine that in my conversations with Councilwoman Mongeau and others are there are other types of fees and other types of burdens that the city should look at, should look at holistically. So I think that all of that would be great to see. And I know that I believe this will be brought back to the committee as well. So I think it's great. Very supportive. Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to point out because I know I said this has come up before. So, you know, credit where credit is due that this is something that the city looked at before. It's not like the city hasn't thought about it before. In 2011, they had a.
Speaker 4: Business growth.
Speaker 3: Incentive act agenda item, and it was a lot more involved than this. So this is more of just a very simplified, broken down request so that we can try to look at, you know, this item first as we think about the holistic approach that the mayor just mentioned. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 4: When we talk about what's happened in the past and where we want to go moving forward, I appreciate the simplicity of the motion that you've brought before us today, and I think that it brings a lot to the table to bite off small pieces. I think that sometimes organizations of our size try to take these giant bites out of things and there can be unintended consequences. So I appreciate the thoroughness and patience of all of our constituents because we're going to keep at this every week. You're going to hear us back here working hard to make sure that we can increase our business presence, our business friendliness, and the sales tax revenue that all of these small businesses bring in and big businesses as well. So thank you to everyone who's been supportive and I look forward to the vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you all. Any public comment on the item? CNN members discuss your votes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries. April. Yes.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Next item, please. Item number 11. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to provide a report to the City Council within 30 days identifying the fiscal impact associated with waiving the business license fees for a new business for their first year. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09232014_14-0779 | Speaker 1: Excellent. Next item, please. Item number 11.
Speaker 2: Item 11 is a report from the Office of Council Member Al Austin with a recommendation to request the city manager to prepare a report on the status of the Pedestrian Advisory Safety Committee and an overview of the school crossing guard program.
Speaker 1: Council Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And you know, in the agenda business item, we failed to realize that tonight is actually back to school night and Long Beach Unified. And there were a number of parents and PTA organizations and even students that wanted to come out and speak on this. And so I'm going to respectfully request to table this motion until the October 7th meeting.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, there's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? CNN, please cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Council member has and that's to continue it to October 7th on that agenda.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 1: Next item.
Speaker 2: Item 12 is a report from financial management with the recommendation order contract to ABM on site services for providing custodial services at various locations in an amount not to exceed $1.007 million. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to provide a report to the City Council within 60 days on the status of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, an overview of the City's school crossing guard program, including how many and where crossing guards are currently deployed, and what the cost, as well as the City's overall efforts to ensure traffic safety in school zones. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09232014_14-0775 | Speaker 2: Believe item 18.
Speaker 1: Oh, there's one more.
Speaker 2: 18 It's so report from Public Works Department with the recommendation to award a contract to veneer construction management for service management services for the North Branch Library Project in amount not to exceed $1.197 million.
Speaker 1: Some of it has been in motion. And a second and yes.
Speaker 7: I just want to say something about the library. So. Oh, sure. So quickly. So we had some challenges with Fire Station 12 and its construction. It's particularly important that we have construction management on this library. I think folks should know that we've you know, we've taken our time to select a construction manager to ensure that we we do the right thing and we don't have to run into the problems we ran into with Fire Station 12. The date for the for the fire station for the library groundbreaking will be will be within this next month. So it's a very exciting time. Now, this is the last agenda item for the library until we see some some shovels in the ground. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Oh, great. There's been a motion. Any public comment on this item? Mr. Goodhew. Very good. Your clinic has addressed, obviously, supporters of finance for libraries. My mother was a librarian, actually went earned her degree about a decade and a half earlier or before. Eleanor Schmidt, who was our librarian for almost two and a half decades here. Also my great great uncle who I never met but designed our is main library. I fully support this. I'm hoping you can find some money at some point in time and I'm going to recommend that you buy that they. One of the first books they buy there and then have an average library. This book called The Boys in the Boat. In fact, I've recommended to Mr. Steinhauser that it be required reading it put on the required reading list or social studies in the Long Beach Unified School District. It is a fantastic book about what it is. It's a story about the 1936 Olympic eight, the gold medal boat. But it is much more than that. It is a fantastic recount of what life was like in the Depression area era up in Washington and across the country. It's got you can Google of sight and you can see it. You can actually see a two and a half minute video of the final race in Berlin. But again, it's called Boys in the Boat. I think every single council person should read it. I think, as I say, I think it will be read in the schools. I know every athletic coach, regardless of the sport, will read it. But it's just a fantastic, well-written it's well-written account of the struggles of the average American family back in the Depression and the economic hard times they face, which will probably resonate with a lot of people today. And so they get a good perspective of what life was back in the United States, although it does center in the northwestern part of this country again. Boys in the boat. Google it. You can read the reviews and you can even see the the video of black and white, the final race in Berlin . Thank you. Thank you. And let's I want to make sure that we're trying to keep the comments to the item at hand. The North Library.
Speaker 6: Will.
Speaker 1: Surely be installed.
Speaker 6: That book will.
Speaker 1: Be in the library. Right. That was that was that was the connection. You have libraries where they have books. Thank you. I did not.
Speaker 7: Know. Would you mind donating that book to the library?
Speaker 1: I'll. I will. This is somebody else's copy. I will. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. There is a motion on the floor. However, there anyone that has any comments and I think these people are queued up for new business. Probably hope so. Please go ahead and cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Motion carries nine votes. Yes, I mean eight votes. Yes. Sorry about that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Run off to the bookstore. Okay. First up is Councilman Andrews. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. I will be teaming up with the Cambodian American Business Association to host the fourth Cambodian Business Expo. That will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday, September 28, at Mark Twain's Library Park at night. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. RFP PW14-058 for Construction Management Services for the North Branch Library project; award the contract to Vanir Construction Management, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA, in the amount of $1,088,520, plus a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $108,852, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,197,372; and authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any amendments thereto. (District 9) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09162014_14-0730 | Speaker 1: Item one report from City Manager Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and adopt resolution. Continuing the Ford Street Parking and Business Improvement Assessment for period October 2014 through September 2015 and authorize the City Manager to extend the agreement with the Fourth Street Business Improvement Association for one year term district to.
Speaker 0: Madam Clerk, I think you jumped to hearing two or hearing one, I believe is so much more parking.
Speaker 1: This is item one.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's a correct. Okay.
Speaker 1: Improvement.
Speaker 0: All right. Mine says the opposite, but let's go with what you have. So turn this over to the city manager.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our director.
Speaker 9: Of business and Economic Development will present this.
Speaker 3: Item. Thank you, Mayor West. Mayor Garcia, members of City Council. This item is the annual approval for street parking of Business Improvement Area Annual Report and ongoing assessment. You may recall on August 19, City Council approved a resolution granting approval of the assessment report and set today's date for the public hearing. And the recommended action on this item continues the assessment for another year. There are no proposed changes to the basis of assessment nor significant changes in the proposed activities. Therefore, staff requests. The Council received the supporting documentation into the record. Approve the resolution, continue the letter of the assessment and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement for one additional year. Okay.
Speaker 0: I'm going to go ahead, Jerry. Anything additional? Mr. West? No, sir. Okay. So with that, I'm going to begin by opening up for any public comments on the hearing. Seeing no public comments on this particular hearing. I'm going to close that the public comment and go back to the council. Are there any council discussions or deliberations on the hearing? Can I get a motion? Okay. There's been a motion to approve by Gonzales. Second by Austin. All, if we're going against this no voting mechanism, we'll be raising our hands. All those in favor to approve the hearing before us. Please raise your hand. Oh. Okay. Grayson, hi. Real quick. Okay. All those oppose. No abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. Moving on to the next hearing, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Item to report from City Manager recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and adopt resolution. Continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment for period October 2014 through September 2015 and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for one year term District three. | Resolution | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, and adopt resolution continuing the Fourth Street Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment for the period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015; and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Fourth Street Business Improvement Association for a one-year term. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09162014_14-0719 | Speaker 1: Item to report from City Manager recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and adopt resolution. Continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment for period October 2014 through September 2015 and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for one year term District three.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to turn this over now to the city manager.
Speaker 3: Mr. Mike Conway. Again, thank you, Mayor Garcia, members of city council. This is the annual approval of a Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Report and ongoing assessment. August 19, City Council approved the resolution granting approval assessment and setting today's date for the public hearing. There is a proposed reduction in the annual assessment rate for the insurance agents from $1,646 plus 1650 per employee down to $425.90 plus $22 per employee. But there are no significant changes to the proposed activities. Therefore, staff requests City Council receives supporting documentation of the record to approve the resolution, continue the letter of the assessment and authorize city management to extend the agreement for one additional year.
Speaker 0: I will take any public comment on this hearing item. I see no public comment on the hearing. I am going to turn this back over to the council, starting with Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Conway, for this item. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the great work that our Belmont Shore Business Association does for the community and specifically for the third District, specifically with the help of Jim Fisk, who's a member of our city staff, and Deedee Rossi, who's the executive director of the association . They host a series of events and community programs that really serve to bring the city together in the third district together. I want to commend them for their work and for their continued attempt to serve all the different and diverse interests of the business community. On Second Street, we've got retail, we've got restaurants, we've got bars, and their efforts to service all of those different businesses with their specific needs while also maintaining a balance for quality of life with the residents, is very much appreciated and I appreciate them taking another look at these assessments and lowering them where appropriate. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can I get a motion.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 0: Kick moved by Councilwoman Pryce, seconded by Councilmember Andrews? We've done public comment already over the paper. Please raise your hand. The unanimous as no opposition thinking motion carries. We're going to be moving on now. Both of the hearings have been taking place. We have public comment, four items not on the agenda tonight. So as a call your name, please line up. We have three members of the public speaking today. We begin with, I believe it's Jeanne Gallagher, then Jorge Robles and then Veronica Ramos. | Resolution | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, and adopt resolution continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment for the period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015; and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for a one-year term. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09162014_14-0751 | Speaker 1: Item 18 Communication from Councilman Andrews and Councilman Richardson. Recommendation to require City Manager to investigate bringing the USS Ranger to Long Beach and report back to city council and direct city attorney to prepare a resolution stating Long Beach has an interest in the USS Ranger super carrier.
Speaker 0: GONZALES Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor. You know, the USS Ranger served our country since 1957 from Vietnam War to the Desert Storm. USS Ranger has aided Americans in many war zones. It was even cast in a high cost movie called Topgun. Today, we have an opportunity to look for a possibility permanent home for the vessel on Long Beach. It is a simple task and there will be no general funds used for this project. I recognize that there are reports that the vessel will be sold for scrap. However, the small chance may be to house it here. I think the USS Ranger is worth our time. You know, to chance it, anything is possible, especially when we are working with our veterans that serve our country. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So thank you, Councilmember Andrews, for bringing this forward and out of respect for our veterans. I think we ought to, you know, take a good look at what we can do to reuse or or activate this ship. I got to say, it's a big boat. It's a super carrier. I just want to see what it looks like in person at some point. But. But, hey, I think it's too early. It's early in the conversation. If Councilmember Andrews has an opportunity out there for us to look and see how this can be brought to Long Beach, I think it's well worth us looking into. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any public comment on the item? Any public comment on the item, Casey? None. I'm sorry. Is that someone coming forward? Please come forward quickly. And please identify yourself for the record. Good evening, counsel. My name? Name's Robert Harmon. I live in Cambodia, town 1305 East 14th Street, right across MacArthur Park. Proud Lumbee Citizen. I congratulate you on winning an election in the best cities on God's green earth. And there's an opportunity here to bring a modern marvel to Long Beach. Thank you. Take a look.
Speaker 3: Alert five.
Speaker 5: Helicopter. What's most. My first one. He.
Speaker 3: Home. Sweet home. It's a real beautiful ship.
Speaker 0: Okay. Time is. Time's up.
Speaker 3: Contain the video, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel, for your time. Actually, your time your time is up. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you. I'm available for questions. Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no other public comment, I'm going to bring this back to the council, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 8: Well, actually, I had a quite a couple of questions. I think this is a very interesting idea brought forth by a council member, Andrews and Richardson. You know, I received a few calls and emails from constituents who are interested in this this this item as well. You know, I do understand that this is moving forward. A vote here today would just instruct the city manager to do a feasibility study in terms of whether or not it's feasible to place it here in the city where that could be placed. But I'm interested in knowing the what kind of capacity the organization had that requested this come forth. What kind of capacity do you have right now to to fund the the movement or the transport of this super carrier to Long Beach? And and and how would you sustain that?
Speaker 0: All right. We have the full fundraising machine of some very prominent people in the city supporting us. And we do have a community of over 50,000 Ranger men spanning three generations. We have friends in high places where I would be here tonight. We can do this. It's not too much for Long Beach. We can bring it.
Speaker 8: Well, I really I don't know if you really answered my question, but the.
Speaker 0: Fundraising machine is is ready and activated. We just need a green light from the city council. We have our articles of incorporation.
Speaker 3: We're ready to go.
Speaker 0: We just need some pledges and we'll get underway. We can do this.
Speaker 8: Okay. So is your organization starting from the ground up right now? We have concept with the dream and it's okay if you are just.
Speaker 0: I just started a new a new nonprofit organization. The one who is putting the bid together for Portland dissolved after they couldn't move a bridge to get the Ranger underneath for Portland. There's a lot of heartbroken people in Portland. That whole apparatus is going to be behind me to help make this happen. The project manager and all of that teamwork will be directed in this city, focused around getting you here.
Speaker 8: And just if you could give us some logistics here regarding the super carrier, how big is this in comparison, say, to the Queen Mary? How big is this? What's the capacity in terms of population? How many people can actually be on on a on a super carrier?
Speaker 0: It's just about the same size, a 1100 feet long. It's about the same length. We have some spots picked out, chosen. We will consult with the authorities in Long Beach. There's actually some place that will revitalize a portion of downtown. It's it's perfect. We have a good spot to just have to consult with everybody. As far as people. When we broke 5500 people is a good solid answer.
Speaker 8: Okay. Well, thank you very much. And you know what? It doesn't hurt to to to to have a vision. And so I appreciate you bringing this forth. And again, I appreciate Councilmember Andrews and Richardson for bringing this forth.
Speaker 0: And thank you for your consideration. I just want to assure you we can do this. Thank you. Councilmember Ringa.
Speaker 3: Before you leave. Yes, sir? One quick question. You mentioned that it's scheduled for disbanding. What is that schedule? Are we working on a timeline here?
Speaker 0: We are on a timeline. The the thing is, is that there's Nimitz class carriers coming out of service soon. They need to make room. They're actually getting rid of all the old aircraft carriers and making way for the Nimitz class carriers who are ending their lifespan so they can be in put in ready reserve. So basically, Uncle Sam's cleaning out the attic. This is the last opportunity to have a super carrier anywhere on earth for public display because all the super carriers are gone. This is the last one.
Speaker 3: So what are we looking at?
Speaker 0: We're looking at by the.
Speaker 3: End of the year.
Speaker 0: Actually, they can close a deal any time. But we have friends in high places. They're trying to stall the contract for us. They're buying us time because it's it's a national treasure and they're rooting for us. But they've had it under and it's been like going on and on.
Speaker 3: And on and.
Speaker 0: On. In the Pacific Northwest, when I realized that we were like on a code blue status, being a ship's corpsman, I ran in here to try and save the ship because without an intervention should be scrapped. When I realized that my shipmates up in the Pacific Northwest were unable to work out a way to get here under a bridge to Portland. I jumped in, said, there's no bridges we got to worry about here in Long Beach. So I hope I answered your question. Yeah, thank you. I'm going to move on to Councilmember Gonzales, but just also is a note that the agenda item calls the city manager to come back to council with all the appropriate information after. And the city manager will do a thorough discussion, obviously not just with the parties here, but with with everyone involved, to give the council all the information. Make his job very easy. Sir, please don't. Don't interrupt me. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I just have a question. I'm trying to realize this myself. And what are where are the thoughts of where this would be put? I know that we are going to have a feasibility study, but I'm just trying to imagine this in my head.
Speaker 3: Up.
Speaker 0: Behind the Aquarium of the Pacific, between the Queensway Bridge and the Pierpoint Landing. It's out of the way. Will not disrupt the skyline, but it's still downtown where there's a lot of foot traffic at the end of the bike paths if it's there. And it'd be a perfect location because we've actually looked around the skyline, we can be taken. It won't take away the limelight from the Queen Mary. It's out of the way. Yeah, it's still accessible to revitalize the pike. A lot of foot traffic. There'll be throngs of people down there around the aquarium. There's two big parking garages that will sustain the tourism. It's perfect. All we need to do is dredge it out, make it a little deeper. We need 31 feet of clearance. And then we got it. A spy. It'll fit.
Speaker 3: Perfect.
Speaker 4: Because I just. I just get concerned because there's so much development going on near the port. And as a council member, you know, there's a lot of question about.
Speaker 0: That tiny aquarium tucked away where you can still see it and still walk.
Speaker 3: To it.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you and look beautiful. Thank you, Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 7: So Mr. West, should this. So this would be a study just to see if this is feasible will be your approach and what would be the things that you would consider and how you would process this request tonight?
Speaker 3: I'm concerned. Mayor will just do exactly what you're asking us to do. We'll meet with the gentlemen. We'll meet with folks at the port. We'll meet with the folks at Kaplan Landing.
Speaker 9: To talk about dredging, things like that, the amount of money it takes to put this here. We'll also talk about San Pedro and their experience.
Speaker 3: With the USS Iowa. But more importantly, we'll.
Speaker 9: Talk to the Navy. This was brought to the city council.
Speaker 3: Before under Mayor O'Neill's term.
Speaker 9: And here it is again.
Speaker 0: And let's not forget the jurisdiction that actually has authority to to to actually place this anywhere along the coast, which would not be this body but the coast commission.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions from the council? Seeing none. There's a motion on the floor. All those in favor. Please raise your hand. Okay. Motion is unanimous. Thank you very much. Mr. Clarke, item 17.
Speaker 1: Item actually. Item 19. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to investigate the feasibility of bringing the USS RANGER (CV-61) Super Carrier to the City of Long Beach and report back to City Council and direct City Attorney to prepare a resolution stating the City of Long Beach has an interest in the USS Ranger (CV-61) Super Carrier. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09162014_14-0745 | Speaker 1: Item actually. Item 19.
Speaker 0: Yeah, the next item.
Speaker 1: Item 19 Report from City Manager and Public Works Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary for the purchase of property located at 1858 Atlantic Avenue in the amount of 380,000 and increase appropriations in the Public Works Department by 400,000. District six.
Speaker 0: All those in favor mostly came Bush and by Mango, second by Andrews.
Speaker 6: Yes, Gray and Johnson.
Speaker 0: Andrews.
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you very much. Yeah, I think this is a great opportunity for the city of Long Beach. You know, my purchase in this property that we can move forward, you know, the first educational environmental recycling demonstration depot in Long Beach. You know, Pat, you know, I would really love to see a green technology job training center at this location so that workforce development in collaboration with the, you know, refuge department, I can train people for the future in jobs, in green technology. And I'm sure the mayor and city could like to see, you know, this as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor, if any public comment on the item. Okay. CNN Oh, okay. All of us a favorite. Please raise your hand. Motion carries unanimously. Next item.
Speaker 1: Item 20 Report from Financial Management Recommendation to award contract to seed metropolitan electrical distributors for a total aggregate amount not to exceed 750,000 15,000 citywide. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with Kathy M. Gaylord, as Successor Trustee of the Michael E. Crawley, Sr., and Patricia S. Crawley 1999 Trust (Seller), for the purchase of certain real property located at 1858 Atlantic Avenue (APN 7210-016-009) in the amount of $380,000; accept the Categorical Exemption CE 14-071; and
Increase appropriations in the Refuse Fund (EF 330) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $400,000. (District 6) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09162014_14-0717 | Speaker 1: Item 25 Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez and the Chair of Elections Oversight Committee recommendation to receive a report from the City Attorney regarding proposed amendment to the Long Beach Municipal Code. In regards to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and campaign disclosure statement and adopters recommendations.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to begin by turning this over to Councilwoman Gonzalez, who chairs the Elections Oversight Committee for a committee update and then some recommendations. Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Okay. So first, in general, I want to thank the city clerk for all their work. And in this past election season, I also want to thank the city attorney for bringing this to light with outside perspective. And so as the chair of the Elections Oversight Committee, serving with Vice Chair Turanga and Councilmember Mongo, we've been very busy . Our last meeting took 2 hours, but it was an in-depth discussion around the discussion of campaign finance reform with our city attorney and outside expert perspectives from campaign treasurers from around the city who work daily on campaign finance. Their input offered clarity, updated information, and identified overall deficiencies in our current city of Long Beach campaign finance, municipal codes. It was agreed that the time is now to reform some of these issues, as they are still fresh in our minds, and so that we can better align ourselves with similar cities of our size and again, update our codes for efficiency, clarity and more importantly, wider transparency. After discussing at the Elections Oversight Committee, we directed the city attorney to organize information and determine the following. We identified that each issue fit into one of two categories the first Council approval with two thirds vote items that can be approved tonight. Secondly, pending items. Most of this of these items require more information from our city attorney and or more discussion at the Elections Oversight Committee level to then be brought back to council, as some of these items also may require a ballot measure. So some of these items refer to the following compliance with state campaign campaign finance laws, deletion of information, amendments to the language, equalizing elements to align ourselves with similar sized cities. And so I'll invite any questions and have our city attorney loop in whenever there's a question or an answer or something, he can clarify. But I would certainly like to make a motion to approve the council two thirds vote items and then also refer back the pending items to our Elections Oversight Committee.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: There's been a motion on a second. We're going to turn this over now to the city attorney who will review some of the documents that he's prepared, and then we'll go from there.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzales. Actually, just a point of clarity this evening before you is the recommendation from the Election Oversight Committee to make certain changes to the Long Beach municipal code. So procedurally, the recommendation tonight would be to request if if you so choose to request the city attorney to prepare the amendments and bring them back to the city council for first reading, at which time you would be given the language that would be changed, a red line version, and then what the new language would say. So this evening were conceptually talking about multiple changes that can be adopted by the city council. So with that, just real quickly, the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act was passed as Proposition M by the voters in 1994 as an initiative ordinance. The importance of the initiative ordinance is that the act can only be amended by a vote of the people unless the City Council makes a finding that the amendment is consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of the original act. There has been amendments over the years by the City Council. They have. The major change was the addition of provisions of officeholder accounts, which was amended and added in 1995. And since the officeholder accounts were added by council, the council may change the officeholder rules without a vote of the people. In 99, there was a passage of an ordinance to clarify some of the sections. Clarifying officeholder accounts can't be used for contributions to any campaign. Clarify how acceptance of expenditure ceilings is done and clarify how matching funds are done. It also discussed special elections, which were not included in the original ballot measure. So with that, after the recent campaign, our office met with a group, as the mayor indicated, of treasurers, political advisers and attorneys that are that are truly the experts in the area, not just with Long Beach, and they handle campaigns all over, and those included Mr. David Gould, Mr. Gary Crumpet, Betty Ann Downing, Jane Lederman, Stacy Shinn, Chris Thomas and Ingrid all Alana. Well, they were kind enough to sit down with our office and we went through the municipal code section by section and with input. We made the following recommendations, and I'll just summarize them and then open it up for questions from the Council. But in the definitions section, we were recommending that two changes occur, one to the election cycle, which would amend the term of the election cycle, and second which would require additional information for the reporting of corporate donations. We've had some issues there that we think we can clear up with that under the return of contributions, we're recommending that that be deleted the city provision. And uses use a city law which is stricter in that particular case. There's a loan requirement currently. We would we would revise that. All loans are reported on the form for 60. I think it's important to note that since this was passed in 1994, this was a very cutting edge in 94. But state law has caught up in past us in many ways on some of these provisions. So with that, the office holder accounts, we are recommending that you consider increasing the limits of those office holder accounts, eliminate some of the redundant reporting requirements that are required on the state forms and then the city form. Also, the city form asks for less information that's required under the state forms the time period for expenditures. We provide some clarifying language. There's been a couple of different interpretations of those sections. Remove the concept, the contribution limitations which have been found unconstitutional by the Citizens United case and also the Long Beach Chamber cases, specifically as to language, the reproduction of materials. That section is very broad wording and we think we can comply with state law. State law stricter. The notice of IEEE expenditures, we believe is redundant, as the state law requires on form 496, the same information we report, actually more information be reported. So you're causing the treasurers to file two reports. And so we think there's some economies there. The disclosures of occupation and employer state law requires that that the refund, the refund. And if you can't refund it, the money has to go to the state. And the city's ordinance just says it has to be returned within 60 days. Retention of the over officeholder accounts, we're recommending that be consistent if you consider raising those limits. And then the inflation calculation, we're recommending that you move the effective date of the implementation of that inflation calculation so that during the election cycle you don't have two different dollar amounts. We believe that's obviously consistent with the ordinance and it would save both the public and the and the candidates time and would eliminate some confusion and cost expense for everybody. And then we would also add recommend adding a requirement for e-filing and then also consider new language to clarify the intra candidate transfer language to clarify that those are subject to the individual donor rules. With that, I stand ready to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Parking. I want to just add I think it's important just to note I want to just think also the city attorney, he's actually done extensive amount of work, him and his office on this item with the work of the Elections Oversight Committee. And I know that you've had numerous meetings with all sorts of of treasurers, as well as some legal advice that you've received both internally and externally, on what's unconstitutional that we have in our current code, as well as changes that you in the committee believe would strengthen our municipal code. And just to clarify on the motion as part of the motion, I believe it would essentially it would send back any any items that would require a vote of the people. Those items would all be sent back to committee. So none of those would be would come back to the council. It would go back to committee. And at that point, the committee could further debate or discuss and bring those to the council at a later time. Is that.
Speaker 4: Correct? Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. And it would also do the same thing for pending items, is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct. So the pending and then also that were originally two thirds I'm sorry, a ballot measure and then the pending items would go back to the committee.
Speaker 9: If I may, that on two of the pending items that could be adopted by council, we could if it's the desire of the council, I think if depending on what council, how they adopt on the other items above it, we could clarify that language and correct those and bring them back. They were pending from my standpoint and from I think from the folks in the public who have been helping us with this to to see and get policy direction from the council on where they wanted to go on these. And so if the desire is to accept the proposals as currently written or drafted, then we could fix two of those and we would recommend that the consideration of a legal defense fund be sent back to your committee for further deliberation. There were questions that we were unable to answer on that that we'd need to do additional research on.
Speaker 0: That's correct. Okay. That's that's some good clarification there. So with that, I'm going to open this up for any council questions on the issue. And I do want to thank you for for adding the issue about the the dollar amount changing midway an election because that that that's a very difficult for for us midway through. So let me start this off with Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Parking. And this may have been in there and I missed it, so I don't know. But was there any consideration given? To having a legal and compliance fund that would be exempt from contribution limits and or spending limits. For example, hypothetically speaking, if you are a candidate in an election and you believe that an IEEE has been established and perhaps some of the legal parameters that govern these were not followed. And you wanted to challenge that right now you'd have to use your campaign moneys correct to challenge that. And so that would cut into your spending limits for those who choose to follow a spending limit.
Speaker 9: That's correct. And I think one of the things that we want to look at, I'm not sure that legally we can do what as I understand your question, establish a separate committee and I don't have the citation for you or the case law on that. But that's one of the things when we would we were going to send back to the committee on the establishment of a legal defense fund. From that position, we saw it as if, in fact, a candidate is sued and to defend you would be able to have a separate fund to raise money to defend the allegation or lawsuit against you. I use myself as an example. I was sued during the committee, during the campaign, and I had to pay for those either out of my pocket or out of the campaign thing. If there was a legal defense fund. And I don't know if I could ever raise money for it, but you could actually go out and solicit money and pay for those defense costs. So the the idea is we would look at other jurisdictions, the limits and and what they can be used for. And then we would vet that with the Election Oversight Committee to see where they are on that and then come back at a later date with a recommendation of counsel.
Speaker 4: And I appreciate that answer. I think for me, it wasn't so much a legal defense. It would be for any sort of legal and compliance issues that would come up because that so much of that has to do with the campaign process is just paying all the different compliance officers and things associated with making sure your forms are right. But then again, if you feel you've been victimized by an illegal IEEE, you should also be considered in terms of that same spirit of a legal defense fund. You should also have the tools at your disposal to be able to pursue some sort of remedy. And so I think that I mean, I would ask that maybe that's something that's looked at as well, because those costs can be excessive. You know, lawyers charge a lot of money. So I think that's just one of the things to think about. So and then the other thing I wanted to ask before.
Speaker 0: We get to the second one, Councilman Price, could I ask Councilwoman Gonzalez if as part of this motion, could we send that a request from Councilwoman Price? Sure. Right back to elections oversight. Well, go.
Speaker 4: Ahead.
Speaker 0: And I think that's an a I, I, I totally understand what you're saying there. And so I think those particular discussed by the committee and maybe Mr. City Attorney, we can be prepared for that at the next meeting as well. That issue at least to get a little more information.
Speaker 4: On our elections over.
Speaker 9: At the election. Yeah, absolutely. Yes, we will address that.
Speaker 0: And then back to Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 4: The the dollar amounts that we're coming up with in terms of the things that we are suggesting as amendments, either office holder, contribution amounts, etc., you know, are those specific dollar amounts. I'm sure there's a process involved in determining what is appropriate for a city of this size. But I am sensitive to making those dollar amounts so high that, you know, the average person really doesn't have a chance if they're if not, our last presenter used a phrase repeatedly that he had friends in high places. So if you happen to not have friends in high places, you should still be allowed to participate in this process. You know, if you just happen to be an average Jane in the neighborhood. So if we're setting the amounts to that, too, to such an extent that it makes it unreachable for people who aren't politically connected, that would concern me.
Speaker 9: Thank you. The the amounts that we are discussing tonight were amounts that we talked to the committees about. And there is no magic to the numbers that we have placed before you today. This is a policy decision for the council to decide. I believe the last time that the council in 2007 passed Ordinance 070037 increased the amounts which can be raised annually for officeholder accounts to 25,000 for citywide and 10,000 for council persons. So those numbers haven't been addressed or adjusted since 2007. And there are it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For those cities that have officeholder accounts. So clearly, we are here to take direction from you to see if those numbers are where you're you're comfortable at. But clearly, the numbers we're recommending, I think, are in the realm of reality. Not too high. Not too low, but. We it's it's the desire of the Council on on the dollar amounts. The other important thing I think here is in changing the dollar amounts by a council action, I just reemphasize that office officeholder accounts were added by the council, not by the proposition. And so you are free on any Tuesday to change those amounts.
Speaker 0: But I also think that Councilman Price was referring to election contributions, campaign contributions. And I think correct me if I'm wrong, city attorney, but on that issue, that has to go back to elections oversight because that would actually require a change to the vote of the people. Is that right?
Speaker 9: That is correct.
Speaker 0: So so that issue would not be decided today, but it would go back to elections oversight. From what I understand, they're going to review and kind of see what other jurisdictions are at, and then that would eventually come back to the council. Separate of the other items.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 4: Yeah. We asked for specific information for comparable cities as well, so we'll be getting that information among us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. Yes.
Speaker 3: With regard to the office holder accounts.
Speaker 7: Those moneys would not be.
Speaker 3: Able to be rolled.
Speaker 7: Into a campaign.
Speaker 3: Correct. Those would stay as office holder dollars? That is correct. Thank you. And well, you know, one other question with regard to the timeline.
Speaker 7: Or the.
Speaker 3: The period in which one can raise funds for a specific office.
Speaker 7: What are you contemplating this evening?
Speaker 3: What would. Is there a change you're suggesting a change that there's.
Speaker 9: Or if you're referring to the election cycle? Yes, we are. We're contemplating a change to the election cycle. It's the and I use the word consensus. I'm not sure if the entire committee agreed to that, but there is a feeling that the current election cycle for the city of Long Beach is too short when looked at other jurisdictions. I believe the city have lost the time.
Speaker 3: Period to raise funds.
Speaker 9: The time period in which the election cycle closes is short when compared to other cities. I believe the city of Los Angeles is 12 months. Post the general election date.
Speaker 7: So on the back end.
Speaker 9: On the back end, not.
Speaker 3: Necessarily the front end.
Speaker 9: That's correct. At this time.
Speaker 7: Are certainly seeking to address the back end at the front end.
Speaker 3: Is that correct?
Speaker 9: That is correct.
Speaker 3: Because the the interstate. Good enough.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Council member asked him.
Speaker 8: I didn't have. But I'm going to take the opportunity to speak at. I just want to thank the Elections Oversight Commission Committee for bringing these items forward. I think there is great value to having a brand new council here. Most of you are fresh off of a campaign. And so you've dealt with these the aggravation of these. So some of these archaic policies that we have set forth in terms of campaign finance. I do think that it's long overdue to have many of these issues addressed. I commend you all for consulting with some of the best and brightest campaign treasurers in the state. And I know we have one here, Betty, and thank you for for your or Linda, your expertize to this committee as well. I'm unclear about what we are seeking to do here tonight. What is the the the actual ask? Are we approving anything specific?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: Let me sure. If you want to me to clarify. Mr. Turner, do you want to clarify what what exactly would happen at the vote and what would that would trigger?
Speaker 9: Yes. Thank you, Mayor Councilmember. Thank you. The as I understand the direction from the council member in the motion this evening would be to direct the city attorney to prepare amendments to Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.01 and Chapter 2.02. In the Council report, there was a spreadsheet, and then around noon today, I sent to the mayor and council officers an additional report that added some additional language that will come back to you. So tonight, if if, if directed, we would go back our office would go back, draft the language for the amendments to the municipal code and then resubmit that to the city council under ordinances for first reading and then a subsequent second reading. So there'll be two more votes on this item and you'll have all of the language, specific language and dollar amounts in front of you at that time for your consideration.
Speaker 0: And the second piece of that, Mr. City Attorney, is the motion would also then take any items that would require a vote of the people back to elections oversight. So that that's part of the motion as well as as I heard it from the councilwoman.
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 8: Councilmember so to clarify, we are we're not taking any action to to raise any limit.
Speaker 4: No, no, not at all. Not at this time.
Speaker 8: Okay. Got it.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 7: So thank you, because I was I was unclear on that as well. So I guess what I hear is that they that the city attorney would need direction from the council specific directions so that he can come back with red line examples and something we language that we can approve. So if that's the case, we're talking about section 2.01 and 2.2. These are things that are in the spirit of the campaign finance reform of 90, whatever it was, things that are in that same spirit along with office officeholder stuff. Correct. Those are the two things. We can give direction on today, right? Am I right?
Speaker 3: You're correct. Okay.
Speaker 7: So if that's the case, I'll weigh in on certain issues to get some direction from me. I personally didn't have an issue with the adequate time for, you know, for raising money. But I'd like to hear like some anecdotal evidence, you know, let me know. I want to understand how that's been an issue, the time period issue. I mean, I it simply it makes sense. I would imagine if it's if there's like a debt issue and it doesn't give us enough time to raise debt, is that what the spirit of this is?
Speaker 4: And would it be good if we asked Brian to come up? I know that she. So I'm picking on you, Betty. And but she was really thorough and she was great in our Elections Oversight Committee and giving us some anecdotal information.
Speaker 2: So good evening, councilors. Betty Ann Downing with California political law. I'm not here representing any of our clients. I'm here just provide any information that might be helpful. With regard to the post-election fundraising window. It occurs, you know, if the election is in June, the fundraising window closes September one. If you've got some debt from your primary election, you wouldn't have had time to fundraise to retire that debt if you got to retire debt and a general election that gives you just a couple of months in which to do that. And during that time, you're competing with candidates for state office and or federal office. So your donor base is going to be pretty tapped. And then after the November election, you run into holiday season, which people don't like to give during that time. So the idea was to extend the fundraising window to one year after the election to give folks a chance to retire the debt and make sure that their vendors are taken care of.
Speaker 7: Great. I guess the other question is in terms of. And I would. Having served as a chief of staff, I understand the many uses for an officeholder account. It really opens up your ability to really be involved in engage in the community. And so, you know, I'm hoping to increase in the the the officeholder stuff. But what I mean, I want to understand better. It sounds like this 10,020 5000 now. Right. That's the existing limit. Exactly. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: That is correct.
Speaker 7: Okay. So are we talking about doubling it? Are we talking about like what direction have you been given or what what do you need from us tonight?
Speaker 9: That the direction from the Oversight Committee was to change the amounts. And I'm going to find out. But I believe.
Speaker 4: And increased them to.
Speaker 9: 25,000 for counsel and 75,000 for city.
Speaker 4: Work. Right.
Speaker 7: Okay. So from 10 to 20 5025 to 75. 10 to 20 5025 to 75000. To me, those the ratios are off now. It goes from two and a half times a margin to a three times margin between the the council office and the citywide elected. So how do we I mean, was there a formula for that or was this a off the cuff number? What did the direction for those numbers come from?
Speaker 9: I'm a citywide no. I mean, this came from the committee. And again.
Speaker 7: Between and those. Right. Would you like would you like to weigh in on how you derived those numbers?
Speaker 4: You want to tell us again, buddy?
Speaker 7: So it went from again?
Speaker 2: Yeah, certainly. There are no magic numbers involved here. Just to look at what council members typically spend their money on and how much more they can serve their community by increasing those limits. And as far as a citywide same issue, a citywide program, citywide events to attend. And so those are lots of opportunities to be in the community, make good in the community, and just try to look at the numbers that those that that would be reasonable. That's a strictly a policy decision by the council.
Speaker 7: Sure. So if I were to give some feedback on that, in my opinion, having been a chief of staff, I would I would think. Now, I've never been a city wide elected or I've never worked for a citywide elected, but from a council office perspective, doubling those numbers, going to the 20,000 or 25,000 range. It's it's enough. That's that's good. The number 75,000 scares me a little bit so that I just want to put that out there. I'd be more comfortable just maintaining the ratio that we have, the 2.5, you know, two and a half, even though it's I don't want to seem like we're creating a larger disparity between two different classes of of elected officials. And then the other thing is we're setting policy not for the people in these seats, but we're setting a standard that people are going to evaluate for the future. So if we have a 2.5 threshold now, we should hold it. We should hold it or equalize it a little more as opposed to to widening it. So that that's that's my feedback also that some of these items I haven't had a chance to really look into and they're very unclear. But the question I have is, would any of this impact of the the past folks who participated in this past election will be voting on anything that directly impact impacted our circumstances from the last election? Or is there a clear firewall that this is moving forward? You know, this is like starting 2016 elections.
Speaker 9: Mayor, members of the council, Councilmember Richardson, this as the item is before you and as recommended by the election oversight committee, would not be retroactive. So it would not impact anyone from the campaign of 2014 as those periods are closing. And again, the ordinance would would not come back to you probably until after the reporting period in October. You'd have a second reading and then after it's 31 days after the mayor signs it. So and it would be on a go forward basis only.
Speaker 7: Great. And then lastly, the last thing I have and I think the things we can handle now, let's knock them out. So it's a question about timing. So how soon? So the things that miss the city attorney, the things you've heard tonight, you're going to come back in red, line them for this council to take action on . When should we expect that?
Speaker 9: I believe we could have something back to you at the October 7th meeting for first.
Speaker 7: Reading, and that would take those things. So officeholder related things would be in effect as soon as we we pass it.
Speaker 9: With know there would be at the first reading October 7th second reading.
Speaker 7: And then, you know, the final reading.
Speaker 9: Correct. We would it would take the majority of the items off and all of the items that would require a vote of the people would be back at the Election Oversight Committee for further study.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I think we have councilwoman mango.
Speaker 2: So to since we are setting direction today, I'm going to propose a friendly amendment to incorporate Councilmember Richardson's thoughts. And so let me ask one quick question of clarity to the city attorney before I make this recommendation. Currently, when you can raise up to $10,000 for your officeholder account, it can carry over, but not to exceed the total limit if that or it can carry over. And each independent year has its own amount. Okay. So to maintain the ratios is that I see Notting Hill. Okay. So to maintain the ratios we could modify the direction to include it to triple. So council would go from 10 to 30 and city wide would go 25 to 75. Is that what you're.
Speaker 3: Saying.
Speaker 2: Right now? You want to go?
Speaker 7: So what you're saying is three. You're saying.
Speaker 2: Well, I didn't want the council not to have the same representation. So if 25 times three is 75, then ten times three is 30. So they would be increasing proportionally. Was that your request?
Speaker 7: So I was thinking about the gap, the two and a half gap. So if we're going if we're going from ten to to 25, then you would take the 25 and multiply that by two and a half.
Speaker 2: It still is because 30 plus 30 plus 15 is 75.
Speaker 4: So this would be something that we can include in our motion as well to be referred back to the Elections Oversight Committee.
Speaker 9: The way I understand it, there was a friendly amendment on the floor to address the dollar amount of the office holder account. And I think the discussion now is what that ratio should be. So there's that.
Speaker 0: So let me yes, let me bring it back real quick. So there is a friendly amendment on the floor and the friendly member on the floor is to change the ratio from 10 to 30. And I'm sorry, 10 to 30 from 10 to 30. And keep that 75 number where it's at four citywide. So that's been a friendly amendment to Councilwoman Gonzalez. Do you accept that friendly amendment? Yes. Okay. So that's the motion on the floor council.
Speaker 2: Bewildered. Ten plus ten plus half of ten is five is 25. You got it.
Speaker 0: Okay, let me.
Speaker 2: And then just as a side note to that. So all council offices run very differently and the usage of our funds can be used for staffing or for supplies or streets or sidewalks or trees. And if I was able to raise a little bit more money so that I could replace a few more trees or throw a few more events in the community, this is not for. Personal gain in power. That's not what officeholder accounts are used for. They're used to enrich our communities. And I think that that's been demonstrated by some of our predecessors. And so if we're good at the proportions you're good at.
Speaker 7: I'm good with the proportions that I want to be clear. 25, which is the existing citywide limit now.
Speaker 2: Uh huh.
Speaker 7: Right now. Today. Right. Citywide.
Speaker 2: It's 25.
Speaker 7: It's 25. So 25 times two and a half is 62.5, not 75. So we're going from 10 to 25 right now. Four on the like on the council and on citywide, we're going from 25 to 75. So the council is getting 2.5 in the city, in the state, citywide is getting three. So now I'm saying I'm okay taking it to three. But the concern was about increasing increasing it from 2.5 to 2 to three. And it's oh, we're fine, we're okay. I'm okay where we are. But I wanted to be clear because I think it was a little confusion there.
Speaker 2: I, I will be very impressed with our council if, while doing all of our real jobs and our community service, that any of us has the ability to raise that kind of money. But I wouldn't want it to have to come back to the council year after year after year.
Speaker 0: So Council Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 4: I'm. I have nothing but complete, total respect for my council colleagues. I will say I just I think the issue deserves a little bit more study. I really do. I mean, some of you may love fund raising for me. I think it kind of takes away from some of the work that we need to be doing. And frankly, knowing that there's an increased limit puts a lot of pressure to do things for your district that maybe another councilperson is going to be able to do for their district. And if you were just a better fundraiser, you could do for your district, too. I just we're talking about some big dollars here. So I just say let's just proceed with caution. Let's I respect every single person here. I am enjoying the comments I'm hearing. There's a lot of good points being made. I agree with Councilman Richardson's comments regarding proportionality. But I'm just saying before we go there, let's really talk about, you know, what that kind of fundraising entails on an annual basis and whether or not that's a priority that we want to set for us. You know, this is about service, and I don't want to spend a lot of time fundraising. I want to do the work, you know.
Speaker 0: Council council member Austin.
Speaker 8: I agree with every point that has actually been been made here. And I don't think any of us relishes fundraising for officeholder or for campaigns or anything like that. But I do think this is a healthy discussion. Just curious for the Madam Committee chair, Councilmember Gonzalez, did you all look at comparable officeholder accounts and how other cities are doing this? And we actually are we where we kind of fit in to it in comparison.
Speaker 4: We asked for that information, so we're expecting it back in our October 17th meeting because those are some of the questions we we had. Exactly. We didn't get it at that meeting two weeks ago. But October 17th, we're expected to get that information, which hopefully will answer some questions.
Speaker 8: With that said, I mean, I do see the need to to raise our officeholder limits. I don't know if we necessarily have to do that tonight. I'm okay with would be taking a patient approach and allowing the committee to to do some some further work on on that particular matter. So if I could offer a friendly amendment to table that portion of the recommendation until to the committee.
Speaker 0: So that the friendly members would take the issue of officeholder limits back to the elections oversight, along with the other items you're going to go back through.
Speaker 3: Already, correct?
Speaker 0: Can we accept that from the amendment, Councilwoman? Okay, great. So there is a motion on the floor, as as mentioned by the city attorney, with the items that are going back to elections oversight. Is there any additional council comment? Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 7: Okay, so half of what we were doing was officeholder and half of it was issues that further the spirit and update campaign finance. Yes. So now we're sending everything back to where it just came from.
Speaker 0: No, no.
Speaker 7: Just the limit set for. So if that's the case. So so those things are come back and be red line for us to discuss.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 7: I got it. I want to speak against the motion then because I would like to see us discuss. I think we can as a council discuss both officeholder and those issues because it doesn't seem like it's it's it seems like very simply we can have that discussion but not necessarily take action because I'm unclear with this item . There's no specifics in this item. And so we're saying we're going to come back with specifics on half of it, half of the subject matter, instead of coming back with specific.
Speaker 4: Well, the specifics were in the memo that was provided. So there's specifics on what needs to be deleted, what's redundant, what's out of compliance.
Speaker 7: Like the genesis we talked about what cities where use this comparables like how we derive that.
Speaker 4: The information we're requesting to send back to the elections oversight committee so we can review that information and then come back to you. And those are often the things that I'll wrote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I'm going to go to council. I'm going to take one or two public comment and a vote.
Speaker 2: Additional item. In addition to taking the officeholder account back to committee, I'd also like to take back the additional information that was provided regarding a person has changed since the prior meeting. I think, or at least I've received some concerns from individuals who had some specifics related to how this might align with the unconstitutional nature of a previous comment. So if just item de of section 12.01.210 could go back to committee. But the rest of it I would feel comfortable with moving forward because my bigger concern is and I really want to see a direction from this counsel to the city attorney to remove unconstitutional statements from our ordinance. And so that one I'm not completely comfortable with related to some emails I've received. So maybe we could talk about that one more time at committee before that one word comes back. Great.
Speaker 4: That was 2.01.21.
Speaker 2: The definition of a person we're adding in. Six additional criteria by which you determine who could or could not give a donation. And there was some the definition of who can give a donation is a person well, a person can be a legal entity. It can be a corporation. It can be a lot of things. And the business community had raised a couple of concerns about what they would need to provide to exercise their freedom of speech, to make a contribution within that limit. And so I'd just like some time on that one component, but I think the rest of it would be would that be a good, friendly amendment you'd be willing to accept today? Sure. Thanks. Okay.
Speaker 0: So with that, going to go to any public comment on the item. Any members of the public that want to speak before we go to a vote? Councilmember. Okay. There's no public comment.
Speaker 3: So I just want you to reiterate the motion.
Speaker 0: So we're going to read the motion one last time before the vote. Mr. City. Attorney.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council. As I understand it, the motion would be to direct the city attorney to prepare a amendment to Chapter 2.01 and 2.0 to on those items that can be adopted by the Council with the items that are subject to a vote of the people to be referred back to committee. In addition to that, referred back to committee is 2.01. 210d as in David a 2.01380 contributions to for officeholder expenses. And those are two to changes, one to a and one to see which was the deletion of that entire paragraph. And then with the other items our office would then bring back for first reading, proposed amendments, and then two. I'm sorry. Following the election oversight direction, we possibly return again.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Also to include information about the legal defense fund as well, I think that was included.
Speaker 3: But that that's to be done.
Speaker 7: You're going to work on that at the committee level.
Speaker 3: We don't need to. That's correct. That business here. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Counsel. I think there was a minor error, only that 2.01.630 was also supposed to go back to committee per the election's oversight. We did not forward that to the council yet. We were waiting on information.
Speaker 3: It's not only has.
Speaker 9: Actually, I did have that on here. And so we need to make sure that that is referred back then.
Speaker 2: That would be the friendly amendment because that was the email that we were waiting on that Roberto and I had asked to hold back. Okay.
Speaker 3: Okay, great.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor and we have no public comment. Members, please raise your hands for all those in favor. And it's unanimous. No opposition. Thank you very much and thanks. Let's also give a thank you to all the the treasurers and the committee that Mr. Parker can help put together as well. So thank you all for for your input on that. And I also I just also want to note that I know there was a lot of information, but I do want to thank the committee and that's why we have committees so that they're able to do this kind of in-depth analysis on on topics. And so I think that's important to know. We all have committees for on on a variety of topics. So I want to thank the members for, for all of their work. And next item, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 1: Item 26 Report from Council member Council Member Urunga recommendation to confirm the nomination of Council Member Roberta Ranga to the South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board Western Region. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare amendments to Long Beach Municipal Code Sections 2.01.380 and 2.01.1020, relating to Officeholder accounts. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09162014_14-0760 | Speaker 1: Next item item 27 Communication from Councilmember Durango Recommendation to receive and File Report on travel to the California League of Cities Annual Conference and Expo.
Speaker 0: There's been a motion in a second. Any public comment on the item saying none comes from hearing a no, no, no report. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Motion carries unanimously. Now we're going to be Business Council member. ANDREWS Oh, man. A mr..
Speaker 6: Let's do it. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I will be hosting my six year free food distribution from 9 p.m. to food is distributed on September 19th at McBride's Park. I'll be teaming up with the Cambodian American Business Association to host the fourth annual Cambodian Business Expo. That is an 8 to 5 p.m. Sunday, September the 28th, at Mark Twain's Library parking lot. More information. Please contact my office. I would also like to invite everyone to the Long Beach Open studio tour. That will be October 11, 12 and from noon to five. I have seven professional artists and six districts that are participating on this tour. I would like to thank them for opening their homes and sharing their talent with everyone. For more information, please call my office. Thank you very much. And good night, Mark.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'd like to make a request of city staff. I'm so thankful that Councilmember Price has joined me in the paperless world of council agendas. And so I would like to request that the study session information be posted with the agenda. And when it is printed in the future, that is printed double sided so we can save our trees. And then also that the city staff come back to us if there is a possibility of using the OCR settings on the scanner so we can fully utilize the tools available. And I legislate for highlighting and commenting directly on the agenda so we don't have to bring additional paper and trees to our council meetings. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to invite the public to join me this Saturday, September 20th, for a memorial tree planting for Lillian Kawasaki. Registration will begin at 8:30 a.m.. The tree planting will start at 9 a.m. and the trees will be dead and a tree will be dedicated in our memory at Little Cerritos Park at 11:30 a.m.. We're meeting at the corner of San Antonio Drive and Country Club Drive by Los Amigos Park. Neighbors, community members, community groups, city staff and volunteers will be planting up to 100 trees around the little Cerritos neighborhood. Please join me in celebrating the life of Lillian Kawasaki, who was a dedicated environmentalist, public servant and resident of the Little Cerritos neighborhood. For more information on this event, please contact my office at 5625706685. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Price.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I want to start by thanking, I think, our mayor and the city manager's office for having us here tonight. I'm not sure who's responsible for that, but I have to say, I'm a creature of habit and and yet I enjoyed having a different place to convene tonight. So and the fact that it's on a college campus makes me feel very youthful and smart. So thank you for bringing us here tonight for for this meeting. I think it was a really nice opportunity to attract folks who don't normally come to city hall. I wanted to make sure that the residents of the city of Long Beach know that tomorrow night at 5:30 p.m., the city will be hosting a study session on the Belmont Pool Revitalization Project. The meeting will be at Rogers Middle School at the auditorium. Again, that's from 530 until 10 p.m.. I know that the city staff and the stakeholder committee have been working very diligently on their proposals and are excited to get public input on this particular item. So please join us. We will. Have a friends of Colorado Lagoon Clean Up Science Shack at the Colorado Lagoon on September 20th from 9 a.m. to noon. Please join us for that cleanup and as well at the Alamitos Bay under water cleanup at Alamitos Bay Beach on September 20th at 9 a.m.. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez?
Speaker 4: Yes. I'd like to invite the community to 3/1 district events. The first one is Twilight Walk Get Lit this Friday, September 19th, from 6 to 10 p.m.. Third Friday Twilight Walk is a monthly event held during those times on Pine Avenue from first to eighth Street. Enjoy. Delicious food, wine, live music, art and entertainment in the heart of beautiful downtown. I invite you to experience this glow in the dark theme for this month's Twilight Walk. The second event is Our Walk Forth, which is also on September 19th from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.. I invite you to walk for the Community Pop-Up Street installation again from 11 to 6 p.m.. This event is happening along fourth fourth Street starting at Long Beach Boulevard all the way to Alamitos. And then the last item is the Smart Parking Meter meeting, which will be held on September 22nd at 7 p.m., hosted by Hope at our historic old Pine Avenue group. To learn more about the proposal to replace coin meters with smart parking meters, this special meeting will take place on Monday, the 22nd again at 7 p.m. at our wonderful Kress Market on 443 Pine Avenue It.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I want to congratulate the Highland Park neighborhood on another successful Lime Avenue block party and also want to recognize church one on a very successful job fair this past Saturday, this coming week. Join us on the 17th of September at 9 a.m. at Highland Park for free exercise class with the Long Beach Community Wellness Program in partnership with the Health Department in the CSU will be kinesiology department. There will be Zumba yoga circuit training and more geared to meet your needs. Also, we have three neighborhood association meetings this week. The St Francis Neighborhood Association meeting will be held this Wednesday, September 17th, at Community Grace Brethren Church 5885 Downey Avenue from 630 to 7:30 p.m.. That same night, the Coolidge Triangle Neighborhood Association meeting will be held on Wednesday at Coolidge Park at 7 p.m.. That is 352 East Ninth Street. Lastly, the Forest Park Neighborhood Association meeting will be held this Thursday, September 18th, at the the Forest Park clubhouse, 6255, the Forest Avenue from 7 to 8 p.m.. Thank you and good night.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Gringo.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to move that. We adjourn this meeting and the memory of Rustica Rose Carbon. Ben Minsk. Bam Bam was a teacher, community activists and was very active in the West Long Beach Association, including being president for a number of years. She also taught catechism at St Lucy's church, which included one of my staffers, Mike Mireles, one of her students. Her funeral services will be held this coming Saturday, September 20th, at 11 a.m. at also Cemetery 4400 Cherry Avenue in Long Beach. I also want to extend a big thank you to the California Heights Neighborhood Association for hosting an alley and community cleanup this past weekend, followed by a block party. I especially want to recognize Mr. Hugh Little, the president, for his bringing the community together on that event. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I just have a couple of brief announcements. One is I want to thank Larry Herrera and the entire staff and team at the clerk's office. Moving a council meeting is not it doesn't happen overnight. And it's a difficult process actually to get everything organized. So to Larry and put him in the whole team, just on behalf of us, thank you so much for making everything run smoothly. I really appreciate.
Speaker 3: It. I have had considerable assistance from the City Manager, Technology Services Department, Public Works. They've done really well and as well as our city hawk security staff.
Speaker 7: And the police department.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. And I also want to again thank Lambert City College for hosting us. And I wanted to make an announcement and congratulate a new Lombard City College trustee that was just selected by Lombard City College on Tuesday. Irma Archuleta is a long time resident and community leader in Long Beach. She is has a long and extensive resume in the community college and at the university level and was a former administrator and instructor at Cal State Long Beach and has been a community college vice president for many years and is now will be serving to work to replace Councilmember Urania and in his seat on the Community College Board. So I wanted to congratulate and welcome her to this new challenge that she has moving forward. And finally, I'll just say to continue what Larry said, thanks to all the city staff that made tonight happen. I know it was very it was not easy. And thank you all for watching. And with that, I can get a motion to adjourn. Meeting adjourned. Thank you all. Okay. Is there any any members of the public for the second public comment period hearing? Thank you. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file a report on travel to Los Angeles, CA for the California League of Cities Annual Conference and Expo. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09092014_14-0722 | Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Civil Personnel and Civil Service Committee met just prior to this meeting and made a recommendation to approve the mayor's appointment of Ms.. Tracy Eskew. She's a person, an environmental attorney, with great qualifications, and we are completely confident that she will serve our city well as the next appointee on the Board of Harbor Commissioners. I'd like to make a motion that this body approve the appointment. Thank you.
Speaker 3: There's been a motion in a second, and I'm going to have Miss Ignacio come forward and just give a few remarks. And then if there's any questions from the council or comments, we'll go ahead and take take those. So you see Gorski.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor. Garcia. Counsel, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you this evening. I have served the state of California since 2001 as a deputy attorney general, then went on to serve as an executive director of a regional, a nonprofit, environmental nonprofit, and then was lucky enough to serve as the executive officer for the Regional Water Quality Control Board, again for the state of California, all while living in Long Beach. And I've never been able to serve my city until hopefully now. So I very much appreciate this chance and I promise to this council and this mayor that I will give my all. And I'm very proud to be able to do this. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And I want to say a few things about Mexico. Ask you and then turn over to the council. As we all know, Missy Glass, you is a resident of Bixby Knolls and has a private practice here in the city, but also has served with distinction in the state of California and our legal system. And I want to thank her for for for all of that work. One one fact about Missy Gorski that a lot of people don't know is Missy Glass. You also won the largest settlement in the history of the Clean Water Act at the time, which was, I believe, with about $5 billion through with the city of Los Angeles. And through that process, really put in place one of the largest environmental programs that I had seen when it came when it comes to the issue of water and stormwater management. And so I also want to thank you for for that incredible work that you did. Mr. Glass was is committed to, I think, balancing the interests of the important issues that are happening at the port when it relates to industry, but also knowing how important it is for us to protect the environment and to ensure that the port is really the greenest seaport that we have in the world. And so thank you for your willingness to serve your city. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 8: Welcome. I just wanted to let you know that in reviewing your background and qualifications, I was very impressed with your extensive background in environmental law. I think that's going to be a huge asset to the port as here. I'm sure you're aware, we've recently had issues that have required us to consider some of the legal ramifications of some of the business that's done at the port. And I think that you'll bring a great perspective to the port that is already very diverse and very rich with experience, but that what you'll offer to them will be very welcomed and very much needed in the future. So welcome. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 8: I want to say congratulations and welcome as well as the chair of the Environmental Committee. I know that there's a few things I'm sure we can work on, but looking at your qualifications as well was very impressive. The only question I had was Where have you been hiding this whole time? But it's really great to see a new face and also to welcome you to the port and to the city.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I made some comments earlier during committee, but I just during our full council meeting, I did want to just share that. I'm very appreciative of Tracy's acceptance of your appointment and our confirmation, should we decide to confirm. I guess I shouldn't presume. Yeah, but I do want to thank you for that. I've. Many of you know, I've worked with Tracy for a great many years. And I have to admit, I myself was very surprised that I wasn't aware of your full resumé. Tracy was the staff, the lead staff, the executive director of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. And we're obviously a committee as a city, and we know of her great work there. But. But you're absolutely tremendous. And I don't know that there's a single environmental leader in the state of California that isn't jumping for joy at your appointment today. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. And I also want to before I turn it over to Councilmember Turanga, I also did, I also think Vice Mayor Lowenthal, when we began this process, I think she was by far one of your strongest advocates. And I just continued the whole time to advocate for you. And when you ask people, you know, some of the top enviro environmental leaders throughout the state, there was a consensus that, you know, you were you were the person. And at the top of that list was was the vice mayor advocating for you. So thank you for that. Councilmember Ranga.
Speaker 5: I want to thank you, Mayor, for passing it over to me. And I also want to echo many of the comments that have been made. I made my comments earlier at the Civil Service Committee, but I'm more than happy to have you there as a member of the seventh District, a resident following the legacy of many activists who are very much concerned about the environmental issues, especially as they affect the seventh District. And we're looking very forward to working with you as we move forward with a lot of the important issues that will be addressing not only the city, but the residents in the seventh District. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Got somebody, Richardson?
Speaker 9: Welcome to the team. Feel free to count on me as a resource. We're happy to have you bring a lot to the table. And as we lead this city, I'm sure you're going to be a great asset to the port and to our city. So welcome.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. With that, we will have we have the motion on the floor. So, members, please go ahead and cast your vote.
Speaker 4: Motion carries language. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: Congratulations. Give a warm welcome to Long Beach. We'll look forward to your service on the commission. Okay. We're moving on to the agenda. Mr. Clark will take the next item.
Speaker 4: Item number five is a report from the City Manager and Financial Management with the recommendation to award a contract to Emily Green for improvements to the infrastructure along the Sorrento Alamitos Bay shoreline. | Appointment | Recommendation to, subject to prior review and consideration by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee in accordance with Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.03.065, confirm a Charter Commission appointment pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09092014_14-0707 | Speaker 3: Kick, Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 8: Thank you. As some may know and some may not know, this project is a necessary component of the special conditions imposed by the Coastal Commission as part of the Naples Islands Seawall Repair Phase one. We believe that the project in its totality will enhance access to public coastal resources. I know that there are residents in this community have been who have been very involved with this process. The city is working very closely with them as we move forward and this agenda item will allow us to move forward and we will continue to do so with cooperation from the residents as we plan and design this project . Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Any public comment on the item? St Andrews. Cast your vote.
Speaker 4: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 3: Item six.
Speaker 4: Item six is a report from financial management with a recommendation toward a contract to R.A. overhead doors in amount not to exceed $260,000. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP CM-14-023 for architectural and engineering services related to the planning and design of the Sorrento Alamitos Bay Shoreline Trail, Sidewalks and Street Improvements; award the contract to MLA Green, Inc., dba Mia Lehrer + Associates, of Los Angeles, CA, in the amount of $221,470, plus a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $22,147, for a total contract amount not to exceed $243,617; and authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09092014_14-0710 | Speaker 4: Automate as a report from the Health and Human Services Department with the recommendation to authorize the submittal of a grant application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the 2014 Continuum of Care for Homeless Assistance.
Speaker 3: Second, there's been a motion in the second, and I'm going to first begin with Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 9: So can. I have a few questions, but I want the Department of Health and Human Services just to walk us through this quickly and then I have a few questions about how we move forward.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Mr. West, we have Susan Price here to answer any questions and the director, Kelly Colby.
Speaker 6: Honorable mayor and city council members. Basically, since 1995, the city has applied and received annual funds through the HUD Continuum of Care Program to support the Multi-Service Center, the Villages at Cabrillo, a 26 acre site where we have over 1100 formerly homeless folks in shelter and permanent housing. These model programs were created in the early nineties closure of the the Long Beach Naval Base. The 2013 funding award was 6.9 million provided for ongoing renewal funding, with one new project for permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless. There are 28 total projects funded in the 2013 Continuum of Care Application. As I mentioned, 2727 of those are existing projects and one of them was a new project. And this is basically the health department leading a grant application with 12 sub recipient agencies that are nonprofits providing services to address homelessness in Long Beach. In the 2013 application, Long Beach, along with Columbus, Ohio, became one of two S.O.S. jurisdictions across the country to be designated as a unified funding agency. What that means for us is basically that the city of Long Beach, in its efforts over the course of the last, I'd say, 2 to 5 years, has positioned itself well to be able to make local decisions based on that $7 million competitive funding that we receive annually. The overall system and just kind of a little brief note about what the system entails. The overall system of care consists of approximately 1950 beds for emergency, transitional and permanent supportive housing. The high occupancy levels are tracked through the homeless management information system on a daily basis through our Multi-Service Center, which is located over on the west side of the city. Currently, the mercy is in a modernization project. It's been closed for construction since March and will be reopening anticipated in October of this year. The impacts of that have been somewhat noticeable in that we were seeing about 2000 people in any given month over the course of a year. The Multi-Service Center serves about 2600 visits, a fairly significant volume of service that has been decentralized since March. The kiosk system, collectively with all the different agencies, as I mentioned, serves about 5400 people and duplicated in a given year. Bellamy. Continuum of care, as I said, is an annual competitive application submitted to HUD on behalf of this system of care on an annual basis. The overall process takes about three months between the RFP that HUD does and the RFP that the city does to select its sub recipient agencies. The continuum of care is both funded and unfunded partners, and so therefore it is a very broad system of care. But what we're talking about tonight is basically the application that we submit to HUD, which has yielded us approximately 6.9 million in prior year. And with that, I'll close and respond to any questions that you may have.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Richardson?
Speaker 9: Well, I just wanted to say that, you know, coming out of the budget and acknowledging that the health department is less than 1% funded through the general fund, this is a great program and I'm proud that you are applying for this grant. I want to particularly note that the 12 or so agencies are spread across the city. We've got even in the ninth District, you've got the children's clinic here. I want to I want to I want to express that I do pay attention to these things, and we are going to pay attention to how successful these programs are in touching all corners of the city. It's really important to me and congratulations, and we hope that you receive this funding once again.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I, too, want to thank you for your service to this community and for tackling what is objectively a huge issue that requires a lot of long term solutions in our city. I consider the Homeless Services Division and your outreach team a leader in regional initiatives, the Gateway Cities Council of Governments Homeless Strategy, the Service Planning Area eight coordinated entry systems for chronic homeless and Family Solutions Centers, both operating from San Pedro Harbor Interfaith Program. The Long Beach Continuum of Care is a model for other jurisdictions with a multi-service center, a police department, quality of life unit, interdepartmental collaborations, and a broad base of service providers and engaged stakeholders addressing this very complex issue . I know that in the third District recently we've had a lot of issues near certain areas of our community surrounding the Belmont Pier, and the work that you have done has been outstanding. It's clear to me that we have much work to do in the area of homeless services and that it's important to strike a balance between quality of life for our residents and the rights of those without homes and the gaps in resource capability and capacity to effectively address these issues. I thank you for being innovative with your resources and for the outreach that you do to bring additional resources and attention to this issue. I think you're doing excellent work. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Andrews. Yes.
Speaker 0: I also certainly want to thank you, because the fact that you've been like a beacon in our sixth district, whenever there's a call for the homeless or individuals who need that assistance, I mean, you've been there on time, and I truly want to appreciate everything you guys do for us. And thank you again.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Braxton.
Speaker 7: And I would be remiss if I didn't also thank you and congratulate you in advance, because I know we'll continue to do a great job here with the health department. Anytime we get constituent calls either from our business districts or our residents regarding homeless, we can count on the health department to be there with their team to address those issues. So thank you very much and look forward to your continued great work in the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Ranga.
Speaker 5: I want to echo the support that our council members have given to the Health Department in regard to the services they provide. It's already been mentioned that 1% of the total funding to get is from the general fund. So a lot of what they bring in is from outside sources. This is an opportunity to continue that funding that comes from the outside. And it's having been there, worked there, done that, been there with them side by side. Yeah. I don't know what I said either. I know that that's a great staff down there. And Director Jalopy has that has gotten a gloppy sorry has gotten a wonderful staff and having a wonderful staff. And I know that Susan will continue to provide the excellent services that they that they have done for all these years and looking forward to the ribbon cutting for the embassy when that opens up about hope.
Speaker 6: I'm invited and you'll be invited, sir.
Speaker 7: We want to ride in your jalopy.
Speaker 3: Okay? Okay. Thank you. See no other council comment. Any public comment on the item? Seeing none. I believe there's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 4: Motion carries nine votes. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to submit a grant application, through the Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services, to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the 2014 Continuum of Care for Homeless Assistance Program, and execute all necessary documents, subgrants and any amendments changing the amount of the award or extending the grant term upon receipt of HUD funding. The grant award amount will be between $5.5 million and $8 million for a period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09092014_14-0703 | Speaker 3: Next item.
Speaker 4: Item nine is reported to police permanent with recommendation to authorize participation in the California Public Safety Procurement Program for five year period.
Speaker 3: Can I get a motion in motion in a second. Any public comment on the item? Seeing an emptiness over the council. Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 8: Do we have. Do we have anyone here from PD that can give us a brief overview of this particular item?
Speaker 3: Yes. We have Deputy Chief Laura Farinelli and Deputy Chief Robert Luna.
Speaker 10: Good afternoon, Mayor. Members. City Council. Yes. This is a National Defense Authorization Act which allows us to acquire equipment from DOD that they are no longer going to use. So we can use it in our homeland security mission here, specifically in my bureau in the Port of Long Beach, to enhance our homeland security front and Homeland Security mission and the Port of Long Beach. So it's an examples of what would have required within a vessel, a vehicle and a trailer. And so we have a vessel on the water that we've acquired for.
Speaker 6: Free through the.
Speaker 10: Federal government. And it allows us to enhance our posture for homeland security within the port.
Speaker 8: So do does the procurement of these items allow you to be more efficient in terms of the services that you provide both for the city and the the port?
Speaker 6: Absolutely it does.
Speaker 10: And what's another benefit of that as well is that these are equipment such as a vessel which has a long life. And then when that vessel is so-to-speak tired, I can leverage then grant funds to enhance that vessel, to bring it up to current standards, to extend its life even more.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Got some of your anger.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mayor. Well, it would be my concern about the militarization of the police department. I do have some questions regarding what we're getting here. Is are the equipment is the equipment we're getting specific to the harbor department only, or is it also equipment that might be eligible to use in in other parts of the city?
Speaker 10: Well, the equipment I have currently and I received many, many years ago and it's a vessel, a four by four truck and a trailer in which to trailer the vessel to different locations and in and out of the water for maintenance. And those are the three pieces of equipment that I've acquired that was the police department acquired, I want to say, over five years ago. And we have not received any further items at that point for the Port of Long Beach.
Speaker 5: Okay. Is there a special skill or special training that the staff would need to go through in order to operate these vehicles and patrol the harbor?
Speaker 10: Not the vehicles, but the vessels? Yes. And we go to the Maritime Law Enforcement Training Center in the Port of L.A. All my officers that work in the port police division go through that process and are trained to operate vessels in the maritime realm.
Speaker 5: Given the concern that we have with budgets and and skill pays and the number of deployments that we have of officers, what kind of impact would having this piece of equipment have on our general services to the police department to provide this kind of service to the harbor department?
Speaker 6: It would be no new.
Speaker 10: Impacts at all. We currently have nine vessels in our fleet and that training goes along with that. This is nothing new. It's an additional vessel that we can cycle in like a lot of our daily patrols.
Speaker 5: We thank.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 0: Yes. I mean, I think that by participating, this program will assist our police department in a lot of ways, and that is especially central to our city and homeland security and also the emergency response. I really applaud you for this situation here. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 7: I'm just seeking a little bit of clarity in the staff report here. It identifies items that we have already received. It doesn't really tell us what we're going to get. Is it the do is there any way to forecast what is available in terms of new new equipment or items that you might receive from the federal government
Speaker 10: ? Currently, we're not reaching out to look for any more equipment. We received this equipment on the inception of when we started providing police patrols on the water within the port. And we were trying to build our fleet. So it was a way to get free at no cost to get ourselves a vessel to patrol the waters within the port complex.
Speaker 7: And what you say, free and free is a good, good number.
Speaker 10: I agree.
Speaker 7: But what what type of maintenance cost are associated with the perception of these?
Speaker 10: Currently, majority, almost all of our.
Speaker 6: Maintenance costs we.
Speaker 10: Offset through port security grant funds.
Speaker 7: Okay. Well, I will. I will. I think this is a net benefit for the city of Long Beach, considering our port operations as a port of entry as well as the airport. I think it's important for us to have the resources and tools to protect our city. So I'll be supporting this.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilmember O'Donnell. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 9: I just want to be clear. This effort is about keeping our city and our officers safe. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: That's correct.
Speaker 9: Not about militarization, not a common sense approach. Getting something for free that someone's probably going to discard and save the city some money. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Any public comment on the item, Casey? No public comment. I believe there's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 4: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 3: Next item.
Speaker 4: Item ten is report from Public Works and Financial Management, with the recommendation to award a contract to Sally Miller for the rehabilitation of Magnolia Avenue in the sixth and seventh District, an amount not to exceed $2.9 million. | Public Hearing | Recommendation to authorize City Manager or his designee to execute all necessary documents to participate in the California Public Safety Procurement (CPSPP) Program for the 5-year period from July 31, 2014 to July 30, 2019. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09092014_14-0712 | Speaker 4: Item ten is report from Public Works and Financial Management, with the recommendation to award a contract to Sally Miller for the rehabilitation of Magnolia Avenue in the sixth and seventh District, an amount not to exceed $2.9 million.
Speaker 3: There's been a motion in a second by Councilmember Turanga and Councilmember Andrews Councilmember Ranga.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mayor. At my community budget hearing. Last week I heard concerns from residents in regards to local hiring of contractors. I was wondering if Mr. A, I forget.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 5: Error if he can explain the city's process when it comes to local hiring.
Speaker 7: Honorable mayor and honorable council members. As I indicated in your community briefing, the city strives to hire local companies to perform contract work. There's a process that finance management is requiring us to follow, and we have done that for this project. In most cases, due to government laws or contracting laws, we have to follow those rules. Also, the laws responsible bidder, which is solely Milner for this project, is not a local company, but they are the lowest responsible bidders. But every local company has an opportunity to bid the project and there were local companies who built the project, but unfortunately they were not the lowest bidder.
Speaker 5: I'm still looking for. What's the process for local hiring that this company might have or access to? They do any recruiting or any opportunities to local persons to apply for these jobs that might be available to put on this rehab.
Speaker 7: Well, we follow the city's charter and cities municipal ordinances for local hire. And I think we've done that with this. I don't think there's any mandate for currently in place that mandates that local hires do the job for our if not the lowest bidder to do the perform the job. So there's a conflict that this needs to be resolved in the future.
Speaker 5: Okay. And also, approximately how long will this project take? Obviously, the concern, of course, of residents around that area would be of getting alternate routes or alternate parking, especially if there's parking in the street that's going to be affected. Has there been an outreach into that community in regards to what is available to them while this work is being done?
Speaker 7: Thank you for asking that question. Public Works has a very robust outreach program. After the contractors is on board, we have a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, which your office will be invited. You will be part of that process. We we will wait for contractor to give us their construction schedule. We anticipate this project to last approximately six months. But that's not that's that's what the duration for the contract is, including holidays and weekends. After the contractor gives us the schedule, we will coordinate that with your office at no point. The street will be closed for traffic, so there will always be one lane of traffic at all times. We work with the community to make sure that we don't have impacts to parking and to residents accessing their their houses. So we walk each, we walk the block and and the contractor delivers a notice to each household. And we give them information as when the construction will start, what the impacts are. We suspend our parking enforcement during that period of construction. If there are any special needs, we will accommodate the residents with parking on adjacent streets and we coordinate with our street sweeping and also trash collection. So there is a tremendous of coordination that goes on with every single project in the city. And I'm proud to say that we're very successful in managing contracts and contractors and providing the best service to our residents.
Speaker 5: That's great. Well, one final question. Also, what came out in my budget hearing is some complaints from constituents that there have been a number of projects that have basically gone on result unresolved in the last couple of years. Can you explain the process of how a project gets on the list or on a schedule, and when might these projects get on line to A to be completed?
Speaker 7: Well, in the past, the practice has been that the council officers have been requesting certain projects to be administered in the city. I'm hoping that with our new payment management plan, we will change that practice. That will come to you with a list of projects that are the most efficient and eminent projects to be performed. And with collaboration with your office will choose a five year CIP program and will include some of those streets, I'm sure, as you know. And you will recognize that the funding for our local streets is not sufficient for the demands that we're seeing out there. So there has to be a careful selection when those streets are paved at what what period of time.
Speaker 5: Yeah. What was the name of that document again?
Speaker 7: The payment management plan, Poppy.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 0: You know, I to definitely click on with Mr. our councilman Mr. Urunga was speaking about spatial acquiring. You know, I understand what Scully and Miller they're very large contractors and I can see how they can come in is a much, you know, they can bid, you know, with these other small companies, which would have a chance to bid against them. But I think we're going to have to really kind of restructure our hiring practices when it comes to local hiring. And I'm very, very, very, you know, trying to understand, you know, we get these various contractors. We can have to kind of stay locally with our hiring practices because it seems like we can get these big contractors coming to our city and we get nothing. You know, I'm with them that. So I think we're going to be looking deeper to this to see why we bring these contractors in here. We're going to have to stay locally. We know we can't tell individuals how to hire individuals who they are. But at least I think we're going to have to look into this more and let people know that we are contractors here. You're going to have to, like, give at least as some kind of benefits and let some of these individuals work. That's locally in the city of Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I see no other comment on this from the council. Any public comment on the item? See none. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 4: Motion carries nine votes. Yes.
Speaker 3: Item, I believe. Moving on to ordnances, item 11.
Speaker 4: Item 11 as a report is an ordinance with a recommendation to adopt an ordinance approving rates and charges for water and sewer services by the Long Beach Water Department effective October 1st, 2014. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6971 for the Rehabilitation of Magnolia Avenue, between Pacific Coast Highway and Spring Street; award the contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, of Brea, CA, for the base bid in the amount of $2,154,780 and the additive bid in the amount of $396,400, for a total of $2,551,180; authorize a 15 percent contingency of $382,677, for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,933,857; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; and consider and accept the determination that this project is statutorily exempt from CEQA. (Districts 6,7) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09092014_14-0727 | Speaker 4: Item 19 is a recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments to the Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding with the Long Beach City Attorneys Association and the Long Beach City Prosecutors Association.
Speaker 3: Look, there's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? CNN. Please cast your vote.
Speaker 4: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 3: I believe we are moving on to new business. Is that an X or am I missing one? Okay, we're going on to a new business. And to start off, we're going to move on to with Councilmember Andrews. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And I'm sitting next to me. Thank you.
Speaker 3: He quickly watches my fingers.
Speaker 0: I will be hosted in a language advocate of change. Free pancake breakfast this Saturday from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. at Martin Luther King's Park. I'll be hosting a six day free food distribution from nine until food is displayed on September 19th at Magpies Park. I will be teaming up with the Cambodian American Business Association to host the fourth annual Cambodian Business Expo. That will be from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday, September 28, at Mark Twain's Library in the parking lot. I would also like to invite everyone to the Long Beach Open studio tour, October 11, 12, from noon to five . I have seven professional artists in the school district that are participating in the tour. I would like to thank them for opening their house and sharing their talents with everyone. For more information on the tours, please visit WW Dot Long Beach Open Studio Tour Icon. Thank you very much. Goodnight, Mack.
Speaker 3: You the next councilmember you ringa.
Speaker 5: Ran out was quick on the finger this time and I like to invite the public to the grand opening of the villages. Century villages like a real open urban forest and solar facility. Grand opening tomorrow morning. 2001 River Avenue, Long Beach, California, starting at 9 a.m.. And also, I'd like to invite the public to the 14th annual Long Beach Fuzed Music and Arts Unity Festival on Saturday, September 13th, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Advocate Park, 2125 Santa Fe Avenue in Long Beach. Should be a lot of fun. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 9: Thank you. It's going to be a busy weekend in the ninth District. First, I'd like to invite residents out to the 13th annual Lime Avenue Lime Avenue BLOCK Party. This Saturday is the best block party in the city. It's located between 60th Street and Lime Avenue. The party will go on from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.. Come on out. Meet your neighbors. Enjoy some good food and entertainment all afternoon long. Secondly, I like to encourage Long Beach residents looking for work to join us at the on the spot hiring hiring spree. That's this Saturday, September 13th. It'll be held at church one located at 787th Street in the Hamilton neighborhood from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and is being hosted in partnership with the Los Angeles County Office of Education. A third event is on Saturday. Is the Health Fair at Light, Light and Life Community Church, the Cherry Campus 6465 Cherry. There will be a healthy eating workshop, cooking classes, Zumba classes, a fun zone for kids and more, all free of charge. The fair will run from 10:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.. Also, I'd like to invite ninth District residents out for a new exercise class this fall at the Highland Park Community Center, starting at starting next Wednesday, September 17th through November 26th. Classes will be from 9 to 10 every Wednesday and Friday morning and will offer a variety of exercises. This is in partnership with our Heels on program. Lastly, we have multiple neighborhood associations this week. The Hamilton Neighborhood Association is Wednesday at 7 p.m. at Hamilton Middle School, 1067 eighth Street, and the Grant Neighborhood Association meets Thursday at 7 p.m. at the American Legion Hall 1215 East 59th Street. Thank you. Have a good night.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Cotto and Mongo.
Speaker 6: Tuesday, September 16th, we are going to have a study session regarding the Civic Center from 4 to 5 p.m. at the Long Beach City College boardroom. We're inviting all the members of the fifth District since we're moving the council meeting to the Fifth District to come and be informed. We're very excited to have our council meeting on the on the East Side Thursday, September 18th. Our Lakewood Village community watch come early, perhaps bring a lawn chair. We had over 400 people last year and we will have some sound equipment to make sure that everyone can hear. Even if we're sitting on the lawn, we're very excited about how well Community Watch has taken off, and we're excited to share some interesting and important news related to the decline in residential crimes over on our side of town. Monday, September 22nd at 6:08 p.m.. We're doing our Harbor Boat tour. We have less than ten seats left on the boat. So if you'd like to join the other 80 residents of the East Side who will be out on the harbor learning about the Port of Long Beach, one of our greatest economic engines. Please join us. Make sure you email us immediately to reserve that spot. Food and beverages are provided. Friday, September 26th. We received a request from our partners. Think Cornelius, who are throwing their annual festival. Come spend money in the community and make sure that we're taking care of our kids in their programs. And Saturday, October 4th, I feel this is one of the most important days of the year. It'll be our Community Preparedness Expo. Ready. Long Beach. This is where neighbors and community members can learn more about Paul's point and lots of other programs, including Mapping Your Street of what resources will be available to you on your block should you be stuck there in case of an emergency for a long period of time? So please be sure to join us at Hartwell Park from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. for ready Long Beach.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lowenthal. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to extend a very big thank you to all our volunteers, event sponsors and our neighborhood and business associations, such as Friends of Bixby Park, Love Heights, Neighborhood Association, Action Sports, Kids on Broadway Business Association, Alameda Speech, Neighborhood Association, and our very own Parks, Recreation and Marine for their contributions to the Bixby Park Improvement Day this last Saturday. The park looks amazing thanks to everyone's hard work and sweat equity. I look forward to seeing everyone at next year's Bixby Park Improvement Day. There are also some very important meetings coming up in the second District this week. And next among them are the Promenade Square Playground Workshop, being held tomorrow night, September 10th, from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the community room at 133 Promenade North, Residential Building, Parks, Recreation and Marine. And my office will be meeting with residents to discuss the design of a children's play space in the nearby park. The Alameda Speech Neighborhood Association is meeting on Thursday, September 11th, at 7 p.m. in the Bixby Park Community Center and update on the Bixby Park Bluff Project will be provided at that time. Get your Saturday off to a healthy start with a free and fit boot camp at Lincoln Park at 9 a.m.. It is free and fun for all ages and skill levels. Finally, on Saturday, head down to the beach for 30 minutes and help clean Long Beach, keep our beaches clean and safe. The group meets at the One Apparel Beach lot at 10 a.m.. Volunteers are encouraged to bring their own bag to save on waste, but bags and gloves will be provided. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 8: I'd like to invite everyone first to our third Friday's Twilight Walk. It's September 19th from 6 to 10 p.m.. The event will be held on Pine Avenue from first to eighth Street and participating historic downtown core businesses will be putting this on. Enjoy. Delicious food, music, live music, wine, art, entertainment and more. Right in the heart of downtown Long Beach. This month, on September 19th, will include a glow in the dark zone at Groundwork Fitness, also roller disco by metalworks and bubble soccer and much more. And then secondly, walk forth, which is also on September 19th, but earlier in the day, from 11 to 6 p.m., the public is invited to be a part of the pedestrian master plan by providing input and discussing ideas with the project team. At Walk Fourth, they'll create temporary urban innovation interventions or pop up installations along fourth street hours in the first District will be at Berlin Bistro between fourth and Fourth Street on Linden from. And this fourth Street will also be from Long Beach Boulevard to Alamitos. This event will help the community envision proposed improvements, concepts that could be implemented at all metro stations. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Price.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I wanted to take a moment to thank our Parks, Recreation and Marine Public Works, Long Beach Fire Department and Long Beach Police Departments. For all of the work that they did during the recent surf advisories that we had protecting the homes on the bay in Naples and in the peninsula. I'm so grateful for their efforts. I was out there quite a bit and had the opportunity to see them working around the clock, literally on making sure that the berms were built high so that those homes were protected. I'm truly impressed by the work of our city employees and I'm grateful for all of their service. And I know that the peninsula residents are as well. The city staff will be presenting to the Belmont Shore Residents Association a presentation on the smart meters that are being proposed for various parts of the city. That meeting will be on September 11th at 6 p.m. at the Bay Shore Library. Additionally, we will have the Belmont Shore Stroll and Saver event on September 17th and 18th, starting at 5 p.m.. As Councilmember Mongo mentioned, the Civic Center study session will be taking place on the 16th of September at Long Beach City College right before our city council meeting and I encourage all residents to attend. We've received several emails about that proposal. The project and I too will be looking to get educated at that time. The meeting that the city will be hosting to educate the public and seek input. The first meeting regarding the Belmont pool will be on September 18th at Rogers Middle School at 6 p.m.. I hope that you will join me there. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. At this time, we're taking the second public comment. Second public comment period. If there's any public comment, please come forward.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Good evening, City Council. My name is Ruth Lozano and I live at 2302 East Second Street. I'm a resident of Bluff Park Board member of Friends of Bixby Park. I'm also here in support of the 22 neighborhood associations who have recently expressed their serious concerns over public safety at our parks. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the Amendments to the 2007-2012 Memorandum of Understanding with the Long Beach City Attorneys Association and the Long Beach City Prosecutors Association. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0660 | Speaker 1: We're going to vote on on if the tonight's the first night the council is able to vote on any of the budget resolutions if if they would like. And on that, I'm going to turn this over to Mr. West so we can continue. I believe we're hearing also some from the port as well as financial management tonight. So. Mr. West.
Speaker 3: Yes, Mayor, council members tonight we're going to hear budget reports from the harbor. That's the director, John Slinger up. And then that'll be followed by our finance director giving the finance department report. John GROSS So, Mr. Slinger.
Speaker 1: You're up. Thank you. Good afternoon. Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. I'm John Slinger, chief executive of the harbor department. Pleased to be here. And with me is Steve Rubin, who is our head of finance and administration, as well as Noelle Hasegawa, who runs our trade and communications organization. I'd also like to introduce Samira Ashley, who.
Speaker 4: Serves on.
Speaker 1: Our. Government Relations group. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present the Harvard Department's fiscal year 2015 budget. We are proposing a budget of nearly $858,000,000 million for the coming year. Our proposed spending plan is down about 16% from last year's budget, and this is largely due to the pace of our capital spending, which has slowed slightly from the pace of last year's record capital program. Still, the proposed budget is among our biggest ever. Approximately two thirds of the budget is comprised of capital improvement programs. And to remain competitive, the Port of Long Beach needs to continually reinvest in major facility upgrades. Our capital program leads the U.S. port industry totaling more than $4 billion this decade alone. In the process, we're creating thousands of much needed jobs in Long Beach and throughout Southern California. This is a summary of how we spend or how we plan to fund our fiscal 2015 expenditures. There's five categories that I'm going to be going through in detail, slide by slide. The largest source of funding is our operating revenue, which comes from the leases and fees we charge for use of our facilities. We expect our operating revenues to remain on par with what we forecast for this year. Vessel operators are still struggling to rebound from the 28 recession. And this is especially true with the container cargo business that accounts for the majority of our revenue. Several major shipping lines are forming new alliances that could move calls from one port to another. These evolving conditions create both market uncertainty and potential opportunity for the harbor department. Based on these unknowns, however, we've made a very conservative forecast projecting flat revenue growth for fiscal 2015. Our second largest source of funding is NONOPERATING revenues. These are generally grants from state and federal agencies, and in the coming year, the largest grants will be for the ongoing construction of a replacement for the Gerald Desmond Bridge. Of the projected $1.3 billion total cost of the bridge project approx. Approximately 800 million will come from grants in the near future. We'll be hosting an event to celebrate the next major milestone of the bridge project, the construction of the foundation upon which the bridge will stand. It's going to be a very exciting event to host. Other remaining sources of funds. 53 million will come from the state. I'm sorry, from the sale of the last of the port own gantry trains. And with this transaction, all of the ship to shore cranes will be owned by our terminal operators throughout the port. In addition to help pay for our capital programs. We're planning to borrow $115 million through revenue bonds. Given our financial strength, we have maintained a Double-A credit rating, which is among the highest for U.S. ports. This comes from a disciplined approach to managing our finances. For example, we maintain more than 600 days of operating cash on hand at all times. We also maintain a minimum of a 2 to 1 revenue to debt ratio, which exceeds 1.25 to 1 ratio required by our bondholders. The final funding source of 52 million will come from our existing port fund balances. Now let me shift to our expenditures. Personnel services represent our staffing expenses. Non personnel is for our operations, interdepartmental charges, new equipment and the cash transfer to the Tidelands Fund. Then there's the repayment of our debt, followed by our largest cash outlay, our capital investments. I'll discuss each of these categories in detail as we go forward. But as you can see, we're spending about 16% less in total than last year, primarily due to reduced capital spending. And again, our capital outlay is far and away the biggest share of our budget, about two thirds of our total spending. This capital budget represents our ongoing commitment to investing in the future of our harbor department and the economic development of our city and the region. Currently, these projects support thousands of construction jobs, including employment for several hundred Long Beach residents. Regarding the Desmond Bridge replacement project this year. We've cleared the path for construction and now we commenced actual construction of the bridge bridge foundations. So we're very, very exciting that the bridge is actually starting to take shape. At Little Harbor. Some of the world's biggest and most technically advanced cranes are now being installed and tested. Phase one of this key project will go live next year in 2015. This project is creating the world's greenest terminal operation and is doubling its capacity and cutting emissions.
Speaker 4: By more than half.
Speaker 1: Among our other environmental projects are more shore power, plug in berths and community grants for air quality related improvements. Also in the coming year, we're taking delivery of two new fire boats, which are much bigger and more powerful to deal with today's largest ships being built. We're increasing our personnel services spending to satisfy step increases in negotiated salary increases. In addition, we're adding positions to support additional construction activity. We continue to expand our engineering staff with 20 more positions, and one of our key objectives is to reduce dependency on outside consultants to ensure that core knowledge is transferred to and retained by our team. We're also creating an in-house construction and maintenance dove team to reduce construction, construction and contracting costs. And we're adding security staff in large part to help with the traffic that has been been increasing around many of our construction sites. Our operating expenses. Are increasing to accommodate critical projects. Most of the spending is for maintenance of roads and utilities, but these costs also include $1.5 million to support the testing of a clean air barge under development as the alternative maritime maritime emissions control system. This this system. Hooks up to the exhaust stack of a ship which captures the exhaust, then cleans the emissions and effectively produces a near zero emission operation. If approved by state regulators, these barges could be deployed in the very near future, providing another way for us to eliminate emissions from vessels of birth and those vessels that otherwise can't have electrical ship to shore capabilities. We're also spending $1.8 million on the development of a hybrid electric truck system that will operate with overhead electric wires, which will allow zero emission truck operations within the port. And we're planning to spend nearly 1 million to support Long Beach's signature civic events, such as the Grand Prix, the municipal band, many festivals, parades, educational programs and other activities that make this city a true community. Our inter-departmental changes or charges, I'm sorry, are increasing by nearly 18%, largely reflecting the Harbor Department's share of various city operations. This includes the cost of a new city financial and information system. It also includes police services, which are up 3%, reflecting a recent reorganization, as well as fire services, which are up substantially to support the operations of the two new fire boats also are transferred to the Tidelands Tidelands Fund, which supports Beach and Marina projects, is estimated to be about $17 million and and it may be adjusted to reflect.
Speaker 4: Actual year end revenues.
Speaker 1: In summary, our proposed spending plan for the coming year is very robust, one of our biggest budgets ever. Because of the evolving alliances and competition among vessel operators, we're forecasting flat growth in operating revenues. But to gain a competitive edge. We're moving ahead with a very aggressive capital program, although a smaller investment than last year. We are proposing to add 28 positions in total, mainly in engineering and security, to support ongoing capital projects. Our spending continues to improve, and greenport operations in creating thousands of much needed jobs and economic activity in this region are really the focus of this budget. Finally, we are proud that the Port of Long Beach remains financially strong and we continue to work on making the port even stronger. That concludes my presentation and I will look forward to answering questions at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Schlanger. Up. And now we're going to be moving on to financial management, and then we'll come back for questions.
Speaker 3: Director John GROSS.
Speaker 5: Thank you for them for the opportunity, mayor and Council members to present information about the Department of Financial Management. Many of the functions of this department are behind the scenes, but the functions are critical to the provision of services to our citizens. The title of the department describes many of its functions financial management the department helps plan for and helps set policy for how money will be both used and how it will be saved. Department tracks money in the department accounts for it. The department is also involved in identifying sources of money and in collecting money, and it has major roles in defining and implementing controls to make sure the money is properly managed and spent. Financial management also directs a number of important functions that are outside of traditional financial areas. And I'm going to talk about a number of core services that the department provides. Accounting, financial reporting, accounts payable, call bill paying and payroll or traditional finance areas. We have complex accounting requirements in the city. We're not only large, we also have unusual complexities due to our enterprise in grant operations. Payroll is also very complex because we have employees who work 24 hour shifts, over 500 types of pay, and about a hundred different types of payroll deductions. Financial planning and budget development and management are the flashiest part of the department and they are very important. Developing a good financial plan, having a financially sound budget and good budget management are all keys to long term provision of quality services for our citizens. Long Beach has over $1.5 billion in investments outstanding at any time and a $2.3 billion in outstanding debt issues. These are large portfolios for any city. The existing debt portfolio is complex and require significant ongoing management. But on top of managing the current portfolio, we are almost always working on at least one new debt issue or major financing issue. In addition, financial management not only makes many of the city's purchases, it monitors compliance with city requirements, as well as encouraging local businesses, minority and small businesses to participate in the city purchasing. The department registers businesses after ensuring that they have the necessary approvals and it collects the associated business licensing tax. Financial management also manages the entertainment process in the city, including hearings, review and revocations, financial management bills, and collects all utility bills, all parking citations, ambulance bills. We also handle delinquent bill collections. Financial management plays a role in the city's financial controls, in financial emergency preparedness, and in designing and maintaining the operations of the city's financial systems . Customer service is very important to us in this whole realm, whether we have internal customers or customers that are residents, businesses or visitors outside of the normal financial area. The department is responsible for fleet acquisitions, fleet maintenance and towing and line sales. With fleet operations part of the financial management department, there is substantial emphasis on financial aspects of these operations and a high degree of emphasis on customer service due to the department's inherent emphasis on customers and its independence from any department that uses fleet services. We have a number of accomplishments. I wanted to mention at least a few. Our annual financial report has received a national award for a number of years. This award by the Government Finance Officers Association is a nice recognition of quality accounting and reporting. Financial management has recently implemented the decentralization of accounts payable. Again, that's our bill paying process that decentralization improves controls and oversight improves efficiency, improves relations with vendors, and helps prepare for our new financial system. That part went through the Budget Office. It's constantly looking at revenues and revenue sources, both to project the amount we will receive and to identify revenue areas that may need to be addressed. However, in general, maximizing revenues is a massive undertaking and impacted by many factors. Our debt issuance function has done very well. We not only provide the city with financing for projects that may need complex finance funding, but we have saved millions of dollars in interest costs by finding ways for the city to take advantage of low interest rates on previously issued debt. The city also has a very good credit rating, an AA rating from the Fitch rating agency and similar ratings from other agencies. This is a testament to both the city's good practices and more importantly, an indication, as stated by the rating agencies themselves of good financial management decisions by the City Council. Over the years, the consistent, ongoing and successful installation of new major systems is another accomplishment, but it is also a source of some concern because of the major diversion that these system, major diversion of staff that these system implementations cause. The systems implemented or being implemented include utility billing, business licensing, parking, citation processing, fleet management systems, debt management and the citywide financial H.R. Systems. Whoops. Going in the wrong direction. In terms of our budget summary, the budget is $65 million, 241 full time equivalent positions, but two thirds of that budget and almost half staff are for fleet and towing operations. These operations charge for the services and the costs are reimbursed. The total general fund budget on the financial side is about $8 million. Budgeted costs for the department are higher than that, but other funds reimburse the general fund for services provided. Most of the significant changes in the department's budget are in fleet services. Spending for the city's fleet vehicles has been unusually low for the last few years. This year we are proposing an increase of 4.1 million to restore annual purchases to a normal level. To begin to keep the city's fleet reliable and cost effective. To maintain the funding comes from dedicated from a dedicated fleet acquisition account, not the general fund. The age of the fleet and repair costs have significantly increased over the last few years. This year we expect to replace 160 to 200 vehicles with this funding, including police patrol vehicles. In other words, our black and whites street sweepers refuse trucks and utility trucks. This is out of a fleet of about 1900 vehicles. The actual vehicles to be replaced will be identified based on a study now underway that will determine what vehicles to replace. And that determination will be what minimizes the city's overall cost with respect to those vehicles. We're also proposing some maintenance work on the Temple and Willow Fleet facilities building. This building has not had significant major maintenance since it was built about 15 years ago. The pros work on the heating system. Roof repairs and exterior painting and ceiling will help preserve the facility. Jeep's, more known as telematics in the fleet industry, will be put on all vehicles where there is benefit to the city. GPS systems have tremendously improved in capability and provide both real time and passive monitoring of the vehicle's health and driver and vehicle behavior. This is a best practices, best business practice and includes real time reporting of vehicle malfunctions, excessive idling vehicle location and poor and unsafe driving behavior. We're going to have about 1500 vehicles so equipped when we're done. Terms of significant issues and opportunities. We have a few big one being the new Financial Human Resources System project. It's a huge but necessary undertaking. The project will bring modern capabilities to our management systems and end the serious risk of major system problems in the future . This type of citywide system replacement is the single biggest computer project a city can undertake. These huge private projects can be problematic. It is the goal of this project to avoid major problems. Staff assigned to the project will need to be immersed in the implementation of the new systems to understand them at the most detailed level. And they will need to know the city's detailed processes and procedures to be able to design how the new systems will be configured and programed. In addition, many of the city's financial and human resources, processes and policies will need to be redesigned either because they are antiquated already or because they do not work efficiently, or sometimes even at all. With new systems, key staff will need to be dedicated to the project for an extended period of time. The impact will be felt most strongly beginning next year and for at least a year after that. While the goal of the project will be to minimize the impact as much as possible, the project will need to be a top priority for finance, human resources and the Technology Services Department. The Civic Center, if City Council chooses to move forward, is an extraordinarily complex financial transaction. It will also require a major effort. Labor negotiations over the next year will also occur and require substantial effort. As I previously mentioned, we're making changes in the way we determine which vehicles to replace and when we are conducting a study to improve our approach to vehicle replacements, not replacing vehicles too soon or too late, but rather at the point that minimizes total cost. At the same time, we are constantly working to make the fleet greener. Whether it is through the use of alternative fuels, fleet reduction or reducing the size of vehicles themselves to get better mileage. And I guess in conclusion, the department in all its operations, including Fleet, Fleet and Towing, has many dedicated employees. These are people who put a lot of effort into their jobs and have a desire to do a good job for the city and improve the city for its residents and businesses. Other departments, including the city auditor, have also had a substantial role in financial management and control and in budget development and management. They are all part of the citywide team that provides these financial services to the city and I very much want to express my appreciation for the work and dedication of the financial management employees and the employees throughout the city who work in similar functions. That concludes my presentation.
Speaker 1: Q We're going to begin with council questions and Mr. Off with Councilmember Price.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. GROSS, first of all, thank you for all the work that you do for the city and all the insight that you give us on our budget. As we move ahead, I really appreciate it. I wanted to talk with you specifically about the $4.1 million, roughly $4.1 million one time adjustment for the Fleet Acquisition Fund . You mentioned that that money is coming from a Fleet acquisition fund, not the general fund. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: That is correct.
Speaker 0: And so does that mean that that $4.1 million is earmarked specifically and limited to use of fleet acquisition?
Speaker 5: Yes, it is. In one more comment. It really probably isn't one time. The the the Fleet Fund has had a ignore abnormally low expenditures last year. It would probably normally be our recommendation to spend around the amount you're seeing in this FY15 budget. We are very far behind. That is really just a normal level.
Speaker 0: And the Fleet Acquisition Fund, how is that fund created?
Speaker 5: The fleet acquisitions operation looks at each vehicle, identifies how long its that vehicle lasts and then charges let's say it lasts for five years. I'm simplifying things. That would be the case of a police vehicle. The police department has just basically charged one fifth of that cost each year so that in the fifth year the money has been accumulated. That's done for each department on a vehicle by vehicle basis.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Was that it comes from reprice or. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. I just had a couple of questions. And first, I want to thank Mr. Slater up and Mr. GROSS for for their great reports. In last year's budget, a new bureau was actually created in financial management called financial controls. And Mr. GROSS, can you describe what this what role this bureau is currently providing for your department? Yes, this is a small bureau, has three FTE that is intended to generally improve financial controls and management in the city. Our financial controls and processes are not as good as they should be. That's something that became evident when I came to the city. The causes include antiquated financial systems in there and in the cities, and it's many. It's really a good thing, but it's a relentless focus on productivity and services to residents and cost cutting. Those are very good things. But what often happens in an organization is when you do that, you are unintentionally weakened controls. That has happened here and it's happened in innumerable other governments and organizations whenever budget cost cutting and efficiency improvements occur. So this this bureau is intended to help improve controls throughout the city. There are two specific areas that that we're going to be focusing on. The new financial systems, which will be a major effort and a major opportunity to improve controls. They will be this group will be focused on that next year and also on financial controls and processes in emergency situations. This is what happens in the event of an earthquake or something similar to that. That's an area in which our financial controls and processes really badly need work. So those are two areas of emphasis. Sometimes it's asked of me, Well, how is that operation different from our city auditor? And I describe it as a symbiotic relationship. They work in synergy. The Financial Controls Bureau does not do audits. The city auditor does audits. On the other hand, the city auditor does not develop financial controls and processes. And this financial control bureau, that is its primary function. So they work together to try to improve financial controls and management in the city. So let me answer your question. Yeah, that you quite you did. And I thank you for for going into detail. And this is the first time that I actually heard that we there was a symbiotic relationship between that bureau and the city auditor's office. So so thank you. So you you forecast that being a long term bureau or D, do you see yourself in the next couple of years reorganizing in any way? That's a good question. I think in the next I don't think in the next couple of years its focus will be on our financial system and the emergency financial control procedures. Those are the areas that most badly need the work on the financial systems because we're putting in brand new systems and this is the way, best and fastest way to improve controls. And as I said before, our emergency procedures badly need work. The Bureau will not go away. The need for improving controls and revising them is a pretty big task. What will happen, and I think what you're referring to is what it works on will change somewhat. They will move to different emphases. As time moves on, we get something improved. We will move to change it so that the effort, what they will work on specifically will change. The overall goals will not. Okay, I guess it sounds like it's working. I also noticed that the projected revenues from the business licenses is down from f y 13 and you're actually projecting lower revenues in FY 15. Do you have any explanations as to why we're experiencing such a downward trend in that that area revenues? We're not really expecting a downward trend in business revenues. I think what is happening is that we're doing extremely well this year and and that we're not necessarily suggesting that it's going to be that . Well, it could be. It could be as well next year. But there's been a change in the we don't expect a decrease. And then my last question, I guess, would be for the city manager, because it's just been something that has been bugging me. I notice that Fleet Services is under financial management. Can you explain why organizationally that is the case?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Fleet Services is in financial management in many organizations. It's also in public works. It recently was in public works. We basically took it took fleet services out of public works. Public purse was growing so much and wanted to have a little bit more control in operation. So we put it to finance under Mr. GROSS. We also have a brand new fleet manager, Mr. Dan Berlin, who's with us tonight as well. And he works in finance managing this Fleet Department.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And Mr. GROSS, thank you so much for that riveting presentation. I know I only have questions for Mr. Slager up. But I thank you for the presentation. Mr. Slinger up first of all, your PowerPoint was much more colorful, colorful than the others. And and so whatever you're doing, keep it up, because I was able to so pay attention to read the whole thing. I just want to I just wanted to chime in on one slide in particular, operating expenses. I noticed a couple of things, the clean air barges and and I know that's a program that that is it's new technology and it's taken us in the direction to have a zero emissions port. Can you expand on that? My question is, when can when, by your estimation, if we keep heading down this direction, investing, making investments like this, how soon can we say we'll have a zero emissions port as it relates to providing options for every single container ship that that comes in the Amex's?
Speaker 1: Service in the Amex.
Speaker 2: System.
Speaker 1: Is being tested and.
Speaker 2: Demonstrated as part of its commissioning and approval process. In other words, the the various regulators and in the city have to approve. I mean, in the state have to prove the viability of the system.
Speaker 4: An actual demonstration is occurring tomorrow morning, which is one of the final demonstrations that we're going to see before certification takes place.
Speaker 1: And once certification does take place.
Speaker 2: Then the the next effort is, of course, is going to be to purchase and and and build and then deploy numerous of these image systems across the port. Now, what it does specifically.
Speaker 1: Is that the technology itself and.
Speaker 2: This is this is a company that's been working on this for many, many years. But the technology itself in isolation is not new. These are known technologies. The what's what's been done that's.
Speaker 4: Unique is the integration of these various technologies into one.
Speaker 2: Comprehensive system that basically.
Speaker 4: Takes exhausts from diesel engines.
Speaker 2: And scrubs all of the bad pollutants out of it, basically delivering an inert exhaust.
Speaker 4: Free of things like NOx and Sox and all the bad things we want to eliminate out of emissions. It's like a gigantic catalytic converter on a car, rendering it very, very clean. In this case, more than half of the.
Speaker 2: Ships that visit the port do not have the the means to electrify their vessels and take advantage of of ship to shore electrical connections.
Speaker 1: And that's because these ships are infrequent.
Speaker 4: Visitors, but work or contracted by shippers, and therefore they have not.
Speaker 2: Or will not make the investment necessary to ship electrical plug in with this system with a assuming it's going to be certified. And we have.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 2: Confidence it will it will, in fact, change the the entire nature of our green program, because 100% of our ships at berth, as well as those that are being anchored offshore, could, in fact be subject to this type of technology. And therefore, we would have a dramatic impact on emissions profile for the port. And it's part of our objective for attaining the Air Resources Board.
Speaker 4: Standards for the next generation of clean emissions, and that's in 2023.
Speaker 2: So we've achieved all of this. We've achieved the 2014 attainment, and we're our eye now is on the 2023 attainment. So these are the types of technologies we're going to employ to do that very thing.
Speaker 4: I just want to applaud you in and just point out that it's really special that we in the near future will be able to see 100% of the ships that come and dock with us to take care of it, manage all of their emissions. I think that's impressive. And, and and I want to see that in future budgets, you continue to make these investments and to boards now and the community outreach you folks do a great job your team here and your your report does a great job with supporting the community festivals and things like that. I specifically want to call out the educational programs you guys have with your scholarships. Many folks might not know that you have a great scholarship program. That's something I'd like to see you expand in the future. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Any other questions? Seeing them there. I mean. Any other council questions? Let me just say first also to our two presentations tonight, and I know this concludes all of our our presentations from our departments and that have come forward. So thank you all. You all done a great job of presenting and putting together a great budget and budget presentations. And so, Patt, also make sure you communicate to your staff that we're appreciative of all these discussions and a lot of exciting stuff happening across across the city department. So thank you for that. And with that, I'm going to turn this going back to I think Vice Mayor Lowenthal is going to make a few comments and then I'm going to open it up for public comment and then we'll begin some of the budget resolutions.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to go ahead and thank staff for their presentations and also really the finance staff for all the homework that they've done to support the BRC in their deliberation and consideration of these items. On on hearing item one. If we could take up council members the initial items, 1.1 to 1.9. These are administrative budget items, which also include the budget for harbor and and the water department. And if we can go ahead and take up the motion to adopt fiscal year 15 budget items 1.1 through 1.9.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure also, Mr. Schilling, I mean, I need to do public comment as well, so.
Speaker 3: That's correct. And if we could take the items. Individual, individual, please.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Absolutely. I appreciate that. We can do that.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor. What I'm going to do is I'm going to go to public comment, but did you want to make a few more comments in the public comment?
Speaker 6: I do. So we'll go ahead and take them individually after our comments. So the Budget Oversight Committee has met a few times in the start of this budget process, and I wanted to thank all the members of the community that's come out to speak on these items. We've heard community priorities from public safety, which is always a community priority. We've heard priorities for park rangers, we've heard priorities for language access. And earlier in the Budget Oversight Committee, the recommendation was to receive and file the staff recommendation for language access, which I believe amounts to just over $149,000. However, in further consideration, I will be making an amended motion and hoping to receive support to find an additional $100,000 for language access. In order to bring that up to a rough estimate of about $250,000, I just wanted to provide that caveat because I know just about an hour and a half ago, we left the meeting with a different with a different motion, and that is the box motion. But we will make it in an amended motion here and hope to receive support from the Council on the Park Rangers item. I do believe each council member supports the concept of greater security at parks, but when we consider what council members have have spoken to and supported, we we would like to support greater security through our police department. Our police department does a phenomenal job here in the city of Long Beach. And what we would like to do is ensure that the parks are really considered as part of their their territory as well to provide greater public safety for our residents and our visitors. The Parks Department director has provided us an update on his park security program, the pilot program, we we believe, through Budget Oversight Committee, and will make this recommendation, certainly to give that program an opportunity to be successful, to launch initially and then be successful. And we'll also make a recommendation to shift the cost center of the park rangers to police so that they are reporting to police as opposed to a non sworn director of Parks Recreation Marine, which he's a fabulous director, but we don't know that park rangers should be reporting to them. And so our recommendation is not to expand the park ranger program, but it will be at the time that we make the recommendation, certainly will be to ensure that the cost center of our existing park rangers get shifted to police and that we would support the Director of Parks, Recreation and Marine in his proposal for the pilot security program. And those are the comments I have for right now, Mr. Mayor, and I'll wait for the remainder comments when we make the motions.
Speaker 1: Okay. So what we do now is open up for public comment on on the budget and then we will begin going through all the different I believe there's a total of 16 resolutions that we have to go through tonight. So public comment, please come forward if there's a comment. Okay. See, see? No public comment.
Speaker 6: You can do that through the circles of the. Oh, I'm sorry. I just. I know.
Speaker 5: Sorry about.
Speaker 1: That. No problem. It's okay.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council. My name is Renee Castro, and I live at 6.6 Grand Avenue in the third district. I just want to start by thanking Councilmember or Vice Mayor Susilo at all who contributed another $100,000 to the language access policy. I mean, that's incredible. It's it's an incredible sign. There's been a lot of community engagement on this. We've been doing large visits with you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. It's it's been an incredible discussion. I really also want to appreciate staff's work on this. I do, though, along with the coalition, really want to emphasize that, you know, to fund the full policy, again, is 360,000. There would be 150 plus the 209,000. I feel like the full policy is 1.2 million, as you all know. And, you know, we continue to talk about costs. But, I mean, there's there's really efficiencies that we could create when we focus on greater language access and democratic engagement. And I'm not smart enough to do those to do that kind of analysis. But, you know, hopefully at some point we can continue to talk about efficiencies. I think this is just a really unique opportunity for the council. And you, Mr. Mayor, in your in your first term, what I hope is your first term, you know, to really demonstrate some bold leadership. I realize it's it's a tough ask right now, especially for one time funds. But again, we really plead with the council and you, Mr. Mayor, to thank you so much. A couple of weeks ago, you lifted the cap and you said, I think this is reasonable. $360,000 to support people who are monolingual like yourself. Mr. Mayor, growing up in this city, I think I think is a is a reasonable investment. And I thank you so much for your leadership. I think this is a great start. But tonight, again, we're hoping that the council supports us with the full 360,000. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name's Madison with the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition and the Language Access Coalition. And just to add to what our partner Vinny said, while we appreciate the potential over 100,000 added to the already 150 allocated, we do want to reiterate why this additional money of 10 to 210000 is important. There have been some issues raised at the B or C, but we would like to address the importance of, again, the translation of documents that 30,000 documents translated into garlic for documents that already exist in Spanish for an additional 7000 automated voice mails in languages in three languages at 1000 907,000, the translation of 25 most commonly used web pages. The training of staff acting as interpreters at 56,000. The notice of policy for the use of outreach for the community at 13 K. And then the use of a citywide language learning not just public works at 50 K. So again, while we appreciate the work that has been done. We do feel it's important to fully implement this policy at the 210,000 key that we ask for to have a real meaningful startup up for our community. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name's Laura Merrifield.
Speaker 7: I'm with Building Healthy Communities Long Beach. I wanted to I wanted to say that if it feels like there's a lot of numbers that have been going around, it's because there are a lot of different numbers that are going around. And part of that is the hard work, right, both on our staff side, on us as advocates looking at these different reports. And so, you know, I know it's been just a lot that's been floating around. And just one thing I did want to just reiterate is that the last week council directed staff to look at something beyond, you know, to look at additional funding without a cap. And so I really appreciate the additional 100,000 suggested. And that brings us very close to what we've been asking for, which is, as Rene said, you know, about 360,000 in total. So we're really only asking now 100, 110 above those basic recommendations. And, you know, it's taken us a long time to get here and those numbers keep moving. But we know that the more resources we have, we can really fund this policy. You know, we're asking for additional telephonic lines, not just I believe it'd be about 67 covered under these new recommendations. We want to make sure that, you know, we have 25 Web pages, not just ten. We want to do this in full and not just our as full as we can with the resources we have. Council Member Mungo earlier mentioned a potential 311 line to direct phone calls, which we think is a great idea. But again, that phone line only is as useful as the language access behind it once people are referred. And so we just want to be very clear, you know, that we're here. We're going to we really we feel like we've made some compromises, but we're here to ask for full funding at 360,000 and to consider that funding from these one time oil revenues and other sources. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Jonathan McGregor.
Speaker 5: I live at nine four Redondo Avenue, and I'm here with Alex in Long Beach. First, we want to thank you, Mayor Garcia, for a meeting with those earlier today.
Speaker 8: We are hopeful. City Council follows your lead.
Speaker 5: And addresses their concerns.
Speaker 8: Remain hopeful that we will be able to.
Speaker 5: Work together to find meaningful and comprehensive solutions to the housing crisis here in Long Beach. At the same.
Speaker 8: Time, this budget process has been a frustrating.
Speaker 5: One for community members who have come in support.
Speaker 8: Of affordable housing and the use of and funds housing. Long Beach Staff Board and resident leaders.
Speaker 5: Have attended every public budget meeting to date and have received no recognition.
Speaker 8: Or support from the City Council regarding their concerns. A basic tenet of healthy democracy is open dialog between the people and their leaders when they go out to talk to my neighbors and friends to encourage them to engage in the local democratic process. Time after time I hear from them.
Speaker 5: That is a waste of time and why.
Speaker 8: Vote when nothing changes? But I still go out and we still attend these meetings and stay late. Stay late to express their concerns, because we believe that the only way to find meaningful solutions is by working together. We house in Long Beach and the residents who make up our community base.
Speaker 2: Understand that the budgets are difficult and that they're allocating. The property tax.
Speaker 8: Revenues to housing can be a.
Speaker 2: Politically challenging task. However, for the past weeks we have felt ignored and began.
Speaker 8: To understand why people must feel discouraged to share their concerns at city council meetings. See, it is not simply the lack of support on this issue, but the silence. The silence from.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 8: Earlier. That concerns us. The silence and lack of support is not something we expect. It's something we expect from a city council members. Your obligation as city council members is to address residents and their concerns. We share this because we still very much desire to have a healthy working relationship with you. Beyond government. There will be many opportunities that we will have to work together to increase affordable housing and improve the stock of existing housing. Healthy working relationships are building respect and communication, and our desire from here on out is to build this with you. We do this work because we know that housing has a significant impact on the wellbeing of self, in the experiences of families across our city struggling to provide for their families and have a healthy life.
Speaker 5: If we make housing a priority, we can work together to alleviate the housing crisis in our city. Thank you so much. And we look forward to working with all of you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Won't you hold up right there one sec. I wanted to say something to you guys real quick, so I know that you guys have been here for for many weeks and others that are that are in the audience as well. And I appreciate the meeting that I had today and that we've had continuously. So what I just want to say to all of you is I'm fairly certain in my conversations with other members of this council that everyone understands that affordable housing and the discussion around it is important and that we're going to have. And so what I would say is I know that even though we've been in office for a short amount of time or most of us, you've all been advocating for a very long time, longer than most of us have been on the council. And so I understand that frustration. But I will say that we think collectively and I speak, I think, for for for the council. And if not, a people can chime in. We understand there's a there's a need. And over the next few months, I personally plan to engage on discussions. I know others will as well. There's a lot of opportunity at the state level, next year's budget discussions that we're going to have about this issue. And the issue is much broader than $2.5 million, $2.5 million is going to build this. How many units? A handful of new units. The the issue is a much larger issue if we're really going to look at building significant amounts of affordable housing at all levels, low income workforce, we've talked about teacher housing, all the other things that are out there that's going to take a lot of heavy lifting from from all of you, but also from us. And I think I think we have we hear that this is a budget that is being implemented not just by us, but being recommended also by by a former body. And so I think that I'll just say we're doing the best we can with what we have. But I think this is this discussion is going to be elevated. And so you have my commitment. I'm not I don't I haven't been announcing, you know, initiatives or things that are important just to throw them out there. But they are going to be discussed in a meaningful way. And I think at the end of the next year, you're going to see significant progress in the discussion. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and turn this back over to Councilmember Price.
Speaker 0: I apologize. I hit that. Oh.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: I just wanted to I just wanted to say thank you to the housing advocates. I know you guys have worked so hard. And like the mayor said, you know, we we certainly all agree that, you know, this is certainly important. And I know that our office has been working with other organizations like Habitat for Humanity in obtaining, you know, affordable housing. So this is still going to continue on our radar. It's one of our priorities, the fact that it's not the amount, you know, that we we can we can do now. Does it mean that it's fallen off the radar? So I also assure you that will be committed to this as well.
Speaker 1: Okay. And with that, I'm going to go and turn this over to two to walk us through some of the items and trips over to the bossy chair to go over the budget resolution items.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I, too, want to thank the Housing Coalition for their advocacy and firmly believe in what the mayor is saying about us having a larger conversation, a citywide conversation about the need for housing. And I'm thankful that you mentioned that tonight and made that commitment on our behalf. I do appreciate that. Mr. City Attorney, you'd like to see us go through items 1.1 through 1.9 individually, correct?
Speaker 8: That is correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. So council members, if. If I may, item 1.1, I move to recommend to adopt resolution approving the fiscal year 15 budget for the Long Beach Harbor Department as adopted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners on July 14, 2014. | Agenda Item | WITHDRAWN
Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and take the actions necessary to adopt the Fiscal Year 2015 budget as listed in Attachment A. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0686 | Speaker 6: Okay. Council members from the block committee, we made a recommendation. It was a unanimous recommendation from the Budget Oversight Committee to adopt the mayor's proposed budget recommendations as amended to fiscal year 15 proposed budget. Councilmember one go. Once SEC.
Speaker 0: They won't get a chance to say it.
Speaker 8: But don't.
Speaker 6: It's my mistake. It is as recommended by the mayor.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 6: Version in a second. So this is to and I'm sorry for the confusion. This is true. Adopt the mayor's proposed budget recommendations to the fiscal year 15 proposed budget as proposed by the mayor. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wish to address the Council on this item? Seeing none. Members cast your vote.
Speaker 0: This motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. I have a procedural question, Charlie, on the language access item, the budget oversight committees recommendation was received in file. Am I able to make an amendment to that. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to adopt the Mayor's proposed budget recommendations, as amended, to the FY 15 Proposed Budget. (A-10) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0688 | Speaker 6: Yes, it is 112 item 1.12. I make the motion to declare ordinance amending the departmental organization ordinance. That makes no sense.
Speaker 8: What?
Speaker 6: I make the motion to declare an ordinance amending the departmental organization ordinance reading the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting to the City Council for final reading. Thank you. There's been a motion in a second, and I know that Miss Erickson would like to address this item, please.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Vice Mayor. This item before you, has been amended based on the mayor's recommendations that were passed just a few minutes ago as item 1.10 and specifically on page ten, online 11. We are renaming the Department of Technology Services to Technology and Innovation Department. So that is the change on this item.
Speaker 6: So I am in my motion to the recommended change that Ms.. Erickson just articulated. So second to that, there's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wants to address Council on item 1.1 to seeing nonmembers cast your vote?
Speaker 1: Okay. Actually, there is a a coming from customary ranga.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mary. I want to also I want to compliment the civil service department for its restructuring and reinstituting the recruitment division into its department, because recruitment obviously is very important when we come to looking at the diversity in the city. As I mentioned in the previous meeting, diversity is an important issue within the city in regards to how we address the needs of our community and the changing demographics that we have in the recruitment division will be one of those divisions that would address diversity in our employment and our representation as to better opportunity and access for people in the community to not only get jobs, but to service our individual residents. So I commend the civil service department for that as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have an item before us. We've done public comment. Any public comments to mayor?
Speaker 6: I think I think we have comments from Councilmember or at least questions. And I have a question to Mr. Ericson as well. The department change, the name change. Can you repeat that? From what to what?
Speaker 7: So, Vice Mayor, it's the Technology Services Department and it's actually on page eight and it's now going to be the Technology and Innovation Department.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Technology services to technology innovation, correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And then there was a quick ask a question about Councilmember Mongo. I know you didn't mention the director of Economic and Property Development change on 13. Is that part of this this motion as well, or no.
Speaker 7: Mr. Mayor, that's going to be the next item.
Speaker 6: 1.13. Thank you. So, members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 0: Motion carries nine zero.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Item 1.13. I moved to adopt the amended salary resolution for fiscal year 15, and I believe Ms.. Eriksen has an amendment to that. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance adopting an amendment to Ordinance No. C-6496, adopted July 5, 1988, and amended on January 24, 1989, July 11, 1989, December 5, 1989, March 20, 1990, July 3, 1990, September 18, 1990, July 2, 1991, July 7, 1992, January 26, 1993, August 24, 1993, June 28, 1994, July 18, 1995, November 28, 1995, October 1, 1996, March 25, 1997, October 7, 1997, October 27, 1998, April 20, 1999, October 19, 1999, October 17, 2000, October 30, 2001, March 19, 2002, November 26, 2002, January 6, 2004, February 8, 2005, November 1, 2005, December 5, 2006, March 20, 2007, May 22, 2007, December 18, 2007, July 15, 2008, September 21, 2010, September 13, 2011, September 11, 2012, and October 3, 2013, relating to departmental organization of the City of Long Beach, read and adopted as read. (A-12) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0676 | Speaker 0: Item 13. Communication from City Auditor Recommendation to receive and file the summary report on Proposition H for fiscal year 27 through 2013 code.
Speaker 1: It has been in motion and in the second. And with that, I'm going to turn this over to our city auditor, who is going to make some comments on the on the audit and her work on that.
Speaker 0: So thank you very much. Appreciate your time tonight. I just have a brief summary report to report to you this evening. I really appreciate your discussion earlier on the importance of public safety. This was a measure that was I have a little PowerPoint, I'll be moving along, but it wasn't supposed to be like little keyboard here.
Speaker 1: Madam Clerk, is there something for the auditor there?
Speaker 0: Okay. This was a measure that was passed in 2027. Four. For those of you that weren't here, maybe I can just give a little brief history. One of the first audits our office did was to review the oil production tax in Long Beach and doesn't really seem to be working. Okay. There we go. Thank you. And we found that the oil production tax was first established in 1990 here in Long Beach at $0.15 a barrel. When we reviewed it compared to other neighboring cities, we found that Long Beach was the lowest out of all the taxes. So we recommended to the council that it be increased by $0.25 per barrel to bring it in line with the neighboring cities. We collaborated with the council, with the mayor, with the oil production companies, and they agreed that $0.40 was fair and equitable. The council put that $0.25 increase on the ballot and allocated that to public safety. So I'm here tonight because seven years later we have information and data to show that this has been a consistent and reliable revenue stream and has benefited public safety greatly in the city of Long Beach. It was it was an overwhelming success as far as the vote. Over 70% of the vote of the people, the first time in the history of Long Beach that the tax increase had passed. And to report to you over the past seven years, the city of Long Beach has brought in $22 million through this oil production tax . It has spent $19 million on personnel staffing, 12 police officers, 11 firefighters over the past seven years to improve and strengthen public safety throughout the city. The additional $2.8 million was spent on fire, truck acquisition, retrofit technology uniforms and other safety needs. And the ordinance also required our office to perform an annual financial audit to ensure that the city is in fact receiving and collecting all the revenue due from the oil producers and that the money is spent as intended according to the code. So our office has agenda is that item for the September 16th consent calendar. I'll be happy to answer to any questions at this time. But I did want to just briefly report tonight that this is a really positive revenue stream for the city, and it has produced $3.5 million annually for public safety specifically. And I really want to thank the mayor and the City Council for their collaboration and for what a great benefit this is tangible benefits for our community in strengthening public safety, as well as thanking the police chief and the fire chief for identifying the most beneficial ways of protecting our city by our use of this money. So that's my.
Speaker 1: Report. Thank you. And thank you. I'll just let me just add briefly, just I know they speak for most just thank you for all your hard work on on all the issues, particularly this one. I think you've done a great job and it was widely written about in the press, which I know we all have had a chance to read. It was great to see that, you know, that your work and the work of the council got the type of real good, thoughtful coverage that it did. Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I truly want to thank our city auntie, Mrs. Laura Dowd, you and her staff for that very, you know, informative report on Prop eight. You know what? While while I do appreciate the carryover funds and the interests that it attracts, I want to make sure that we are all supplying the police and the fire department with all the tools they need to continue to keep our city and street safe. And thank you very much, Mrs. Dowd.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 4: I also wanted to chime in and just say great work and thank you for showing this data. I think it really builds good faith with the voters to show that when they step out and make investments in our city, we do track it and we spend it the right way appropriately to provide the services that are much needed and they count on. So thank you for providing that transparency.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 2: I just want to acknowledge the work of Brian Meneghini, my chief of staff, who actually led the ground effort on this campaign to get this passed. So that was how it was a collaboration, like you mentioned for sure. I just want to acknowledge him. Thank you. The people.
Speaker 4: Who actually run the campaign and do the do the.
Speaker 2: Groundwork don't often get acknowledged. So congratulations to him for helping get this passed as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Ringa.
Speaker 9: I'm not sure if this update comes every year, but it certainly explains a lot of things for me in regards to how our moneys are spent with with the transfer of funds that go to it to to provide additional officers where police departments. I want to thank you for that as well.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And we have a motion on the floor if there's any public comment on the item. See none. Thanks again for the report. Members, please cast your vote.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 0: Councilman Richardson. Motion carries nine zero.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Now we're going to be going back to 1.15, which is it turned back to Vice Mayor Lowenthal, which is the first of the two final votes. And I believe that everyone has the recommendations as amended. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file the Summary Report on
Proposition H (FY's 2007 - 2013). | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0692 | Speaker 6: Item 1.16. I moved to declare the appropriations ordinance for fiscal year 15, creating and establishing the funds of the municipal government and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from said funds and force said fiscal year as an emergency ordinance read an adopted as read and laid over to the actually no, just read and adopted as read. Are we laying it over for? Yes, we are yet and laying it over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading and council members. We have the hand out that's been passed out is. ERICKSEN Did you want to speak to it?
Speaker 7: Yes. Vice Mayor, you have at your desk three handouts. The first is the amended motion that includes both what was recommended by the U.S. and what was amended on the floor of council. So you this is the same as what you had before. But then there's a new section called Additional Changes on the floor of council, and there you'll have the $100,000 that goes to the language access plan from artificial turf conversion. And it makes note about the using money for the voice mail conversion to go towards L.A. P implementation to CUDA one phone number initiative and also includes the contingent appropriation for police overtime for residential burglary up to $350,000 from the FY 2014 up on surplus. And it also lastly includes the transfer of the park ranger program in parks to police and that is also subject to the meeting confer process. Also in front of you, you have exhibit A and Exhibit B, these are the appropriation ordinances, these appropriation ordinances with Exhibit A appropriate by fund the entire budget, and that includes the changes that were modified today. And then Exhibit B does the appropriation by department also includes the changes that were discussed today? And by approving this, you are approving and appropriating.
Speaker 0: The F 15 budget.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Ms.. ERICKSON And so council members, my motion is to include the amendments that we had agreed to, as well as both in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, the transfer amounts.
Speaker 1: There's been a there's been a motion and a second. Councilor Richardson.
Speaker 4: Just a point of clarification on the not exhibit A or Exhibit B, but the Bill C recommendations as amended on the floor. The use of the the use on the the one time council divided by nine funds, the description seems a little bit different. Is that a mistake?
Speaker 7: We're prepared this madam or councilmember. That actually wasn't amended. So that that should be noted that we did talk about was it up to $100,000 for 50 sorry, $50,000 per district for the park ranger program.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Not park range.
Speaker 8: Programing for.
Speaker 2: Part programing. Part programing.
Speaker 7: Part programing.
Speaker 1: So excellent. So we have a motion on the floor. I would take any public comment.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Suzanne Brown, senior attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation.
Speaker 7: Here in Long Beach. Congratulations. You're almost there. It's been a long night. One thing we just want to point out with respect to the language access motion, there might be a little bit of confusion. I think there was discussion about the 311 phone line and how it's a really good idea, but that it's not actually part of the policy. It's something that would be done separately. And so we would ask that that language be removed from the proposal before you and that the 311 line be examined separately, because that's really about general access for the city. It's not the language access issue. It's no matter what your language is, if you want to have a a policy where the doors and shut on you. So we would ask that that please be removed in the hundred thousand. Be fully dedicated to language access. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Closed public comment. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 0: Motion carries nine zero.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Just want to say just a few things. First, I want to congratulate the full City Council on passing a responsible, balanced and budget that really looks towards towards the future as far as putting my dollars aside. There's certainly always more need than there is resources. And I think that there are a lot of very credible programs, projects out there that were not as part of this budget that we all would like to see. And I think it's obviously up to us to move forward and work with the community and all of our and all of the stakeholders to ensure that we're able to meet the needs as far as we can afford that moving forward. So I wanted to congratulate the Council again on passing the budget early, which I think is says a lot about this new this new council coming in as well. They've been doing their work and it's been a thoughtful process. I also want to thank the members of the B or C, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell and Councilmember Stacy Mongeau for their work, as well as all the the meetings that happened throughout the community. Vice Chair Patrick O'Donnell And just that and and also I think we owe a big thank you to staff and not just obviously financial management and the city manager, but all of the employees and all the budget officers. And we have a significant amount of reason this work happens all year. They're working on the budget. They will start working on the budget again tomorrow. And so this is this is the kind of work that happens at the city. And so I wanted to thank all the budget staff and everyone that's involved in putting this budget together. This is a responsible budget, and I think everyone did a great job. So let's give them a round of applause. Council for for their hard work. And and with that, we will move on to the rest of the City Council meeting. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 0: Item 14 Report from Health and Human Services Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents with the State of California Department of Public Health in the amount of 4,540,000 for the Women, Infant and Children Nutrition Supplemental Program Citywide. | Emergency Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the official budget of the City of Long Beach for the Fiscal Year 2014 - 2015, creating and establishing the funds of the Municipal Government of the City of Long Beach and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from said funds for said fiscal year; declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 A.M. on October 1, 2014, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-14-0013) (A-16) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_09022014_14-0714 | Speaker 0: Item 19. Communication from Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilwoman Price. Councilwoman. Mongo. Recommendation to request that City Council communicated its expectations as a basis for confirming of the next assistant city manager.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I wanted to thank my co-sponsors, our co-sponsors on this item and really just to make a statement of the importance of getting the right candidate for assistant city manager. Our city manager and his team have done a tremendous job these last several years. We do, as a council, recognize the key role of assistant city manager and through this item, we wanted to reaffirm our desire to work closely with the city manager as a council, as a council, the whole body and the role of the city council to confirm the city manager's appointment and certainly the stakeholders of Long Beach. While there are only a couple of positions that the City Council has any direct input over, it is very important for us to keep in mind our stakeholders for the city who deserve a dynamic and professional and ethical and approachable assistant city manager who will help us reach our full potential as a city. I wanted to mention that while we cannot require that the assistant city manager live in the city of Long Beach, we all understand the value of it. It's been articulated in the motion, and so we're hoping to raise that priority to a top level for us in this process. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request that City Council communicate its expectations as a basis for confirmation of the next Assistant City Manager; that City Manager give City Council ample time to review candidates being considered prior to the confirmation vote; and City Manager share top candidates in order of preference with City Council in Closed Session. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08192014_14-0613 | Speaker 3: over to the clerk. Thank you, Mayor.
Speaker 4: It's a recommendation to receive supporting and documentation and record and conduct a public hearing regarding the appeal of the Earth of Earth Justice on behalf of the communities for better environment, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. And to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determinations relative to the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement involving the Port of Long Beach and Oxbow Energy Solutions.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Mr. Clarke, will you also administer the oath?
Speaker 4: Yes, please. If those intending to testify on this matter being heard by this council, would you please stand? That would include staff as well.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Do you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in this.
Speaker 4: Cause now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Speaker 6: Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Now, I'm going to turn this over before we begin the the hearing and and kind of have our hearing and the and those that are involved in it speak, we're going to turn first turn this over to the city attorney who will kind of go over the hearing, the process of the hearing for the counsel. And if there's any questions. He'll be happy to answer those from the counsel right now about the process of the hearing. Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mayor Garcia. Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council. This appeal from a determination of the Board of Harbor Commissioners is somewhat unique in the experience of the City Council. So I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking about the background of the actual approvals that the Board of Harbor Commissioners made. The scope of the appeal as it is before the City Council, the legal standard that the City Council would apply in making its determination on this appeal. The two options that are basically available to the Council when they're considering this matter and finally, the process that is allocating the time for both the Board of harbor commissioners and the appellants in this case to make their case. So as far as background, on June 9th of this year, the Board of Harbor Commissioners adopted two separate ordinances. And it's typical, unlike the way the city does it for the Board of Harbor Commissioners, to actually adopt an ordinance when they approve certain types of agreements. So in this case, the adopted ordinance number HD 2188 for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company, otherwise known as Metro Operating Agreement for the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility in the port. They also.
Speaker 0: Adopted ordinance number HD.
Speaker 2: 21 to 87 for the Oxbow Energy Solutions lease of the coal shed, also located at the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility as part of approving both of those agreements. The Board of Harbor Commissioners was required to make a second determination, and basically the determination in this case was made that for both of the agreements, they were both what is referred to as categorically exempt from the requirements of sequel. And with respect to the coal shared approval, they made an additional determination and an alternate determination that since there had previously been a negative declaration adopted in connection with the approval of the construction of the that coal shed, that there was no additional environmental review required . So subsequent to those approvals and within the ten day appeal period on June 23rd, 2014, Earthjustice on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, the NRDC and the Sierra Club appealed the second determination to the City Council. So that's the background and the scope of the appeal. And this is really the one of the important things I have to say. The scope of this appeal is really quite narrow, and it only involves whether or not the secret approvals were appropriately made by the port. The city's charter gives the port the absolute authority to make a determination as to whether or not the agreements in this case the operating agreement in the lease were appropriate. So those two items and what those leases contain or the operating agreements contain really are not before the city council tonight. It's only the issue of whether or not the sequel determination was appropriate. And as you're listening to all of the testimony tonight and ultimately when you take it behind the rail for deliberation, the legal standard that you apply, you make what's called a de novo determination, which means you are hearing this as if the board of Harbor Commissioners had not heard it. You are judging this on the facts as you hear them, and you're not required to give deference to the determination of the Board of Harbor Commissioners. The options available to the City Council after you've received all the evidence, are basically to, one, deny the appeal and approve the resolution affirming the secret determinations made by the board and making findings. And in that case, if you take that course of action, you will also be adopting a resolution in support of your determination in the findings. The second option available for the Council is to grant the appeal and direct the harbor department to proceed with appropriate sequel review before the Harbor Department reconsiders the two agreements that we've been discussing. And now for the process, both the parties, the Board of Harbor Commissioners, and the appellants in this case have previously been advised that they have each been allocated 20 minutes to make their presentation, and they can choose to reserve any portion of their 20 minute time period for rebuttal. But neither side will get more than 20 minutes. At the conclusion of the Board of Harbor Commissioners presentation and the appellants presentation, of course, it will be appropriate to take public comment and ultimately bring it behind the rail for your determination. I would like to introduce here at the table, as you can see, the city manager is not sitting with us tonight. To my right is Barbara McTighe, who is an attorney in the city attorney's office assigned to handle port matters for us. Behind me is Cathy Jensen, who is one of the outside counsel that the Board of Harbor Commissioners sometimes engages to provide secure advice to the Board of Harbor Commissioners. And Heather Tom Lee, who will be making the presentation on behalf of the Board of Harbor Commissioners tonight. All right. And so that said, as I indicated, we've allocated 20 minutes for each side to make their presentation. And I'd ask Miss Tomlin since she is making her presentation on behalf of the board. How much time, if any, you would like to reserve in rebuttal out of your 20 minutes?
Speaker 7: My presentation is approximately 12 minutes, so I'd like to reserve 8 minutes for rebuttal.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I'll ask the clerk if he would mind setting the clock at 12 minutes for the initial presentation.
Speaker 3: Okay. So with that, I think we've all will briefly see no questions from from counsel to the city attorney. We will open this hearing up and begin with the presentation from the Port of Long Beach. Mr. Singer.
Speaker 2: Mayor Garcia and council members, thank.
Speaker 4: You very much for the opportunity to address you.
Speaker 6: This evening. I am John Slinger, chief executive of the Port of Long Beach. My staff and I are here before you to confirm and defend.
Speaker 2: The environmental determinations that have been made for agreements with two established tenets Metropolitan.
Speaker 4: Stevedore Company and OCS for Oxbow Energy Solutions.
Speaker 6: Who operate a.
Speaker 4: Leading export facility. I would now like to turn it over to to Heather Tom Lee, our director of environmental planning, who will present our harbor department staff report.
Speaker 7: Thank you, John. And thank you, Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. As John indicated, the harbor department is before you this evening to respond to an appeal that has been filed not against our lease agreements, but against. Related environmental determinations that were made by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. On June 9th, the Board of Harbor Commissioners approved two real estate agreements for the use and operation of existing port facilities on Pier G. The two agreements that were approved are an operating agreement with Metropolitan Stevedore for operations at the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility and a lease with Oxbow Energy Solutions for the Pier G Coal Shed. Today, both Metro and Oxbow are operating on Pier G. The two agreements approved by the Harbor Commission on June 9th allow for the continuation of these operations. The Pier G Marine Terminal is used for the storage and loading of dry bulk commodities such as petroleum, coke, coal, sulfur and soda ash. Dry bulk goods are delivered to the facility by truck or train and then transferred to covered storage facilities for later loading onto vessels for shipments worldwide. Metro has been under contract for years with the port to provide terminal operation services for all of the dry bulk materials entering or exiting the pier facility. This includes responsibility for unloading dry bulk materials from trucks and railcars and loading vessels under their existing agreement. Metro also controls the Pier G coal shed, which they currently sub assigned to Oxbow. Under the terms of the new agreement. The port would take back control of the coal shed from metro so that the port can lease it directly to Oxbow, thereby maximizing the revenues that can be collected by the port. In addition, Metro will be required to carry out repairs and maintenance, including some repaving, which will bring the facility up to standards and improve worker safety. Metro has also agreed to green port programs to reduce environmental impacts, including assistance with an app birth and mission control technology, demonstration on vessels, installation of energy efficient lighting and the replacement of terminal terminal vehicles with zero emission vehicles. Oxbow is an exporter of dry bulk products and currently leases five storage sheds on the Pier G facility directly from the port and one through the SAB assignment agreement with Metro. Under the new lease, Oxbow will no longer hold its interest in the Pier G coal shed through Metro, but instead will have a direct lease with the port. In addition, Oxbow has agreed to Greenport provisions to reduce environmental impacts. Oxbow has agreed that its vessels will participate in the green flag and green ship programs and Oxbow will install low energy lighting for the coal shed, purchase greenhouse gas offsets for electricity use and participate in a vessel at birth emission control technology demonstration. Now let me discuss the secret requirements under the new agreements. There will be no changes to the capacity of the existing facilities. The operations at the facility are the same today under the current agreements as they will be tomorrow under the new agreements. As a part of the approval of the agreements with Metro and Oxbow, the Harbor Commission found the two agreements to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or Secure Secret identifies various actions that require environmental analysis, but secret also defines the actions or classes that don't require further environmental analysis because they are not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. Actions that fall into these classes, those that don't require further environmental analysis are identified as categorically exempt. A Class one exemption applies to repairs, maintenance and leasing of existing facilities when there is essentially no change from current conditions. And a class two exemption applies to the replacement of existing structures and facilities in the same place and for the same use. Since the agreements include leasing of existing facilities with maintenance work, including some repaving, they fit into these exemption classes. Therefore, the harbor department determined that the agreements were categorically exempt and thus did not require any further environmental analysis. Furthermore, the surgical shed was previously studied under a negative declaration that was adopted in 1992. Since a previous secret document was prepared for the coal shed and there has been no substantial changes and no new impacts and identified since the adoption of that negative declaration. The Harbor Commission also found that the approval of the new lease for the coal shed did not trigger the need for further environmental review beyond the previously adopted negative declaration. Now let me address a few of the specific points that were raised in the appeal. First is our requirement of a guaranteed minimum throughput or GMT. The new lease with Oxbow includes a GMT at 1.7 million metric tons of coal per year. I want to be clear on the purpose of a GMT. A GMT ensures that the port gets a fair financial return on the use of our facilities to move cargo. So the calculation for a GMT payment is based upon the actual commodity moving across the dock. In this case, the metric tons of coal. The intent is to secure a fair minimum dollar payment, a return for our investment on the wharf, and cargo handling equipment like conveyor belts and ship loaders. So despite the name, it's not a minimum performance or a minimum throughput requirement. The GMT requires that Oxbow make an annual payment to the port based on our tariff charge for shipping 1.7 million metric tons of coal. The guarantee does not require Oxbow to ship any particular amount of coal through the coal shed. In other words, if Oxbow didn't ship any coal at all through the facility, it would not be in default of its lease. Oxbow would simply pay the port the tariff charge as if they had shipped 1.7 million metric tons of coal. Most of our leases are structured in a similar way. GMT is are not new for the coal shed. In fact, when the coal shed first came online in 1994, the GMT for the coal shed through the Metro Agreement was over 2.4 million metric tons of coal per year, which was in alignment with the peak throughput at the facility that occurred in 1996 and is consistent with the working capacity for the coal shed, which is estimated at 2.3 million metric tons. It's important to understand that the GMT and the new agreement is not an increase beyond what has been exported historically through the coal shed or what Oxbow can export through the pure coal shed today under their current agreement. Finally, Oxbow is on track to handle 1.7 million metric tons of coal through the shed this year based upon market demand. Therefore, the GMT and the new agreement has been set at a level that is equivalent to the current throughput and will provide the port with a fair market return considering what is being shipped today. An additional item that was raised in the IPO is the repaving work that will be required in the operating agreement with Metro. A class to categorical exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities. The replacement of over 126,000 square feet of the same type of asphalt, concrete, pavement, pavement and the exact same location at the facility clearly falls within the Class two exemption. This work is being required to ensure the structural integrity of the facility and to improve drainage to effectively capture stormwater runoff. It should be noted that the cout that Caltrans commonly uses class two exemptions for the in-kind replacement of millions of square feet of pavement, much larger than the work that's being done at the pier facility. I also want to point out that a letter from the appellants was received today at 1:20 p.m.. We haven't had a lot of time to review the materials, and but it doesn't appear that there is any new factual or legal arguments that are presented that would change our recommendation . The letter states several times that there has never been any analysis of the impacts of shipping millions of tonnes of coal out of perigee, but that's incorrect. As part of the additional reference documents, we supplied the 1982 negative declaration that specifically assessed increasing the coal throughput at Pier G from 2.1 million metric tonnes per year to 5 million metric tonnes. The facility is still operating well within that envelope. The 1992 negative declaration for the coal shed did not change that level of throughput at G. The closure did not increase the throughput, but rather changed how the coal was stored and closing it to help to reduce the emissions and help to make the train arrivals less sporadic. The train activity is well within what was projected. If anyone had objection with the 1992 negative declaration or the scope of its analysis, the time to challenge it was when that was adopted. The previous NEG decks cleared the way for the current operations that exist today. Today's submittal also repeatedly states that the port intends to expand the coal export operations beyond what is disclosed in the challenge agreement. The port has no plans to make any physical changes to the Pier Dry Bulk facility and there are no applications pending by any tenants to make expansions. The port is not looking at expanding the coal handling capacity beyond what now exists out there and is not considering any applications. The transit steam study was just an operating study and there is no plan to take action as a result of that study today. In conclusion, let me summarize the two agreements the Harbor Commission approved on June nine allow existing operations to continue and don't increase capacity. They will more fully realize the value of the port's facilities by directly leasing with Oxbow and they secure a structured maintenance and repair program. The Board of Harbor Commissioners found the agreements to be categorically exempt from secret and that no additional environmental review is required. The Harbor Department respectfully request that the City Council receive the supporting documentation into the record and adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners determinations. This concludes the Harbor Department's presentation, and we'll reserve our remaining time for rebuttal. And we're happy to address any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. We're going to have the appellant come forward. And also just want to make sure I just a note that as we go through these presentations and the comments, that we'll be respectful of each other. And so let's as you know, let's have a good hearing that respectful of everyone's opposing views, you know, and make sure that we introduce ourselves before we before we begin. Okay.
Speaker 6: Great. Please.
Speaker 8: I'm just waiting for the presentation to come out.
Speaker 2: No problem.
Speaker 8: I'll just start the introductions.
Speaker 4: We could clear a mr. Mayor, if we could please clarify the time set for presentation, as well as reserved for rebuttal.
Speaker 3: What. What amount of time are you keeping for rebuttal at the end?
Speaker 8: We're going to reserve 6 minutes for rebuttal.
Speaker 6: Okay. Bigot. Okay.
Speaker 8: Or they're going to. Are they going to put up the presentation? Perfect. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and members of the council. My name is Adrian Martinez and I'm an attorney for Earthjustice representing Communities for Better Environment in Sierra Club. My colleague from our Justice Elizabeth Sites are also here. Also with me, we have Morgan Wian representing NRDC. And then also, Jessica, you're now a lawyer representing Sierra Club. And finally, Megan Krasno, representing Communities for a Better Environment. We're very well represented as appellants. Tonight, I'm going to give an overview on June 23rd, 2014, Sierra Club Committee for a Better Environment and the Natural Resources Defense Council appealed a decision by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners related to two new agreements that you've heard a little bit about today. The main contention is that the Harbor Commission violated California's bedrock environmental law. The California Environmental Quality Act would improve the two new agreements without any environmental analysis. These are organizations and other supporters from other organizations, and residents will be asking the city council to send this back to the harbor department for an environmental analysis. This presentation, I'm going to go over three main issues. First, I will start with an overview of the concerns about coal and petcoke and the shipments of these products. Second, I'll shift to a little bit more information about the agreements and clarify, I think, some of the points of contention. And then finally, I'll go over the legal applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act. As his counsel is intimately aware, climate change is a serious issue and an immense challenge that we must take seriously. Climate change is caused by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The combustion of fossil fuels is a primary culprit in climate change. Fuels such as coal and petroleum coke are very carbon intensive, and as a result, there has been a major push to end the reliance on this fuel for energy generation in the United States. As this has happened, coal use for power generation has has reduced, and tenants and coal companies have sought to export more of this product abroad. In addition to the global global consequences of carbon from coal and petcoke, there are local consequences throughout this process. Several environmental groups and other interested stakeholders have presented information. For example, we presented information about the consequences of coal dust that is shipped mainly when these cars come from the mines to the ports, they are transported in uncovered trail rail cars. Tests show that coal dust contains arsenic, lead, chromium, nickel, selenium and other toxic heavy metals. In addition, coal dust presents several safety concerns. We presented various arguments and evidence about the impacts that coal dust can have on train derailments and other accidents. In addition to this, the ships, trucks and trains that help move this equipment emit significant quantities of air pollution. This counsel is intimately aware with of the air pollution impacts faced by its residents and Port of Long Beach is a contributor to a lot of that air pollution. The other thing is fossil fuel infrastructure poses cumulative impacts. This is a map from a an air that the Port of Long Beach did for the Thai grain terminal expansion. It shows other related projects in the project area. It identifies 79 projects, including several related to fossil fuel infrastructure, including about a dozen or more related to fossil fuels. This indicates the cumulative impacts of this project in addition to these many projects that will impact residents throughout Long Beach and also residents in the greater area. Now that we've gone over some of the information that's been presented, I want to provide a little bit of context so people can visually see what is taking place down at Pier G. This is a picture of coal cars. As you can see, they're uncovered the coal gums above the top of the railcar. This provides another context where you can see into a little bit higher. And then finally, this gives us a sense of how long these trains are assembled. So as you can see, there's a significant amount of cars that are filled with coal. In addition, we've provided evidence about how much coal dust is lost along the way. And that was in all the submissions we provided. Now I want to go over overview of the agreement in a couple issues. First, the the agreement creates a guaranteed minimum of coal. There has never been an agreement for this port that specific specifies the product as coal being the guaranteed minimum. This is in stark difference to the prior agreements and anyone we've seen it was generally a guaranteed minimum of any bulk commodity. Here they're locking in coal second in year six through 15, the executive director of the port and his sole discretion may increase any of the commodities. So right now there's £100,000 per year cap on petcoke that could be increased in year six through 315. Third, I want to address some contention that people have been arguing that the guaranteed minimum doesn't really do anything. A couple thoughts we have on that. One is generally you don't enter into contract terms that don't mean anything. And then second, an article submitted by the Port from Port Technology International States that these guaranteed minimums are designed to ensure tenants will use their leased facilities at ports to maximum possible potential. So the arguments that it doesn't really have an impact on operations are directly rebutted by the port's own technology journal that it submitted. Now I want to shift into some of the legal issues. And at the outset, I want to remind the council that courts have interpreted California Environmental Quality Act in the legislature as directed it to be interpreted in a manner that's where the foremost principle that you should interpret the act to protect the environment to the fullest possible manner. So your job tonight is to have that in the background as you're making this decision. There are categorical exemptions where sequel analysis is not required. These don't apply here. The various groups provided several evidence showing that the various categorical exemptions don't apply. And then the other important thing is that when there's a reasonable possibility that an activity will have a significant impact on the environment due to unusual circumstances, exemptions don't apply. Now I'm going to go over why the exemptions don't apply. The first exemption the port relies on is a class one exemption related to a lease renewable, where importantly there is no or negligible increase in use. We provided several pieces of information about the increase in use and the desire to increase the use of this terminal. In addition, we remind that it has a specific amount of coal that's required to be shipped, which indicates an increase in use. Now I want to go over there's been a lot of talk about the historical trends of coal through the port. Using the port's data that it submitted in its submission from Tuesday of last week, we charted out the levels. You hear a lot of talk about the 1996, which is the peak in that chart. The 1.7 million metric tonnes is the red line. As you can see, for the majority of years there has never been 1.7 million metric tonnes of products shipped through this facility. So what you're having is cherry picking specific dates to make an argument about the lack of a significant impact. In addition, the port hired trans systems to explore how it can increase coal. The port is what it is it talks about how can they increase the shipment of this coal and allow for other bulk commodities to be shipped as well. And in addition, we provided in the record evidence from Metropolitan Stevedoring Company for Port of Oakland Application, where it talked about dramatic increases at the Port of Long Beach. The port is also claiming it falls under Class two exemption. I just want to remind a couple of things. This is a large construction project. It's a pretty large facility. There'll be significant emissions from construction equipment as this is done. And the other issue is that doesn't cover the agreements. I think the port is only claiming the class two exemption for the various maintenance. If the City Council determines that these exemptions apply. Sequel allows for exceptions to exemptions due to unusual circumstances or cumulative impacts generally. For unusual circumstances to apply must differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and those circumstances result in an environmental risk. There's environmental risks to shipping this material. You have train emissions, safety issues, ship emissions, and also the issues of coal and petcoke getting into our water and our lungs. The this also differs from prior examples. The port provided examples of putting utility boxes in San Francisco, a case this is different. This is major industrial operations. It also provided an example of case law, talking about a 9000 square foot lease renewal in Pasadena. What we're talking about here is a 144,000 square foot coal barn and lots of major operations with trains, ships, trucks , lots of emissions and lots of impacts. Now I want to talk about the negative declaration. There's been a lot of discussion about how this was adequate to address the significant new information about climate change and the seriousness of that threat that coal dust and coal's impact on climate change. The 1992 declaration is a 23 page, bare boned checklist document. It solely looked at the construction impacts from the building, the coal barn. What it didn't look at is identified in this chart. And there's a lot of important information that was not looked at in the 1992 document. These are important issues for people who came out to support this appeal, but also should be for the city council. Ten. I just want to note the issues discussed in this pile are complicated. It's a very complicated record. There's a large amount of information that was filed within the last week. If you have any doubts here, the safest approach is to send this back to the harbor department for an environmental analysis. That way they can lay out all the information and have a period when all experts, residents and other stakeholders can weigh in on the impacts of this decision in a transparent manner. This process has been anything but that. I'll save. I have 6 minutes for rebuttal, but that's all we have right now. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. And now we will have we will go back to the the first rebuttal. And I believe, Mr. Clark, they have 8 minutes, is that correct? Up to 8 minutes. Not to use the whole 8 minutes. Mr. Cook. What was it? 8 minutes is up. Okay. Please begin.
Speaker 7: Okay. One of the issues that was addressed by the appellant has to do with policy issues related to the exports of coal and the effects on on global climate change and whether or not it's appropriate for the United States to be involved with exporting coal. And while I understand that there are important policy discussions to be had on this issue, the matter that's in front of the city council today has to do with the secret determination for the approval of the agreements that the Harbor Commission made. And the evidence that was presented by the Harbor Commission by the Harbor staff clearly indicates that CECA was conducted appropriately. The renewal of the agreements simply continues in existing use. There is no change in the use of what's happening out there from what they can do today under the current agreements to what they'll be able to do tomorrow under the new agreements. Therefore, there are no new impacts associated with the approval of those agreements. Renewal of agreements is listed as a class that's categorically exempt from Sequa. In addition, the repaving work falls into a class two exemption and is is commonly used for that type of action. In addition, there was the 1992 negative declaration that was approved for the coal shed specifically and helped to establish the existing operation that's out there today. For any sequel analysis, what you need to look at is what will happen in the future as a result of the action that was taken. And compare that to what's happening today. Today establishes the baseline conditions. These operations are currently in place today, and these agreements simply continue that existing use in the same capacity going forward into the future. There will be no change as a result of the approval of these agreements to the impacts associated with the operations. I also wanted to identify the issue related to coal dust from the uncovered railcars. That, again, is something that's being done today and I think as clearly was shown in the presentation. Coal arrives at the facility today and uncovered railcars that will not result in any changes going forward in the new agreements. There will be no changes to how that's done and no new impacts to how that's done going forward under the new agreements that were approved. Therefore, there are no new impacts associated with that action. In addition, the operations at the facility are subject to Air Quality Management District Rule 1158 requirements, which do require that the railcars be in in enclosed areas when they're doing unloading operations. There are water sprayers to help control dust and all of the operations at the facility are subject to that. AQ OMD Rule 1158 Oversight in order to make sure that the dust from from the coal is controlled to the maximum extent possible. The guaranteed minimum. There's been a lot of discussion about that today. The guaranteed minimum throughput is not a performance requirement. It's a financial term that establishes a minimum level of payment that guarantees that Oxbow, despite how much throughput they have at the facility, at a minimum, they will provide a payment that's equivalent to 1.7 million metric tons . And and there there is no requirement that increases the amount of throughput that they must have out there, that they they must meet a certain throughput. It's simply a financial term that establishes a minimum payment to the port so that the port can realize the maximum financial return on our assets.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. In addition, from a legal perspective, I'd like to just make a couple comments. There was a statement that to the effect that the port has suggested that the guaranteed minimum is meaningless. Obviously, we never have suggested that it's very meaningful to the port, but its meaning is financial rather than forced throughput. There was a reference made to the article that the port has submitted that talks about how common the GM 18 type terms are. And there was a reference made that those types of terms in facilitate the efficient use of port facilities. That's certainly appropriate. The port is supposed to make sure that its facilities are efficiently used. That's one of the mandates of the California Coastal Act to ensure that the need for additional port properties is not a result of inefficient use of port property plus. In addition, as trustees of trust assets, the Port the Board of Harbor Commissioners has an obligation to make sure that the assets are being efficiently used and are producing a adequate return. There was a reference to the cherry picking of dates to try to have higher throughput. We couldn't have cherry picked less on this because we actually provided information about the year this exact year, 2014, that in that year, in 2014, the throughput will exceed the minimum requirement by by some amount, but it's more than the minimum and specifically when you're looking at capacity. The Class one and Class two specifically refer to looking at the time the lead agency makes its determination here. That's 2014 is the time when the harbor board made its determination. So 2014 is an appropriate year to look at averaging years as they do in the chart that have multiple years when there was absolutely no coal transport makes no sense whatsoever. Finally, there was a point made relating to the 1992 NEG DAC negative declaration not being adequate. The time to challenge the 1992 negative declaration if there was an inadequacy was in 1992 when it was certified. Secure presumes not only a protection of the environment, but there is a closure. It allows reliance on documents that have been approved so that you're not repeating the process over and over and over. With each renewal for an existing facility so secure opens the door for new projects when new facilities are being constructed. But once they're approved and the secret compliance is completed, that process is over and secure. Does not envision re-opening it unless there is a specific guideline that requires it.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Time is up. And now the appellant's rebuttal, please.
Speaker 4: The timer is set at 6 minutes.
Speaker 8: Thank you. At first, I want to address the issue of claiming that we're raising policy issues. And I just want to be clear. The California Environmental Quality Act deals with policy issues. And what it does is it ensures that before an entity makes a decision to lock in 215 years of exporting coal as a policy matter, it has all the relevant information about the environmental consequences of that action before it. This is an important time for this discussion. If you allow this to go forward, this issue will not be before you for a long time. The port's own submissions talk about the next lease renewal for a petcoke facility. Oxbow is 2019. We're talking about issues of climate change, air pollution that are that require action sooner than that. The other there has been some reference that the project can't be changed and there's one part of sequel that hasn't been discussed tonight. We talked a lot about looking at the environmental impacts, but the other part of or the other kind of core principle is mitigation and what mitigation is. It helps protect residents when there's an environmental impact. It allows for you to change operations to ensure that the air is not polluted, the water is not polluted, and that you protect the environment and people from harmful port and other operations. So we contend that there were several mitigation measures raised that could have been considered for this project, including covering railcars and other kind of mitigation measures to reduce the coal dust. The port has a greenhouse gas mitigation fund that is used for other projects, but by not doing the analysis, the port has failed to look at the required mitigation. And while there are some commitments to explore projects that may or may not happen in the appendix, there's no requirement for enforceable mitigation that California Environmental Quality Act requires . Then there was a discussion of the California Coastal Act and saying that the California Coastal Act requires that they enter into this agreement. I could not I could disagree. I will disagree vigorously with that. There's no part of the California Coastal Act that requires you to pick winners and losers and pick coal as a winner. The California Coastal Act doesn't require this, and it's certainly wouldn't because it's counterintuitive. The port is going to be impacted by climate change. Their previous environmental review documents have conceded that it's near the sea. Sea level rise, they're going to be impacted. Residents in Long Beach are going to be impacted by climate change. So I think to argue that the California Coastal Act requires actions that harm the public, I don't agree. Now I want to talk about projected throughput. There's been a lot of discussion about 2014 being the appropriate year. First thing I want to point out that we don't have 2014 data. The port projected out to the end of the year. These are months that haven't happened. So this is based on, you know, kind of myth. The other thing is the California Supreme Court has been pretty clear that when you have issues that fluctuate, you average not pick outliers. Here's what's happened is they've picked outliers and they've used that to inflate the numbers. And finally, I just to end and I'll end a couple minutes early, save us some time, because I know there's a lot more on the agenda. But a lot of people have come out tonight to support sending this back to the port. This is an important decision. And I want the folks who are supporting clean air to stand up to supporting, sending this back to the port. As you can see by the attendance in the room, there are a lot of people standing up. This is an issue of significant import for the residents of Long Beach and the residents of the region. So we're asking that you respectfully send us back to the port for an environmental analysis so that all the information can be vetted in an appropriate venue. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And now we're going to be opening it up to public comment. I just want to remind you to please come forward to the mic. You must identify yourself for the record. And also just as a reminder that this and all public comment must be on the issue of the secret determination. That's what the public comment must be on. And the city attorney. What if we start getting off course on that topic? We will weigh in and the city attorney will weigh in on that. So please make sure you you stick to what is before the council and make sure that you also identify yourself. For the record. And because of. We're going to begin we're going to begin the process. And if we start continue to hear the same information, we begin with 3 minutes. We may then limited to two, depending on how the flow of the hearing goes. So we're beginning off with 3 minutes for speaker.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor Garcia and Council Members James Callahan, Chairman, President, CEO, Nautilus International Holding Corporation, which holds Metropolitan Stevedoring Company 72 East Street, Wilmington. I was born and raised in Long Beach is fifth District. And over the years, I've lived in the seventh and eighth districts. I currently reside in the third district. After being in Wilmington, a district of the city of Los Angeles for 91 years. Nautilus has sold its headquarters building. Just yesterday, we executed the Purchase and Sale Agreement to relocate the corporation to the exciting Douglas Park development near the Long Beach Airport, where we will construct 40,000 square feet of office space. We believe in Long Beach, its present and its future. We also reach out to our local community. Just one example is Metropolitans Cancer Risk and Prevention Program at the Memorial Care Cancer Institute in Long Beach Memorial. I appear before you tonight to urge you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determination made in accordance with secure for the Metropolitan Stevedoring Company Operating Agreement and the Oxbow Energy Solutions lease for the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility. Metro started operations in the Port of Long Beach over 90 years ago, and we have operated the port's dry bulk terminal on Pier G for more than 50 years. During that time, the City of Long Beach has wisely balanced environmental considerations with economic vitality to carry forth its mandate as one of the world's great ports. The matter before you this evening appropriately allows the continuation of a long existing operation that is vital to the local economy. Total payroll and benefits exceed $20 million annually for Metro's administrative staff. Longshore labor through the ILWU and Mechanics. Labor through the IAM by providing over 250000 hours of work for our labor pool. There is a direct economic impact to the local economy. Beyond the operations at this terminal, as there is a link to the entire logistics chain, including those who develop or refine export products like petroleum, coke and sulfur and soda ash and those employees use to transport the commodities to the terminal. We have Metro Salute the city of Long Beach in its continuation of participating effectively in the global global economy to the direct benefit of the residents, both of our city and the local region who earn their livings and who support their families by their hard work. Go Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: My name is Jesse Marquez. I'm executive director of the Coalition for a Safe Environment or an environmental justice organization headquartered here in the harbor with many members here in Long Beach. I'm also speaking as a impacted member of the harbor community and all sorts of Sierra Club member. You have heard and you've seen the fact that the negative deck was prepared in 1992 and it was 32 pages long. It would never meet today's standards in the state of California. You saw that the train cars are.
Speaker 2: Uncovered that would never be allowed. Today.
Speaker 6: When they can be covered. Ship emissions. Can also be captured. The Advanced Maritime Emissions Control Systems Technology is a proven technology. It's been tested on over 40 ships, bulk loading ships, oil tanker ships and container ships. It's been a complete success and they've been operating here at the Port of Long Beach. But we have a situation here where you need to use common sense. And that common sense is that prior to 2000, the truth of the matter is there wasn't that much of an educated public that know too much about environmental law, environmental requirements under sequa about port of Long Beach operations. But that has completely changed since 2000. There are thousands of Long Beach residents, more thousands of residents in the harbor area who do no school. Law school requirements have studied the Port of Long Beach and its past year and its historical record. And our organization has always committed and about 80% plus about Port of Long Beach projects. But we have always proposed that there be an environmental assessment and we support the fact that there should be an environmental assessment done on this project. There will be and continue to be emissions from the cars carrying the coal. Coal dust will be coming out, both blown out and falling out since coal has been recently mined. It still be it will still be having VLCCs coming out of it, so it will be arriving and impacting all around the routes. We have members in over 25 cities in L.A. County who will be impacted by the future and continue operations of this company and its failure to incorporate new technologies. So in that environmental impact, it needs to assess all the emissions, not only from the train locomotive engines, but from all the PPM, dust and the VOCs coming out of the product as well as the ships. You need to do a health impact assessment to determine what has been the health impact to the public and to the residents. That has never been performed here. It was never even recommended in the past. But a health impact assessment has now been proven. That is a superior public health assessment tool. And so we ask that you include that document. There is also what's an assessment of the noise? Trains make noise. They also vibrate. So an air should include the noise, vibrate and vibration as well. There will also be decreasing in property values for all residents that live.
Speaker 2: Near a railroad track.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your time, this opportunity. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening.
Speaker 8: Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. My name is Jesse Equity. I'm the board president for Future Ports.
Speaker 2: Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and express future reports.
Speaker 8: Of support of the lease extensions at and associated with the dry bulk operations at Pier G.
Speaker 2: Future Ports members represent a broad range of goods movement, industry businesses.
Speaker 8: That operate throughout the Southern California region. Future Ports embraces the philosophy that businesses and supply chain supply chain serving the port of Long Beach, the green ports must grow cleanly. These concepts are not mutually exclusive and must be adopted simultaneously in order to sustain the long term economic vitality and health of the region. Future ports remains committed to working to find common ground on important issues facing our industry and local economy and values. The partnership we have left with the stakeholders, with stakeholders in the public sector, business and labor are united on this issue, and I urge you to support the Harbor Commission's decision on the approval and extensions of these leases. Thank you very much and have a good evening.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Maya Golden Krassner. I'm a staff attorney at Communities for a Better Environment. We have we're an environmental justice organization with members in the harbor area and southeast L.A. The Port of Long Beach describes itself as the green port. And the city of Long Beach wants to see be seen as a green, sustainable city. Yet, as my colleague Mr. Martinez described, the port has never conducted an analysis of the greenhouse gas impacts and other impacts of shipping millions of tons of.
Speaker 0: Coal out of perigee.
Speaker 7: Despite the fact that we have new information that we now know about climate change and air pollution, these issues really were not contemplated in 1982 because then we were really busy trying to save the ozone layer. Second community for a better environment. Our members near the port and elsewhere in southeast Los Angeles are concerned about coal dust from the train's greenhouse gas and other air pollution impacts of mining, producing and burning coal and petcoke, and the potential.
Speaker 0: For coal dust to spill into the harbor.
Speaker 7: In the bay. Third, despite the copious amounts of documents we.
Speaker 0: Just received last week.
Speaker 7: There is.
Speaker 0: Still a lot.
Speaker 7: We don't know about this project. For example, any air would describe where the coal and petcoke comes from. Does the petcoke come from Wilmington refineries? If so, CBS members in Wilmington have the right to know that before these lease agreements are approved.
Speaker 0: The project also includes.
Speaker 7: Replacing an asphalt area the size of two football fields.
Speaker 0: What are the impacts of these.
Speaker 7: This construction that also has to be discussed in the air, along with mitigation measures to minimize these impacts. Fourth, since the 1982 Nag Doc in Shirley, since the 1982 NAG Deck, there has been significant new information on the impacts of petcoke. We now know, for example, that California refineries are increasingly switching to dirtier crude, which means in resulting in increased greenhouse gas and other air emissions from both processing the crude to create coke and from burning the petcoke. I have comments submitted by our staff scientists in 2011 regarding the low carbon fuel standard that discusses this issue that I plan to submit.
Speaker 0: In sum.
Speaker 7: A city that wants to be environmentally sustainable should not fast track the export of products.
Speaker 0: Like coal.
Speaker 7: And petcoke, and should instead require the port to conduct a.
Speaker 0: Thorough environmental review before moving forward.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor. City Council members. My name is Clayton Headley. I'm the vice president for our exposed West Coast business, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. While we prefer to humbly go about the day to day work of running our business and doing things right. We also like to talk about ourselves. So I'm going to try to keep my comments as quick as possible. First and foremost, you should know that the facilities on Pier G are world class operations that set the.
Speaker 2: Bar for environmental excellence.
Speaker 6: In our industries. We are very proud of what we do here with the port, with Metropolitan and with Labor. The assets and operations developed by the Port of Long Beach, Oxbow and Metro are known throughout the world as examples of how things ought to be. Oxbow has been a partner and a customer of the Port of Long Beach for 43 years. And like the port, we take environmental our environmental stewardship seriously. We're pleased to receive the Port's Green Ship Award for 2012 and 2013. This award is given to companies having the greatest positive impact on California's Southern California's air quality. In addition, we received the Environmental Achievement Award, which is based on compliance with both the port's green flag program and green ship program. In terms of local jobs and revenue. We employ 48 people, including 31 union members. Our business in Long Beach supports local truckers, lab companies, surveyors, ILWU employees and countless other local businesses. In cooperation with our workforce, we've operated over 1.3 million working hours without a lost time accident, while generating more than $16 million in revenues for the city and the port of Long Beach. We're proud to be an active participant in the city and supporters and many community groups with particular emphasis on youth organizations. We sponsor the Conservation Corps of Long Beach, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach, the Long Beach. Ronald McDonald House. Children Today Itep and the International Seafarers Center. Further to our community support. Oxbow recently bought brought William Hickok C Scout Cup to Long Beach. This International Youth Regatta teaches character, leadership and life skills to youth, and we are proud to be part of the organization. Oxbow intends to bring this event back to Long Beach in 2016 and we look forward to the city's continued support of this program. With regard to the specific issues before you tonight. After two years of negotiations, our lease was approved by a unanimous vote of the Harbor Commission on June 9th. We believe the Harbor Commission properly applied secure. This agreement would simply transfer a lease of a bulk storage facility from Metro to Oxbow and create greater revenues to the city and and the port of Long Beach. The physical operation of this business will remain unchanged over the term of the lease. Revenues to the city and port of Long Beach will be approximately $130 million, which is an increase of more than 50 million annually.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Talk to your new.
Speaker 7: Good evening.
Speaker 0: Council Mayor Ann Cantrell. I'm a member of the Sierra Club and the NRDC and I support this appeal. You are being asked to send these leases back to the harbor commissioners for adequate environmental review. The port is relying on a negative declaration, which was just a check off list saying no study was needed. It was done in 1992, long before most of us started worrying about the burning of fossil fuels adding to the greenhouse gases and global warming. It was also before former then councilman now Congressman Alan Lowenthal became concerned about the transporting of coal into the port and the particulate matter involved. Some of you may remember that Dr. Lowenthal authored laws which required the covering of coal carrying trucks into the port, along with the covering of coal storage areas and conveyor belts. Unfortunately, railroad cars were not included in these laws. A complete environmental impact port needs to be done addressing the impact of millions of metric tons of dirty coal going through our community every year on railroad cars, which can lose up to 15% of their cargo along the way. Can this coal dust end up in the air, in the waterways, in the lungs of children and adults? Is there evidence that moving coal and coke can damage the lungs of port workers? A scientifically done air can answer these questions. It appears the port's only consideration in this matter is dollars. They're willing to sell the health of their workers, the community and the earth for what has been referred to by Scientific American as, quote, dark money, unquote, occupied America. Recently posted this on Facebook. This is Senator Ted Cruz, a Coke puppet. He was just bribed by the Kochs to introduce a bill that would sell America's national forests, parks and other public lands and open them for mining, drilling, fracking and logging. Spread the shame. I would like to add the Long Beach Port and Harbor Commissioners to this Hall of shame and suggest that they change their logo of green port to cock coke pile. Pardon me. Goose pile because Oxbow Bo is owned by one of the Koch brothers. This city council has the opportunity tonight to do the morally, legally and environmentally correct thing. Thank you. Please just say no to the Koch brothers and uphold the city.
Speaker 3: Next speaker, please. Before we begin, let's please let's try to look if we can just have the speakers go one after the other that way I would appreciate that. And let's be respectful of everybody. Thank you very much, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. My name is Sue in Schoenmaker and I'm here this evening on behalf of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach. The mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs is to enable all young people, especially the disadvantaged and underrepresented, to have representatives of our community to realize their full potential as caring, responsible and productive citizens. Our programs benefit over 4700 kids in Long Beach area, and our programs could not exist without the support of our community. Partners and local businesses such as Oxbow Expo has been a longtime supporter of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach, and we are very thankful to have them to be one of our partners. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Hello. My name is Felicia Bander. The city of Long Beach has sometimes been known for its poor air quality. In the past few years, the port has received recognition for its pollution control improvements. Which of these two legacies do.
Speaker 0: You want to be known for?
Speaker 5: The port commissioners have recently voted to approve new 15 year leases guaranteeing the shipment of coal and petcoke to India and China. Coal arrives at the port in uncovered railcars known to lose about a pound of coal per mile traveled. Coal dust causes asthma and other respiratory ailments, including lung cancer. Scientists tell us that world wide fossil fuel emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050 in order to prevent heating this planet beyond livable levels. Air pollution in China and India is our pollution. Global warming affects the entire planet. The world has become a small place. Technology exists to allow us to transition to 100% renewable energy. We need to understand the seriousness of our predicament. We need to move away from business as usual and embrace the new energy frontier with everything we've got, all our investment.
Speaker 0: All our focus.
Speaker 5: Renewable energy will provide local jobs and boost local economies. Do not allow these lease agreements to go through and take us back to the days of dirty air. We need your forward thinking leadership now. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Your next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Council members. I'm Norman Houser. Interim president metropolitan stewart, a company 720 east east street to Wilmington, California. This evening, I ask you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determinations after sequa from the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement and the actual Energy Solutions lease for the Pier G Drydock Facility. My remarks tonight are referred to Metropolitan Stevedore Company simply by the name of which we're best known Metro. There's been a constant evolution of the Pier G Dry Bulk facility. It's been my honor and privilege to lead, coordinate and witness during the more than 29 years I've been employed in the marine terminal industry . Metro has constantly engaged in effective partnering with the port to establish a terminal that is an excellent reflection of the Port of Long Beach as a green port through coverage, storage, water reclamation and closed conveyance systems. As a result, I say with pride and I mean significant pride that the dry bulk facility is truly world class.
Speaker 2: It is dedicated to.
Speaker 4: Shipping dry bulk cargoes efficiently, safely and in full compliance with environmental standards. In addition to the terminal enhancements discussed above, Metro has taken a variety of additional steps to protect our environment. Long Beach and we have replaced locomotives with the second off the assembly line brand new ultra low emission model. Metropolitan Operation Perugia was the beta site for the development of the Advanced.
Speaker 6: Maritime.
Speaker 4: Emissions Control System, mentioned earlier by Advanced Cleanup Technologies Inc. In addition, Metro provided intellectual capital to the development project. We even brought in a consult at our expense to assist in the design of the system. Metro's replace various diesel or gas powered equipment with propane, liquid natural gas or electric powered equipment, and star metro takes its environmental responsibility very seriously. Our first priority has always been to protect our employees safety, and we do this in concert with protecting the environment for the citizens of.
Speaker 10: The city of Long Beach. I do support clean air. I breathe the.
Speaker 4: Same air you do every day and are very proud of what we've accomplished.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members. I am Henry Noonan, terminal superintendent of Metropolitan Stevedore Company at the Pier G facility. I appear before you tonight, ask you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the environmental determination following suit that the Board of Harbor Commissioners made for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement and the Oxbow Energy Solutions lease for the Pier G facility. I am employed at the Long Beach Dry Bulk Terminal by Metro. In my capacity there, I manage the flow of traffic that brings multiple cargoes to the terminal for export. We handle all sorts of cargoes petroleum, coke, coal, sulfur, two sodas. I know that Metro has operated that terminal faithfully for over 50 years. I, in turn of loyalty, worked there at the dry bulk facility for over 20 years. This is how.
Speaker 2: I earn my living. This is how I provide for my family.
Speaker 9: Over my two decades there. I've watched with great pride as the Port and Metro have worked together to establish, maintain and operate a truly world class facility, one that is the envy in many in the world. Indeed, as part of my capacity, I have personally provided tours to delegations.
Speaker 2: From ports around the world that have been very.
Speaker 9: Impressed with our accomplishments in creating a state of the art.
Speaker 2: Marine terminal that's.
Speaker 9: Dedicated to the dry bulk products export. My father earned his living on the waterfront. So do I, along with countless associates and colleagues who dedicate themselves to operating the terminal for the city and port of Long Beach. I ask for your vote to continue this long existing operation and to ensure the livelihoods of those like me who depend on the dry bulk terminal.
Speaker 2: As the source of their income and security. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker. And as we move forward, I just want to I just want to remind all the speakers that per the city attorney's earlier note there was try to stick to the speaker determination that is the issue before the city council for both sides. Sir.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Honorable City Council. Mr. Mayor, my name is Linton Johnson. I'm vice chair of ABC Long Beach. I'm also organizer at East Air Communities for Environmental Justice. Right. So sticking sticking to the issue at hand, the secure determination, the decision to continue, you know, to sign on for decade. It's more of exporting of a known toxic substance, right. Without doing an analysis on what the impacts are going to be in our communities. It's a you know, it's in my opinion, in my humble opinion, it's a bit irresponsible. The argument that I heard earlier was we didn't do it before, so why should we do it now? That isn't that. I just don't I don't understand. You know, there's a couple a couple of weeks ago, as there's a turn over to a new city council, there is an article. Mr. Mayor, you're actually quoted in saying that, you know, the port, the port and the city are strengthening relations and we are dedicated to smart growth. Wouldn't it be smart to know the impacts of of exporting coal and petcoke on our communities? I mean, we saw the pictures of these trains being go that go through our communities piled high with the coal and they're not covered. I mean, I spoke to I spoke to some youth who have actually seen these trains pass through their neighborhoods and they see the dust coming off. Right. This is this is not I mean, the argument that we haven't done it before so we shouldn't do it now is is shameful. We we call our port the green port. Right. Last week I was here and the director was here is talking about was very it was bragging. We're going to have one of the greenest terminals in the world. Well, what does that mean? We have one terminal is super green and another terminal is super dirty operating like you know, of offer. Our grandfather's technologies, then it kind of negates itself. Right. We need to stand behind what we say. And, you know, I'm a proud citizen of Long Beach and Long Beach native. And we go around and you see on busses in a bus stop the green port. Well, it's time to start acting like the green part. B, we have the responsibility not only to the residents of Long Beach, but, you know, here we are. We have residents from Wilmington, Carson. We have folks that have come down all the way as far as East L.A. because this the decision that the city of Long Beach has made to export coal not only affects us locally , but as a region and also internationally. Thank you for your time. I hope you make a decision.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next week, a police. Hello. My name is Toby Gantt.
Speaker 6: I live in District eight and I would like to just encourage you to.
Speaker 2: Consider the human aspect of all of this. We've heard some great facts and figures today, but it comes down.
Speaker 6: To people, it comes down to health, it comes down to.
Speaker 2: The environment. A nice woman mentioned the money that's been given to the Boys and Girls Clubs by the energy industry.
Speaker 6: That's great. But what kind of future are we.
Speaker 2: Giving to those children? We want to give them a future that's healthy and green and clean, truly green and clean.
Speaker 6: And the very minimum. You all have the opportunity here tonight to take a stand courageously and say, at a minimum, we're going to require the port to do an environmental impact review. That takes very little courage on your part, but it is a courageous step. It is not saying that you stand for or.
Speaker 2: Against whether or not courts continue to be export from our port here.
Speaker 6: But it does show that you care enough to say, hey, we want to do what's right.
Speaker 2: For our children or for our future. I want you to think about those kids in the Boys and Girls Club, and I want you to think about your own children. What are we going to leave for them? The argument that we would be losing jobs.
Speaker 6: If a thorough environmental.
Speaker 2: Review was conducted and it was found that it is not viable.
Speaker 6: To continue, these lease agreements.
Speaker 2: Would not destroy jobs. That's ludicrous. More jobs.
Speaker 6: Would be created that don't.
Speaker 2: Necessarily depend on exporting dirty coal to other parts of the world where it is burned without any or little to no emissions regulations.
Speaker 6: We have one planet, one environment, one atmosphere.
Speaker 2: We share that with China, Japan and other places where this coal is burned.
Speaker 6: So please do what's courageous and just require a review.
Speaker 2: That's all we're asking. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: My name is Jasmine Vargas and this is my I love clean air sign. I take it everywhere. I'm with the Sierra Club's Beyond Poll campaign, and I've been working tirelessly in the Southern California area to build a climate movement that could answer and face the biggest problem that our generation has has faced, and that is climate change and global warming. But more than that, we're here to fight for justice. This is about environmental justice, and this is about putting pollution and on the backs of the poorest and most underrepresented people in this community, working in Long Beach and Wilmington and Carson in L.A., it's all the same. It's poor brown people, people of color facing the brunt of the pollution. And guess where that pollution comes from? We just heard about it, Ray. We just heard from the vice president and the president and everybody that makes lots of money from exporting coal. And what we heard from then is viable business. Great job. Right? But what we know is that it's not a viable business because they're creating an unlivable, unviable planet. And I'm not saying that people that work, people that are part of the system, people that are part of the fossil fuel industry are bad people. I'm not saying that the union workers that are getting jobs right now don't deserve a fair and just transition into a clean energy economy. And I'm not saying right now that you guys should kill this coal port or more or stop all coal exports, period. What I'm saying is for I want to see leadership, I want to see leadership from this council and I want to see you all stand up and say the bare minimum we can do is an environmental impact review for the people that voted us into this office. In the end of the day, if you vote against this deck, this environmental review, you're basically giving a blank check to the coal companies. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 11: Good evening. My name is Louise Fleming. I live in Long Beach and District four. I'm opposed to the agreement to extend exporting coal from Pier G coal shed. The agreement did not take into consideration the future environmental impact due to the proper environmental analysis because of the exemption from this analysis. Furthermore, the agreement demands that a minimum amount of coal be exported to satisfy port fee requirements over an extended time. I believe at this stage the port should not be in the business of supporting coal. Interestingly, just today, Oregon's Department of State Lands denied permission to build a new loading dock to ship Powder River Basin Coal down the Columbia River to which would be exported to Asia. Similar to the model that is being proposed here. The Port of Long Beach is commendable for already having made tremendous strides in reducing port pollution with its innovative technologies and procedural changes, which is why it should not go completely blind into approving this agreement and undermine its own progress towards the theme of going green. There are no controls proposed to cover the huge piles of coal to contain the dust it would generate and would negate much of the pollution reduction benefits of the port benefits the port has recently achieved. Climate change is real. On September 21st, there will be a climate march, a climate change march in New York City that will focus attention on this critical issue. There is expected to be hundreds of thousands of people there and political leaders. It's a big deal. And, you know, it's going to draw attention to the demand action towards non-fossil fuel energy solutions. The clear direction of the United States as a world leader is to downsize coal while expanding alternative energy technologies. The Port of Long Beach would be going against this trend and send conflicting messages to the community and its own stakeholders. I urge the Council and the Long Beach port leadership to at the very least follow the school laws and conduct the proper environmental assessment on the coal export deal. But the best case and the big picture scenario here is that the council will make wise choices and think green port deny these future cold coal shipments for the environmental benefits and for benefiting from the green economic trends that is happening in our country. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please. And before but before we begin, we have if everyone in the line speaks with still over an hour of public comment, I know there's others that are not in line. She will limit public comment out of 2 minutes, beginning with the speaker moving forward without objection from the council. Please begin.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Amy Turnbull and I am a.
Speaker 0: Resident who supports the appeal that we do an air on this matter before us. I'm concerned that extending.
Speaker 5: The extension of the lease agreements for the transportation, storage and exploitation of coal in and.
Speaker 0: Around Long Beach without conducting.
Speaker 5: State mandated environmental impact reports, is out of compliance and will set a precedent for special interest groups.
Speaker 0: Companies like Metro and Oxbow have interpreted the law.
Speaker 5: For their own benefit without regard for the health and safety and welfare of our community.
Speaker 0: Oh wait I forgot. Oxbow supports Ronald.
Speaker 5: McDonald House and for h transporting, transporting, storing and exporting coal goes against all policies of the Long Beach Green Port Program by allowing 1.7 million and more in the future. Tons of polluting coal annually through our streets, through our neighborhoods and our ports.
Speaker 0: Shame on the shame on the Long Beach Port. And for the people who support the Coal.
Speaker 5: Initiative for pretending that this project is exempt from Sequa analysis. The Seek the California Environmental Act guidelines define the impacts of projects.
Speaker 0: Replacing 126,000.
Speaker 5: Tons of asphalt as a significant expansion, requiring.
Speaker 0: Cycle analysis.
Speaker 5: Minimum tonnage and minimum. Shipments is a new language.
Speaker 0: Requiring sequel analysis. New data.
Speaker 5: On coal and its significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
Speaker 0: Certainly requires discussion under Sequoia. I urge Long Beach.
Speaker 5: City Council to comply with the California Environmental.
Speaker 0: Quality Act and to analyze.
Speaker 5: With input from the.
Speaker 0: Community the many.
Speaker 5: Significant and negative impacts.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: Of transporting and exporting coal.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, mayor and members of the council. I'm Jeff Miller. I have lived in Belmont Shaw for 31 years. This is my first opportunity to speak to you since the recent elections. So I'll take a moment and congratulate you on your recent election. And I am happy to see all of you here tonight. And I welcome you to this chamber. I assume when you ran for office, you knew there would be nights like this. We had a couple of speakers who spoke about the economic benefits of this agreement and touted their community involvement as well. And they sort of implied what I heard was that 40 or 50 years of operating the way they have is is reason enough to allow them to continue doing what they are because of these benefits. The implication I was hearing was that these benefits will go away if they have to do the right thing. And I know we don't believe that if if railcars have to be covered, for example, they're not going to shut down operations. They're just going to be a little cleaner. I listened carefully to the arguments of the appellant. I found them believable, compelling and valid. And so I support the appeal. And I know that if you think about the details and what's being asked, you will, too. We're not asking that these operators necessarily leave the port. They're not going to do that. So please support that. And finally, on a personal note, every day I find a nice little film of black dust on my patio table outdoors. All of you live in Long Beach, so I know your table must look the same. And we breathe that dust. And now I don't know how much of that is attributable to the port operations or to this specific operation, but shouldn't we find out? That's what an environmental impact report will tell us. Please do that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next week, repeat. And if we can also have the speakers just come forward that are in line so that we can create some room there in the back so we get an accurate count here. Please move forward. Please begin.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I just want to say that if we're going to continue with business as usual.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, ma'am. Can you.
Speaker 0: State your name.
Speaker 3: For the record.
Speaker 0: And serve Gail if we're going to continue with business as usual, these open called train cars spewing coal dust through highly populated areas of Long Beach, Wilmington and San Pedro. And for anyone who lives along the Alameda corridor or along the various highways where the petcoke is coming. Well, I've been doing train of do a lot of extensive research and we can make this into a workable solution so that everybody could be safe, healthy and still make money by selling coal and petcoke to third world countries. The way we can do this is issuing all the homes along these transit ways with a HEPA air filter and a HEPA vacuum cleaner and a respirator. This way people can stay safe and, you know, be able to breathe outside. Also, the most important thing I thought was to issue everybody a hazmat suit. They come in different sizes. They come in different colors. And they also are available for men, for women. They make respirators, smaller ones for children. And but most shockingly, to me, they even make them for pets. So, you know, for those of us who live, you know, near these transport areas, we can be covered and safe. Also, the industry people might think about this and, you know, get into these businesses of air filters and hazmat suits. But but I really want to say is we're America. We're not a third world country. And we can learn to live with coal dust if we have the means to do this. We can all get our hazmat suits every time you watch CNN and you see that all these unhappy people in China walking around and talking about their coal and how they can't breathe. Well, if we are well covered and we have respirators, we have American ingenuity and we don't have to be victims of very much.
Speaker 3: Time's up. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And can we can we please? I have I once again, I must remind us we need to stick. This is a hearing on the secret termination. So for both sides, it's a hearing on the secret determination. Please keep your comments to that. Per the city attorney's instructions at the beginning of the hearing, please.
Speaker 5: My name is Alisa Rivera. I'm a community organizer with Communities for a Better Environment, and I work with my work in Wilmington, nearby. And I would appreciate I know that it's getting a little late in day. You've been hearing from several people, but please don't.
Speaker 7: Be so sure. Thank both for the attention because we have.
Speaker 0: Prepare.
Speaker 7: For 3 minutes, so I'd appreciate to get my time.
Speaker 0: So I am going to focus on the.
Speaker 5: Effect of greenhouse gases.
Speaker 7: Things. That is what is involved with these two agreements of these very polluting material. I'm certain that you are.
Speaker 0: Aware that greenhouse gases have.
Speaker 7: Warm up the planet to very risky levels. Already the greenhouse gases are causing all the extreme weather events that we are seeing here in this country and worldwide. I started to realize the effects of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere when the tsunami in Indonesia happened in 2004.
Speaker 0: Do you remember that? I still.
Speaker 5: Remember it because it.
Speaker 7: Was after Christmas and I woke up to the horrendous photos on the newspapers and I realized that.
Speaker 5: The power of the sea was.
Speaker 7: Tremendous and that it could destroy anything suddenly and at any moment. What about the tsunami.
Speaker 0: In Japan more.
Speaker 7: Recently? What about Katrina in Sandy? And then we in the US and all this stolen hurricanes and freezing temperatures that have been paralyzed in different states in this country. Climate change is not recognizing whether the country is developed or not.
Speaker 0: Chad, look at the cases of the typhoon in the Philippines.
Speaker 7: And the record heat waves in Australia.
Speaker 5: Right now. These events are springing up everywhere in the world. The effects of greenhouse.
Speaker 7: Gases are being felt in the whole planet. That is why it is so imperative to cut down on activities that cause.
Speaker 0: More greenhouse gases. Coal and petticoat are two.
Speaker 7: Well-Known emitters of this greenhouse gas, and it is necessary to start cutting down on its use everywhere. Here in California, they are hardly used anymore. I think it is.
Speaker 5: Imperative that we take leadership and we say no to more.
Speaker 7: Polluting fossil fuels.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for the appeal.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Good evening. Members of the council staff. My name is Joe Guiliani. I am the organizer of the South Bay 350 Climate Action Group and I will speak specifically. To the sequel issue. Here I am here to to ask that the appellate be upheld and that a sequel review be held. The primary justification that I have heard this evening from our friends at the port for not holding a sequel review is that nothing has changed. I heard that numerous times. I heard it in their original proposal presentation and then I heard it in their rebuttal. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. Well, the climate has changed. And what has really drastically changed in terms of CECA and our need for this review are the impacts that we suffer right here in Long Beach, in the South Bay, in Southern California. Our snowpack is gone. We have a drought, although many scientists consider this the new normal. This is the water we have to work with from now on. We don't have a wildfire season anymore because it's year round. We don't have an ocean that isn't acidified. Because it is acidified. You don't have a port that you can plan not to have sea level rise. You're having to deal with sea level rise. I could go down this list for you, but each of these impacts impact us here in this community, and each of these impacts are directly related to this operation at the port . You can call it bulk. You can call it dry goods. I notice that most of the people that work in this industry don't want to admit to calling it coal or petroleum products or fossil fuels. But I will say one thing to my friends who I admire and respect that work at the port. But there is one edict that I think we all must agree on. If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from it. Whether you are making your living from it, whether you're getting your nonprofit funding from it, if it is wrong to wreck the climate. We have a responsibility not to do that and we have a moral obligation not to profit from that. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is David Trovato. I'm a Long Beach resident, and I love Long Beach and I love clean air. My background is that I came here seven years ago from West L.A. and before I came here and bought a house for the first time, I really did some research, and in my house that I ultimately did buy is a mile from the 710 Freeway. It's in the flight path. And just across the park from where I live there, there's a diesel train that goes by. Not exactly the cleanest air. But at that time.
Speaker 4: I did a little research and found out the.
Speaker 2: City council and the ports seem to be moving in the right direction to rectify that, or at least mitigate it.
Speaker 4: Make it better. And I was.
Speaker 2: Very and I was convinced to move here. And since then, I've been very.
Speaker 4: Proud of the city and the direction it's.
Speaker 2: Been going in terms of the environment. Having said that, I want to speak to directly to the Sea World.
Speaker 4: I do support the appeal. And the reason is basically that from what I hear, what I understand is that.
Speaker 2: There what they're saying is that there has been very there's no change. But to me, that's a very narrow definition of change, to be just that their operations are not changing. There are a lot of changes that are happening.
Speaker 4: So many people have already spoken about it. The environment has changed the product.
Speaker 2: My understanding that the product that they're moving has changed. And also the my understanding is that the quantities are changing. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there's a loophole in there that over the years, at some point they can change the quantity of what the amount of coal that comes into the port. I ask you, I urge you to look at all aspects, all angles of this to find out any way that you can justify having.
Speaker 4: The report done.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Thelma Golden. I'm a resident of Long Beach. I live at 3549 Fashion Avenue. I'm a long term resident here in Long Beach. I've been here almost 50 years. I'm here to support the repeal because it directly affects me. I live in what the port has designated as Area One, the most impacted area in Long Beach.
Speaker 6: These leases do.
Speaker 10: Not minimize the amount.
Speaker 2: Of coal that can come through the port. It only minimized what they can get paid for the total output.
Speaker 10: The way I understand the port's presentation is that it can go up to 5 million tons a year. The 1.7 is the.
Speaker 2: Minimum they have to go through, and that's the minimum that business members have to pay. But it nacht particulates which coal dust is directly impacts the children and the welfare of the residents of this city. And that is my most important recommendation for you guys to vote to send this back for school review.
Speaker 6: And I want to thank you for the opportunity.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 9: Hello. I'm Joel Weinstein, 4000 Linden Avenue. I'm here to support the appeal. If you look at the requirements of sequel, no further environmental impact analysis was required unless.
Speaker 2: Unless.
Speaker 9: There were substantial changes or there were changes in circumstances or significant new information available. Now, this was not 1992. There's been tremendous new information available. Part of that information, in fact, is what drove the impetus to have a green port. The new information available is of the entire area where we've been concerned with climate change. So I must ask those people who think we're setting a wonderful example for our young boys and girls. Do you think it's a great example for the port to be setting scofflaw example for doing the possible minimum instead of responding to the challenge of producing information in. In my career, I am always suspicious of arguments that we need less information or that we don't have to produce information even when the law encourages us to do so. I think you had better line up on the side of the wall and of providing information. You have had to do this to the point your predecessors had to do this to the port at least once. And I forget what the deal was, Pier J expansion or something. I think you'll have to do it again until they learn.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is. Barbara Brown. I'm a registered nurse at Community Hospital of Long Beach, and my name is Ellen Malkovich. I'm also a registered nurse at Longridge Community Hospital. I work in the intensive care unit. I've been a nurse for 31 years and I've spent all of it at Community Hospital of Long Beach, except for the ten months that we were closed. I'm also a proud member of the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, and we support sending this back for the appeal. Some people sometimes ask, why is the nurses union involved with the issues of dirty fossil fuels and climate change? And the answer is simple. When a child who lives or studies near refineries or export terminals comes to us with asthma, nosebleeds, headaches, nausea or worse, we care for that patient and we think this didn't have to happen. When a worker is injured in yet another well explosion, we care for that patient. And we think this didn't have to happen. When a train carrying toxic carbon materials derails and sickens an entire town, we care for the patients and we say this didn't have to happen. Our nurses union has deployed registered nurses to the disasters that were previously talked about. Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and the typhoon that ravaged the Philippines. The nurses cared for those patients in the devastated places. More and more evidence links those and other weather catastrophes to climate change. We as nurses are very concerned about dirty, deadly energy sources and climate change because we see the tragic results up close. And we want our kids to have a good future. Also, the children living near our port areas already suffer asthma at double the national rate, and that will continue to climb. And coal dust escapes from uncovered rail cars and into our lungs and water. It is my commitment to patient advocacy that brings me here, and it is the same for all the nurses. My time is up and I thank you.
Speaker 0: Speaker, please. Good evening.
Speaker 12: Mayor Garcia, wherever you are. And I'm city council members. Oh.
Speaker 0: The vice mayor here. Oh, say hello. And just to let everyone know when we go into the lounge, we have all of this piped in there. We can even hear it in the restrooms, even in the restroom. Since since the majority of the.
Speaker 12: People who have already spoken have presented practically all the important data and information that you need. Not to mention the fact that I have emailed you all.
Speaker 0: Like several times.
Speaker 12: I'm just going to say that I really can't believe that all of us have to come here and practically beg you for a secure review. The city of Oakland, which is a city who is probably in a lot more dire straits economically than we are. Their city council, their mayor, their port commissioners and the entire city. Okay, said no to Cole along with all the ports along the West Coast, up north in Seattle and Portland. They're all saying, no, they're fighting it tooth and nail. I just I must have been asleep at the wheel thinking that my elected officials were watching over us. My fault. Okay. But now I'm not asleep anymore. Okay. I'm your constituent. I voted for a couple of you already. I, I am saying that those of us who put you in office, you're there to serve and protect us and the city. And you have a responsibility. I'm a human being and I live in this city. I've been here all my life. I live on 35, 65 Linden Avenue, right where the 710 of the 710 of the four five come together. We're already breathing in massive amounts of diesel. Okay. We don't need. I want you to do the math here. They mentioned the 1.7 million. Ah, yeah. Trick. That's a trick question there. Do the math. 35 plus million tons over 15 years. That's what you're looking at.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, ma'am. I don't think you stated your name before you spoke.
Speaker 12: Catherine Castro.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Castro.
Speaker 9: Eddie, my name is Joe Ribicoff. I'm resident of Long Beach. I'm a neighbor of this mango. I live in the fifth district.
Speaker 2: Pleasure to meet you.
Speaker 9: And I see.
Speaker 10: Mayor Garcia has has changed a little bit.
Speaker 9: I'm here to speak in favor of the appeal. The Bible teaches us the sins of the parents should not be visited upon the children.
Speaker 10: In other words.
Speaker 9: The time to challenge the 1992 declaration is not long passed. In 1992 is today. We can't be bound by mistakes of 1992 that will project us another 15 years hence. If there is significant mistakes there, we should reexamine this today and not wait another 15 years. There has been change, change that merits this appeal, and the change may not be.
Speaker 10: The amount of coal that is supplied or the amount of.
Speaker 9: Repaving that needs may be required. The change is in the context, in the circumstances, as you've heard already. We're facing global warming. We've already experiencing the effects of global warming. What's changed is we're living in a much hotter planet. The pollution from this material is cumulative. We now live in an age where the accumulation is much beyond what it was back in 1992. Those reasons I urge you to grant this appeal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Hi. I'm Gabriel Weeks, resident of Long Beach. I am the volunteer chair of the Sierra Club for this city, the ones in the surrounding areas here. I came down here mostly to say happy birthday to Rex, but for those of you who aren't having a birthday, we could talk about Sequoia. Oh, I've been working with Morgan and Adrian talking to various port staff for a long time, and there seems to be a genuine difference of opinion between the attorneys of whether or not we have to do a sequel document. Do we have to? Oh, we'd have to go to court to find that out, which way a judge would find. But maybe it would be prudent to do so even if we aren't legally obligated just to be safe. I get in the car. I don't think I'm going to have a traffic accident. I'm not planning on being hit by someone. But I put on this safety belt just in case we got in trouble in the city. Joe Weinstein was remembering, I believe it was Middle Harbor, something where we got in trouble for not doing the full secret document when there was the development. And second and PCH, the Home Depot Expo design, the attorney, the judge slapped that down because we didn't have a squad document. We hadn't done squat. So just to protect ourselves, we need to do that as a city and sequel. Do going through that process will give us a lot of information because I know I've met with a bunch of you guys individually. Patrick had some good questions. How much would it cost to cover the cool cars if that were done voluntarily by the Cole companies? Would the litigants drop any proceedings? I didn't know the answer to that because we we that's the kind of stuff you'd find out through doing a sequel process, the cost of some things that would make our lives and our our air cleaner for all of our families. So please send this back, have the port, just take another look at it, be a little more thorough so we all know what it is we're getting into with these contracts. Thank you, Gabrielle.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Ruben Garcia. I am the president of Advanced Cleanup Technologies and also the managing member of Advanced Environmental Group. We are a technology based company based in Carson, California. I'm here tonight to speak to you and to give you a very brief story. And on behalf of Metro, I'm here to support Metro Knoxville. And I just would like to share something very, very briefly. We started developing this technology in 2004. This technology is in emission control technology to capture emissions from ships and locomotives. It wasn't well-received in 2004. And so we were able to partner with Union Pacific Railroad, several of the air regulators and some of the environmental justice community groups. The idea was to capture emissions from these moving locomotives in Roseville after a successful demonstration at the end of 2006. The idea was to move this technology down to the port of Long Beach or Los Angeles and continue the testing on ships. So the idea is to capture emissions from non stationary sources. After looking around for several partners in several shipping companies and terminal operators that would help us, we found none. There's only one company that stood up and stood up to the to the idea that this may be a good technology in the fight for clean air. So Metro has been a true partner. Not only did they let us test this technology on their dock, but they organized several vessels. To date, we've tested on over 50 ships and continue to do our testing. We're just about ready to be CARB approved. This will not happen without the support of metro ports in their forward thinking with respect to the environment. I urge you tonight to consider this and to support Metro. I also want to note that Oxbow has been a leader and has been helpful to us and also providing the leadership and other facilities, not just this one. Also, I want to note that it took me ten years to get this certification done. So I will note that the city and the port of Long Beach does not take these matters lightly. And if you can get approved in the port of Long Beach and the great work that the environmental staff has done under their leadership , I can tell you that you will. Your technology works. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you, Robin.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor Garcia, Honorable City Council members. My name is Peter Santillan, business manager of Labors Local 1309 and tonight I'm here in support of my brothers and sisters from the IOW. And I am I hear the community. I hear the concerns. I also heard the report from staff. And while I'm here, strongly urge you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal of holding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determination. I want to ask that staff continue to work with the community, find ways of possibly addressing the issues. But nevertheless, I'll make it short and to the point I urge you to adopt a resolution and approve the leases. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Morgan Wian. I'm an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the appellants this evening. Thank you for holding this hearing. I want to speak on a few issues. First, I want to just note that we cannot look at this in a vacuum. Just by opening up the newspaper. We can see the coal industry wants to increase export of coal from U.S. ports. There is no doubt that we will see an increase from Oxbow in others at perigee and desired increase of along ports across the coast. Because the port entered this agreement that locked us in for 15 more years of coal. We will not have another chance to even consider this issue to consider coal exports. Now is the time. Second, on the issue of the appropriate baseline, determining the proper baseline is a complicated legal question. There are countless court cases only about the issue of what is the proper baseline. The fact that we are having a debate about this is just another example of why you should send this back to the port for a proper sequence analysis. In my view, we cannot use the ports projections for the next several months as a baseline in a cycle analysis. Third, on the guaranteed minimum issue, whether it was written merely as a financial mechanism doesn't really matter. What matters here is the functional result of this part of the contract and the functional result. The result is that we can expect at least 1.7 million metric tons of coal, which is more colvin the port has exported for the past several years. 1.7 million tons is an increase. Fourth. Aside from the baseline question, a key question here is whether this is the kind of thing that was meant to be exempt from CEQA . It's a very simple question and the answer is no. This is just too big of a deal. Coal dust, greenhouse gases, we know we know a lot more about this than we did when I was just a little kid in 19. I was just born 82. And in 1992, we know a lot more. The port, the port locked us in the 15 more years of coal, and they did it blindly with basically no information of the consequences. You should send it back to make an informed decision. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker. And and before we before we speak, I'm going to close the speakers list and there's someone else is going to that's getting in line that is not in line. That speaker is going to be closed with the last person. So please get in line because I am going to close the speaker list right now. So the line doubles again. Okay. And okay. So I don't know the person that in the last person in line with Alex Charron will be the last speaker. And the speaker's office is closed after Alex Stern is the last speaker. Okay, great.
Speaker 6: My name is this was Rosemont. I'm one of the 31 union employees at Oxbow. I could be an employee for 18 years. I worked there for 12 hours. So 18 years of experience. I've seen a lot of changes there. Everything's been for the better. They have a great track record. They have a strong workforce, an experienced workforce. Most of Oxbow employees have been there for ten plus years. I worked 12 hours a day. I have a clean bill of health. I don't have asthma. I'm not diabetic. And I work 12 hours a day. Oxbow held to a higher standard that we can. We keep our facilities clean. We have a high. What we see are a community drive by piece of mind. Because I know our facilities are always clean, spotless. And I'm here to say, please allow me to be the sole provider for my family for 15 more years. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Please. No, no yelling out in the audience, please. I've asked for us to be respectful of our speakers, regardless of who side they're on. Please, sir.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor.
Speaker 2: And city council members. My name is Steve Cannon.
Speaker 6: I'm also in play for Oxbow.
Speaker 2: I've been working there for 14 years. The environmental cleanliness has increased drastically since my employment in the last 14 years. I heard one of the persons say that getting rid of the coal would not lose any jobs. It's going to lose my job and my coworkers jobs and makes me upset. You know, I have to fight.
Speaker 9: Pay my employer for my wages when I'm negotiating.
Speaker 2: And I had to fight environmental people to leave my job alone. And I wanted. I want you to deny the request for the sequel. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council members. My name is Bobby Olvera Jr. I'm a proud resident of downtown Long Beach, 1200 East Ocean, and I'm currently the president of the ILWU Local 13. Five months ago. I'm an advocate for a minute. Five months ago, I wasn't in a tie in a suit. I'm not really comfortable in it tonight. But five months ago I was working in the tunnels down to the cocaine. I was shoveling coke off the rails. And 40 years ago, I watched as my father came home from working at the Coke docks. The improvements that have been made, the improvements that are included in this appeal or this this lease, they're doing this for the betterment of the community. The workforce down there in the union have worked hand in hand with the employer to mitigate any types of air quality problems. We put in higher sprinklers. They require cars to be hosed off before you exit the terminal. So what we're doing here tonight is we're not here to talk about social issues because there's a lot of social issues and it becomes a myriad of hypocrites. What we're here to do tonight is to deal with the lease of the existing operation and to lay some new concrete in an existing spot. Nothing new, nothing more. We all know that there's problems around the world. That's not what you're here tonight to do. Brothers and sisters of the board and Mr. Mayor, you're here tonight to consider this lease, which has been thought out, work through by the Port and the Harbor Commission through counsel, not to minimize the worries of the environmentalists or my fellow residents in Long Beach, for those of you that are residents of Long Beach. But what you have here is the cleanest terminal. We've got a terminal on Stockton, California, that has open bars, that uses bulldozers outside. That's not clean. And they're working on that. They're making improvements. But here in Long Beach, it is growing. And I've issued each one of the city council members and yourself, Mr. Mayor, a detailed letter. I didn't want to regurgitate it to you tonight, but I was working there five months ago. My son, my house. I look outside my back patio every morning and I can see the coal burn. I can see the big blue barn. And I take my son outside and we play. And I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable knowing that I'm putting these brothers and sisters to work up there and that even with companies that I don't agree with, like Savage, I'm putting those brothers and sisters to work. So please uphold this lease and deny the appeal in front of you tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Sam Snook. It's Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, I want to thank you first for your patience. I saw some of the stuff that was going around on around measure and your cents. And it's to your patience and to your foresight on this that I appeal to and folks have talked about 1992 is a long time. I don't believe at that point I was three. So we have literally a generation between the negative declaration, the conversation we're having this evening. With that in mind, AB32 wasn't on the books a generation ago. The Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports wasn't working on trucks a generation ago. Measure and wasn't law. A living wage for hotel workers wasn't law in Long Beach a generation ago. And it's to your foresight, foresight, the foresight of people like you and the foresight of yourselves that these things came to pass. And I appeal then to that foresight. And so that patience to kind of just push this back the cycle which exists to make sure these things work. And when it does and I'm sure it will, because as folks have said, Long Beach, it has a world class reputation for for being committed to zero emissions and to clean energy. And so community responsibility. One, this does come back and is approved. Then we'll talk about it again. Again, I appeal to your patience, which I've seen in good measure and to your foresight in making sure that Long Beach remains committed to being the cleanest and greenest port on the West Coast. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Mark Lopez. I'm with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, also a resident of East L.A. And in 1992, I was seven years old, playing soccer and baseball at the park by my house. Right. The same park that my daughters are going to play, soccer and baseball. And, you know, when I was sitting there, I wasn't even going to testify, but just hearing a lot of information, I had to come up here. So I was thinking about my daughter, who was about two and a half years old. And so she's a toddler. She asks a ton of questions. Right. Her probably favorite question is, what's that? Right. She hears her baby sister crying. What's that? She hears her mom walking in another room. What's that? Right. The TV makes a sound. What's that?
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: I also live about five homes away from the Union Pacific rail line that comes through East L.A. and the City of Commerce. And multiple times a day, the train comes roaring by. Right. We hear the engines. Sometimes you can feel the engines, right? You can hear the hundreds of cars that pass by, if not thousands, by my house every day. Right. They sound like this, right? Multiple times a day. 1 a.m., 3 a.m. all day. My daughter never asked, What's that? She never asks. What's that? She's become accustomed to it. Right. And the point of my story is, just because we become accustomed to something doesn't mean that it should continue to be acceptable. A standard from 1992 shouldn't be acceptable today. Now we can all live here, write and communicate with the rest of Long Beach, the rest of the region, the rest of the state, and so on. And we can communicate that you are here requested for more information on the impacts of this project so you can make a smart decision. Or we can go into everyone you didn't want to know. Right. That's. That's really the decision that's here. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker. Complete.
Speaker 10: I don't support the appeal. First, it's an attack on the transportation of coal. Well, how are we supposed to get it? If I transport it to the coal is dirty. Well, so is the gasoline we put in our cars to go to our jobs. Three coal feeds industry. It builds. It's positive. And we have a lot of restraints on it now. Four We don't need more regulations. We're overregulated enough. It stifles industry. Six It's good enough for me to hear the environmental agency give out an award to those responsible.
Speaker 3: Thank you next week.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor. Council staff. My name is Jeremy Harris, senior vice president at Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce here tonight to speak on behalf of the chamber and urge you to support the staff recommended position to deny the appeal and uphold the Board of our Commissioner's environmental determinations. An interest of time. I'll keep my comments short, as we've already heard a lot tonight. As you're aware, Metro and Oxbow have been operating the port for decades. Their agreements were approved by the Board of Harbor Commissioners simply to extend their current operations and improve that financial arrangement with the port in order to keep business moving at the port. This is much needed in order to keep those high paying wage jobs and the economy moving down there. So in the interest of time, I ask you to support the staff recommended position allow you for our comments in tonight's record. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor. City Council. My name is Al Sattler. I first would like to say I received an email from John Moreland and he said he had submitted it, but he wasn't sure it was going to be in the record. So I would like to hand this off a hard copy. And he did specifically say that he believed the Harvard Department did not adequately analyze the new environmental impact of the new agreement, and it did not address impacts not analyzing previous environmental documents for the facility. And he has a number of pages here also like to show you, for those who haven't been down to look, this is another look at what coal trains can look at the various coal cars heading off into the distance, probably 100 cars in that in that train. The air if if there is no environmental review of this project, see no evil, hear no evil, speak to evil. It's it's not good. And I also would like to point out to you the most recent issue of Nature magazine just came August 14th. There is an editorial in here from a scientist from China who is saying China should aim for a total cap on emissions. And he is pointing with concern to the possibility for up to 100 million tons of coal per year from the Pacific Coast. We should not be part of that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Please, if if the line can move forward. And just as a reminder, the speaker's list is closed. There are no more public public speakers after. I believe it's Mr. Chairman in the back. Please, sir.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 2: And City Council. My name is Hans Relman. I'm a member of the Sierra Club.
Speaker 9: The coal business is a worldwide business.
Speaker 2: And the Port of Long Beach is part of that business. And whether you're mining or shipping or burning coal, you're involved in a environmentally very dangerous process.
Speaker 9: So the city of Long Beach should have its eyes wide open when it makes a decision to continue.
Speaker 2: What what's been been going on for a long time. So I am very much in favor.
Speaker 9: Of an environmental review. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: It's bigger.
Speaker 5: Hello, I'm Jeannie Williams from the eighth District. I'm also secretary. They lost Cerritos Neighborhood Association and we represent 1000 homes just like you were and elected officials of our group.
Speaker 0: And we.
Speaker 5: Made a motion.
Speaker 0: To.
Speaker 5: Be in favor of doing this. So you're in favor of the appeal. A second thing I want to.
Speaker 0: Bring up that.
Speaker 5: Oh, did I say we represent like 1000 homes, you know, so that could be. Yeah. Three, 4000 people. L cne so. Second thing I want to bring up to you real quick is that I've been working with Adriana and work and I.
Speaker 0: Am incredibly impressed with her knowledge of the law, how articulate they are.
Speaker 5: And how they have cooperated for years with the port already.
Speaker 0: You know all that. Well, let's get to the sequel, though. Oh, well, what we have.
Speaker 5: Discussed, the reason I came at the end and what I won't discuss. I think we've already reached the conclusions that the port is green, that the stevedore docks were pro-environment. And I have to say that when they're forced to be by law, that the city council overwhelmingly over the years is going to the direction of being pro-environment . And that sequel will not eliminate jobs. Let's talk about secure. As far as I've learned, the people that do the environmental report are support. Am I incorrect? Like, if if it gets approved and you have to do a secure the port does it. So then you've got to say, okay, three points here I want to bring up just really quick to you. Why would they not want to do it? You have one cost. Okay. So cost equals how many babies, how many children with asthma, you know, should die? How does that equal anything? Second thing is, something's hiding. You know, this would bring transparency to all of us and put us all at rest. The third thing is that the Koch brothers, all of them are known are known for hating regulations of the federal government. One point the final point, here you go. Last sentence and I get this from the press telegram today. I'm plagiarize a little bit and I'm paraphrasing a little bit is that if you show favoritism and you circumvent the law talked about this, you make the laws laughable. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Next speaker.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity. My name's T.L. Garrett. I'm with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. I'm here to support the staff's determination that the category one in the Category two categorical exemptions or the appropriate level of psychoanalysis for this project. I believe that's the case, and I believe you should deny the appeal. The only issue I have that I would also like to raise is the potential precedence that this action could raise. If every time a lease is opened that it's a do over.
Speaker 2: Situation, it will create tremendous uncertainty within the business community.
Speaker 6: And will result in chaos. So I urge you to deny this appeal.
Speaker 3: Please. I know I've said it many times, but let's be respectful of both sides of the people that are at the comment. They're here to give. They get their 2 minutes, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And City Council. My name is Jessica Yard. All Laurie. I'm an attorney for and a member of the Sierra Club. I want to address a couple of quick issues in addition to my my wonderful co-counsel from Earthjustice, NRDC and City. This issue is one about transparency and simply conducting a requisite and required study under. See what the legal review does not shut down the facility. It does not stop exporting any of these commodities. It is simply a study to figure out who is impacted and what the impacts might potentially be. In addition, you know, if if this decision stands, it stands with the port turning a blind eye to the myriad of impacts folks have talked about here this evening. I also want to talk about the context in which this is occurring and give you a snapshot of what's happening on the West Coast. The port, if it upholds and requires Sequoia for this decision, stands in very good company. The Oregon Department of State Lands actually just rejected a permit for the export of coal. Just yesterday in Oregon, the Port of Oakland rejected flat out a new coal export facility in Oakland as well. The Oakland City Council has also expressed severe concerns with the transportation of coal and other fossil fuels. More importantly, on the issue of environmental analysis in Washington, there are two large coal export facilities currently undergoing a joint NEPA and CPO, which is the Sequoia equivalent in Washington Review. It's simply a study. These studies, if you do them right and you do them in depth, they do take some time. This one actually is a fairly easy thing for for the city council to require just going back and doing an initial analysis that's not much. In addition, I believe the gentleman before me just said, well, what about the precedent this sets? What does this do for other commodities? The answer is coal and fossil fuels are unique. I mean, there is a unique impact here and one that has to do with climate change, coal dust, air pollution and a number of issues that the folks that our community all along the rail line, from the mine to the port, the port to the plant in China, that need to be analyzed. We can't simply turn a blind eye to all of these things. So I urge the Long Beach City Council to stand with with the other city councils along the West Coast to require this analysis.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Honorable Mayor and City Council.
Speaker 5: I'm speaking to you tonight in support.
Speaker 0: Of this appeal. I'm a 13 year resident and business owner in District one, the Linden Historic District.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, ma'am. Can you state your name for the record, please?
Speaker 0: I beg your pardon, Pamela Kelly. At the end of June or the beginning of July, I started noticing that I had shortness of breath and that the air was dirtier than usual. A little while later, maybe around July the seventh, on a monday night, when I was driving home from teaching at UCLA Extension, I was stopped at the red light at PCH and Long Beach Boulevard. I wasn't thinking about anything in particular. I just gazed out the window and I looked at the street light and I noticed what looked like a shimmering blanket suspended in the air. I'd never noticed it before, and I was startled by it. It was eerie looking. I shared that with my husband when I returned home and later with my city councilwoman Gonzalez at a neighborhood meeting on July the 18th. That meeting also happened to be out of doors, and I started feeling the shortness of breath during that meeting as well. I bought three air purifiers, which help, but they don't dust my furniture, which is constantly dusty. And again, I'm here and supported this appeal. And I thank you for your generous listening.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Excuse me. Honorable Mayor. City and mayor. City Council, city staff, simple citizen. I support this appeal.
Speaker 3: Please give your name for the. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Excuse me. My name is Peter Rosenwald. I support this appeal. During the rebuttal by the city attorney. I believe she said that there was no change, nothing was different in terms of use. Well, I just want to say, I believe that there is something different. I think that this is these are pictures which I believe all of you have seen of the work of the operation near the port. And when I gave these to the city clerk so that he can send them around to you. I had a conversation earlier today with Mr. Art Wang, the assistant director of communications for the port. And my question was, what happens to all the water that they use that they washed down the trucks with the area that has called dust? And the answer he gave me is there's $1,000,000 catch basin, a million gallon catch basin, a pure G to stop rainwater or any other water from running into the ocean. Metro stevedore who uses the water in its catch basin to suppress dust and keep the terminal clean. Have you actually looked in to see where this water goes, where it'll be used, where it's ultimately recycled? I think that that those are very important questions. I did call the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and I wasn't able, because of the lateness of this, to get an answer from them. But I think that this decision, if you don't support the appeal, that you will put this off so that more investigation can be done about the environmental effects. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. And our final speaker.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Alex Charron, and although I represent Metro Ports, I'm here tonight in my capacity as a lifelong resident of the city of Long Beach and as a father of two children living proudly in the seventh District. The very first question you were asked tonight in public comment was who believes in clean air? Well, here's my scorecard. Metro Ports. Metro Ports believes in clean air at a time when the active system couldn't find a home and the saw kind of stack technology had no investors, metro ports stepped up. It wasn't easy financially or operationally, but they did because Metro believes in clean air. The Port of Long Beach believes in clean air. I know of no other agency, public or private, that has invested as much capital in cleaner technologies and been.
Speaker 4: Recognized for it as the Port of.
Speaker 6: Long Beach. But they did it because they believe in clean air. The Harbor Trucking Association, who I represent, who eight years ago because the port asked them to invest in 1 billion with a B $1 billion of their own money in clean trucks. It wasn't easy, but they did it because they believe in clean air and they support these leases. Lastly, the ILWU. With all due respect to all the other public speakers tonight, nobody else is on the front lines. Nobody else knows the impacts, good and bad, of the terminal operations more than the men and women of the ILWU . And they support these leases. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. With that, we are going to continue the hearing and we are going to now open it up for council deliberation and action. And just as a reminder, the city council has two options in considering the appeal. Option one is to deny the appeal and approve the resolution affirming the secret determination. An up or option two is to grant the appeal and direct the harbor department to proceed with with appropriate seek a review before the harbor department reconsiders the agreement. So as stated by the city attorney earlier, that was the the two options available to the city council. So bring this back and I'll start with Councilmember Price.
Speaker 5: I had a question for Mr. Mayes before we started this process. You talked about the narrowness of the issue before us. Can you please restate the issue before us?
Speaker 2: You're basically it's a matter of jurisdiction and the city charter vests in the board of Harbor Commissioners, the responsibility to make certain determinations regarding what activities can and should take place in the port. So it's within the port's purview to determine whether or not it's appropriate to either enter into leases, extend leases, modify leases, those sorts of things by state law and by secure regulations. It's within the city council's purview to handle any and all appeals of the six determinations. So the narrow issue before the Council is strictly deals with whether or not the port applied the appropriate sequence standard when they determined that both the lease and the operating agreement were categorically exempt from further sequent review. So it's that narrow issue.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Price. See you back up.
Speaker 5: Wrong button.
Speaker 3: Okay. Any other questions? Customer Austin.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, first of all, I want to thank the many members of the community who came out today. I want to thank the port. I mean, this has been back and forth. And this is not going to be an easy call for the city council in any way. I did have a few questions as I am deliberating my decision here tonight. And I wanted to specifically address the the the issue of capacity at the pier. And maybe somebody here can match from Metro or Oxbow can can answer my questions or the port.
Speaker 3: Probably appropriate for this time for someone from the port to begin to answer the questions. And if they determine that one of the other companies can step in, that would be fine.
Speaker 9: So as I understand it, there are at least four different commodities that are that are shipped out of the out of Pier G, export it. First and foremost, what percentage of of a business in a port is exports? Somebody. Anybody.
Speaker 4: Of our total volume of containers and bulk products, 30% of our business.
Speaker 2: Is bulk products.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. And I understand that there are four different commodities that we heard about, the pet coke. We heard about the obviously the coal. I know there to be there's sulfur as well as sort of ash. These are the major or main commodities that are shipped there. I just want to tell you, I had opportunity. I've met with the the the in our DC and the coalition, Sierra Club Coalition that came in and had a great conversation a few weeks ago on the 14th floor. And I made a commitment to, to meet with all of the stakeholders. I met with the Port of Long Beach. I met with Metro, with Oxbow. I met with Congressmember Alan Lowenthal. I tried to do my due diligence to get my hand around this, my head around this issue. And I also went on a tour of pirogue. I got to tell you, I was a health and safety representative in the aerospace industry at Boeing for a number of years. I have a trained eye for for engineering and health and safety standards. I found that facility to be top class personal protective equipment was utilized. It was, in plain view, easily accessible. Everybody had on their hardhats, their stilettos, boots, hearing and breathing apparatus. They were they were dressed appropriately. I got an opportunity to witness the operations. I saw a coal train station. I saw where it it where the the the the the shower, so to speak, hits the train as it comes in. I actually saw the the the the apparatus that actually takes in the the train closes it it showers the coal and flips it and it sends it underground to a conveyor belt that then moves the coal to a to a capsule that that pushes it into the the the the shed, the coal shed in question. There was a not not a whole lot of exposure, particularly at the port. And so for that, I think the port operations is world class. What we don't have a handle on is the shipping of the coal, the trains from from across the country. They coal. They they they they mine in Utah and Colorado. And in talking to my congressman, he said, you know, and I talked to them. I said, you know, you you dealt with this issue early on as a as a state assembly member, as one of your first acts as a state assembly member. And it was major legislation because I lived in Long Beach a long time. I can recall, you know, the black dust. Yes, we still have it. And it's questionable where that's from. You know, it could be from our freeways and all kinds of other particulate matter that's in the air. But in terms of regulating the the the the shipment of coal along railroads, I don't think that's personally in the purview of this this council. The second question I had is regarding the fact that I know when I was out there, I observed several other operators in the port and it pure gee, not just the operators in question, obviously metro there. But my question is, are there other exporters of coal in the empire? Gee. And I wasn't exactly sure of that. Is there any other organization doing that? Our company.
Speaker 6: There are none other for export.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 1: To the Indian.
Speaker 9: All right. I have no other questions for right now. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I, too, appreciate the work of both sides. You did a good job of outreaching and educating us on your perspectives. And this is interesting. I really think this comes down to and maybe you, Mr. City attorney, you can help me a legal question opposed to a policy question. The policy side is, should we be digging up coal? Should we be moving coal? Should we be selling coal? But the legal question before us is, I think you've kind of laid out is pertains to the school provisions.
Speaker 2: Is that accurate? That's correct. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Turn back to you, Mr. Councilmember Durango.
Speaker 2: First of all, I want to thank everyone, especially those in the seventh District, who came down here tonight and speaking on behalf of what's taking place. Obviously, the seventh District is one of the most affected districts when it comes to decisions impacting the port. But I do have a few questions related to the presentations that were made. In terms of the Class one series of categorical exemptions. We're talking about a facility that holds well, that the minimum is 1.7 metric tons. Correct.
Speaker 7: That's correct. The current the estimated throughput for 2014 is 1.7 million metric.
Speaker 5: Tons, but the capacity of the facility.
Speaker 7: Is estimated at 2.3 million metric tons. Okay.
Speaker 2: You answered my question and that one in 1992, there's been a lot of reference about the 1992 study and how that was not also a negative declaration in regards to that. At that time, the negative declaration was obviously a different era. I heard some some young, young people say they were, what, five and six and seven when they were 92 or three when 92 was around. So it's a different world, different time. Has there since then been any move or any any any consideration for doing an environmental impact study on those and also on that on the transportation and storage of coal? At all. Has there been any any discussion about that?
Speaker 7: The the Sigma analysis is required at the time that there's a new action that's associated with the with the facility. The 1992 negative declaration was for the construction of the coal shed. And since then, operations have been continuing consistent with what was approved when the 1992 negative declaration moved forward. The action in front of the council tonight is related to the agreements that have just been adopted. That was a new action that the board considered. Those agreements are for the continuation of the existing operations as they're currently being done, consistent with the evaluation that was analyzed by the 1992 negative declaration.
Speaker 2: Which came in the category in a class to cat category to appeal for for the for the exemption here. There is a talk about the replacement of reconstruction that's going to be taking place with asphalt. Is that is it normal for any agency that's going to do that larger replacement to go through a sequel or in the air.
Speaker 5: Class to you?
Speaker 7: Exemptions are are provided for doing repair work replacement work in-kind in the same place. And so it the the asphalt repaving work that's being proposed.
Speaker 5: Is is.
Speaker 7: Consistent with a class two exemption. Class two exemptions are commonly used for repaving work by agencies such as Caltrans for repaving work that.
Speaker 5: They.
Speaker 7: Do on highway systems of much greater quantities than what's being considered here at the pier facility.
Speaker 2: For example, the 710 repayment was that with that trigger, something that.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 7: 710 project.
Speaker 5: Is is a.
Speaker 7: Different level of project.
Speaker 5: It's a it's there's a.
Speaker 7: Lot of different reconstruction that's being provided with.
Speaker 5: That.
Speaker 7: If they were to do repaving in kind on the 710 currently a class two exemption could apply to that.
Speaker 5: But the entire.
Speaker 7: I 710 modernization redevelopment.
Speaker 5: Project is.
Speaker 7: Is a different classification.
Speaker 2: Okay. Now I take it that the water Long Beach is not burning coal or pickle keep the same.
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 2: So so if there are so what are the local impacts on the air and water in the storage of the coal in this facility, if any? And if there are, are there any efforts to minimize those impacts?
Speaker 7: AQ m d Rule 1158 was associated with minimizing the.
Speaker 5: Dust.
Speaker 7: And potential nuisance issues related.
Speaker 5: With the.
Speaker 7: The movement of these dry bulk products through the facility, including coal.
Speaker 5: Petcoke. Another other products.
Speaker 7: The requirements that are established through that rule are being.
Speaker 5: Applied at the facility to minimize impacts.
Speaker 7: That includes covering all of the storage areas and closing all of the loading and unloading operations, including water sprayers and closing all of the conveyor belts and the ship loader and all of that. That work and all of the facility improvements out.
Speaker 0: At the.
Speaker 7: Facility are consistent with the requirements of a rule and 58.
Speaker 2: You know, if I heard correctly, there's another 79 or so leases or projects that are in the pipeline for evaluation and negotiation. And I guess in along with that, would those projects also be subject to this type of evaluation? They review.
Speaker 0: The the list.
Speaker 5: Of projects.
Speaker 7: That was identified by the appellants was from the EIA for the high green facility that was recently approved. It was.
Speaker 5: A list of all of the potential projects.
Speaker 7: In the area.
Speaker 5: Of.
Speaker 7: The port, and each of those would be subject to their own environmental secure analysis.
Speaker 2: To be handled independently.
Speaker 7: That would all be independent. That's correct.
Speaker 2: So just to summarize into, there would be no president if we were to say. To accept the appeal, and it would not affect all the other projects. It would not it would not be president, certainly to have all those other projects also in part.
Speaker 9: Go through an appeal.
Speaker 2: Process automatically.
Speaker 0: The list of projects that are in that Thai air are projects that are undergoing environmental review through year at this present time. And the there there kind of an apples and oranges type situations because they don't they involve changes to projects or brand new projects as opposed to projects for existing facilities where there are no changes being proposed. So it's kind of a different situation in terms of precedent setting. The you know, the granting of the appeal could potentially set a precedent of bringing all the lease renewals forward for new environmental review. That would be the precedent.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I understand. So this is dealing with a renewal, not necessarily the new project.
Speaker 0: It is essentially a renewal of a lease and a new lease, changing the structure of the lease so that there is a direct contractual relationship between the city and the lessee. Oxbow As opposed to Oxbow being a sub tenant of Metro.
Speaker 2: New York, which is.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you all for being here and thank you for all the information. I just have a couple of questions. And, you know, we certainly understand the overall scope of this, but what we're presented here with is is very narrow. And so I just want to make sure I'm getting everything clear. First question, is the port director, he cannot just unilaterally increase the tonnage, is that correct? I just want to make sure of that. I mean, that's been a question that. That's correct. There. There is that the capacity of the facility is fixed.
Speaker 7: Nothing in the action and nothing in the agreement modifies the capacity that is to estimated at 2.3 million metric tons. There is a provision in.
Speaker 5: The lease that identifies that there is a.
Speaker 7: A limit on the amount of.
Speaker 5: Petcoke.
Speaker 7: That can go through the coal shed through the first five years of the of the facility. The executive director or chief executive can consider modifying that limitation on petcoke through the facility, but the overall throughput at the facility would never be able to go beyond the physical limits of the.
Speaker 5: Capacity of the facility. Okay. And then as far as a Q IMT and is it called a health impact reporter, what would it be called? The report that AQ, M.D. provides and how often is that reported? You know, it's two. Any impacts. I know you'd mention that briefly.
Speaker 0: Right. I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't think there was a reference to Akhmed requiring a report. I think there are there is certain equipment out there that Akhmed does provide permitting for, and they have prepared environmental impact reports for various actions that they've taken, including the rule adoption of 1158. So they have studied the issue and taken action on their own. But in terms of the a reference to a report that Akhmed has prepared, there has been no reference to that.
Speaker 5: Okay. So there's not again, there's just not regular reporting. I just wanted to get that cleared. That's. That's correct.
Speaker 7: That's our understanding.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Price.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, first of all, thanks to all those who came out tonight to talk to us and express our concerns about this particular item and also educate us on some of the broader environmental considerations in terms of coal. I just wanted to clarify a few things with the staff before we conclude or go through our deliberation process. As I understand it, the issue before this body is as follows and that the scope is very narrow. And the only determination for this Council is whether the court decision regarding the second determination was justified based on the law and within the scope of the port's powers. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. So the question really before us is whether the changes to this list fall outside of the categorical exemptions, thereby triggering the need for secure evaluation. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: In terms of that, specifically, these questions would probably go to the port. We've heard and like Council member Austin, I too have met with all the stakeholders and attempted to educate myself on the issues. And I did meet with NRDC, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club and followed up on specific questions that they had. I think, however, that there's still some a lack of clarity, at least in the minds of some, regarding two major points. The first and I'd ask the port staff to confirm this if I if my understanding is correct. My understanding, based on the documents that you've provided to us to review in preparation for tonight, is that there will, in fact, not be an increased capacity or throughput of coal. Is that correct? That's correct. That the GMT is not a coal throughput requirement. However, it is a financial term utilized in the contract. Is that correct? That's correct. It's a requirement for payment, not a minimum throughput or performance requirement. And that there is no expectation on the part of the port or the city that there will be an increase in the export of coal beyond what has been exported in the past or that is currently being exported. Is that correct? The at the facility, the current capacity is up.
Speaker 7: To an estimated 2.3 million metric tons. There's nothing in the agreement that changes that. The the facility could be operated in a way up to the limits of the physical capacity today. And they can be operated up to the limits of the physical capacity tomorrow under the new agreements. Nothing in the agreements will change that. Okay.
Speaker 5: Finally, in regards to the categorical exemptions, the fact that the port is relying on, is it accurate to conclude that the improvements on the property, the improvements that have been discussed, do not rise to the level requiring further environmental analysis because they include the same type of concrete pavement, same location and done for maintenance and structural integrity . That's correct.
Speaker 7: Of the maintenance and repair work that's identified in the agreements are replacements in kind for safety improvements and to restore structural integrity.
Speaker 5: And because of those two points, that's where the categorical exemptions serve to not require psychoanalysis. That's correct. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So. So would someone help me understand the connection here between uncovered trains and whether the sequel was whether we're required to do a report?
Speaker 0: The question would be whether or not that's a new condition or a change in condition. The analysis that was previously done for the operation assumed uncovered. It has been uncovered, but. And in addition, putting aside the previous analysis, you're looking at a existing facility. And I do want to clarify that we've had a lot of reference to the 1992 negative declaration for the coal shed. There's also the earlier analysis that was done for the expansion of the throughput for the facility, all of which was coming by uncovered railcar. But it is important to note that the categorical exemptions are separate and apart from those previous analyzes. And the question there is whether or not it's an existing facility operating within its capacity or if the capacity is changing and that that is connected to the components that feed into that facility, such as the rail lines and their operation. So the real test is whether or not there's a change that is in capacity or from what exists now in order to apply those categorical exemptions.
Speaker 6: So so the trigger is is there a change?
Speaker 0: Is there a change as a change in capacity is a key issue? Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. And there from what I hear tonight, there's no evidence of a change. Now, help me help me understand the the pavement aspect. Does that present any change to the operation? Repaving the two football fields worth of asphalt?
Speaker 7: It does not result in any changes to the operation. What it is, is a replacement in kind in the same location.
Speaker 6: Okay. When I repave it, when we repave a street, do we do an environmental? Because I'm sure the streets that we've repaved in the ninth District are more square footage than this? Or is there ever a moment where we have to do an air on those sorts of projects because we do those like all the time? Is there a difference there?
Speaker 0: No, there's not.
Speaker 6: Let me ask that. I thank the community for coming out on both sides. And someone said that this was this is a human element here. And I see humans that are impacted by this on both sides. And it's not an easy issue. And although it seems like the question that's put before us is a very narrow question. A couple of things did come up that really concern me. I just think it's inappropriately placed here, you know, this uncover train circumstance that passes through all of our communities. I'm really concerned about that. So my question is, what agency has the jurisdictional authority to actually do something about that?
Speaker 0: The Surface Transportation Board. Its federal agency.
Speaker 6: Is a federal agency. That's correct. So has the city of Long Beach ever engaged this agency? Have we added it to our federal legislative agenda? Have we ever engaged on this issue?
Speaker 5: Not to my understanding. However, I'm not I'm not sure a city staff would need to advise.
Speaker 6: Is anyone here? Okay. So. So, I mean, if it seems like when there was concern with the coal piles, we were able to work with our state legislators to to find a fix for that. And it seemed like here, if we really want to do something about uncover Coltrane's the appropriate place might be to amend our Fed Legenda or to send it to our federal or federal legislation committee to take a good look at it. Because, I mean, the question here is really narrow, but these are really juicy issues to to talk about. So, you know, at some point, I just want to say that maybe this is more appropriate there at Fed Ledge. And I I'd be willing to entertain that conversation as the chair of our village committee. And then the last question I have is how many leases do we renew, like on an annual basis of the port? How often do we go through this? Just a new lease with similar no change. How how often does this happen? Renewals.
Speaker 7: It's a common practice. It happens a handful of times each year.
Speaker 6: A handful of times a year. Do we go through this with with all of those? What's the difference between that one, those that we go through and this one? Is it the nature that this one is coal or what's the difference? Just help me understand. Break it down for me.
Speaker 7: It's our understanding is the concerns that are raised, raised with this issue are specific to the export of coal.
Speaker 6: Have there been any appeals on any of the other licenses we had in the last three years? Maybe.
Speaker 7: Not to my understanding.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Councilmember Andrews? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. You know.
Speaker 6: I really I applaud everyone who's coming out tonight and the patient that you've shown us. And I've also had a chance to speak with the stakeholders. But, you know, I truly believe, you know, the documents to put it these cases, you know, I'm not a sick or environmental expert, but I do know that our port commissioners and port staff, city attorneys approved the documentation. And I think we're going to have to, like I say, give them time and know we I believe in it and I believe that it will work.
Speaker 2: So with all of that and I know his time is very limited here.
Speaker 6: You guys and I would like to sit up and make.
Speaker 2: A motion with that to deny the appeal.
Speaker 3: And affirm the.
Speaker 6: Decisions of the Harbor Commission.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 3: Okay, there's been a motion and.
Speaker 2: Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Does that emotion include adoption of the resolution and findings that support the staff's or the Port of Harbor Commissioner's determination? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. So there is a motion and a second on the floor by Councilmember Andrews. Next is council. Well, I'll speak to the second and then Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 0: I want to thank the so many people who took the time to email and dialog with us and come into our office on both sides. It's a great privilege and responsibility to represent people in this city and to have the opportunity to go to the facilities and see firsthand what the employees are facing on a daily basis . What a clean and well-run facility. I was actually significantly surprised at the level of cleanliness. It it matches some restaurant kitchens in cities I've been to in the region. And I'm very proud of the work that you do here in our city. I support Councilmember Richardson in bringing this up in our Fed Pledge Committee. It sounds like there are some very. Thin requirements on what we are even able to consider at this time, and that we should be having a policy discussion about our role on the national stage. So with that, I really appreciate the continued education because this needs to be a continued dialog. It cannot be held in just one night. We need to have this over the next several months and continue this dialog for for years to come.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, wanted to thank everyone that's communicated with each of us here at the council. We like the other council members. I've had the opportunity to either speak with or meet in person with the different stakeholders. Regarding this item and the project, and your tireless effort to advocate your position is something I'm very thankful for. This Council doesn't come to these decisions lightly. We don't come to any one issue knowing more than any one of you. And so each of your expertize and passion in this area is something that I'd like to thank you for sharing with us. Your generosity of knowledge allows this body to do its job much better than we could if we did not have access to that. And the time you spend is tremendous. The second District, as most of you know, is straddled with a lot of the issues that have been raised today. Many of my predecessors, including Congressman Alan Lowenthal, has dealt with the issues and has dealt with issues on how to resolve the impact of port activity here, not only for the second District but truly for the city of Long Beach. There are always environmental issues that somehow seem to emanate from the second District, whether it's from the port or the coast, that both the second and third district share. We are dealing with air quality issues, water quality issues. To that point, I wanted to thank the Port of Long Beach for its commitment to improving our air and water quality. I know that our harbor department is a partner not only with the city of Long Beach and its many departments, but really all its residents as well . And we have seen appreciable differences. And while that might have nothing to do with the issue at hand today, I do want to point that out that this is a long narrative. We didn't come to this point overnight, but it is a multi-decade narrative that I think we're going in the right direction. As Councilmember Price very articulately highlighted, the issue here can be separated into two concerns. I won't go over the points that she made. I think she made them quite well. And our attorneys and staff responded to them. This item today, there's. It is between two concerns. And I think all of us struggle with where we end up, depending on what we believe is the question before us. Is there a legal basis compelling the port of Long Beach and thus this city council, this body, to perform a square review of impacts from Metro Oxbow agreement, which requires them to carry out certain repairs, maintenance and replacement or materials and equipment in their terminal. I think the attorneys have answered that question as well as the staff has and through Councilmember Price's more textured questions under that, I think we have the answer to that. But for possible future discussion, I'd like to be able to buy for Kate the philosophical question, the environmental question. I don't believe there's a single council member here that does not regard him or herself as an environmentalist, as someone with regard for our environment, each of us. We all have children. We all have concerns for all our residents. But we have a personal investment here. So for possible future discussion, as Councilmember Richardson indicated, we could take up the issue of whether the port and really the city of Long Beach. The larger question whether we contribute to the global use of coal dust for energy, which has been identified as a contributor to air pollution and climate change. And we have to be able to separate that question. And I think that is a question that each of us wants to take up and can take up. As a separate matter, though, there may be a practical connection between exporting coal dust and contract renewal. In my opinion, there does not appear to be a legal connection using the vehicle of an appeal of Sequoia, and not my opinion alone, but one that I feel has been adequately defended by our staff and city attorney. The improvements being made to the existing terminal do not rise to the level of significant changes as described by Mr. Mays, and the agreement does not result in any increase in the amount of coal dust being exported. However, I do think the points that you've made are valid ones when it comes to the quality of life, when it comes to our sharing with our global community, a common environmental identity. And for that reason, I believe that this item should go to the Federal Legislative Committee, as well as the city's environmental committee, and can be duly addressed. And this council can determine if it would like to make a resolution to that. And going forward and with that, I'll be supporting the motion at hand.
Speaker 3: Okay. So with that, there is no no more council comment. So there is a motion on the floor. And Members, please go ahead and cast your votes.
Speaker 4: Motion carries nine votes. Yes.
Speaker 3: With that, we're going to take a five minute recess before we begin the budget hearing to allow the staff to prepare for that.
Speaker 1: Wow. Wow. Now. How many? Say. I am. I.
Speaker 9: Gay Jazz. 88.1. Let me tell you how I really feel about this one. Oh, I love it. I love it. I love it.
Speaker 3: Yellowjackets Taking Care of the Bears. Magnolia The name of that particular tune.
Speaker 9: From the album.
Speaker 3: Timeline. Before that fascinating rhythm complements of the.
Speaker 9: Definitive Vince Guaraldi Trio.
Speaker 3: Okay, Jazz got into that with McCoy Tyner Caravan. And of course, we topped off the last to the hour with Duke Ellington and The.
Speaker 9: Mooch as.
Speaker 3: We turn it over to Grover Washington.
Speaker 9: Junior. Okay, Jazz, 88.1. So when?
Speaker 3: I want to bring us back from recess if we can get the members to take their seats. Okay. We have a we have a quorum. Back with that, we're going to go into our hearing. Number two, Mr. Clerk. | Resolution | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and conduct a public hearing on the appeal filed by Earthjustice on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club (Appellants), in accordance with Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.21.507; and adopt resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners' environmental determinations made in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement for the Pier G dry bulk facility in the Port of Long Beach and for the Oxbow Energy Solutions LLC Lease of the Pier G Coal Shed (Coal Shed). | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08192014_14-0580 | Speaker 4: Thank you, Mary Garcia. The recommendations conduct a budget hearing on the 2015 budgets for the Departments of Health and Human Services, Public Works and the Water Department.
Speaker 3: Before I turn this over to Mr. West, we'll do this in the same format. We've done the other budget hearings. Mr. WEST. We'll go through we'll go through all the all the departments, and then we'll bring it back to the two questions for council, and then we'll open it up to the public.
Speaker 2: Mr. West Mayor, Councilmembers. This is just another one of our budget hearings regarding showcasing some of our departments. Tonight, you're going to hear from our Health and Human Services Department, our public works department and our water department. Our first stop is going to be the Health and Human Services Department with Director Kelly Collopy. If you could remove the slide. We wanted to highlight that. Originally, we attempt to have like Parks and Recreation, Library and Health and Human Services along with P.D. and Fire, because we considered these departments very tight with our public safety continuum. So we just want to know and let you know that Health and Human Services the department are going to hear from tonight. We're very, very, very closely with all aspects of PD and fire specifically and keeping people healthy, providing affordable housing in some cases, adding our Section eight certificates. They do, I believe, 7000 units a year serving 20,000 people in poverty. And in addition to that, our homeless population. So they're very, very important with our public safety continuum, working with PD and Fire. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kelly.
Speaker 13: Good evening, honorable mayor and city council members. Thank you for this opportunity to share the Health and Human Services Department budget and priorities. We are one of the three city health jurisdictions in California with Pasadena and Berkeley. We are one of the lucky few with an account within a county of 10 million people. You have a department whose sole focus is to coordinate over $116 million from outside sources, bringing best practice, innovative services and over 300 employees committed to improving the health of your city. It allows for local focus and local control of resources to support city goals and meet city needs. In addition, we are in a place to coordinate the many departments and services from Los Angeles County in a more integrated approach locally and in coordination with our local nonprofits and health care system. The Health and Human Services Department is a key player in the overall continuum of public safety in the city and considered one of the three legs of the emergency response triangle in partnership with police and fire. We work closely with city staff on emergency preparedness and response to ensure the public safety of our residents. We actively engage community members in preventing the spread of disease through public education workshops, clinical lab services and responding to natural and man made disasters. As a recognized health jurisdiction in the state, in partnership with the CDC and other California health departments, we are the key surveillance information and prevention hub for infectious diseases that can affect the health and safety of Long Beach residents. Our day to day Health and Human Services programing directly impacts the quality of life and public safety of the city of Long Beach. We address health through the lifespan from before birth until death. Creating opportunities for healthier families and neighborhood environments by increasing access to health opportunities. In addition, we work collaboratively with various departments and community partners to create an integrated health systems approach to provide a wide array of services. Our core services are promoting and encouraging healthy, active living through health, education, immunizations, testing and treatment programs for families and their children and services to seniors to improve the quality of life. We ensure safe, physical environments by testing the city's recreational waters, doing restaurant inspections and training, hearing, load testing, mosquito abatement, disease surveillance and prevention and emergency and disaster preparedness and response. We also improve access to healthy, active living by supporting families with housing assistance, outreaching to homeless populations for housing placement and supportive services, expanding community gardens and neighborhood fitness zones, and expanding health coverage to the underinsured and the uninsured. Our accomplishments this year. We have over 30 programs and many accomplishments. So this is just a sample of the many things that we've achieved this year. First of all, we provided safe and affordable housing to approximately 21,000 residents and nearly 7000 units in the city of Long Beach. We were recognized in the American Diabetes Association Education Program. The city of Long Beach as highly impacted by diabetes, with over 42,000 people in Long Beach having been diagnosed with diabetes and many more are undiagnosed . One in three hospitalizations are due to diabetes. Our department provides diabetes education in English and Spanish in a six weeks program. This recognition indicates we are a best practice site and we'll be working very closely with our health care providers as referrals so that we can support their patients and helping them manage their diabetes. We expanded access to nutrition and exercise citywide by reaching nearly 25,000 youth and their parents through programs such as Long Beach, Junior Runners, the Junior Champions Program, Harvest of the Month and Kill Zone in North Long Beach. We saw a reduction in infant mortality by 44% over ten years. This dramatic decline is as a result of the health department and their partners across all sectors. Our community working together to ensure that mothers have access to healthy food, engage in physical activity, and are linked to care and social services programs in the Health Department, including Nurse Family Partnerships, our work program and Black Infant Health. Among many, we were able to reduce the tobacco access rate among youth from 36% in 2009 to 7.8%, the lowest in history. This is done by the Health Department or the Environmental Health Bureau conducts routine inspections to ensure compliance with tobacco laws. We conducted 493 last year and we implement tobacco decoy operations where teenagers go in and try and buy tobacco products. And if they do sell them, then they're cited. We also provided over 23,000 clinical visits at the Health Department, and these include family planning, STD, HIV, tuberculosis and immunizations. We delivered nearly 18,000 immunizations last year, many of them free or at a reduced cost. And finally, it's not on the slide, but we held a public health conference this past year for over 400 people who are engaged in serving the health of our community. It was a huge hit, and we received a national award for our social media campaign, which highlighted our city's innovative use of technology. I proposed budget. Our budget is about $717 million of that. 77 million of it goes to housing authority to support low income housing in the community. It goes through housing vouchers. 38 million of it is from the health fund that the health fund is made up of re-alignment funds, which is vehicle licensing fees and sales tax, other fees and grants. About less than 1% of our department's budget comes from general fund. Our major changes for this year in the budget is really a focus on stabilizing our workforce and maximizing our grant funding. Almost all changes in our Health and Human Services budget are health related rather than general fund. A key focus is to ensure we have sufficient staffing to maximize our grant resources that we receive. This includes moving previously part time employees to full time and combining part time and non-career positions to provide full time positions. We realigned two positions to address the impact of Affordable the Affordable Care Act. Last year, nearly 2000 individuals received direct enrollment assistance from our department. We provided education outreach to another thousand individuals in the city. We extended hours and participated on weekends and fairs and an open hours. This extra capacity will help us when enrollment season opens again. The Health Department is also currently going through the National Public Health Accreditation Process, which ensures that our department is engaged in best practice in public health. To assist in this year long effort. We have created a vacant position to lead this effort as well as support ongoing implementation of our five year strategic plan. And finally, we added a chronic homeless initiatives coordinator who will coordinate local and regional entities to mitigate homeless encampment locations, manage the COG Homeless Initiative and the Downtown Homeless Connections Initiative, funded by the Hilton Foundation. This person will also lead the city's effort to track, monitor and respond to chronic homeless. Working with our quality of working with quality of life teams, the Met Teams and the DOJ. The funding for this position will be split between general fund and grant funding and approximately $49,000 each. Our issues and opportunities coming up. I had the opportunity to attend the mayor council retreat over the weekend and to hear about the vision for the city. What you described really is a healthy city. In addition, you focused on collaboration as a mechanism to achieve it. Each of the departments you've heard from so far. Plus Public Works, Development, Service and Workforce have been engaged in collaborative planning to build the health of our city together. We'll also be engaging in conversations and planning with many community partners who are engaged in supporting our city's health. And we look forward to engaging you in this conversation as well. Our Continuum of Care received the unified funding agency status, which will allow for greater flexibility in local resources targeting to address homeless. We are one of only two nationally to receive this designation. The other being Columbus, Ohio. This is seen as a national best practice and they're actually turning to us to help them organize it and figure out how to.
Speaker 2: Move it forward.
Speaker 13: Health and wellness. Health and wellness really includes being physically and mentally healthy. We're seeking to expand mental health opportunities in the city through work with new funding sources and partners. In addition, we're working to integrate mental health services into our clinical services to improve the likelihood that people will access them. We've been participating in a pilot with Mental Health America as an integrated service model, and the early results are promising. We're looking to seek we're seeking to continue this model moving forward. Another key issue for us is improving the coordination of local data systems. There are many data systems in many organizations related to health in our city. However, the data are not coordinated and they're not easily accessed across our system. The stymies effective planning and Coordination of Service. The Health Department is planning to implement a common database to track health indicators in the city. In addition, we'll be working closely with our partners to ease data, access for planning, coordination and reporting. In other issues, return is reducing health disparities in our diverse neighborhoods. Research indicates the social determinants of health such as poverty, trauma, safety, education, employment have a significant impact on individuals and communities. In Long Beach, we have neighborhoods who are heavily impacted by social issues that are struggling with their ability to improve their health overall. A key challenge for us with our partners is providing the same opportunity for health in all of our neighborhoods. And finally, identifying sustained funding for our services. 84 7% of our resources come from federal, state and local grants management. Department of Programs. With grant funding as a primary source of revenue is both a science and an art. Thankfully, my staff have both of those skills. While some grants are stable and we've been receiving them for years, others are more project specific with limited time periods. In addition, we are directly impacted by policy and funding changes at all levels of government and sometimes with little notice. While we've learned to be nimble and do our best to maintain staffing and to maintain and grow services, we seek more sustainable funding solutions in the future. So each of our presentations so far have been framed as the public safety continuum, and we're so pleased to be part of it. But I'd say there were also our key players in the health continuum of Long Beach. Physical and behavioral health promotion is a crime reduction strategy. It's an education strategy. It's an employment strategy. Crime reduction, education, employment are also health promotion strategies. They're also closely intertwined, although we tend to talk about them separately. Health, safety, education. Sustainable income, housing in place are keys to success of the people in Long Beach and Brenda one breaks down. The likelihood of success is reduced. When people are physically and mentally healthy, they do better in school, they do better at work, their families do better, and there's less crime involved to achieve a healthy line, which for everyone requires all of us. The partnerships across the city, our long standing, your Health and Human Services Department is a key resource for bringing and coordinating outside funding streams, social service and behavioral health partners, hospitals and other nonprofit agencies to build health and a coordinated strategy with you, our other departments, our communities, and our partners. I know we can achieve our collective vision of a long beach where people are healthy, safe and thriving. I look forward to working with you. This concludes my report and I'm available to respond to any questions you may have.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So next up, we will have public works with Director R MOYEN.
Speaker 0: And Mr. City Manager. Just wanted to let councilmembers know. We'll just allow staff to make their presentations and take questions at the end. Thank you.
Speaker 14: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief overview of the public works departments at 515 proposed budget. To put our presentation in context. When residents step out of their homes, businesses open their doors and visitors come to Long Beach, they see public works whether they realize it or not. Every street, sidewalk, traffic, light, storm drain, street sweeper, refuse truck, tree trimmer, graffiti truck or traffic sign and a pothole truck affects the public in one way or another. In order to maintain a structurally balanced operating budget, we focus on core service delivery. It is Public Works mission to maintain and enhance the city's infrastructure and environment for the benefit of the public. The department's five bureaus have very diverse functions, including building and roadway design and construction, infrastructure maintenance, refuse and recycling, stormwater management and real estate services. We envision a better tomorrow by serving and exceeding the expectations of the public through the performance of our valued employees. Although we have very diverse functions, our core services are to provide for and maintain safe and adequate infrastructure for the community, provide for sustainable environmental protection in a positive service environment, and safely and efficiently design, construct, deliver , protect or maintain services for the public facilities public right away and stormwater management. Next. That's why 14 has been a very productive year for public works with the ongoing and one time funding provided by the City Council. Some of our accomplishments are we completed $74 million in capital improvement projects, including libraries, recreational, other buildings, park infrastructure and traffic signals. This includes 5.8 million of sidewalk repairs totaling 22 miles and 34 million in arterial and residential streets, totaling 73 lane miles. We completed the construction of Chaddock Field and or Zumba Park Community Center, installed class, two bike lanes on seven major streets and class three bikes, bike lanes, routes on three major, major streets collected 190,000 tons of trash for residential and commercial accounts swept 155,000 miles of streets and alleys and collected 10,176 tons of materials. Environmental Services Bureau Refuse Diversion Recycling Program has been very successful. Customers generated only £3.7 per person per day, far exceeding the state mandate of reducing the trash generated to a maximum of £7.6 per person per day. We repaired 40,000 potholes. The major and secondary thoroughfares response rate was within three days and local streets and alleys response rate was within 15 days. We responded to and removed 957,000 square feet of graffiti within 24 hours and of being reported trimmed, 26,500 trees removed, 400 tree stumps, and we strive to center lines of miles of city streets, responded to 22,000 facility, 9000 traffic signal and 11,200 go Long Beach and not service requests and completed the 9 million remodel of Pacific Ballroom at the Arena. I would like to add that my regularly scheduled meetings with each one of you has been valuable to maintain constant communication and ensure we're on the track with service delivery . We are having some technical difficulties. Public works overall budget is 145 million. As you can see, we manage a significant number of funds. All briefly mentioned key funds shown on the pie chart, starting at the top and going clockwise. The capital project funds are 4.2 million is primarily for for sidewalks with the balance for pothole repair and bike paths. 44 million is for the refuse collection and contract recycling operations, waste diversion programs and litter free Long Beach Program. Public Works 32.7 million General Fund portion is 8.6% of the city's general fund with offsetting revenue. Our general fund impact is only $7.5 million. The Civic Center Fund of 9.9 million handles the ongoing civic center system, custodial and parking operations, $15.6 million of gas stock Street Improvement Fund. Our money's received from the state for ride away improvements. The transportation fund of 14.6 million includes monies received from the county for transportation purposes. Prop eight for 3 million. Prop C 6.5 million and Measure R points for 4.9 million. Tidelands is primarily for the aquarium and public parking lots, commercial center and PDC permits and compliance and beach parking enforcement. As you know, the stormwater environment is important. Just to provide a little background to this. The city has four major beaches. Each council district generates non stormwater runoff that is transported through street gutters, storm drain pipes, ditches and channels and then two rivers and eventually ending at the beaches. The city of Long Beach is mandated to comply with the Clean Water Act guidelines through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Elimination System Permit, in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State Water Resources Control Board. Within the permit, the city is responsible for nine total maximum daily load compliance regulations. Fines totaling from noncompliance with the NYPD's permit can range from 5000 to $10000 per day, a violation. There are 17 participating cities in the three watersheds Lower L.A. River, lower San Gabriel, San Gabriel River and Los Cerritos Channel that contribute additional money for their portion of monitoring plan and watershed management programs. The program directly impacts the quality of life in our rivers and beaches. The 199,000 will fund the Lower L.A. River, Lower San Gabriel River and Los Cerritos Channel. Watershed to handle compliance monitoring. The 451,000 will fund the Greater Los Angeles Long Beach Toxic Pollutants and Los Angeles Liver River Estuary and Long Beach handle as as well as the Alamitos Bay Compliance Monitoring. According to cities and PDS permit, 395,000 and Tidelands funding is to be to develop a citywide master watershed management program and a reasonable assurance analysis which will include the Greater Los Angeles. Long Beach Harbors, Long Beaches and Alamitos Bay. Public Works plays an essential role in maintaining and enhancing the community's quality of life. During the past year, I've taken the opportunity to review our operations and obtain employee feedback on how best to move our department forward. We're looking at ways to restructure service delivery. As mentioned in the mayor's budget, recommendations will look forward to working with employees and the street sweeping division on implementing efficiencies such as reducing the street sweeping time block. The payment management program I initiated is winding down, and we will have a comprehensive report on our street condition shortly. As technology expands, the Long Beach reporting will also impact our resources. Significant strides have been made in the last few years to address the city's aging infrastructure with additional nonrecurring funds. However, it is not anticipated that these non recurring funds will be available at the level in the in the near future. Aging infrastructure is a constant issue facing our city. Our 23 storm drain pump stations are approximately 60 years old and serve service at 380 miles of active stormwater infrastructure, including pipes, open channels, ditches, culverts and drains. Public Works has identified that the storm main pump stations need to be refurbished as they are unable to support the needs . The wide variety of core services public works provides positively affects residents, businesses and visitors within our city. Public Works School is to provide as many of these essential services seamlessly. To put the level of service in perspective. Public works inventory includes 800 miles of streets, 215 miles of alleys, 600 miles of sidewalks, 600 miles of curb and gutter, over 400 public buildings, 145 bridges, 190 miles of storm drains, 23 pump stations, 303,900 catch basins, 95,000 street trees, 180,000 traffic signs, 640 traffic signals, 3300 parking meters and nearly 125,000 refuse and recycling accounts. I take pride in our 421 public works employees that deliver quality, ongoing program and CIP projects on a daily basis. Thank you for your support in the past and I look forward to working with each one of you going forward. This concludes my report.
Speaker 2: I think you are next is Kevin water with the water apartment and I believe in the audience is the chairman of the water commission.
Speaker 6: I think.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of the Council, thank you for the opportunity to present the water department's budget there. It comes for fiscal year 2015. And I would like to introduce the president of the water commission, Harry Salts gave her. It was right up here with the bright red tie. So it's easy to see. Go ahead. In the water department, we have two separate and distinct funds. The water fund and the sewer funds are there. They're the. It's just as it sounds. The costs of the water fund are provided for by our water fees and the sewer fund. Likewise. So I'll cover the water fund first and then later the sewer fund. The water fund there. You can see on the the pie chart on the left is by far the largest fund. It constitutes about 84% of our budget. And then the sewer fund, about 16%. And then you see the the breakdown of our major components of our water fund. So roughly two thirds of it is non-personal services or operation and maintenance costs. And we'll talk about some of those on the next slide. About 20% is our personnel or personal services budget, and then our capital budget is about 13 million. Really, what's driving what's happening with the water department is really this slide is the key to it. This shows you we get 60% of our water supply from the groundwater basin and 40% of it we buy from the Metropolitan Water District. And what you're seeing here is a chart that shows on the top what the rates we were charged by the Metropolitan Water District have done since 2008 through 2015. And what the the charges that we pay to the water replenishment district for the groundwater that we pump have done, and in both cases, they've gone up 81% over that time period. So the numbers on the top are in dollars per acre foot for those of you that are are trying to follow this. And then the graph on the bottom is in millions of dollars. So you can see and if you look at it, that basically those costs have gone up about $14 million. So while we've absorbed in some cases these 81% increases in costs from the Metropolitan Water District and the the water replenishment district, our rates, including the 4% rate increase we're proposing for 2015, have only gone up 44%. So we've been absorbing many of these costs and have been running a deficit budget for the last few years now. And so we came to the water commission last year into the City Council. And the next slide will show that we couldn't continue to run a deficit budget forever. We've been using reserves to meet this deficit. So last year was the first year of our five year finance plan on our water on our water budget. This chart shows you the remaining four years with fiscal year 15, they're highlighted in yellow. The finance plan essentially accomplishes two objectives. By 2018, it would balance our budget, so it will bring our revenues and expenditures into balance. It's right now unbalanced, as you can see, to the tune of about $7 million deficit budget in 15. And the other thing it would do is it would use our remaining reserves to to smooth those rate increases in. So we what our studies show and what we did this year and what we're proposing, again, in 15 is that with 4% rate increases by 2018, we achieve those two objectives of being in a balanced budget situation and having our reserve level at the 11 to $12 million target, which is what the rating agencies have told us , is the lowest amount that they'd like us to maintain as a as a reserve for our water fund. And so we have assumptions of continuing rate increases from MWD and the water replenishment built into that plan. And of course, if we can be successful at reducing those, then our future rate increases would come down accordingly. But again, this is what's driving our our budget and our rate increases as these increased costs from MWD and the water replenishment district. Moving out of the sewer fund. We have a similar situation there. We were faced with some new regulations about seven years ago that required us and other water utilities or other utilities that operate sanitary sewer systems to greatly expand our sewer activities, both in terms of maintenance, cleaning, inspection and capital investment. And so we've been doing that now for the last seven years or so. So there you see the sewer budget broken down again. It's heavy on O&M or non-personal services. And about a $4 million or about a 20% of our sewer fund goes towards capital improvement programs. Go ahead. The situation we're facing with the sewer system is so we've been in spending this additional money for the last several years now out of a line of credit, we took $20 million , line of credit we opened several years ago. Now we've been able to extend that twice. It's a very low interest, a line of credit we wish we could continue forever, but it is going to expire in 2017. And so that's what's planned for here is in 2017 to retire that outstanding, outstanding line of credit and convert it to a regular long term debt issuance where we'll have to be paying both principal and interest. So that's why you see a fairly large increase in our expenditures as we go from 2016 to 2017, almost $1,000,000 in increase as we start making principal payments on that line of credit after we convert it. And again, we've got nominal increases assumed in our budget. And then again, what you see here is, is that by 2019, we again would achieve a balanced budget, our revenues and expenditures would be in balance and our reserves would be down to around $4 million, which is again the target for our sewer fund, for our rating agencies . They'd like us to maintain about $4 million in the sewer fund. So that's so again, our forecast there is we need a 4% rate increase this year and then 5% rate increases each of the next four years to achieve those two objectives. Go ahead. So what does this mean in terms of rates? Again, what we're proposing for 15 is a 4% increase in both the water and sewer rates. How does that stack up? Go ahead. On the typical monthly bill. This shows are our combined water and sewer rates for a typical single family home in Long Beach. Compare how it's changed over the years. You see that what the increase there, the total increase the purple is the water and the yellow or gold is the sewer and it's against a 4% increase in total is $2.12 on the combined water and sewer bill. How does this compare to other cities throughout California and our peers in our in our area? This is the total water and sewer bill. And in this analysis, we also include the fee that our property owners in Long Beach pay to the sanitation districts through their property tax bill. So it's a true apples and apples comparison because there is an additional fee that that's paid for sewer service provided for the sanitation districts. So when you combine that, you see how we compare to what's called the L.A. County Average, a grouping of cities in Los Angeles County, how we compare to other large cities in the state . And then we also like to show Golden State Water, which is a private utility that provides water service in a very small part of northeast Long Beach. We provide their sewer service, but Golden State provides the water service. So the entire difference there for the Golden State customers is, is their increased water bill that they pay to Golden State water. And I think I'll I'll conclude with a couple of comments that are that I don't think I should be here tonight and not talk about the drought and conservation. I want to thank the members of the Council for your ongoing support of what we've been doing in the law, in the water department and for what you've been doing in the community. This is a very, very serious drought that we're engaged on. You've all heard that Long Beach is once again leading California through this drought. I'm sure you've seen that we in July, we reduced our consumption for water to the lowest level since 1958. We'll do the same again in August and we'll go for a three peat in September. So this is a very, very impressive thing that the city of Long Beach is doing. I want to thank the council. I want to thank the city departments who are working closely on this. And I certainly want to thank our constituents who are doing a wonderful job of setting a great example for the entire state of California . With regard to water conservation, we don't know how long this drought is going to go on. So the more we can save, the better we are. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And thank you all for the for the presentations. What we're going to do is we're going to first, I just wanted to make a quick comment. I just wanted to thank there's a lot of you in the audience that are either here for this or public comment. And thank you for for bearing with the longevity of tonight to this point. I also want to ask the heads of each of the departments one department head can each can take the mic so that when we ask the questions, it can go go smooth. So someone from water, someone for our public works at as well as our health and human services. That way the questions can be asked and we'll have a smooth process. And we'll start with Councilmember Price.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I wanted to address the Department of Health and Human Services, and thank you really for the work that you do with the homeless program and operations that we have in the city. I was recently at a restaurant and a resident came up to me, which happens a lot more often than I ever envisioned nowadays. But a restaurant. A customer came up to me, also a resident of the third and said, you know, talks about the homeless problem and the issue that they perceived as a problem to be near the Belmont Pier area. And and said, you know, why are aren't the homeless and why doesn't cities like Newport and Corona Del Mar have the same issues with the homeless? And I explained to them that because Long Beach is not Newport or Corona Del Mar or Long Beach, and how very proud I am of our Health and Human Services Department and trying to work proactively and with the limited resources that you have to come up with constructive solutions that provide those individuals with options, choices and positive. Options that are available to them that otherwise wouldn't be without our city. So I wanted to highlight that and and say that I understand that you're working with a very limited budget when it comes to our homeless programs and the efforts that you do for that program. Can you elaborate a little bit more in terms of anything new that you plan to do in the coming year to enhance the program that we currently have?
Speaker 13: We received the unified funding agency status, which is that for the continuum of care, what that will allow us to do is to be more flexible in the way that we the way we use our resources for homeless. So as we see different priorities pop up, it will allow us some more flexibility in how we address those issues. In addition, we're working very closely, as you know, with the quality of life teams and with our met teams. Quality of life is with the police department, includes an officer and a mental health provider to do outreach. So as people are seeing homeless and they're seeing situations where we ask that you do contact us because we will send outreach workers out. And the multi-service center is being it's under construction right now. It will open again in October. At that time, we will have our partners co-located there and we will continue to do all of the different services that we've that we've done in terms of helping people find housing and address their other needs.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you for the work that you do, and we look forward to supporting you in any way that we can.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Appreciate.
Speaker 3: Council, Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 5: Thank you and thank you for the report. So I'll first start with Health and Human Services. Again, I have to reiterate. Thank you very much. I know we see the effects in the First District because we often see homeless individuals. And quick story, we I believe your outreach group took a family off the streets, a family of about four or five off our 14th Street area. So it was a huge deal to not see them, you know, struggling up out in the street. So that's just one example of how we see it every single day. So just in speaking with the homeless coordinator that I think you have proposed here, I know there's some reorganization within your department. Is that replacing anything or is that in addition or what what can we expect from or what is that position exactly?
Speaker 13: The new position is in addition, it's not replacing replacing any service. It will this person will help sort of coordinate, exist, coordinate new programs and existing programs. They'll be there to provide greater coordination around outreach to the chronic homeless population and to work with that to work with other grants. We see it as providing up to 2000 hours of extra outreach because they'll be sort of helping to reduce some of the other work of other people who are doing direct service.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. And public works are a thank you for your presentation. I just have to say thank you for all that you do because I we also see the work, you know, in our district daily. And if I can just say one thing, I know it wasn't really touched on here, but just in regards to just privatization and inner city employees. And I know that it's it's really important, you know, in my perspective, to be able to identify other cost savings, to be able to keep our street sweepers, our refuse and other city employees, you know, within within the city. And that's certainly something that, you know, I'm supportive of and just. Thank you. That's all I wanted to say.
Speaker 14: Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: And also, actually, I think we love the street sweepers. Can they sweep our alleys? I know we talked about that, but that's something that always comes up. So I hope that, you know, we can certainly address that somehow.
Speaker 14: As we discussed yesterday at your budget presentation. By request, we will have streets. I mean, street sweepers will go into the alleys. But it's not a program that we have currently. But if there is a need, will accommodate that.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. And then lastly, the water department. I just wanted to also say thank you as well. I know you're great work. It's very progressive initiatives. Linda Garden, we, you know, handle a lot of that in our office, keeping our rates low and also being fiscally responsible. Thank you. And and a question about cast iron pipes. I know that when do we expect to upgrade those outdated pipes or what is the process for that?
Speaker 4: We've been regularly replacing cast iron pipes, which is our oldest pipes, which are the ones that are most susceptible to breakage since the early 1990s. So over 20 years we've had a significant program. We've replaced about half of them thus far. So, you know, the remaining half will take us about another 30 to 40 years. But, you know, so again, strategically, we've replaced all the ones that we've had problems with. As we talk with your office and particularly in your district, a lot of the ones that are in your district are in the alleys. That's a very difficult situation and a lot more time consuming and and expensive. But again, at the rate we're going, it's about a 30 to 40 year period before we replace the remaining little less than half that we still have.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 0: Yes. I want to start by thanking the great work of our health and public health department. For those of you who don't know, I started my county career as a budget, a budget analyst for health services, L.A. County. And so the work that you do is imperative. And I appreciate how thin of a margin our matching funds are against the revenue that you draw down. That's quite a testament to both our financial management division and your department to be able to leverage those funds effectively. One of my areas of concern is that over the last 10 to 15 years, mental health funds into the region have more than doubled, in some cases almost tripled. And our city has not seen that same gain in grants. Is there any strategy that we could take in the next few years to better partner? I believe L.A. County has seen an increase from in the $700 million area, up to $1.9 million in terms of additional funding to the region. I recognize that a large portion of that is to deal with some of the issues in our correctional facilities. But there are a lot of correction facilities to community programs, as a lot of our officers will attest to, that we have many issues in pulling them out and back into society in a meaningful way. Are we working on that with our probation officers and our police officers? Is there a way to draw down that major funding?
Speaker 13: Yes. So there there are multiple different services in Long Beach to the Department of Mental Health from L.A. County, has an office here and they provide direct service. We're working very closely with them. Mental health America provides there are key partner with that with us in providing mental health services as part of our continuum of care and other services. They're also part of our integrated physical health and mental health program that we're working on in terms of working with our criminal justice partners. We are in conversation. We are we will be one of the pilots through the L.A. County Mental Health Diversion Program with Jackie Lacey. So we we have been meeting and talking about that with both the police department and with the city prosecutor's office to develop that model. And we will be working with L.A. County to look to move that forward. Our goal is, is that we can address those issues here before they end up in the L.A. County jail.
Speaker 0: Please let me know how I can be helpful. Public Works. Thank you for your expedient response to the flood of constituent requests through the GO app recently. We've received a lot of positive feedback in the effective ways that your staff have responded to our graffiti issues that have recently arisen from some releases that we've had in the area. Could you give us a quick update on the Street Payments Pavement survey?
Speaker 14: Yes. Approximately a year ago when I joined the city, as far as being the direct, not the director of public works but the city engineer, my first vision was to update our 2005 payment management plan. We have already a consultant on board that have finished their survey. We're working on the the implementation phase of it. I should have a very comprehensive plan for you within the next month or so. So after you're done with your major hearings, I'll bore you with that.
Speaker 0: And will that comprehensive plan come with a dollar amount that would be required to move our current street conditions to a. More manageable scale of accountability across the city.
Speaker 14: I will give you all that data in regards to where we are with the current index. How much money we need to spend per year to stay as status quo. And what you need to do to increase that index.
Speaker 0: Great. I look forward to it. And thank you for your partnership on a potential program that we might be bringing to the fifth District soon. Related to pilot programs will add efficiency to our street sleepers while not outsourcing that. My grandfather was a tree supervisor for the city, and I know the great pride that our community employees take in the streets that they drive down and that they live in our community and they care about our community. We recently had a few calls for service, about one medium, and there was a a street sweeper, and he didn't he got a new route and he didn't know about this particular median and which day of the week it was handled. And I thought he was very professional in his response to our constituents and they've given some great positive feedback. So thank you for making the adjustments to the route. And lastly, last week I made my first water waster app declaration, so I'm sorry to the resident who was wasting water, but you have been reported, I think that your app is wonderful. It is both creative and innovative. The kids in the community of our neighborhood association have been tasked as water enforcement officials and their parents have used their little not iPhones, but they play iTunes on it. We call it an iPod there, their Wi-Fi, iPods to report. So you will be getting many reports from the fifth District soon as we have deputized a team of young people. And I wanted to comment on the lawn to garden program has typically been only for turning a grass lawn into a garden. One of the things that's happened in our community is we've actually explored artificial turf, and that's currently an expense that's completely burdened by the homeowner. I've made that personal choice to change over, but some of our senior citizens are less likely to make that kind of change because of the restrictions and moderate income that they're depending on . And so I appreciate the discussions we've had on a pilot program to potentially experiment with a lawn to garden option and was hoping that, Kevin, you might be able to let us know it would 90 days or 120 days be a reasonable amount of time to discuss the components of that pilot program so that our senior community could reduce their water intake without any changes to the Neighborhood Association's happiness with their lawns.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah. I think 90 days is very reasonable. We can put a pilot program together and have it implemented within that time frame, I'm certain.
Speaker 0: Excellent. The senior citizens of my community. Appreciate it. Thank you. That I have no more questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Constable Richardson.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor. I want to be I want to be quick, because I know there's a number of North Long Beach residents here waiting for the council meeting to begin. So. So let's let's start with. Well, we have water just that just chimed in. So I know with the scarcity of water and our our aging infrastructure and the increased price, you're hit with like a triple threat to your budget. So I'm happy that the the water water board and our president here's a ninth District resident Mr. Salts gave her. I'm happy the water board in the last council took steps to ensure that we will have a fiscally sound water department that will maintain services for our residents and jobs, you know, quality, quality employment here in the city. My question is really about the lawn garden program similar to Councilmember Price. So my wife and I, we just converted converted our lawn. We love it. It's low maintenance, relatively no water. But across the street from my home, the neighborhood across the street, they they don't have access to this program. And we've talked about it loosely. But I wanted to just ask out in the open, you know, there are certain areas in the town who aren't you know, who are not customers of Long Beach Water. I know that a significant portion of our lawn to garden programs funding does not even come from the city of Long Beach . What would it take to to expand a similar program to all corners of the city so that everyone can participate in this water conservation effort?
Speaker 4: Well, thank thank you for bringing that issue to our attention. We were actually unaware that you have a small section in your district that's served by the other large private water company that does business throughout this region. That's Canal Water region. That was the Domingo's Water Company. So so those constituents are eligible to apply through their water provider for the rebates that the Metropolitan Water District has. So that's $2 per square foot. So they could do that today. They wouldn't. So they wouldn't go through us. They're not our customers. And it wouldn't be appropriate for us to spend our ratepayers money since they're not contributing to our revenue stream. But they could do that today through their water providers. And same situation with Golden State in the fifth District. If we wanted to do more than that, then we'd have to have some legal analysis in terms of who would be appropriate to provide the additional funding to bring the level up to the $3.50 that we pay all of our ratepayers. Our ratepayers.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Kevin. And I don't know that the pilot would necessarily need to be the same program as what everyone gets, but even $2 is better than better than it really. We want to make sure that they're included in the outreach efforts and ensuring that they are they should they are encouraged to participate here. So what I'm really interested in is maybe a conversation at the at the commission level or maybe maybe we have a conversation about, you know, working with the city manager to work with these other agencies, Cal Water, Golden State Water, to ensure that we're taking this seriously and making it easier for our residents to do this. So that that would be my suggestion. I don't either respond to this point, but we're going to we're you know, that's something I'm interested in pursuing next. In terms of the health department, I want to begin by thanking them for the work that they do. They mentioned very clearly, Kelly mentioned very clearly that it's a science and an art to manage a department that's, you know, upwards 90% grant funds. Our office, the ninth district office, has worked with them very closely in the in recent years, and I've seen their commitment to our community. I was hoping you can provide an update on a couple of things. First, you mentioned very quickly a proposed healthy Long Beach plan that might be coming. That sounds really interesting. Could you just shed some light on that?
Speaker 13: As we started to look at all the different activities that we do across the city, across our departments, as well as a lot of the place based efforts, we all are working in a way that that applies to a healthy Long Beach. And so what we've been doing is meeting as a team of department directors. And so pretty much everybody you have heard from so far in terms of the public safety, the library, code enforcement, neighborhood services, as well as public works and workforce investment, all of us together are sitting down to say, okay, how do we, as a coordinated effort, move forward the health of this city? Because it takes all of us. There have been many plans that have been done so far within the city, including the Community Health Improvement Plan, the safe Long Beach violence prevention plan, mobility element. The land use element is underway. The housing element. We are working on a healthy living policy and there are active living principles. All of these things are already in place as well as a lot of strategic planning for many of our partners. And so we're coordinating all of that into one document and then starting to move that forward for the city.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I think that's really important to do. And along that same vein. Would you mind chiming in with a quick update on the Kaiser Permanente Heal Zone program in North Long Beach?
Speaker 13: Sure. So he goes on really is an example of how it takes all of us to move things forward. So we've been working with Public Works Department to make street improvements as a result of the walk out at findings at Grant Elementary, Starkey Elementary and Hamilton Middle School. We've been working very closely with the Parks Department around implementing a fitness zone at Coolidge Park, and we're putting in a new one also at Hilton Park. And we are in partnership with Long Beach Community Action Partnership. We have a grant elementary farmstand that's open after school every Tuesday when it's in session. And we're partnering with the Jordan High School AIMS program and working to identify and implement a project there to improve nutrition and fitness at the school, as well as working with the children's clinic to create sort of a voucher system where they can they can write a prescription and have a voucher redeemable at one of the local and at the farm stands at our healthy corner store, the farmer's market.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you. And then finally, so I'm really interested in this chronic homeless initiative coordinator position. I remember just months ago, we pulled together a number of the agencies that that have homelessness issues in North Long Beach with their police by different agencies, Caltrans, L.A. County, flood control along the river, Southern California Edison right away. And and we we came together as all four agencies and talked about a strategy to to address these encampments from a holistic standpoint. Is this something that this position would take on and really build on?
Speaker 13: This position will be really coordinating different efforts such as that, as well as some of the other chronic chronic homeless initiatives.
Speaker 6: Yes. Great. Thank you. And then the public works. I'll be quick. A number. The questions I had were were a number of the questions I had Councilmember Mungo brought up. So I won't chime in there, but I will I will say that I am interested in seeing the valuation, the numbers that come back from this study as to how much it would cost to actually keep up with, you know, with the level of of the level our streets are or to improve on that. So I'm really interested in that. That's it. Thank you. That's all I have.
Speaker 3: Concern Boston.
Speaker 9: Well, I'll be shorter than Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 3: But that won't be tough to do.
Speaker 9: And I know my colleagues in the audience would appreciate that. First of all, I'd like to just thank all three department heads for being here today, and thank you for the excellent work that you and your department put forth on behalf of the city of Long Beach. Each one of you have contributed in your departments, have contributed to making Long Beach a leader leading city in the state of California, particularly in the areas of health. I think we have the best public works department in the state and our water department is leading the way in conservation efforts as well. Noted. Now, my question is for Mr. Malloy, and right away something jumps out at me on the the financial summary and the budget, particularly in the 515 expenditures. It's markedly different than 514 in the areas of material, supplies and services. It's a significant reduction, I want to say close to $39 million. Can you explain that?
Speaker 14: I'm trying to find that. Is that part of our presentation or you're talking about the budget document.
Speaker 9: The document?
Speaker 14: Yes. Welcome. Can I have my document?
Speaker 2: You know what he was asking?
Speaker 9: So so under the proposed you got it.
Speaker 14: You're looking at adjusted f y 14 and propose that y 15. Correct the difference of 2 million.
Speaker 9: No, about 39 million.
Speaker 14: Oh, okay. So these are basically the one time funds that were allocated to public works to be able to perform all those projects. So it is just basically the one time funds that fluctuated from a 514.
Speaker 9: Okay. But it's it's under the line under the materials, supplies and services. So would it would it be largely weighted on services? Now he's talking about materials. I really. I thought this would be quick.
Speaker 14: So it takes a village to raise me, right? This. This is basically the difference between private services or services that we we have for all those special projects.
Speaker 9: Okay. So you have a significant or would you say you have enough in the budget to to carry out the services at the level we expect? Correct.
Speaker 14: So this year's budget, basically, it was flat for us. It's it's possible that what you're seeing and if y 15 is the movement of one of the bureaus into the city manager's office, therefore there will be a reduction in our budget.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Maybe we can get some further clarification on that at another later date. I'd like to also, while I have the director of the water department here, think your department is doing a great job. You know, we hate to see rate increases, but they were pretty much imposed upon us by the Metropolitan Water District. Is that correct? That's right. Can you explain the metropolitan water districts where rate increases and and and their reserve fund?
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 4: I'll leave that up to our med director to do.
Speaker 0: And even I can't explain it.
Speaker 9: So so I understand that they have a pretty robust reserve, yet they rate raising rates.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. And I want everyone to know that Mr. Guardia has done a tremendous job to point out the financial irresponsibility of that. But to no avail.
Speaker 9: Okay. I just thought it was important for the public to understand that.
Speaker 4: But I wouldn't pass up this opportunity to give you some information. Please. So. So today at their board meeting, despite the fact that they revealed that instead of the $352 million in surplus reserves, surplus reserves that they last reported that they had, it was reported today that that was actually 400 between 400 million and 425 million. So another 50 to 75 million that materialized in the last two months of their last fiscal year. So despite that, they continue to raise their water rates and they kept their property tax at the same level as last year when they. The only reason they're supposed to be allowed to do that is if for purposes of financial necessity, they can't reduce their their parcel tax. So they made a decision today, which director Lowenthal did not vote for, which said that for purposes of financial necessity, they need to keep their property tax at the same level as last year instead of reduce it as they would otherwise otherwise be required to do by law. So I can't explain it.
Speaker 9: Well, thank you for the briefing. And I'm sure now that our that we're aware, our residents will pay a lot closer attention to what's going on in other public agencies that impact us. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Much shorter. We think just getting counts and branches.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And for all you individuals who don't know the budget in all nine districts, we will have a budget summit. So this is our quick. This should be. I just want to talk to the health department and the public works.
Speaker 6: One question. The population by seniors is growing in Long Beach in our current program and services in the health department. I just want to know if they're keeping up with the increase, you know, especially for our seniors.
Speaker 2: And that's for the health department.
Speaker 13: No. Okay.
Speaker 2: That's all I need.
Speaker 13: We we we are planning, though, it is a key strategic goal for us to increase those services. And we're working closely with Parks and Rec, who also have the senior centers, but that is a key focus areas of ours moving forward. Currently, we do not have the funding.
Speaker 2: I say that being a senior citizen. Thank you very much. The other would be public works. And I would like to know.
Speaker 6: How.
Speaker 2: Does we you know, how do we support our school and their recycling efforts?
Speaker 4: Could anyone tell me that in public works?
Speaker 14: Councilman Andrews, thank you for that question. This one I can answer gratefully. We this we required a city contractor, which is Waste Management, to provide recycling collection at all Long Beach schools. And we support the green for the green teams at different Long Beach schools and we provide technical assistance to the school. So we are definitely involved and we provide those services.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. That's it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 5: I'm not queued up.
Speaker 3: It was on the Red Canterbury ring.
Speaker 2: Uncomfy. Okay. But nobody ever addressed it wrong again. But actually, Councilmember Andrews, I was going to ask the same question about senior services, because it's not here in your in your for future applications. Some programs I would love to see some programing in their next next budget round or even shorter. You know, that's you know, for me, I just became a senior citizen. So there's a point for me as I reach another era in my life in regards to and this might be a totally different, different topic that we might be getting into. But I wanted to ask about the the housing, the affordable housing that's out there for 21,000 residents. So a thousand units I know that we've been talking about the housing element and the 20% set aside for affordable housing. Does that come into play with this at all or is there is there a nexus to this?
Speaker 13: The these units, they're they're the housing authority vouchers. So they are funding directly from the from HUD that that that we support people and working with different landlords to house them. It is not part of this piece of it is not part of the the building of additional housing.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. That's a city manager question and you know, where are we going with that, with that, with that project, with with our housing authority, with the 20% set aside for affordable housing in the in the overall housing element? Yes. Earlier earlier and there was a report given in the Budget Oversight Committee where as Barack gave a presentation on the 20% housing set aside dollars that are coming back to the agency, that are getting repaid, back to the FSA, to the city, excuse me, in the form of affordable dollars and going to our housing trust fund . So that was a pretty thorough report. It's available in the Budget Oversight Committee and we could certainly give you that. Okay. Yeah, I missed that meeting, so I was wondering about that. Also, in regards to the Health Department, the yeah, $1 million in general fund, which is great. I mean, that really says a lot about the health department and all the money it brings in. I think I've said it before in regards to the wonderful staff you have and being able to go after grants and bring them to the city and but what does that 1 million go to using in general or general types of services? I know some of it goes to homeless services.
Speaker 13: And those resources are primarily for homeless services.
Speaker 2: A good portion of it in. Okay. And I had one more than know when you're looking at identify sustained funding for the health department. What things are you looking at as examples.
Speaker 13: Looking at some different federal grants? There are a number of large federal grants out there right now looking at health promotion and other prevention strategies. So we have applied for a couple of purple. Of those are waiting to hear back. There are multimillion dollar grants we are working at, looking at different partnerships with our local health care systems and with other with other partners to start to build and more consistent grant funding that's not related to a specific project, a short term project, but something that is more sustainable.
Speaker 2: There might be an opportunity there for some senior services.
Speaker 13: That is one of those key areas we're looking at. Yes.
Speaker 2: All right. Wonderful. Thank you. That's it. Or by the way, I am not that I don't like water and public works. I love you guys. But I met with him earlier this week, too. I think I got a good orientation at that point. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And finally, Councilman O'Donnell.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I'll try to make this as efficient as possible with regard to public works. Thank you for all you do. You did a great job an of park started expanding that park about eight years ago and I just finished it off with a nice community center we opened a couple of weeks ago. Beautiful building, much loved by the community. So thank you. You did a lot of work this year on Stearns. We've got more to do now. WHALEY The same thing, more to do now. And we've got plans for the Nature Center done a little bit out there, but we'll do more. So thank you for your help on that. That's my point. You guys do wonderful work. All right? You're really on top of it. So thank you. Question about parking meters. As I recall, we were going to put 800,001 time money into parking meters. That's you right that your department, is that accurate?
Speaker 14: Correct. This is being worked with the city manager's office. I believe you had a two from four that explained where we going. There was an initial request from Belmont Shore Associates that they wanted to go to a more advanced technology as far as parking meters that utilize. ID cards. So we have done extensive studies. We have looked at financials, and our next task is to talk to the stakeholders. And when everybody is on board and understand what the issues are, we'll come back to city council.
Speaker 6: I guess I don't necessarily have a problem on the credit card. I've used those before, but the doubling of the rates, as I understand it, seems a little excessive to me even though they are competitive now. I think that's a bit of a jump and we're putting $800,000, I guess would be one time. General fund money to Belmont Shore keeps part of the funding. Correct. So would they carry part of the burden?
Speaker 14: Belmont will fund their SIPP portion. The 800,000 is for the rest of the city, which includes downtown and other areas that have parking meters.
Speaker 6: And downtown doesn't keep a portion of their money.
Speaker 14: Downtown keeps 50% of the parking, creates the rest, goes to the LBA.
Speaker 6: So they'll they too will carry some of the burden of the cost of the correct that that should happen shouldn't be all on the general fund if they're going to share some of the I mean they all they may have revenue.
Speaker 4: Balances now that would cover those expenditures.
Speaker 6: So again, they should participate in that. With regard to street sweeping, I hope we're working on finding some efficiencies there. I mean, around here, we've had the two extremes. And from my point of view, you know what, we're good at contracting out. We're good at cutting, but we're not good at finding efficiencies in innovation. And that's something we need to work on as a city. So I hope as we look at.
Speaker 4: The street sweeping bureau.
Speaker 6: RVO label it, that we can look at finding efficiencies and innovation over there that will save costs and enhance service levels. We've talked about the two hour window, etc., so I hope that that can be done and I hope that's ongoing. You know, Robin, you propose, hey, not contracting out. You know, Pat was on the path of contracting the amount that the council last council, not all of them, but put them on. And I get that. I mean, that's management, that's leadership. But we need both here and both means finding efficiencies in innovation. So I hope we can do that. I hope we can really look at that. I mean, a couple of years ago, we were going to contract out time. We never did. But did we ever find efficiencies in innovation there? I don't know. So again, let's think like that. We need to do more thinking like that. With regard to water, thank you. And are you going to meet with Parks and Rec tomorrow? As I understand it, I made some comments a couple of weeks ago that sparked some interest over on your site. I know I had a conversation with your president there. Great conversation. And hopefully we can find ways to work together on the on the water front, especially with regard to Parks and Rec, because it's so expensive for them to maintain their their fields, etc., that, you know, our kids are on every weekend. And this isn't just about water, this isn't just about grass. It's also about what we want as a community for our kids. So that's a big deal to me. And with regard to your fund balances you have down here, I noticed the water fund and there's probably one on the sewer fund too. You talk about your ending fund balance. I'm assuming beyond your ending fund balance, you have reserves for your CFP projects too. So with these be separate from your CFP project, set it set aside dollars.
Speaker 4: You know, there's no there's no additional. So there is no it is. Okay. So I guess so it's that thing. That's it.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. And one other question for our I'm going to punch back to you on page ten of the community handbook. It talks about some one time expenditures and fleet. And I thought the way we funded fleet operations typically and you could correct me was that we bill interdepartmental so that when let's say you know the police department has as a vehicle public works bills them I don't know maybe on a monthly basis $600 per vehicle. I don't know what it would be. And that would cover, you know, the maintenance and the cost of the vehicle. So my question would be, what are those one time expenditures? I believe they're $8. If off the top of my head, if I'm correct, 4 million I'm sorry, 4 million. It's a jump. And it says one time there. That's what piqued my curiosity. Council member.
Speaker 2: The fleet operation is under finance so I'll.
Speaker 4: Answer that question.
Speaker 2: The that you are exactly right as the funding this is the expenditures related to collections from the departments to buy replacement vehicles for them in FY 14. The amounts of purchases were kept low below the amount that was collected in FY 15. We are proposing that fleet replacements start to catch up with our aging vehicles and have a more normal fleet replacement schedule. So that increase of four is just to get us to our normal replacement level with money collected from the departments. Okay. So if it's.
Speaker 6: Money collected from the departments, why? Why? Or is that figure that we're seeing on that chart from the departments?
Speaker 2: Yes, it is revenue. So it's from the different departments. And then what you're seeing is the expenditure of that, an increase of four.
Speaker 6: Okay. Got it. With that, thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Price, would you come back up?
Speaker 5: Sorry. Mr. GROSS right on that same point. Is it possible for us to get a list of. What specific priorities you and or department heads contemplate in regards to the Fleet Fund?
Speaker 2: We are. We are. And Councilmember O'Donnell talked about innovation and the whole area of how we replace vehicles and fund vehicles we are looking at from top to bottom. So at present, that is a a holding point for what we know will be a required replacement list. But we are engaging a consultant to help us look at and review which vehicles should be replaced to do it in the most cost effective manner so that we are not replacing vehicles where it is more cost effective to keep them in service a bit longer, and that we are replacing those specific vehicles that are costing us more money than it's worth keeping. So we are in the process of reviewing that and we can certainly that probably will take several months and we will not be spending that money, but we know that based on our study. But that management partners suggested that that $11 million, which is the total amount for FY 15, is an amount that we will need to spend. We just don't know exactly what vehicles they will be yet.
Speaker 5: Well, then, is it fair to say that we also aren't ready to spend the money until that study is complete, and that that probably won't be for another 4 to 6 months?
Speaker 2: It will be shorter than that. And we and so that money will be needed fairly early on in the FY15 cycle because we have to meet when the cars are available, the new models are available, we have to order at that time. So we'll be ready for that.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Just I just have one comment. Mr. West, also through as far as the health department. I'm really happy to see another one making a lot of changes to adjust to the changes in the Affordable Health Care Act and all the new the new reality of where we are with health care. I just want to make sure that that one we're reinforcing with all of our part time employees at the city what their options are when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. And I just mentioned it because I casually was talking to one of our part time employees who was mostly a Spanish speaking employee who didn't feel like she had the information about what her options were. And so I think the more that we can do to provide all of our our workforce, that particularly the part timers that may not be met may not be getting the medical benefits through the city, as much information about their health options. That would be that would be great. And then second to that, I think that we can do as a city hopefully a lot more moving forward as we partner and promote the Affordable Health Care Act. I think it's in our best interest to get as many Long Beach residents signed up as possible for the long term health of the entire city. And so if there's ways moving forward that the council and the city can partner to and really begin a larger campaign that's already happening through that through obviously to the federal government and that we can get our our residents signed up. I still find large amounts of people in our city that don't have all the information, particularly those that don't speak English. And so I think we need to do a better job of that, particularly in in different languages.
Speaker 13: Mayor We've worked very closely with our community partners to holding events throughout the throughout the different times. And we are certainly willing to reach out to our, you know, to our employees and and broader community as we do that. So we are part of a large a large consortium of people, and we'll continue that process.
Speaker 3: And the work you've done so far has been great. And so I don't take it as a criticism because I think I see the Health Department out there all the time. I see the table and the community worked with the nonprofits. It just I think there's opportunities for us to go beyond that. And hopefully we can we can work together on that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So with that, going to turn this over and open it up for public comment on the budget. Please come forward.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Gregory Moore. I am here to speak in favor of one of Mayor Garcia's budget recommendations, and that is a one time $50,000 in matching funds for a marketing plan for the Arts Council for Long Beach.
Speaker 2: I. I have a pretty good.
Speaker 6: Lay of the land in Long Beach artistically. I have covered it a lot as a journalist. I'm also a musician and a writer. Long Beach has a tremendously vibrant art scene. It's definitely one of our cultural strengths, but I think, as we all know, Long Beach has never really done a good job establishing itself as a destination location for outlying areas. It's something that we all want to see, and culturally it's one of the things that we can attract. We we have this great scene going. So a marketing sort of a marketing plan developed, good marketing for this would be really helpful. And one of the things I understand that would be would be used, I understand from the new executive director of Victoria Brian.
Speaker 2: Is would be.
Speaker 6: For a comprehensive arts calendar something we don't have no publication in Long Beach provides a good arts calendar, something we desperately need not only for outlying areas to be aware of what's going on, but for people within Long Beach, which is a pretty big city, to be aware of what's going on.
Speaker 2: With their own community. So I haven't got a.
Speaker 6: Good chance to know this, Brian, yet. I do know Mark Austin, Michael Sugarman, the president of the Arts Council, the city of Long Beach, couldn't have a more a better presence and a better advocate for the arts than Marco. The Arts Council recently released.
Speaker 2: A.
Speaker 6: Strategic plan where they did some self analysis. And one of the things that they themselves noted in the past is that they haven't done a great job marketing. That kind of self-awareness, I think, really bodes well for this money being spent to some new strategies to really put Long Beach more on the cultural map. Thanks very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Bear. Members of the council. My name is for de Castro and I'm a resident of the third district. My address is 616 Grand Avenue. And I'm speaking tonight on behalf of our housing advocates. And I had the pleasure of being at the Budget Oversight Committee that Vice Mayor Susilo Atwal facilitated. And I think tonight as well and last week, just seeing the complexity of the decisions you have in front of you, I'm really I have to say, I'm really impressed with the amount of homework each of you has done and the work that you're doing to really ask critical questions. So really appreciate that. I'm here tonight to urge you to engage us, the community, stakeholders, on the critical issue of housing that is affordable to Long Beach working families. As we heard tonight from Director Kelly Collopy that the city has provided safe and affordable housing to approximately 21,000 residents in 7000 units through housing authority. But we still, as she admitted, there's still a huge gap with regards to housing production. And as all of you know, the Council of Governments instructed the city that we need 4009 new units by, I believe, 2021. So we're still in a housing crisis.
Speaker 6: And I realize.
Speaker 2: This is a really, really long road we're on, but we have to begin that journey with one step. So I encourage you to to engage us on this issue. It's been a discouraging, to be honest, that we've been at every budget oversight committee meeting, council budget hearings, sharing testimony, written materials regarding dedicating the boomerang funds for affordable housing. Yet there has been no council dialog or response to our presence. It's also very significant to have this level of community involvement, as you can imagine, this complex time to have residents provide their testimony, either, you know, their personal stories on this issue. So there's been a lot of community engagement on it. I also want to share I facilitated back in 2005 actually for the department Health and Human Services, the ten year plan to end homelessness. And there were five key elements that we identified back then. And the first is, and I'll just mention it right here, the first finding was how the housing goal was increase the number of homes that homeless and low income people can afford. So I think Director.
Speaker 6: Colby is doing a great job of helping to meet that need. But we again, we.
Speaker 2: Need new housing production and let's let's begin that journey and let's work critically together. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Carrie Gallagher. I'm the executive director of housing Long Beach, and my information is on file. You know, last.
Speaker 0: Week, 100 people came out to the city council meeting and stayed very late to show their.
Speaker 5: Support for the use of boomerang funds for housing. 35 people were there at the Budget Oversight Committee tonight, and even 20 people have stayed linked to the night as well tonight to show their support. And we're here especially tonight to address housing as an issue of health and as an issue of infrastructure health. It's a pretty simple connection, right? I mean, the health department does an excellent job at addressing homelessness, but.
Speaker 0: We do not prevent homelessness until we actually make sure that people have affordable homes in which to live.
Speaker 5: And as it relates to infrastructure, you know.
Speaker 0: We don't get homeless people off the streets by building more streets. We get homeless people.
Speaker 5: Off the streets by building more homes.
Speaker 0: And so I want to make it very clear, since so many people have asked, well, if we, you know, put the boomerang funds towards housing.
Speaker 5: Or a percentage of the funds, where will the money come from? And so we are proposing tonight that infrastructure is the first place.
Speaker 0: Where the money should be realigned and rebalanced to represent the full.
Speaker 5: Extent of community infrastructure with.
Speaker 0: Housing as one of those basic building blocks of community infrastructure. So for those of you who are not at the Budget.
Speaker 7: Oversight Committee tonight, like Mr. Ranga, thank you for your.
Speaker 0: Question. I will give you a quick recap.
Speaker 5: We were very grateful to see the agenda item or to see boomerang funds. Finally, agendas. But unfortunately, because of time constraints, the many speakers were only given one minute to.
Speaker 0: Speak and council made absolutely no comments before receiving and filing.
Speaker 7: The recommendation.
Speaker 0: So we recognize again, we were on time constraints, but we are here again and we will keep coming to urge you to take this behind the.
Speaker 5: Rail and please have a meaningful discussion about housing and the boomerang funds.
Speaker 0: I'd like to spend the rest of my time reacting to the staff report that was given to the Budget Oversight Committee and CC Blanc, a carbon copy to the City Council.
Speaker 5: Around the Boomerang funds. This report paints an.
Speaker 0: Inaccurate and misleading.
Speaker 5: Picture of housing resources available for housing creation in Long Beach, and it diverts the conversation from addressing the topic at hand. Now the eight page report made an extensive list of different resources available in regards to housing, but.
Speaker 0: Unfortunately it does not actually.
Speaker 5: Address the question of creating a.
Speaker 0: Permanent new local revenue source. Many of the funds.
Speaker 5: That were identified, over 9.
Speaker 0: Million were home and call home dollars, which do not create new.
Speaker 5: Housing at all. These are rehabilitation and homebuyer assistance programs. Other monies that were identified were debt obligations that are legally required to be spent, such as the 24.7 million from the mayor's proposals, and the rest are state and.
Speaker 0: Federal dollars available only to developers, not to the.
Speaker 5: City. And though these are resources, this is not addressing the actual need for funds. Lastly, the.
Speaker 0: Report was discouraging because it seemed to assess that we're doing more.
Speaker 5: Than enough for housing.
Speaker 0: And we cannot have a meaningful discussion with you around housing until we actually admit that.
Speaker 5: There is a housing crisis.
Speaker 0: And so we hope that we will move forward. This discussion tonight that you will address the issue of boomerang funds behind the rail, and we urge you to support the.
Speaker 5: Commitment of these funds for housing. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hello, counsel. My name is Ben Fisher. I'm a resident of the First District. I'm here to let you know. I personally attended multiple community meetings on the housing element, multiple planning, commission meetings, council meetings, budget meetings, budget committee meetings, and frankly, my opinion. Yet nothing has been done around funding new housing stock. Nor do I feel the community input process around housing has been sincere or impactful. This is set to be the fourth year without any new city funding for housing. Please do not be fooled by the recent report touting state bills or some of the other things I've seen touting things coming from housing, rental assistance from the federal government. This is said to be the fourth consecutive year, despite needing to produce 4000 new affordable units by 2021. We've been asking that 20% of the funds returned to the city go to housing, and many of you in your actual campaigns have said that housing is a priority issue and even specifically mentioned that 20% of boomerang funds should go to housing. The funds would not create a deficit, but it would redirect existing funds. So I have a question for all of you. Do you feel you have the power to shape a budget someone else created, which is pending your approval? If your answer is no, then what is a function of your approval? What is your role in this process? Assuming there is no political will to move the funds around. And if you guys want to have a meaningful dialog about where those funds would come from, we would love to have that conversation. I ask that you please make sure that during your tenure you do not allow a fifth year to go by without any new city funds for housing. If you feel that you do have the power to shape a budget someone else created, then please take time to evaluate where housing is in the infrastructure, safety and health priorities of your constituents. I particularly emphasize this for those of you who spoke of housing as a priority during your campaigns. If housing is a priority to you and those elected to you, it should be prioritized in any budget that you approve. Someone once asked me after the seat took on none of the community and housing element. Why is it so hard? I answered, Because it's the most important element, the biggest part of people's budgets. So if it's the biggest boat to turn around, it'd be easier to just let it be. Don't be a council that lets the big important choices continue floating on into the sunset. Roll up your sleeves and turn it toward your constituents voices. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Gloria Rivera, resident of the second District and a community organizer with Housing in Long Beach. We are here before you yet again today to talk about boomerang funds because it was advised by the city council during the housing element last year that we bring it to the budget and talk about it within the context of the budget. We came today during the Budget Oversight Committee hearing, and as you heard before, not only was our time cut down to one minute, but there was absolutely no discussion behind the rail about this. So what good is coming to the budget hearings if there's not going to be a healthy, vibrant, robust discussion about this housing crisis and its need? Recently, we have heard from you, Mr. Mayor, that the next big issue city leadership is going to be tackling is affordable homes. But before we talk about building new homes, we have to talk about where the local, permanent local source of funding is going to be coming from. The community continues to present themselves in support of remedying this housing crisis. Just think about what this would mean to the community and to the members, which you all serve. It would allow us to to as a city, to leverage other resources everywhere to help foster safer and healthier community and neighborhoods. More importantly, it would demonstrate your commitment to the well-being of your community and your city. It will set a higher standard of leadership for the region, and it will establish trust through your support of the community's needs. On the other hand, imagine what happens if we don't allow boomerang funds or locate any kind of local source of funding. Are you willing to be the one to say to a homeless vets, Sorry, you can't find an affordable place to live or to a single mother? Sorry, you have to decide between paying rent or your medical child's expenses. You know. Sorry. I understand that this is a hard decision to make. I understand that this is politically challenging. I understand that these funds have supposedly been allocated within the budget. But when you do what I do and you hear these stories day in and day out, you know what? It's not that hard of a decision because you see firsthand how this will affect thousands of lives in Long Beach. We recognize the resources that the staff has discussed in the memo, but they are not new. They are not local and they are not permanent. And if not boomerang funds, then what funding are we allocating? And if not in this budget, then when we have heard over and over again that now is not the time, how far down the road are you willing to kick this can? This is an issue of health, of public safety and an overall benefit to the community. So if the question is where do we pull the funds as it has been, then pull it from infrastructure because it's a benefit to the overall community. The time is now to show your leadership and to show your commitment of service to the people of Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Just to make sure I'm unless there's another speaker who's going to line up, I'm cutting off the speaker's list. If you haven't, unless you want that, please line up, sir. Okay. So that gentleman will be the last person on the speaker's list, please.
Speaker 2: Honorable Mayor Councilmembers.
Speaker 6: Dave Sterling.
Speaker 2: With the IAM and as many of.
Speaker 6: You already have expressed.
Speaker 2: Tonight, I'd like to express our support on behalf of the roughly 3500 employees within the city that we represent for the mayor's budget recommendation of stopping the pursuit of outsourcing, street sweeping, but rather searching in word inside the operation to find efficiencies and cost savings or at the same time maintaining the high standard of service that exists currently. The idea of city management partnering with our members, the city employees who perform the work. On a day to day basis makes sense, and it should serve as a model for other operations as well rather than than outsourcing. Look at ways to make current operations better, more cost effective. The employees who perform these services, many of them live here in the city, and they.
Speaker 6: Take ownership and pride in the work they.
Speaker 2: Do. And that's something you won't find by excising an operation and outsourcing it. And if the charge truly was to find cost savings and efficiencies, it's my hope. Management partners would have found this solution long ago, as we already could have been saving the amount of money that we hope it will. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Hello. Good evening. My name? Gigi Fusco. Ms.. I am a proud member of the Arts Council for Long Beach Board of Directors, and I'm here to speak about the one time allocation that's in the budget proposed for for our organization. It's a great group, the Arts Council of Long Beach. We are very committed to the arts, the artists and all the art performing arts, visual art groups here in our amazing community. They bring they bring up the raise the quality of life for all of us. They feed our souls, and they're also big employers in town as well. If approved for this money, it will help in our strategic plan and mission to make Long Beach a number one artistic destination, arts destination in the state of California. And I think it's real easy to do. We are so lucky. I love Long Beach. You don't have to leave the city limits to find anything you want. We have the Long Beach. We have a symphony, opera, ballet, the Long Beach Playhouse, Musical Theater West, the Found Art Exchange, the Expo Building. We have so many wonderful organizations which time will not allow me to list them all here tonight. So don't get mad at me, guys. We have so many wonderful things. What a lucky group of elected officials you are that you have these treasures in your town, in your own districts. We went out and talked to them and we found that they really need our support. They have weathered the financial downturn. They are still here. A lot of organizations, museums, performing arts groups, they have not weathered the storm as well. And they need our support. We need to see them thrive and grow. We need to see them bringing in new people into town and also providing all the wonderful educational programs that they have. We need to let people know that they exist and they need to be supported. I know this firsthand. I ran the Long Beach Playhouse for many years and worked with musical Theater West and it's really great to see the faces of people who come to Long Beach for the first time to see an exhibit or a show. And that is not just something that's fun and to to feed our soul, but it drives the economic engine of our community. When you go out for dinner, for a show and dinner or to go see an exhibit, you're employing a babysitter or a parking attendant, you know, waitstaff, restaurateurs and maybe a bartender or two. That being said, this money will help us really shine a light on the arts in this amazing community, drive tourism and let our residents know about all the wonderful assets that they have. They don't have to leave the city limit at all. Long Beach is the best place for arts. We need everybody now. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 9: Oh, hello. I'm Joe Weinstein. Eighth District of the Community Budget Book encourages citizens to come out and say, what are the services that matter to them? And so that encourages the kind of special pleading you have heard tonight. And we'll hear more of I'm not here for that. I'm not here to endorse or oppose a specific recommendation for this budget. I would like to point out that those of us who would like to take a broad picture rather than advocate for one program and expand one program, and if the money somehow won't have to come from somewhere else, I'm here to advocate for those of us who are ready to make trade offs. If only we had the information to suggest those tradeoffs four years ago and more. The budget, as posted in its papers, provided a certain basic amount of information to allow you to cast out specific services and therefore compare their costs and therefore decide maybe you would like more of this and less of that. The one signal example that I have seen tonight and I commend I commend that example is the Water Department's presentation, which showed us the difference in costs between MWD and WMD or WMD.
Speaker 2: At any rate, that enables you.
Speaker 9: To make a comparison, enables you to make policies that don't call for increasing funds, but says, Gee, we ought to shift things a little bit if we only can. Well, we don't have such guidance in the budget ever since four years ago, even recommendations that I made based on cost comparisons and another occasion of ordinary trash collection versus straight sweeping, they were based on cost that I could assemble only from the budget of four years ago and more. Because you have given because the budget's given the citizens no real tools to suggest rational alternatives, and they apparently give yourselves behind the rail. No more such tools either. I find it very difficult to participate any further in this kind of so-called budget process. So I suggest that if you really are serious about crafting a budget, give yourself more time between the first public unveiling and the time you've got to pass a budget. And second of all, make sure that that budget document once again breaks out unit costs for specific services. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Joe. Joe, you will be happy next year where we're looking at some new budget software and the end also is restructuring the process a bit to make it much more open and interactive. And there's some great stuff happening out there with some open government budget software and some of the process, participatory government stuff that's happening , budget stuff that's happening in some of the districts. And that's all going to come together next year in a new way. So I think you'll you'll be back here, I hope, saying that you look forward to it.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Please. Hi.
Speaker 0: My name is Kathleen Irvine. I am the president of Whitmore City Heritage Association. And first of all, I want to thank the mayor and the council members, because I have no idea how with a part time job, you are able to take care of this budget oversight and take care of your districts. So thank you very much for everything that you guys do. I really, really appreciate it. I came here basically to thank the mayor for his recommendation to put in a preservation planner into the budget. I understand that it's not supposed to cost any more money, but I want to emphasize how important it is to our districts. We have 17 historic districts. It is not just about paint, color or fence heights. Historic districts are wonderful because they speak to the character of our city, the craftsmanship of the people who lived here. It is a sustainable solution. New buildings are always less sustainable than repairing old buildings. So I just want to thank the mayor for his suggestion. And please all of you support this suggestion for a preservation planner. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Jim Darrow. I'm also with Willmar City Heritage. How do I follow that? That's exactly what I'm here to say. Thank you for suggesting the preservation planner. It helps with the integrity of the or the historical historical integrity of our neighborhoods. Really quick, also, I want to thank public works. I wish all departments in the city were run as well as you guys. You guys have always been there for every call we've had regarding everything from new parks, helping us with planners and such as well as street sweeping. So thank you very, very much. You outstanding. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 5: Please. Hi. My name is Jenny Searson. I, too, live in Wilmore City. I just wanted to thank you, Mayor Garcia, for coming through on your campaign promise of supporting preservation in our historic districts.
Speaker 0: And I love the Long Beach.
Speaker 3: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Michelle Dobson. I'm a third district resident, grew up in the seventh District and my business is in the fourth. So I am here tonight to speak on behalf of the Arts Council and the Arts Council Board of Directors and the Board of Directors members and and the staff. I am in my final third year term, final three year term, so that's nine years total on the Arts Council. During my first three year term on the Arts Council, our meetings were at the ungodly hour of 730 in. The morning at Bixby knows, but we had 45 people at those meetings, including a staff member from each of the council districts, a member from the mayor's office, a staff member from Economic Development, a representative from the cannabis office, and a representative from the police department. Those meetings were full. Everyone was a participant and everyone had a buy in to the Arts Council. What we were trying to do. I'm not an artist. I'm not a photographer, a singer, a writer, a director, a Delson, an actor, a professor of art. I do none of those things. Nonetheless, our board has that level of diversity where we have arts professionals alongside accountants, college professors, lawyers and marketing professionals, each with a full buy into the new strategic plan. So I urge you to adopt the recommendation for funding to implement that strategic plan. When I was interviewed as an Arts Council board member for the Strategic Plan, I reiterated why I have served three three year terms as an Arts Council Board of Directors member. I expressed to the Strategic Planning Committee that it continues to be a priority for the Arts Council, that we increase our engagement, our presence at arts events , and providing marketing support for arts organizations in all districts in the city. Full engagement from west of the Los Angeles River. The Los Angeles River, which we call the flood control. If you grew up here to north the area around Jordan to Long Beach Poly, which we call the east side, when I was growing up because I didn't know there was anything further east in Pali and to the true east of Long Beach over by Eldorado Park. It turns out that other Arts Council board of directors, members and stakeholders had the same ideas about what they desired for the Arts Council. That we become engaged in all nine Council districts and we make everyone aware of the events that are going on within walking distance of their homes. We recently partnered with and co-sponsored a joint skateboarding BMX art event where we featured skateboarding and BMX artists. We had a second event where we set up a mobile gallery at the Long Beach Formula Drift Racing event and featured Long Beach, Long Beach artists. We also partnered with Stuart Ashman at Miller, Chris Stokes at the University Art Museum and Michele Roberts at the Carpenter Center. So they would show each of these artists works and would also give free entry to their families so their families could come and see what they were doing. The implementation of the Arts Council Strategic Plan will bring us right back to where we were, where we're asking you to partner with us, assign a staff member to come to our meetings and be a part of each one of our meetings and help us implement the strategic plan.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hello, everyone. My name is Aaron James Lawrence LeMay. I'm new to Long Beach. I've been here about six months now for those months out of the six, I've been on hiatus, so I really haven't been involved when it comes to making money for my living in Long Beach, but I have spent from my living here, I live at the sovereign across the street and I notice actually called the previous mayor when I saw the advertisement for the up and coming mayors. It should be noted with the assistant that was there, I called and I said Hi, I'm curious about running for mayor and the assistant transfer me to the person taking care of the current mayor and then said he's already endorsed him. I said, Were there any other positions available in the city? It's a true story. I was at the Newport Beach AT&T store, where I was account consultant for a year and a half with businesses in and around Irvine and Newport Beach. Before that, for about 15 years I was an entertainer and I took myself.
Speaker 3: To I just want to make sure this is budget.
Speaker 2: This is this is budget related. This is well, I reviewed my budget. I came in tonight because your door was open and I literally just got off the train from going to Universal Studios today where I was visiting lots of friends. So budgets are everywhere. The reason why I felt compelled to speak to this budget matter and to all of these issues, I'm deciding whether or not to stay in Long Beach for my own personal housing. If that issue didn't come up tonight, I wouldn't. It came up a lot. So I came to throw my personal voice instead of everyone else with budgets and studies and paperwork's in there pledging everything. I'm just giving you a personal perspective, saying that I'm deciding whether to move myself to North Hollywood or other places that I can be involved in arts. Because I studied I lived in Japan for a year and a half. So I know a lot about technological homes and living and working in Japan. There is technology where I could take a card and it's still there. At the Shinkansen station I would get off and I'd go to my home and I'd put a card in and the electricity would turn off. When I would take that card out to leave, the only way I could get in is by tapping it, getting in, putting that in the slot, and then the electricity would come up . So I know that you guys are going to do everything that you're going to do to study to make sure that Long Beach does the best it can do. I just wanted to throw my name in the hat and say, I hope that the decision. That everyone makes to make the city better entertainment wise and bringing in consistent revenue for everybody. I hope it keeps me here. You know, I'll be around. My name's they. Call me A.J..
Speaker 3: Thank you, A.J.. Hope you stay in Long Beach. Okay. Thank you. That was. Thank you for the attorney for the the budget hearing. With that, I need to take a motion to table the discussion to the next budget hearing.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 3: There is a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor say to table it. Okay. Budget hearing tabled. And from there we're going to move on to consent calendar. Kate in a second I was in favor say, okay, we're going to turn that over now to the item that Mr. Mayor. | Public Hearing | Recommendation to conduct a Budget Hearing to receive and discuss an Overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2015 Budget for the following: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Works Department, and Water Department. | LongBeachCC |
Subsets and Splits