meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
LongBeachCC_08192014_14-0640 | Speaker 3: regular agenda. And with that, Mr. Kirk.
Speaker 4: I'm told, is report from public works with recommendation or to contract to Wood Cliff Corporation for the construction of the North Branch Library in the mountain not to exceed $12.6 million in increased appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund by 8.8 million.
Speaker 3: Cannot turn this over to Councilmember Richardson. Let's watch staff report first on the list. Okay. We got a motion on the floor and we're going to turn it over to Mr. West.
Speaker 2: This is a great day. We're building a new library. The last library we built was, I think 2006 in District six. Mark Twain Library. I'm going to turn over to our Melvoin, who's the construction manager for this, with Public Works, and he's also supported by our library director, Glenda Williams.
Speaker 14: Honorable Mayor and council members, are you interested to see the perspectives for this project? I have five boards here. I can show it on an easel or a PowerPoint. Depends on your appetite. I know it's late. I waited.
Speaker 6: All night. Give it to.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Let's go through it. This is this is an important night. This is a big moment for for North Palm Beach and for the city. So.
Speaker 14: Just go. We'll pass out the PowerPoint also for the to be expeditious. This is an incredible project in North Long Beach. We're so excited that we're given this opportunity to construct and manage the construction of this project. But there's been a lot of work done that I need to give credit to Amy Bodak, the director of Development Services, when she was dealing with RDR and this project was the inception of this project started with her and the design was completed under her purview. This is an incredible project for the community and for the city, I would say. To give you some background. It's a one story building. It's consist of 26,491 square feet, includes a historic tower. I just wanted to confirm that we have. When the building was demolished, the old theater was demolished. The tower was kept meticulously. It's in storage right now, and we will bring that tower back and install it in case the tower disintegrates or we're not able to construct this tower. We will replicate it so that the council agenda or the council that talks about replication. But I want to correct that that we have the original tower. So this is part of the historic. So the the total this project if you want to continue this is an exterior view of the project continue. This. This is the floorplan. There are five distinct areas for the floor plan. This is the main meeting room where the public can have access. This is a view of the lobby or the main entrance. This is another area which is looking at the children's library or children's section. I think Glenda should be doing this, but another view. This is I believe it's.
Speaker 2: A freedom that they don't.
Speaker 14: This is the children's section again. An adult section. More adult sections. The teenage section. Another view of the teen section. These are perspectives. This is the site and it shows the different planting for this area, the different pallets.
Speaker 2: More more.
Speaker 14: Plantation. And that's that's the that's the fastest PowerPoint I've ever done in my life. So with that, we have the project was bid. We received 12 bids and the lowest most responsive bidder is with Cliff Corporation. If. If you have any questions, I would be happy to respond.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. And thank you all for your hard work on this. I'm going to turn this back over to Councilmember Richardson, then Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I want to begin by acknowledging the residents. It's no surprise that they waited all night to attend this. We've been waiting a decade for this library was one night, right. So I just want to say that I'm really honored and proud to be in the position to finally award this contract. It's been generations of council people, generations of North Pack and community leaders who have invested in this and really had a vision. Now we're in a position to really build the crown jewel to the uptown renaissance. That's what we're doing tonight. And, you know, for folks who might not know, this is this is our this will be our only library in the district. But the other library in North Long Beach was only 6800 square feet, and it was only 25,000 residents there when that library was built. Now we've got over 90,000 residents that we service, and this library we're building is 25,000 square feet. So we're building the library of today in the Library of tomorrow. So I'm really impressed and proud of that. This is this is an anchor to the North Village Center, which will be a mixed use development project once we have the ability to move forward with the redevelopment. So I'm really excited about that. And with that, ala, I, you know, I've already made the motion, so I encourage my colleagues to support this this item.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And I am equally proud to be here today to hopefully vote on this library, award this contract, and move this of this process forward. It has been a long time coming. I see many of our residents from North Long Beach here who have worked on this project longer than I have. Quite frankly, and I want to acknowledge them as well. And their hard work efforts through the former redevelopment agency Neighborhood Associations, CAG, North Long Beach Community Action Group. They're there. Their hard work and efforts is actually coming to fruition tonight. This is as a Councilmember Richardson said, this will be a this will be transformational for for North Long Beach, for the Atlantic corridor, not only for the North Village, mixed use development that is planned for that area, but for the North Village that exist there where my current council field office is. And there are a number of opportunities for economic development, and we think this will be the catalyst for major change in North Long Beach. I'm so proud to be here tonight and I will be supporting this without reservation.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. And we're going to open it up to public comment. But, Mr. West, if the if the bid is awarded tonight, when do when will the community actually see construction?
Speaker 2: We hope by the 1st of October.
Speaker 3: Okay. You heard that 1st of October. Please come forward for a comment. Make sure you identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Steve Cuneo. I am the general counsel for AMG and Associates, who was one of the other bidders on this project. And sitting in the audience, I can see that everyone is excited about this project moving forward and I'm sure that it will. However, I think it's very important that the Council understand that there is a big protest here and that there have been irregularities in the awarding of this contract, making it contrary to California's public contracting law that I think need to be considered by this council. According to staff. AMG was the second low bidder on this contract. However, we are convinced that there is a fundamental flaw, especially as filled out by the low bidder wood cliff with the bid form that the cities used. And I believe you have copies of not only our bid protests, which were not mentioned in staff's report, but also those those bid forms. Now, California's public bidding laws have two primary purposes. The first is to make sure that all qualified bidders have a fair opportunity to bid on public projects throughout California. The second is to prevent what's called bid shopping by prying bidders. Bid shopping occurs when a prime bidder takes a listed subcontractors bid, sends it out to other subcontractors in an attempt to undercut that bid, get lower prices submitted, and pad their profit on a project. That's one of the primary evils, and that's what the legislature has called it an evil that the public contracting code seeks to prevent. Now, in this case, if you take a look at the bid form, it's got two places, four numbers. It's got.
Speaker 2: A 21.
Speaker 6: Item listing broken down by trades, concrete, electrical, those types of things. And then those numbers are supposed to have a total, total bid item on the second page. Those two numbers are supposed to match. And in Amg's bid, they did match, but they did not match in the.
Speaker 2: Apparent Loews bid in Wood Cliff's bid. And there's a difference of about $800,000.
Speaker 6: With the numbers in the individual columns being lower. Okay. Why does that matter, you ask? The answer is public contract code 5103. Public contract 50. Public contract code 5103. Gives five working days for a bidder to withdraw a bid for a mathematical mistake. So what this allows, what the form has allowed the low bidder to do, theoretically, is to take those five days, go back to its subcontractors, tell them, hey, we're not sure we can do the bid for this price, but if you can bring your price down a little bit lower, hey, I think maybe we can do it . But if we can't, we may just have to claim that there's a mistake on the bid. Pull it off the table and sorry, nobody gets any work. Now, whether or not that was done in this case, we do not know. But the fact is, it is legally irrelevant. Case law in California is very clear that if there is an opportunity, if there's a situation that allows a bidder to pull its bid off the table for a mathematical error, as in this case, city cannot waive it as an immaterial deviation. It's just it's just straight up California law that that cannot be waived. It's not discretionary. It's not in your option. So, you know, we just want to make it clear here that AMG, we feel, has submitted the lowest bid.
Speaker 2: It follow the rules. It didn't build a bid mistake.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. Time's up. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Lori Angell. I was North PAC chair and I was on the PAC since 1996. We worked on this project for ten years, and you folks have absolutely no idea what it took to get us here. And the fact that we have a contractor protesting the bid just kind of falls into the whole thing. So I don't care what it takes. I want I want to get a contract moving. You have no idea what I'm I'm going to be redundant. But anyway, this is a great project. It's an important project. I think. The value of a library and what it offers to the community cannot be understated. Every dollar of investment in a library is an investment into literacy and community, and it's a reduction in the cost and public safety. It really is. So the more people that we can get trained and able to read and able to take care of themselves in the world, the less money you have to spend on graffiti. Quality of life issues, incarceration. The justice system. And people on welfare. And that's already been stated by Glenda. So I'm hoping that you will invest in this important project and finally have this dream that we've worked on for over ten years, come to reality, to serve the community, to act as a center and an activation point for a very important part of our our part of town. And to, you know, frankly, give us something too extreme to be extremely proud of. So it's an opportunity. The problem with the bid, it's I think our legal folks took a look at this. And if they didn't see a problem, I don't I don't know what happens now, but truthfully, I just want this thing to move. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Marina Parker. I'm the program manager for the Uptown Property Community Association. I manage the new Business Improvement District, the new North Library. North Long Beach Library is going to be located right in the heart of the Business Improvement District. So this site is a very important site for us in terms of there's a lot of under undeveloped lots in that area and that's going to be one of the first ones. It's going to be redevelopment. And we're along with the Business Improvement District. We're very excited to to continue this uptown renaissance in that area. And we are extremely looking forward to the library and the construction of the library. And this is going to all be part of this revolution that we have in the north uptown Long Beach. So we are extremely looking forward to your support and we're very excited about all of the changes happening in the north Long Beach area. So we want to thank you for your support on this.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Dan Press Burg.
Speaker 6: My residence and information is on file. Let's see, 1995 for me. That started with Susanne Schick. It went to Barbara Kiser, Craig Beck, Pat West, Reggie Harrison, Melanie Phalen and Amy carried the ball, the water and the ball from that point on. And she was in and out of this. This is a great moment for North Long Beach. I'm sure that we'll have a discussion about what's the adverse effects of any legalities. But this is it's time for this to move. This is the one important thing that will anchor and present its heart and to North Long Beach. It's what represents us. We've lost a lot of things on there. There's a lot of vacant lots. And this is the first stop for a renaissance that will actually make North Long Beach shine. So let's let's do it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Otis Hogan, a resident of the ninth District. My address is 6080 Lime Avenue. I am a member and co-chair of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association, and this project is the one project that all the residents of night at the ninth District and North Long Beach have really been looking forward to. So we would really like to see this move on and I think is something that all of the ninth District and all of Long Beach can be proud of, because libraries is something that everyone. Kid and get behind and support and it means a lot. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Make speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Desiree Gutierrez and I am a co-chair for the Coalition for Healthy North Long Beach, and I'm a resident of the ninth District. I also live about one block from the library site. The library promises to create a community center and focus for future development that is desperately needed in our neighborhood. Library Services has been actively seeking community input on services it can provide, and I'm sure going to create dramatic improvement on the resources available in our heavily underserved community. I want to encourage the Council to help North Long Beach move forward this evening. This is in your power and we need your support. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: My name is Brant Walmsley. I also live in the ninth District. I was out walking my dog today and as I got to Atlantic and South, I just counted at the time just what I could see. How many businesses were sitting vacant on that intersection? I counted seven, and I'm really hoping that we could see the development of a library like this that could really bring in some new business and new.
Speaker 6: Really bring in the idea that uptown renaissance.
Speaker 2: To be something that can bring something new to that community and something new to economic.
Speaker 6: Development north on beach. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Next beaker, please.
Speaker 12: Good afternoon, honorable mayor and council people. It is a pleasure to stand here this evening to stand for something we've been waiting for for a long time. This is my grandson, Kahlil. He will benefit from this library as a lot of people may know. When we first started coming here and this was all a big blur. He was maybe about that or elementary. We're finishing up middle school. So, you know, it's been a long road. What I'd like to say is it's been several years and in the making a lot of hard battles, but I couldn't be more proud of my previous councilman, Stephen Neal, and my current councilman, Rex Richardson, for getting the job done, making the library a reality. It's a much needed asset for our community. I no longer have to take my grandson to Cerritos. All the school papers, projects and research will be just a few steps away with him being the reader that he is . It'll save a lot of dollars to thank you both again for all your hard work. With that being said, I stand in favor of additional funds needed to complete a library befitting our children.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thanks for coming out. Next speaker plead.
Speaker 0: Guilty. Honorable Mayor and all of the council members. My name is Linda Wilson and my address information is on file. I am a member of the ninth district. I'm a resident there and also College Square Neighborhood Association in North Long Beach. And I just want to say that I was have participated in for a period of time on the meetings and the decisions and all the legwork, background information that residents could be involved in, in making this reality. And so the residents in North Long Beach are very excited about this project. We've looked to and expected it for a very long time. I was a part of the demolition of the old building. I didn't get a brick, but that's a memory and that's history in and of itself. Everything that was required to overcome getting that location has been done. I won't be deterred or upset tonight by the previous presentation or objections by one of the bidders. But we want this library to become a reality and we are urging you and requesting that we are able you're able whoever is going to do it, put that shovel in the ground in October and let's move forward. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Well, Mr. West said October, so we're going to keep it to that. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Hi, my name is Hilbert. Then I'm a resident of Long Beach. And I want to first first of all, I would like to thank our Councilwoman Richardson and everyone who participated on the make this library happen, or at least can see it. That is going to happen. And before I leave, I would like to share with you a few facts why library matters. A 2010 report from the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences is sponsored by Melinda and Gates Foundation. Details the critical role of libraries in providing access to Americans living below the poverty line, the report stated. Orbital 44% of people in households living below the federal poverty line, which is 22,000 a year for a family of four, use public libraries, computers and Internet access among young adults 14 to 20 years of age. In households below the federal poverty line, 61% use public library, computers and Internet for educational purposes among seniors. Can myself 65 and older. I know I don't count myself. Sometimes I can go to the restaurant, I get deals. So the seniors again, among seniors, 65 and older, living in poverty, 54% use public library computer for health and wellness needs. In addition, System Benton, CEO of the Urban Libraries Council, adds Library libraries are economic engines for communities, helping people find jobs and gain the skills they need to get ahead in their careers. I can tell you hundreds of facts about why a library matters, but I'm here to tell you. The please support this this program. And I want to thank you and I know this project and I want to thank you in advance for your support to the North Branch Library. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor Garcia. City council members. City staff. My name's Curt Davis. I'm a ninth district council resident. Sorry, I'm a little tired. I'm glad you guys could last as long as we could also. When I was a kid, I was able to see the construction of the main branch library and also be able to go in and enjoy the sense of being in a new place, seeing new books, seeing records, seeing just things that I could go on and feast on. I can see that this new library is going to give that hope to the children in my district also. But they're going to have a better advantage to me. They're going to have access to computers. They're going to have access to things that we did that I couldn't even imagine when I was a kid. And I know that's really going to help us in this north district. I mean, there's a lot of things going on, especially with the remodeling and the construction work going on at Jordan High. The library is going to fit in perfect with all that work that's going on in this neighborhood. I encourage you to support this contract and get this library going. I also encourage you to be sure that the funds are budgeted, to be sure that it's not only world class on the outside, but world class on the inside, that we have the proper books, the computers and all the things that we need inside that library that has the full funding that it needs to have all those services. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Albert Jacob Massey. I'm president of AMG and Associates. Well, I'm probably the most least popular person here this evening. I do want to point out a few things my company does primarily 90% of public works projects. I see bid forms of all different types. We just recently completed the Linux Library for the County of Los Angeles. So we understand very, very clearly how important a library is for a community. And I can appreciate what everyone is saying. The issue is, is that you have a flawed bid form. And I would encourage that you take a look at your bid form because it is not in compliance with the public contract code. These are public funds, and it is the intent that all bidders receive the same consideration in presenting their bids to a public entity. Now, the things that I want you to think about as it relates to this project and the bidder that was apparently the low bidder, is that the if you took the average of all the bids submitted, the average bid amount is $12.9 million. The wood cliff bid is approximately $1.4 million lower than the average bid amount. That's 11%. If I bid a project that is 11% low, I am radically concerned about the fact that did I leave something out? Am I going to be concerned about being able to have good subcontractors performing on the project? Is it going to be problematic for me to make sure that everybody is performing correctly? Am I going to be able to meet my schedules? Am I going to be able to meet the demands of the project? My company is not going to interfere with the award of your project if you so choose to do that. Our request from you is you need to evaluate your bid form because I think you have a flawed bid form, as I indicated previously, to have a bid form that takes and totals all of the sum amounts and have that be one number and then say, okay, my total bid amount is a different number, and then give a contractor the opportunity to evaluate if they can do the project by doing potentially bid shopping, which I don't know if if that's what Cliff has done or not, but be able to have a five day period to go out and try to seek other prices from subcontractors to see if they can do that. Project is not a level playing field and that's what the intent is of the public contract code. So I would just encourage you to, if you decide to move forward with your project, I wish you the best of luck. But I would ask that your city attorney and your director of public works evaluate your bid form.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. And good luck on your project if you go forward.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening.
Speaker 4: My name is Ralph Brooks. I'd like to thank the mayor and the council members for allowing us to be here. I'd like to thank the audience for citizenship for their being here this late in the evening, in this process.
Speaker 6: I've been I've lived in Long Beach since 1976. Actually, I grew up in Los Angeles. I remember those times when my mom and.
Speaker 4: I would take the bus from 54th Street to downtown Los Angeles to the public library, and what an ideal it was. And I had older parents, and I'm the youngest of four children. And but the house was during that time, a project like this in Long Beach, a fabric that we've been waiting for. I've been a Long Beach resident four lived in the ninth District for 14 years. I think it's something that we've been waiting for for a long time and that all of the citizens can benefit from. And I would like to see this project move forward.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. With that, I'll turn it back over to Councilmember Richardson. And there is a motion on the floor.
Speaker 6: Just quickly, could you just respond to the to the comments?
Speaker 2: I'll turn it over to our public works director.
Speaker 14: Thank you. I would like to respond to some of these questions or clear the air, basically. First, there's absolutely nothing wrong with our bid forms. It's been tested and used for hundreds of projects that we we use, and it's the same format. This project is actually even simpler than most our public works projects because we have multiple bid items, sometimes 50 or 60 items. This project had only 23 bid items and they were all lump sum. That means every contractor who did the job, they would have one number for that individual line item. It's the previous our other public works projects. You would have X amount of linear miles of concrete or square footage of something. This is all lump sum. So there's absolutely no bid shopping. Shopping possible with this bid. Usually bid shopping happens after the bids. And the lowest contractor will go and conduct that within its own suppliers or within its own subcontractors. In this case, they have not done any subs substitutions. Everything is fine. Lastly, AMG is not the next lowest bidder. The other 42 bidder. Their bid is over 800,000. Above with Cliff and also there's another contractor which is lower than Angie. Lastly, to average the bids it's in or it's incorrect. The bids came very closely. That means the bid package was properly done, the plans were clear, and there were no confusion. The difference between lowest, lowest and the next lowest bidder was 200,000. From the second to third was another 200,000. And then it jumps to AMG, which is $800,000 worth. Cliff made a mathematical error, which is when they totaled all the numbers in their lump sums, they made a math error, and when we did our bit tabulation, we find the error. We contacted them and they accept that accepted the mathematical error, which is minor, and they have not withdrawn from this, this, this application. Therefore, the they are the lowest responsive bidder. And I recommend that the council move forward with this contract.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Carl, for the previous question.
Speaker 3: Okay. So that there's no other comments, we have a motion on the floor, so we're going to go and take a vote on that motion. So, members, please go and cast your votes.
Speaker 4: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. And. I think there's. Mr. COOK There's an extra yes. At the bottom, which I think is actually me. But I keep you know, I forget sometimes I don't go anymore. So can you remove that one?
Speaker 4: We we took care of that. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just didn't want it to be recorded. Okay. Moving on to the next item, which I believe is going to go back to the regular agenda. 17. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6985 for the construction of the North Branch Library; award the contract to Woodcliff Corporation, of Los Angeles, CA, in the amount of $11,537,750, plus a 10 percent contingency of $1,153,775 for a total contract amount not to exceed $12,691,525; and authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract and any necessary amendments thereto; and
Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $8,860,000. (District 9) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08192014_14-0588 | Speaker 3: Thank you. I just didn't want it to be recorded. Okay. Moving on to the next item, which I believe is going to go back to the regular agenda. 17.
Speaker 4: Item 17 is a report from Parks, Recreation, Marine Department and City Manager with recommendation executed agreement with the Somers Corporation for Construction Management Services related to the Belmont Pool. Fair amount not to exceed $831,000.
Speaker 3: Can I get a motion? Councilwoman Price, you won't make the motion. Can I get the motion in a second, councilman that you want to begin? Put some comments. Can you hear on?
Speaker 5: I apologize. I wanted to ask city staff if they're available to comment on what the plans are in terms of preserving the landscaping and the trees that are there during the demolition process.
Speaker 2: Certainly, I'm going to turn this over to Tom Modica and Eric Lopez to report on how we're going to accomplish that and protect the quality of life for our neighbors. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember. Mr. City Manager. Members of the Council. These next two items refer to the demolition of the pool. As you know, we are moving forward because of the public safety impacts of having a substandard building there on that site to demolish the pool. We have done extensive designs and and plans for how to do that while mitigating the things that need to be mitigated. There is a concern about the trees that are on the parkway and the demolition process will not be affecting those trees. And we'll actually be taking some extra precautions and talking to the residents to try to protect the root systems of those trees as well. So there are, I think, three trees on the north side of the facility that are too close to the facility that that will be impacted and two small palm trees as well. But anything on the on the grass area, the old growth trees will be preserved through the demolition process. And and so with that, we're available to answer any other questions. I think there's been some some questions about birds and birds nesting. We do have a certified bird nesting survey that we've done to make sure that there are no birds nesting in those trees. And at this time there are not. Bird nesting season starts again in January. So that's why we're asking for authority to move forward with this, that we can not have impacts on on birds that would nest and trees. And that concludes my report.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to highlight that Mr. Modica has been working very closely with members of the community, including the stakeholder committee, to come up with options for what the pool is going to look like, ultimately options that will be presented to council and the public for input. But as we move through this process, I think it's very important for us to be mindful of the impacts of the demolition on the neighbors, the residents and obviously the environment that's surrounding that. So I want to thank staff for the work that they've done and make sure that we follow up with the process of the demolition with the same care that we're doing in terms of the process that will be involved in building the new facility. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to know if the demolition would take up staging or the staging would take up public parking for the pier. I know we've heard some concerns there or maybe even the nearby retailers, shops or residents.
Speaker 2: Vice Mayor, I will address that question. The the staging area for the contractor has been identified. And so in the area similar to what was used for the temporary pool, it's adjacent to the beach maintenance yard. It is on the east side of the temporary pool. So that's been identified as a temporary staging area. It may impact up to 40 parking stalls. The total amount, however, will be will be determined as soon as the contractor is on board. But there will be no more than 40 stalls temporarily impacted.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Public comment on the item.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Council. My, my. My name is mumbled. My name is Susan Miller. I've been a 20 year resident across from the pool and I am very concerned about old growth trees, existing Green Parkway and the old growth trees around the Belmont Plaza pool must remain intact. The green area and the old growth trees are public recreation maintained in the natural areas are important for the environment, wildlife, the residents and our future generations proper. Prior steps to demo must be included. A certified arborist being consulted by the city of Long Beach to make suggestions on what protection measures need to be taken to save the old growth trees around Belmont Plaza Pool. Contacting the State Fish and Wildlife Department to ensure correct protection measures are taken prior during the demo, during the construction and the building phases. So the wildlife and trees are not damaged or destroyed from researching online. The old growth trees have an extensive root system and digging into the greenbelt area located by Belmont Pool will damage and kill their root system. A safety parameter needs to be set up around the greenbelt trees so the heavy equipment isn't driven over the ground, compacting the soil that will kill the trees. The trees need to be tracked from the asbestos, the concrete dust covering the leaves and without the water. Since the irrigation system has been shut off or what is caused that the trees and the grass have not been watered. The grass is dead, it's totally brown and the trees are going into shock and the leaves are curling. The trees are nesting grounds for endangered birds that are protected. About two and a half years ago there was an extreme tree trimming that happened along the greenbelt and then the construction started for the temporary pool and that very much disturbed the nesting and migration of the birds in that area. The demo impact on the environment, the residents and the preschool needs to be seriously considered. Extra cost and consideration needs to be taken to protect the preschool children from the noise like jackhammers, wet sign the generators and endless equipment operating, let alone the asbestos and concrete dust impacting the environment, the wildlife, the children and the residents. The Green Parkway. In the old green growth trees are natural sound barriers, absorbing noises, saving all the green built in all the old growth trees are major concerns for the residents, the dog walkers, public recreation and must not be destroyed or removed. Measures must be taken to protect the natural areas, the wildlife and the neighborhood from noise, air, light pollution. Prior to any demo and building process of the pool, any encroachment into the existing Green Parkway and old growth trees is not acceptable. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 6: Good evening, mayor and city council members. It is still evening. I am Terence Anderson. I'm president of the Belmont Shore Residents Association. I've been a resident of Belmont Shore for 20 years now. I am extremely encouraged by the comments made by our third district councilwoman and by Tom Modica. I agree with the comments made by the previous speaker, Susan and I. All my notes are exactly what Susan spoke of. So I encourage you to, during the demolition process, to be mindful of not only the human residents that are around the.
Speaker 2: Area, but also.
Speaker 6: The bird wildlife that do make those trees a nesting ground and.
Speaker 2: Also for the the other.
Speaker 6: Community interests there. It's very important to us that this is done in a safe manner, and we look forward to what's coming in the future and working with the city to make sure that we have a great facility. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hello again. I'm Jeff Miller. When I spoke to you earlier, the sun was still relatively high in the sky. And here it is past my bedtime now. In the future, when we have these long hearings, maybe you could bring pizzas in. I think that would that would help us. I wanted to just go one step further about this and not repeat the same comments, but to to say that what has been allowed to happen there is really shameful that green space is now a brown space and that should not have happened, but a since it has. You can correct to that. So I would like the city to restore that to what it should be there. I live a few blocks from there and I'm over there more than once a week and there are hundreds of people a day, without exaggeration, who use that space walking through the park, their bicycling, walking, their dogs, children playing, people going to the restaurants across the street and then wandering through the park area. And it should not have been allowed to to let go the way it is now. So please restore that area and see that it's preserved during the demolition. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Concludes the public comment for the item. There is a motion on the floor. So Members, please go and cast your votes.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 3: Okay. Next item. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to Agreement No. 32027 with Psomas Corporation, to increase the contract amount by $206,400 for professional construction management and inspection services for the Belmont Pool Demolition and related temporary improvements, for a revised, not-to-exceed amount of $831,400, and make any amendments necessary to extend the term, and amend the scope of work within the contract amount. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08192014_14-0638 | Speaker 3: Ahead of 2626.
Speaker 4: As a recommendation received for the application of Soul Mate for an original ABC license at 4727 Street in District three.
Speaker 3: Council Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'd like to move to postpone this item to our next council meeting so that I can follow up on a resident protest.
Speaker 4: That'll be September 2nd.
Speaker 3: There's a motion in a second to move the hearing or to move the item to September the second.
Speaker 4: Second was by.
Speaker 3: By Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. Any public comment on the item?
Speaker 2: Mayor and Councilmember Price, the report indicates that the last day to request conditions is August 22nd. DEBERRY Have you asked for an extension? Just the first extension will be for weeks. I'm sorry. This is the first extension.
Speaker 3: So we're okay. Okay. No public comment. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 4: Motion Carry seven vote yes.
Speaker 3: Next item 27 Recommendation received.
Speaker 4: Follow the application of pi squared pizza for an original ABC license at 7551 Carson Boulevard in District five. | ABC License | Recommendation to receive and file the application Jason Chang Muk Kang, dba Seoulmate, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 4712 East 7th Street. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08122014_14-0610 | Speaker 4: Right. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank the Congresswoman for being here this evening and to present this very important resolution regarding the National Freight Network Trust Fund for 2014. As you may be aware, the congresswoman established the very first port committee of the United States Congress. This committee was designed with the goal of developing a united solution towards maintaining goods, movement and productivity. Our nation faces a serious infrastructure crisis. I believe it is critical we support dedicated funding for the national freight system. It is my understanding that this legislation will not only create jobs here in Long Beach, but also serve as a vehicle for combining the economic downfall of infrastructure transportation that our nation has undergone. If we want our port to remain internationally competitive, I fear that the effective movement of our country's goods is key to our economic achievement. This bill gives us a long term fix by providing the necessary funding towards achieving our goal. Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the resolution.
Speaker 0: Can you make the motion?
Speaker 4: I make the motion to please. I support the resolution.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a motion and a second by Councilmember Andrews. And with that, I'd like to invite one of our congresswomen here, one of our two members of Congress here in the city of Long Beach. Give her a round of applause. Congresswoman Janice Hahn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mayor Garcia. Members of the city council. Thank you, councilmember. You're Ranga for your motion and your leadership on this issue. I want to thank you for allowing me to speak regarding this resolution that's being taken up tonight, which supports my legislation, H.R. 5101, the National Freight Network Trust Fund Act of 2014. And as everyone here knows tonight, the port of Long Beach, along with the other port over the bridge port of Los Angeles. We are America's port and was glad to meet tonight. John Slater up the new executive director of your port. And here in Long Beach, we know that the port is critical to our region and to the nation. As home to one of the world's busiest seaports, leading international trade gateway and employer to over 1 million people annually. Ensuring the global competitiveness of the Port of Long Beach is integral to the success of the employees of small businesses, of corporations, of the health of Long Beach. And I know, Mayor Garcia, you have made the growth of the Port of Long Beach, one of your number one priorities for economic empowerment here in the city. It's a top priority for Long Beach because it is your economic engine, and that's what will fuel the economic growth for this entire region. But what we know here in Long Beach about the importance of the ports, I found out that members of Congress didn't always know. And so from day one, when I went to Congress, I worked to raise the level of discussion and education of what ports mean to our economy, what it means to commerce. So I started as Councilmember Ranga talked about the bipartisan Port Caucus. I now have 91 members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, who have joined the Port Caucus. Some of them don't even have a port, but they knew that this was going to be an important vehicle for the future of this country. I've worked in Congress to increase federal funds for the Port of Long Beach, and I know that's going to increase your global competitiveness and create local jobs. This year, Congress passed and the president signed into law legislation that increases spending for our nation's port infrastructure. I fought for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to be spent rather than to be in our nation's bank account. And I fought for more money to go back to the ports that collect that tax, including the Port of Long Beach. And last month, I continued the fight when my bipartisan amendment passed the House overwhelmingly to increase funding for our ports by $57 million. And I'm not stopping there. President Obama called for $2.8 billion of freight infrastructure projects on our nation's highways and rail. However, the president did not suggest a way to pay for it. But I did. My legislation, the National Freight Network Trust Fund Act of 2014, pays for our nation's freight projects. Last year, I was selected to be on the panel of the 21st century freight transportation, and I brought other members of Congress to the Port of Long Beach. Some of these members had never even seen a port, and they did not understand what we see every day and why that matters. And from my work on that panel, I took the leadership role and figured out how to fund crucial infrastructure projects, including and like the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement and the Demonstration Electric Truck Highway . This legislation will take 5% of all Customs and Border Protection fees and places them directly in this freight network trust fund. And this will fund projects like dedicated truck lanes on our highways, better bridges, more on dock rail, the last mile coming into our ports across the country. Railway, highway grade separations and freight corridors. The most used routes that our freight travels on and across the country. We don't raise taxes and we add at least $2 billion back into the economy every year to create good paying jobs and keep America's port strong and globally competitive. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I urge the council to consider my legislation and I and to offer your support for H.R. 5101, the Freight Network Trust Fund. I believe this is a win for the country, but this is a win for Long Beach. And your port. You. Will be the first official body on record as a city municipality that would endorse this. And I think the rest of the country will look to you as being a leader on this issue. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Congresswoman. Do you have some some members that want to speak? Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I'll be very short. I wanted to take the opportunity to, first of all, thank my colleague, Mr. Durango, Councilmember Durango, for bringing this issue forward. I've served on the 17 Oversight Committee for the City of Long Beach for the last two years. And I can tell you with the plans that we have moving forward with Caltrans MTA to improve the 710 corridor, this is a vital piece of federal legislation and we'll give hopefully when it passes, will give us the necessary funding to help move that project forward. I just wanted to also thank you for all of the work that you are doing in the district hands on grassroots. You've been meeting with constituents, utilizing our eighth district office, working with the ninth district. And I know tomorrow is your Congress on the corner, and I look forward to joining you there. Thank you very much. And I know that the region really appreciate your leadership in D.C.. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilmember Durango, for asking the ninth District and to sign on in support of this. I think it's a great step considering you're the chair of our 17 committee and I'm the chair of our Fed led committee. This is exactly what we should be working on. I want to acknowledge our congresswoman, Janice Hahn, who's who's really been hands on and involved in all parts of all parts of her district, which is very special to us. I look forward to welcoming you to the ninth District for the Congress on your corner at Fire Station 12 tomorrow. I think this is a great idea. I hope that we, you know, do all that we can to advocate in support of this bill. The last few years, we just heard a number of debates right here at the council about zero emissions and truck corridors, freight corridors. And and the fact that we're partnering with our local representative to advocate for a trust fund that can help to support local and regional governments, to fund projects like that is exactly the type of partnership here in Long Beach that we need. So I just wanted to chime in and say thank you, Councilmember Urunga, and thank you, Congresswoman Hart.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Andrews.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Yes. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I tell you, I won't get a chance to speak anymore. But, Congresswoman. Mrs. Hahn, I'll let you know that because of this, you know, all I could hear from you, the whole conversation was about jobs. And that was in my whole advocate about jobs. And I know how many jobs this will bring to the city of Long Beach. And I want to thank you not only Long Beach, but all over the, you know, city of Long Beach and L.A. Of course, we know the other harbor, but yet and still, you're doing a great job. Please keep up the good work. And thank you so much again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Congresswoman. I just wanted to say we appreciate.
Speaker 5: Your tenacity.
Speaker 1: Always.
Speaker 5: And from San Pedro, my family's hometown.
Speaker 1: To here in the city of Long Beach. Thank you for keeping us on top of port issues. So appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Is there any public comment on the item? KC None that we have a motion on the floor. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 0: Congratulations. Thank you, Congressman, for coming down. And this is actually a great Segway to our first presentation. And we have our we have with us today John Slinger Up, who is our new chief executive at the Port of Long Beach. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to direct City Manager, or his designee, to communicate the City’s support for House Resolution 5101 (CA-Hahn). | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08122014_14-0578 | Speaker 1: Item one report from City Manager Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing. Adopt an urgency ordinance amending ordinance number 13 Dash zero zero 16 extending for six months a temporary limitation on the issuance of entertainment permits and or business licenses for business with Type 848 ABC licenses in the Downtown Dining and Entertainment District , Red and red adopted as red and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading, declaring the urgency thereof and declaring this ordinance shall take effect immediately. District two.
Speaker 0: If you asked.
Speaker 9: Our assistant city manager, Joe Martin.
Speaker 1: Mayor Garcia, members of the city council, Rachel Tanner with the city manager's office, has been working with a task force of downtown stakeholders and will provide a staff report. Mayor, members of the City Council. Good evening. The Downtown Dining and Entertainment.
Speaker 2: District Task District is an area bounded by Third.
Speaker 5: Street.
Speaker 1: And Ocean Boulevard on the north and south and by Pacific and Long Beach boulevards.
Speaker 2: On the east and west. It also includes the pike at Rainbow Harbor and Shoreline Village, as you can see here in the slide. The council piloted.
Speaker 1: The district in 2005 and established it on a permanent basis in 2008. The district establishes consistent hours and operating conditions for businesses requesting entertainment permits. Last August, the City Council initiated a one year moratorium against the issuance of entertainment permits in the district for businesses under a Type 48 ABC license. Type 48 licenses typically associated with a.
Speaker 2: Nightclub that his city council directed. The city manager to use the one year pause to.
Speaker 1: Conduct an evaluation of the policies governing permits in the district. Following council direction, the city manager assembled a task force of downtown stakeholders to participate in the evaluation and recommend changes. The task force includes owners and operators of entertainment venues in the district, as well as downtown residents and property owners.
Speaker 5: City staff and the task force met regularly seeking.
Speaker 2: To balance the needs of various users. In particular, the task.
Speaker 5: Force wanted to encourage both entertainment venues and residential developments to locate in.
Speaker 1: The district while minimizing any conflict between the different uses. Recommendations that will improve the.
Speaker 5: District have been developed.
Speaker 2: And the task force believes.
Speaker 1: That the recommendations must be vetted.
Speaker 2: By a larger group of downtown stakeholders before.
Speaker 1: Being presented to the City Council and codified. Therefore, the task force requests a six month extension of the moratorium to allow sufficient time to complete a public engagement process. That process includes a public forum taking place next week on the 21st of August, as well as.
Speaker 5: Opportunities to provide written comment via.
Speaker 1: Online or email. After gathering input, the task force will meet to consider how best to incorporate the feedback and will then submit the recommendations to the City Council for Approval and Referral to Planning Commission to amend Chapter 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. Following Planning Commission approval, the City Attorney will return to the City Council with an ordinance for adoption and as you can see by the anticipated dates in the slide. We do hope that we can complete this process quickly and hopefully expedite it so it can be shorter than the six months requested. This concludes my report and I'm available to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Turn this over now to Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was wondering if I'd like to make the motion to move the item and also seek public comment before I make some remarks.
Speaker 0: Excellent. He's been in motion in a second by Councilmember Austin. We're going to turn this over to public comment on the item.
Speaker 9: Mr. Mayor, as vice mayor, on many occasions, I have had problems getting home. Oh. My name is Ben Rockwell. I live at 475 West Fifth Street here in Long Beach. On many occasions, I've had troubles trying to get home from events such as a Long Beach Symphony or the Long Beach Symphony Pops because of the fact that our sidewalks along Pine Avenue are so cluttered with people trying to get into some of the venues, they are blocking the sidewalks completely for pedestrian traffic and especially for those of us that use wheelchairs because we are not able to get by. And some of the people literally tried to push me off the curb out into the middle of the street because of our insistence that they have to have the sidewalk strictly for waiting to get into some of the entertainment venues, some of the night clubs along Pine Avenue. I find this abhorrent that we don't have more politeness for people that need to get through on their way from a venue to their home, which is also in Long Beach and fact in the downtown. I don't use public transportation to get from the symphony home because it's too short a distance and it takes longer to use a bus than it does from my home. So I appreciate having the moratorium so that we can have a better chance to make our city better. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can I get.
Speaker 9: I got pretty good. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Craig.
Speaker 7: Koch, and I serve as the president and CEO of the downtown Long Beach.
Speaker 9: Associates. I'd like to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal and her chief of staff, Brock Coward City Long Beach Project Specialist Rachel Tanner, who recently assumed the responsibility as lead staff liaison for this project and the members of the Downtown Dining and Entertainment District Task Force, especially Miss Laura Cat Ivana, who also serves as a residential representative from Council District one on the DARPA Board of Directors for their contribution to this project based on the approaching deadline of the original 12 month moratorium, which I believe is today, and despite the initiative's delayed start and a limited options that are at this point that we have at this point, the DVA supports the recommended action presented this evening . We look forward to working with Ms. Tanner and appropriate city staff, the task force members and the Downtown Staker.
Speaker 7: Stakeholders to.
Speaker 9: Expeditiously resolve any outstanding matters.
Speaker 7: That may exist before precede proceeding through the.
Speaker 9: Various public engagement and approval processes necessary to codify the proposed new.
Speaker 7: Ordinance. I'm hoping that we can get this done in a matter of 90 days.
Speaker 9: Perhaps 120, rather than a six months. I appreciate.
Speaker 7: Your support, and I thank again those volunteers.
Speaker 9: For their time to create a better downtown. And we look forward to working with everyone to get this.
Speaker 7: Get the business.
Speaker 9: Back on track.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and city council members. My name is Eric Carr and I'm a resident at 133, the Promenade, which is right in the heart of the entertainment district. And I also had the privilege of being on the Entertainment District Task Force, and I just wanted to come in front of city council to let you know that since our first meeting, we have made considerable progress in this endeavor of coming to a resolution. This both beneficial for the business community and the residential community here in the downtown area. And at this point in time, we just feel that we really need to have some time to do the due diligence of getting that public feedback from both the residents and the business community before we move forward. We present to the City Council, so we just want to support the vice mayor, support a motion to extend this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Casey. No other public speakers on the item. Oh, you are your public speaker on this item. Yes. Oh, I didn't it. Please come.
Speaker 9: Forward. I'm sorry. I'm sitting down. This is about the entertainment. What's it called exactly?
Speaker 0: Please identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 9: Sure. Peter Rosenwald, my address is on file.
Speaker 0: The item is on an extension of. Of a moratorium for the dining and entertainment district.
Speaker 9: Yes. Concerning the dining and entertainment district, I have been taking note of the activities at 309 Pine Avenue. It's it's the city of Long Beach building, but it says Small Business Development Center and Center for International Trade. About three or four weeks ago, there was some stationery announcing some meetings of this particular organization. Different nights in June, I believe June and July. There was no phone number on the on this particular, the stationery, city stationery. The building appears to be deserted. I have reported this twice to the Long Beach City College, Long Beach Community.
Speaker 4: College District Board of Trustees.
Speaker 9: Stating that it's a disgrace to have a building such as this in a business district which is depressed as it is with so many empty storefronts. And I asked that at least the phone number and contact information for the Small Business Development Center and the Center for International Trade be posted on the building at the last community sorry, a community college district meeting. MZ The head of the the department, Lou Ann Bynum, came up to me after the meeting and she stated that it's not their building, but they do have meetings there. I don't understand how the city of Long Beach can have a building and right next to it, up until maybe ten days ago, there was a boarded up storefront at 311 Pine Avenue. It's now for lease. I don't understand how the city of Long Beach is trying to develop its business and entertainment success by having this poor. Representative of the business. Of business. Business development sitting right there and I have not been able to get any changes. Ms.. Bynum told me that she was going to take a look at it, but I had announced this also at a previous meeting of the board. Thank you. I see that you've just finish up the sentence approximately five weeks ago.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I hope you can do something about it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. See you. Thank you. Time is up. Thank you. Okay. No more public comment on the item. There is the city attorney. Give a comment.
Speaker 10: Mayor Garcia, members of the city council. This action will require two separate votes.
Speaker 9: The first vote is on the urgency of the matter so that the audience can take effect immediately starting tomorrow, so that the moratorium will remain in effect.
Speaker 10: And the second vote is on the extension itself.
Speaker 0: Great. So we'll take the first vote. There's been a motion.
Speaker 2: Mr. Mayor. Garcia, I just wanted to make sure. I wanted to see how many of the task force members were in the audience. I know. I recognize one and two. There we go. Okay. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you both, as well as the other task force members for your service so far and for attending tonight's meeting. It's been quite a commitment that all of you have put into this effort, and I know you are invested in it, and I know you're very busy just professionally and personally, but you've also been very busy over these last several months with this particular task. I appreciate everyone's comments that have come through the task force, the deliberation that's taken place, and then the speakers that came forward today to provide some comment. And it is important that we take this time for the task force to reach out to the different stakeholders and receive feedback and make changes to their recommendation. I think it's really very encouraging about that process and the deliberative process that you've taken is that you recognize that some additional time is needed. So for that, I thank you and for the honesty that goes into that in recognizing that something this important does take time. And while we initially thought we could take care of it in a certain time period, we realized that we couldn't just by going through it. So I appreciate you for that. And for those that are not here participating in this council meeting and that have served on the task force, as well as participated as members of the stakeholder community to support the task force and their deliberation, I very much appreciated. So with that, I'd like to make the first motion. I think we've already made that motion right there.
Speaker 0: We have the motion on the floor. And so with that and will be a second motion after the first vote. So the first motion that's on the floor has been made. Members, please go and cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then you take a second vote. Vice Mayor want to make that motion?
Speaker 2: I'd like to go ahead and make that motion. The second piece of it. I'm sorry, would you remind me?
Speaker 10: Second piece is to actually adopt the ordinance?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. So I'd make the motion to adopt the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a second by Councilman Austin, and we had public comment for both, Mr. Attorney. So I think that that worked out fine. Good. And with that, please, members. Gordon, cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Moving on now to budget item I'm sorry, hearing item number three, which is a continuation of our budget hearing. So if we want to, Madam Clerk, read that. | Emergency Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Ordinance No. ORD-13-0016 extending for six (6) months the temporary limitation (moratorium) on the issuance of entertainment permits and/or business licenses for businesses that operate with a Type 48 ABC License or related permit in the Downtown Dining and Entertainment District; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read.
(Ordinance No. ORD-14-0011) (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08122014_14-0580 | Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Moving on now to budget item I'm sorry, hearing item number three, which is a continuation of our budget hearing. So if we want to, Madam Clerk, read that.
Speaker 1: Item three report from the City Manager. Recommendation two to conduct a public hearing to receive and discuss an overview of the proposed fiscal year 2015 budget for the following departments. Department of Health and Human Services. Fire Department and Police Department.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And with that, I'm going to turn this over to the city manager and like the last hearing. We're going to go through the presentations and then we'll begin with the council questions. Mr. West.
Speaker 9: Yes. For the city clerk, we skipped item number two. So if we can come back to item two.
Speaker 0: But we're going back to him, too.
Speaker 9: Great. Absolutely. So this is a in a series of budget hearings that we've been presented at the city council. So this is the second phase of presenting department budgets to the city council. Tonight, we're going to hear from our fire chief, Mike Tarry, with a brief presentation followed by our Chief of police, Jim McDonald, with a brief presentation. So, Chief Terry, take it away.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. This evening, I will be giving you a brief overview of the Long Beach Fire Department's fiscal year 15 proposed budget. My presentation will also touch upon the services provided by your fire department and some highlights of our current fiscal year, as well as significant changes in fiscal year 15 proposed budget and some major issues and opportunities we'll try and address in fiscal year 15. The fire department delivers fire rescue, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response and non-emergency response services to residents, businesses and visitors in the city of Long Beach. As you know, we provide 24 hour operation for which all first responders must be prepared at all times. A primary goal of your fire department is to reduce the number of fires in the city through our fire prevention efforts. These include services such as fire inspections and code enforcement, investigation of suspicious fires to our fire investigation or arson detail, the implementation of environmental safeguards and efforts to reach out to the community with fire prevention and safety messages and related information. Additionally, our training division provides essential services to the entire department. They prepare into entry level fire recruits to be effective firefighters through our fire academy. And just as important, however, is their work in ensuring that all our first responders receive the continuing education needed to maintain skills and stay current in their knowledge of firefighting and emergency response tactics. I would like to outline for you some of the fire department's accomplishments and highlights for the current fiscal year. Over the last 12 months, we have responded to over 53,000 emergency medical services and other emergency incidents. This equates to more than 127,000 individual unit responses. We have been and will continue to remain a very busy fire department. Included in this number is over 45,000 medical calls and over 5000 fire calls. This number also includes hazardous materials responses, airport responses, some marine safety responses and other non fire responses. For the first time in many years, we've conducted consecutive fire academies earlier this year. 28 new fire recruits graduated from our fire academy. And in the next couple of weeks, we will be starting another similar sized academy class. It is our plan to continue running annual academies to ensure adequate staffing levels at all times. As you know, on July 10th, 2014, the Long Beach Fire Department implemented the Rapid Medic Deployment Program or RMD throughout the City of Long Beach. Implementation of the R&D program was a culmination of over two years of planning and public meetings, which included City Council approval during the fiscal year 2013 budget process and the approval of the Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency and EMS Commission earlier this year. And as I indicated in my memorandum to the city manager and City Council last week, our preliminary data for the first month of the program are showing an improvement in response times over last year. In fact, I met with representatives from the EMS agency at Long Beach fire headquarters yesterday to discuss the RMD program, and we received some very positive remarks from them on its progress. We continue to have a very active community emergency response or CERT program. This year was unique in that we conducted the city's first ever Teen Cert program class. This class was comprised of 36 poly high school students who were given practical hands on instruction and demonstrations of how to respond to emergencies. And we continued to effectively utilize Homeland Security grant funds. This year, we were able to secure funds for citywide all hazards incident management team training, which has improved the city's capacity to manage large scale emergencies. The proposed fiscal year 15 budget for the fire department is just over $97.5 million. We have a total of 527 full time equivalent staff consisting of 388 sworn FTE in the fire ranks. Another 27 full time year round marine safety first responders, over 160 seasonal lifeguards and 33 full time ambulance operators. Additionally, the fire department is supported by civilian staff in fire operations, support services, fire prevention and administration. The bulk of our budget, over 70%, is in the general fund, which supports most departmental activities. As you can see, the proposed 515 general fund budget for the fire department is nearly $71.4 million. Additionally, the Tidelands Fund supports marine safety activities as well as our fire operations in the Port of Long Beach. The harbor department. Provides cost reimbursement for the services provided in the port, and that is included in the 29 point, not $22.9 million Tidelands Fund budget for fire prop funds from the oil production tax continue to provide additional support for fire staffing, an additional one time and ongoing needs that I will address in the next slide. Along with the Health Department, the fire provide fire department provides environmental protection services that are supported by the Cooper Fund. This stands for Certified Unified Program Agency and through permit fees, it provides funding for inspection services and business emergency plan reviews to ensure hazardous chemicals are handled, stored and transported in accordance with current state and local standards. The Fire Department's proposed fiscal year 15 budget includes several changes that I'd like to highlight. First, the fire department will be placing two new fire boats into service into fiscal year 15. The greater size and complexity of these boats warrants an increase in the daily staffing of the fire boats by three. I'd like to thank I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Harbor Commission for their support not only for these new boats, but recognizing the need for staffing to accompany them. A second budget changes the need to extend our fire academy by two weeks to meet state mandates for EMT training. The additional costs of this training will be supported by the Prop eight fund. This fund will also provide nonrecurring support in the amount of $400,000 for the replacement of fire equipment and the purchase of emergency generators for our facilities. And the department also plans to utilize non-recurring ground emergency medical transportation or EMT funds to replace four fire engines with an estimated cost of $600,000 each. This will increase the reliability of our front line first responders apparatus by allowing us to replace these aging engines. Looking forward into fiscal year 15, the department has several significant issues. The first is to continue our multiyear multiphase plan to address workforce privacy issues in fire department facilities. The Fire Department of Public Works have made great strides in the past several years to ensure that our facilities foster a positive work environment and provide privacy for all employees. Our facilities are unique in that our employees utilize them on a 24 hour basis. Therefore, it is essential that all facilities offer private dormitories, changing areas and restroom facilities. Fire and Public Works will utilize existing capital improvement fund appropriations to conclude these workforce privacy projects. Another challenge is to ensure that our fleet of frontline public safety vehicles, ambulances, fire trucks, fire engines and other first responding apparatus remain reliable in their service to fires, medical incidents and other emergencies. In order to do this, we will continue to work with the Department of Financial Management to develop a comprehensive plan for the replacement of the department's aging fleet of vehicles. And finally, the Department has a need to enhance our public information and community relations functions. While the Department has been effective in this area. There are opportunities for increased effectiveness. With the many services and activities the Department provides on a daily basis. It is critical to ensure that these these are communicated effectively to our community. In the coming months, the Department will formulate both the short term and long term plan to meet this need. That Mr. Mayor. That concludes my presentation. With that, I stand ready to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. West will go on to Police Chief McDonnell.
Speaker 12: Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the City Council. I want to begin tonight's presentation of our fiscal year 15 budget by thanking you for your ongoing support of the police department. I also want to thank the men and women of the Long Beach Police Department who risked their personal safety each day to protect our community. Our employees continue to find new and innovative ways to use the resources you have given us to drive down crime in our city to record lows. Of course, services to the community are first to safeguard lives and property. This includes reducing violent crime by 9% and property crime by 6.8%. Through June of this year. Second, to promote and protect the constitutional rights of all people to liberty, equality and justice. This goes beyond enforcing the law to include running a first class jail that protected the rights of nearly 15,000 prisoners last year. Third, to answer, respond to and investigate calls for service in a timely manner. In 2013, we answered over 600,000 phone calls and responded to over 176,000 calls for service. Finally, we consider it a core service to engage in partnership with a broad network of stakeholders to reduce crime and improve quality of life, as well as to ensure our homeland security. This includes coordinating with other city departments, regional law enforcement agencies and our community. For example, last year we partnered with small business owners in an operation where we arrested 71 organized shoplifters, burglars and gang members who were stealing from local businesses. We're extremely proud of what we've accomplished over the last year. Our partnerships have contributed to our achievements. For example, we've achieved an average citywide response time of 4.7 minutes to priority one calls for service when the national average is around 11 minutes. In 2013, the number of violent crimes in Long Beach was the lowest since 1971. And I'm happy to report that this year through June, we're trending down another 9%. To highlight this a little further. Murders are down 39%. Gang related murders are down 38%. Overall, shootings are down 35%. Gang shootings are down 52%. Robberies are down 27%. Fatal traffic collisions are down 60%. And officer involved shootings are down 71%. Our Gang Enforcement section strategies have been successful. We've used nonrecurring funding to extend shifts to investigate and solve crimes and made arrests that prevented additional crimes. As I discussed on the previous slide, these efforts have paid off in reducing gang related murders and shootings. Human trafficking operations resulted in the rescue of 18 young women, the arrest of 15 traffickers, and the referral of 41 cases to support services. We believe these services can change the course of lives. We formed a task force to address individuals who by law are not allowed to possess firearms, prohibited, possess or operations resulted in 80 investigative searches. The recovery of 46 guns and 27 arrests. As a result of realignment, the state provided limited funding to ensure compliance of early release prisoners within the city. Combined with city funding, we created our new public safety realignment team. The team conducted 582 compliance checks and made 172 arrests. In addition, many probationers were referred to resources in an effort to try and reduce recidivism. Academy Class Number 86 graduated new police officers that are now completing their probationary field training. Soon, they'll begin scheduled patrols on their own to help replenish the workforce. Lost to regular attrition. Academy Class 87 started June this year and will graduate in December, and testing for Class 88 is currently underway. As you can see, we made tremendous progress during the past year. The pie chart pie chart shows that our fiscal year 15 budget provides roughly 191 million in the general fund in about 18 million in other funds. The proposed budget includes increases in both the number of police officers and professional support staff. In particular, I want to thank Long Beach Transit for increasing the number of police officers by two. These officers will be dedicated to enforcing laws within our city's bus system. I also want to thank the harbor department after publication of fiscal year 15 proposed budget. The port security. You added net one sergeant to the workforce in fiscal year 15. We plan to do some restructuring, which I will expand on in in a moment. The restructuring, in combination with additional positions, will allow sworn personnel to focus more proactively impacting crime. We believe that together these changes will make the city of Long Beach safer. We've studied data and best practices for the purpose of reorganizing our resources. As a result, next year's budget has many changes that will make the city safer for residents and visitors. The major changes include transferring juvenile booking and detention activities to jail division so that detectives from juvenile investigations can assist with pressing cases in burglary, computer crimes, homicide and VICE will continue to dedicate detectives and school resource officers to work juvenile specific cases. We're adding 11 new positions and reorganizing professional support staff for assignments to the business desk, civic center, security in case filing duties to reduce overtime. And we're adding sworn officers through our security services contract with the Port and Long Beach Transit. An increase in property funding has allowed us to increase the number of budgeted police academy recruits and to add a nonrecurring $400,000 investment to the plans for the new East Division substation at Schroeder Hall. In addition, we're funding helicopter fuel in the acquisition of replacement undercover vehicles. Overall, the goal of the police department is to become more timely in our response, more intelligent in our approach and more engaged with the community we serve to make Long Beach a safer place for all people to get there now and in future years, there are significant issues and opportunities to address. First, we must sustain the intelligence, training and progress we have made in human trafficking, realignment, compliance and prohibited possessor enforcement. Through these efforts, we are able to rescue young victims, manage the influx of habitual offenders and prevent future tragedies. You'll see us continuing these efforts so that we don't lose momentum. Second, we must continue to invest our resources in the best technology and intelligence to maximize results. Criminals continue to become more sophisticated, so we must work to stay one step ahead of them. This means keeping pace with our technology and adopting best practices. It's important to maximize the capability of our employees. As we move forward, we must find ways to reduce administrative workload through better technology process improvement, and increase professional support staff so that we can optimize the use of trained, sworn personnel on the front lines of law enforcement . We must continue to foster and grow our strategic partnerships with the community, city council, local businesses and nonprofit partners. We will be working to implement the city's violence prevention plan and continuing to promote Community Watch program as part of this collaborative effort. I have no doubt that the additional 2.2 million in non-recurring discretionary funds for overtime recommended by the city manager will help us accomplish these priorities. On behalf of the men and women of the police department, thank you for your ongoing support and commitment to make this safest city possible.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chief, and thank you to both both chiefs and obviously all the rank and file members for just doing a great job with these budget presentations as well as all the all the work on the field every day. I will bring this back to the members, starting with Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to start with the police chief, and thank you for your presentation. And I just have a couple of questions. You have 18 potentially new position. Does the addition of these officers reflect new positions created for the graduates of the police academy, or are they unfilled positions currently?
Speaker 12: I'm sorry. I can't make out what you're saying on. On the question there was.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Was it not loud enough?
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yes, please.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 2: You know, these are grown up chairs. You have to, like, clean really fast. So the 18 new positions, or are they are you accounting for the academy graduates or are they unfilled positions currently.
Speaker 9: Which I call.
Speaker 13: Vice Mayor Lowenthal, members of the city council. Essentially, the net new positions that are being added to the budget are three on the sworn side. And the the 15.52 is, I think, what you're referring to, the total being 18.52. We're also reducing some positions as well. But essentially there will be three new budgeted sworn positions that will be filled by hopefully new officers as they come into the workforce.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. And then on the overtime calculation, I was wondering how the city manager arrived at the amount. Does it just account for a certain number of hours or a certain number of positions? Could you tell us how that calculation works?
Speaker 9: That was more empirical data, what we've done in the past to work for overtime and what has worked in the department for the past few years.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. And then I have questions for fire. Mr. Vice Mayor, did you want to instead of them getting up and down, do you want to go down the aisle to see if anyone else has questions for police and then come back to fire or do you want to go back and forth?
Speaker 0: I think if the chief, could you stand right behind these guys and kind of switch back and forth? That would be great. Like we did the last budget session.
Speaker 2: So I wanted to.
Speaker 0: Chief.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Fire Chief Terry, I have a few questions on. Thank you for your presentation. I have a few questions on R&D, primarily on R&D with the implementation of R&D. I've heard some folks talk about their belief that we're running out of rescues to respond to calls for service. And I wanted to hear from you if you've heard the same in terms of folks believing that that might be the case or there might be evidence to that being true. And I just wanted to know from you, how do you respond to that?
Speaker 11: Vice Mayor The short answer is no. We are not running out of apparatus or or response vehicles to respond to the calls for service in Long Beach. We have we have met the needs of our community with the apparatus that we have in place.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. And then to your point about not to your point necessarily, but to our practice of relying on Los Angeles County or Orange County fire departments to assist us for calls for service. How many times would you say perhaps in the past month prior to armed, did we rely on them?
Speaker 11: Councilmember In the month preceding the implementation of Armed, the Los Angeles County Fire Department responded as part of the automatic aid system to to and from basically one month prior 24 calls for service for emergency medical calls in the city of Long Beach the month prior to Armed and Orange County Fire Authority, for that matter, responded to 32 calls for service in the city of Long Beach the month prior to implementation of Armed.
Speaker 2: Okay. I appreciate that. And then following the implementation of Armed, how many times have we used the automatic aid system to support our calls for service?
Speaker 11: Vice Mayor from July 10th, 2014, or the date we started armed, the Los Angeles County Fire Department has responded to zero calls for service in Long Beach, and the Orange County Fire Authority has responded to six calls for service in Long Beach and in the case of Orange County. Of those six calls, three of them appear to be traffic accidents on the 605 Freeway, indicating that they may have been dispatched to that call anyway anyway.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then from the cost perspective, what's our annual cost for an armed rescue versus the pre armed rescue?
Speaker 11: A vice versa. An armed rescue staffed with a firefighter, paramedic and an ambulance operator costs $723,305 per year, as opposed to $1,049,248 for a rescue ambulance staffed with two firefighter paramedics.
Speaker 2: 1,000,049.
Speaker 11: 1 million. 1 million, 50,000.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 11: Sorry.
Speaker 2: It's okay. All right. Thank you. And then finally, what would be your priority should funding become available in the future for apparatus restorations?
Speaker 11: Vice Mayor. Should. Should funding become available in the future? We should remain consistent with the memo we sent the Council over a number of months ago, and it would be because of because we implemented R&D, we actually restored the rescues that were listed on the memo that we sent to council. So we would focus on the engines and that would be engine eight would be our number one priority, followed by Engine 101 and Engine 17 would go right down that list. We have we haven't wavered off that as our priority.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Chief. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Andrews.
Speaker 8: Yes, thank you, Mayor. I would like to directly to the Chief Police Macdonell.
Speaker 3: Back to.
Speaker 8: Okay. First of all, Chief, I like to let you know that I'm very saddened to hear that you will be leaving us in November, but very excited to know that you're going to do a big and better, you know, situation. And congratulations.
Speaker 12: Thank you for your support, sir.
Speaker 8: But first, I only have one question, and that is that what has been the police department effort to deal with the the impact of the AB 109 realignment, the governor's plan to release state prisoners early?
Speaker 12: Thank you. We've done a number of different things. We have approximately 900 early release prisoners living in the city of Long Beach. Long Beach is about 6% of L.A. County's entire parks population, which is a big challenge. We found that a third of the addresses we checked or a team check proved to be inaccurate false reporting, late data entries or clerical errors or outdated info. But we had to work to be able to locate those individuals as well. We've had good success. Our stats in fiscal year 14 to date we've had 815 compliance checks, 265 citywide. PRC's arrests. Approximately seven and three quarters of all PRC's arrests in L.A. County were made in Long Beach. Offenses included narcotics, burglary, weapons violations, sex crimes, gang injunction violations and murder. The total cost to us was about 1.6 million. To be able to do this, 1.1 was allocated to us in nonrecurring funds for fiscal year 14 and 525,000 we were able to receive from the state to be able to supplement that.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Chief. I think the stats that we've heard this evening. Who wouldn't want to live in Long Beach? It's probably one of the safest cities in the world. And I'd like to congratulate your staff because of that. Thank you.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Yes, I'm through with you now, chief.
Speaker 9: Thanks.
Speaker 8: Now, the fire department police chiefs are the chiefs deputy. Okay. I have two questions for you, Chief. And the first one is what percentage of the fire department calls are medical calls?
Speaker 11: Councilmember The percentage of medical calls of our out of our overall call volume annually is about 84.33%.
Speaker 8: Thank you. In the last question as to how the fire department had to rely on assistance from the Los Angeles County and Orange County, far more since we implemented the R&D IT councilmember.
Speaker 11: As I mentioned a moment ago, the answer is no. Since we implemented the RMD program, we have not relied on our automatic aid system to to run any emergency medical calls here in town. The system I just want to be clear on this. The system is designed to as we need help, we they provide us help. And as they need help, we provide them help. I think one interesting note along those lines is in the last months since we have implemented R&D, we've actually responded to 24 calls for service in Los Angeles County in their in their first in area since we implemented the RMD program. So I think the key here is, especially in the north part of Long Beach, where Rescue 12 was put back in service, has had a tremendous impact on the overall service delivery of EMS services in that part of town, which is what's kind of really drawn down our need to rely on Los Angeles County for help. But it's still good to know that that that system does exist so that in the event we have a system situation where we receive I don't know, on any given day, we receive 14 calls for service in a specified given period of time. We could easily potentially run out of units and rely on our automatic or mutual aid system, but we haven't had to do it yet.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Chief. And also, I'd like to thank you and your staff for doing such a great job. Thank you again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Chief, hang on right there. Councilmember Mongo.
Speaker 1: Thank you for answering a bunch of my questions through the previous two councilmembers. The fifth District is one of the most impacted by mutual aid, so we really appreciate that the system has reduced our reliance on other agencies. Specifically, I want to give you congratulations on your teen cert program. I know that as we move towards a more inclusive system where counties and cities are utilizing technology to rely upon people in the surrounding area to help provide services, the more teenagers that we have engaged in trained, the better we will be. So I look forward to supporting you in that in the expansion to maybe Millikan High School in our district. And for that, I'm done with fire. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. PD, please.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I think.
Speaker 1: I want to say a special thanks for our shoplifting task force. And I hope that of the $2.2 million that we're setting aside for both the gang unit and the task forces and the other overtime necessary, that we can look at opportunities to expand that not only within our small businesses, but to our bigger businesses that are also being hit with some major shrinkage in our city right now. We've been talking to some regional directors of major box companies that are in the district, and we know that for businesses to be here, they need to feel safe. So thank you for that. The shoplifting task force that you mentioned, is it consistent or is it disband or how often does it come up? And can you give us a little bit about the logistics of that?
Speaker 12: Yeah, it's periodic. We'll do it will work with the.
Speaker 9: Let me get the proper attorney with the name of the group.
Speaker 1: Is this with the stay away orders that we're doing with the city prosecutors?
Speaker 12: There's a there's an umbrella group, Lorca, at the Los Angeles Regional Commercial Theft Unit, I believe, and I'm paraphrasing there. But we work with them. We have another one coming up in the next couple of months. So we'll continue to stay on top of this and work with our partners to be able to get the the most efficient use of our resources in this regard as well.
Speaker 1: And then one quick question for Deputy Chief Luna. A few months ago, you came over and talked about the community watch programs that have been popping up all over the city and the significant improvements that we've been having. Do you have any numbers on how significant we have, what kind of strides we've made? I know that Commander LeBaron made some comments related to the number of new community watch programs and the engaged citizenry that you guys have encouraged.
Speaker 9: But I don't have any specific numbers. Council Member Mungo but I can tell you that that all of you sitting behind the dais there have been really helping us out and really pushing the message. And that's our consistent message with our entire community. That brings in years. And it's so effective for us to reduce crime in the city, or I should say, prevent crime. If we continue this effort. So I ask not only all of you, but everybody out there in this audience and watching this on television to continue. If you don't have a community watch, go on in your neighborhood, organize one. You can get a hold of the police department. We'll do everything we can to help you out. I know several of you are doing that and we'll provide numbers for you as time goes on. But I have no doubt that with all of your efforts, we can probably at least triple the size by the end of the year. So thank you for your support on that.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you for coming out to our neighborhood night out and having all the impromptu front porch meetings. While I love having the front porch meetings, they are as a response to residential burglaries and I've significantly I've seen a significant decrease be as neighbors watch so thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you Councilmember Price Chief, you guys are there. They're going to ask you a question for PD Councilmember.
Speaker 9: Great.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I want to take a moment and thank Long Beach PD for the excellent work that you do. I want to take a special moment to thank Commander LeBaron, who is the commander that services my district, and I want to thank him for all the education that he has given the residents in my community regarding issues related to public safety. I want to start off by saying that I understand that these are tough financial times. They've been more difficult in the past. They're going to continue to be difficult in the future. But I firmly believe that if a city can't provide a safe place for its residents, then the city has failed. And in that regard, anyone who says that, you know, you can have the safest city in the world, but if you don't have all the other amenities that go with a great city, then what do you have? Hasn't talked to a victim of crime. They haven't talked to someone whose home has been burglarized or someone who's been assaulted in the street. And I really believe that when looking at the budget in the coming month and in the years ahead, I'm going to be looking at it with an eye towards how we ensure the safety of our citizens, both by the Long Beach Police Department and the Long Beach Fire Department. So in that regard, I want to talk to you about property crimes. I understand that the city of Long Beach is a large city and we have a lot of different needs and in terms of public safety and police services and that obviously there are violent crimes that take priority when it comes to investigation and focus. But I will say that in some communities within the city of Long Beach and specifically my community, which is where I have some expertize, the issue of property crimes and residential burglaries is one that continues to trouble the residents in my community and me included. And I would like us to think long term and strategically about how we are going to address the issue of property crimes. I fully support and our office has actually engaged in a community watch program challenge that we have undertaken as a result of Commander LeBaron leadership. I firmly believe that it's a partnership, but it's important for me too, to know that we as a city have a police department that has a strategic plan and has vested in determining what our long term options are going to be and resource allocation to the issue of property crimes. We will be having a public safety meeting on September the fifth and one of the items on the agenda will be looking at public safety in terms of property crimes and a strategic plan for the future. I've had a chance to talk with you, Chief. I know that you share my concerns, but if in fact. Additional moneys were available. Could you find a place to allocate them where there would be a focus on residential burglaries and property crimes?
Speaker 12: Absolutely. If if we're able to find additional funding and we earmark it, we can certainly focus on property crimes. Let me if I could just share a couple of things that we've done during this period are maybe one on I in our realignment compliance team is focused in heavily on property crime. So that's that's been a, you know, a big plus for us. And we've been able to clear up some some rings on that one as well. We've reorganized our investigations function, which increased career criminal investigators, our burglary investigators, computer crime investigators, vice investigators, as well as a community outreach piece as well. So we look at those things and those are helpful. But at the end of the day, our community watch that was touched on previously is a critical piece. When we take burglary reports over and over again, we hear that somebody left their doors unlocked. They left their windows unlocked. They left property in their car, in their vehicle unlocked. Those are the kind of things that we can all work together to keep each other in check to ensure that we we make it that target as hard as it possibly can be. And then the piece about getting to know our neighbors and to look out for each other and to make the call to the police department when you see somebody on your street knocking on doors that don't have a reason to be in the neighborhood, and it looks like they're looking around for opportunities. Call us, please. That's what we want to be able to go out there and and talk to that person and see what they're doing. Those are the type of things that they really don't cost any additional, but have tremendous dividends for everybody. So we look forward to working with you. We thank you for your support. We're doing what we can with the resources we have now. If we had more, we certainly could benefit from that. But I think there's a lot of things that we can do in the short term that that cost little or nothing more strategies than anything else.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Chief. I appreciate that.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 5: I do have a couple of questions for Chief Jerry. Good evening, chief. Special thanks to the Long Beach Fire Department for the work that you do as well. Your your firefighters are an amazing asset to the city. Every single one of them is a quality individual who offers so much to this city. So I want to thank you for your leadership and for getting them to the place where they are proud members of our city workforce. You did not talk about, but I wanted to highlight for a moment the great work of your lifeguards. They just finished Junior Lifeguard program for the summer of which the Price family was involved. And we commend those men and women for the excellent work that they do as well. You talked about R&D. R&D is a pilot program, is that correct?
Speaker 11: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 5: Do we have any sort of plan in place in the event that the pilot program proves to either be not as efficient as we had hoped or proves to have a lower standard of patient care than what we were used to before R&D was implemented. And I understand we have one month of data, but looking over at time, what's our plan in case that doesn't prove to be all that we hope it is?
Speaker 11: Well, Councilmember, during the past two, a little over two and a half years, during the vetting process, as we worked with the county EMS agency, we were very clear that as we went into this, we were it's a study. It's a pilot study. So we anticipate, as did the county agency, that as we go throughout this study over the next two year period or at any point in the study, if we need to make subtle adjustments to the pilot program so as to make it more effective or ease the strain in one area or another, or basically do we need to do to kind of prove or disprove the hypothesis and the hypothesis being, could we staff our paramedic program differently than we had done in the past? The EMS agency is open to that as a study. The intent is to determine whether or not we can operate in an alternative staffing configuration to what we did prior. If to answer your question, if at some point during the study there is some sort of anomaly in the system or some sort of data that comes in that is egregious enough that we feel we need to stop altogether, then we will do that. We made a commitment to the EMS agency that we would stop the program if it was proven to be a degradation of patient care or if something happened that was significant enough that we felt that the the level of service we provide our community was at risk. So if we did that, we would immediately come back and either potentially revert back to the system we had in place prior and then try and realize the financial efficiencies in a different way. Or I'm sure as we got to that point, we would come up with a number of alternatives so as to restore the level of service that would have potentially been degraded. But I can tell you that, as you said, it's only a month and I'll be the first to say we don't hang our hat on a month's worth of data over a two year study. But so far, the program went into place in July. It's traditionally one of our busier months, and we're we haven't seen any sort of big kind of anomalies or any sort of big incidents happen that that gave us cause for concern. In fact, there's a lot of normal things happening within Long Beach Fire on a daily basis. We're still responding on structure fires on a regular basis. Last week we sent a five engine strike team to Northern California, which is something we we enjoy participating in the mutual aid system. So the things we normally do, we are continuing to do. And in some cases, like I mentioned, with the use of L.A. County Fire for calls for service in Long Beach, we've seen a decrease in the amount of reliance that we have on our partners. So we are not seeing anything yet that would we would consider an anomaly. However, we are watching very, very closely to ensure that's not not coming.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you.
Speaker 5: And just a follow up to that. Is there anything at this point that causes you some concern or pause about patient care standards?
Speaker 11: Councilmember. No, in fact, yesterday we. Not yet. Yesterday we met with the EMS agency and we provided the preliminary data. We commit to provide data to the EMS agency on a monthly basis that evaluates I believe there are 38 set, correct. 36 different fields that they evaluate on a monthly basis. And we went through the preliminary data with them yesterday and across the board without being specific, because some of this is patient care stuff and I don't want to be specific on on some parts of that. But across the board, the time to deliver the treatment modalities that we use in the field is getting faster than it was in the past. The time to get a paramedic on scene is faster. So all in all, the EMS agency folks that came yesterday said they were very pleased with the one month look. And we don't see anything that's causing any sort of concern right now.
Speaker 2: You talked a little bit about.
Speaker 5: Engine eight being one of the priorities. Obviously, in the third district, we have the communities of Naples and the peninsula, Belmont Shore, all very dense communities that, in my opinion, are at risk by not having Engine eight in service. What would it cost to have Engine eight be put back into service?
Speaker 11: Council member. The current cost to restore fire engine eight is $2.2 million a year.
Speaker 5: When was the last time Engine Eight was in service?
Speaker 11: It would have been January of 2013.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I have nothing further.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I'll start with the fire chief. Thank you, Terry. Terry, I'm sorry. And I think the men and women of the Long Beach Fire Department for the the excellent service that they provide to our city. I did have a few questions for you. As you know, I have been a strong critic of the R&D program or the pilot program. I think it's very risky to to to experiment with the city this size. But I'm glad to hear your early reports that it's working out during the the R&D discussions leading up to its implementation. You indicated that additional rescues would be employed during peak times. And I'm curious to know how often we are employing additional rescues since the Army program has been implemented.
Speaker 11: It councilmember the we haven't we haven't deployed any additional like armed rescues with a paramedic and an EMT on board since since implementation of the RMD program in week two of the program, we recognized that we were seeing a lot of basic life support level transports coming from a specific geographic area in the city. So we went to the contingency plan that we had developed during the two year kind of vetting process with the county and employed or deployed basic life support ambulances four days a week, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday for 9 hours on those days to ease the ease the number of times that our A+ ambulances were going to the hospitals. So those those ambulances, peak load staffed ambulances that are staffed with two non-career ambulance operators, started taking some of our basic life support patients to the hospital. And that has proved to be a very effective addition to the program in that it keeps our ALS units available to respond to those calls that are a higher, higher critical need.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you. And you mentioned the basic life support system, but can you discuss what duties one paramedic can do on an ALS call versus what attest to paramedics on the scene would perform or could perform.
Speaker 11: The the solo paramedic or the one paramedic that's on an ambulance can do all of the functions covered under the L.A. County scope of practice for a paramedic assessment unit. So they can intubate, they can defibrillate, they can start an I.V., they can do advanced airways, they can push cardiac medications. They can do all of the things that a paramedic assessment unit can do. In a nutshell, basically, the big difference is that solo paramedic cannot provide some controlled drugs, a couple controlled drugs that we carry that have to be issued with with a partner on scene. But for the most part, not for the most part, they can do everything that's covered under the the paramedic assessment unit. Scope of practice for L.A. County.
Speaker 6: And so with that on, we understand with the one and one that in terms of transporting patients to the hospital, it requires an engine to accompany the paramedic rescue. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: Councilmember It only requires the engine to accompany the ambulance to the hospital should it be considered a Tier one patient, for example, a patient that is in full arrest, that prior to our M.D., we would have gone with the engine to the hospital as well anyway, only or possibly like a gunshot wound or a traumatic full arrest or a car accident, you know, of an unstable patient. We we say that we on a tier one, we call that a tier one. We want the second paramedic to get in the ambulance in a company to the hospital. For all intents and purposes, it is it should be exactly the same today as it was prior to the implementation of our M.D. as far as who's going to the hospital and when on on patients that meet 808 criteria or transport criteria to the hospital, but they are stable. They are allowed under the four or seven policy through the county guidelines to transport that patient to the hospital with one paramedic in the back of the ambulance and an EMT driving.
Speaker 6: So we won't see more the use of more engines at a at cause. Is that what you're telling me? They won't that won't be impacted by the R&D council councilmember.
Speaker 11: The the initial implementation of our MDO. I will tell you that there we did see an an increase in the number of engines that were going to the hospital. We consider that to be something. That's because it's a new program. And the captains were being diligent in trying to follow the new protocols and they were going to the hospital more. But we're starting to see that taper off a little bit now. And now they're following kind of the guidelines that were set forth in the R&D manual. The future we do we do not anticipate that the R&D program is going to generate more Type one calls for service or transports than it did in the past. And there should be no different.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. And a question for the chief of police there. A few.
Speaker 0: And as they're sitting, I know that we have a time certain as well for one of our items, which is the language access item. And so that will be heard right after we conclude the budget hearing and as close to the time certain as possible, which I know is initially 8:00.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Chief, for with all the work you and your the men and women of your department do, I'm always amazed at what you're able to do, and it seems you're doing more and more with less and less. I want to thank you especially for highlighting the work you're able to do on initiatives brought forth by the last Council to highlight prohibited possessors and go after those individuals who have been court ordered not to own guns and or possess guns as well as our work on human trafficking. This this year's budget is about $8.1 million budgeted for overtime for the department, and there's an additional 2.2 million proposed for one time with oil revenues. Is this $2.2 million going to be enough to help identify and deal with those special priorities, such as prohibited possessors and human trafficking? Or will all that money be needed just to cover the anticipated shortfalls in the regular overtime needed in the department?
Speaker 12: We we will continue with the priorities as we were able to set last year with the additional funding that the Council is able to allocate. If we get to a position made quarter year or mid-year where we're not able to sustain those efforts, we'll go back to the city manager and make a request for additional funding at that time to be able to continue to enhance our operation. But the things that the subjects that you identified, the human trafficking, the habitat possessors in particular are critical to the safety of the city. So we'll continue to prioritize those as we move forward.
Speaker 6: You know, I want to echo my colleague's concern on Councilmember Price, her concern regarding residential burglaries. We're doing a fantastic job with dealing with violent crime. The numbers are just astonishing. But we do see a rise in residential burglaries. When we go to our neighborhood meetings or community watch meetings, I'm trying to figure is there a nexus to the residential burglaries that you believe it to be a nexus to that in AB one or nine?
Speaker 12: Yeah, I do absolutely. That the we've been able to as best we can with the compliance teams we have and the resources we've been given to be able to monitor the individual individuals out on a be one or night. But we've seen on broader studies that there is an increase in communities that are heavily impacted by SB 109, particularly in Grand Theft Auto, the GTA category, but also in residential, commercial and and garage burglaries as well. So they are certainly a focus of our attention and we do the best we can to be able to monitor and then continue to let them know. We're watching them very closely.
Speaker 6: Well, that's something that we will be watching very closely as well. And as the chairperson of the the legislation committee, I mean, we will definitely be advocating for for support from Sacramento. Thank you. Can you please elaborate on more more on the proposed restructuring of the detective division to reassign 11 detectives from juvenile investigations, to work on homicide, narcotics, gangs and other high profile cases. And how do you believe this will affect caseloads in particular with juvenile crimes?
Speaker 9: Sure. We. I had that written.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Richardson. Get more information. Go ahead, Councilmember. Continue. I thought you were all wrapped up.
Speaker 7: He's responding.
Speaker 9: Thanks. No answer.
Speaker 12: Just a quick update on the the investigations reorganization. We're moving individuals around within that function to be able to focus on where we can get the most the most success from the people we have. We're increasing the career criminal investigation detail. We're increasing burglary investigation, we're increasing computer crime investigation, as well as vice investigation. So in looking at that, what we've tried to do as best we can as to be able as we have with gangs, to be able to make more of our officers, generalists, if you will. And detectives, there's when we talk about gangs, we focus on on gang members. But as we know that they do all sorts of crimes. So they're involved in homicides, shootings, burglaries, robberies. And so as best we can, we try and use the expertize of all of our detectives and officers to be able to deal more effectively in this realm. The issue, I guess, the cost to us is that we don't have as many people who are over many years experts in a particular gang. So that's something that we we try and remediate, but we want to be able to increase the level of expertize across the board of all of our folks.
Speaker 6: You know, part of that residential crime trend is that we see a lot of young people involved as well. And I'm concerned about the effects of truancy in our schools, especially with the rise in daytime property crimes that we're experiencing. What are the current resources allocated between the police department and school district to address truancy issues? Do you have any?
Speaker 12: We do, yeah. We meet regularly with the the command staff, if you will, of the early or Long Beach Unified School District. Well, as I mentioned, we've restructured our juvenile investigations section to improve process and balance detective caseload. We continue to be proactive to be able to address juvenile issues. As I mentioned, meeting regularly with Long Beach Unified School District, working with CCJ to implement a juvenile restorative justice program. And we're enforcing both truancy, loitering and curfew violations. So those are those are issues, too, that we know that if somebody should be in school and they're not during the daytime hours, then there there's somebody who potentially is going to get in trouble and involved in thefts or burglaries. Yeah, we we still have five school resource officers still involved. And they're a great resource for us, able to be able to develop a rapport within the the the campuses, but also to be able to obtain information, know who the kids that are most likely at risk and for us to be able to deal with those.
Speaker 6: So as I understand it, the way you are restructuring and the department, is it in a manner to become more more nimble and quasi utilizing officers in various capacities to address what.
Speaker 12: Exactly, sir? It's to be able to make all of our officers and detectives more able to be able to handle whatever comes their way.
Speaker 6: And we're going to see more officers on the street.
Speaker 12: We're hopeful. We're constantly it's we're constantly in a state where we're we're using the flexibility we have to be able to address the problems as they come before us. We we use crime analysis to be able to identify trends, patterns, clusters of crime and to be able then to use the resources we have in a way that we're as nimble as we can be to be able to have the maximum impact.
Speaker 6: Well, we appreciate it. Last last question on not only the police officers that are contractually obligated to other duties, such as airport, the city college, port, school district, how many budget budgeted positions do we currently have and how many of those positions are currently filled?
Speaker 9: You say? Yeah.
Speaker 12: We have 806 806. For fiscal year 15, the sworn officers budgeted. And if you if you back out the number of people that are contract positions that 70 sworn in 16 civilian positions to include school resource officers Long Beach City College, the port transit, the airport and Carlito's Housing Development. It brings us down then to 736.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. And how does that compare to last year's numbers? I mean, we were.
Speaker 12: We're up by three over last year. We had 803 last year were 806 this year budgeted.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Chief.
Speaker 12: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Got somebody?
Speaker 7: Oranga Richardson.
Speaker 4: Well, don't last this time. Wonderful.
Speaker 7: Just give me a minute.
Speaker 4: You're your last.
Speaker 0: We've got two more.
Speaker 4: Up to our wonderful two sitting on, Chief. Thank you very much. Always. You do some wonderful work. I know with my experience, having work that's a recruitment officer for the city. I know the wonderful work that you and your staff do for the for the communities in the city of Long Beach and as well as the lovely City College. I was there when we changed from a community college law enforcement team to one that transitioned to the police department. And you're doing a wonderful job. I read the report early June regarding the statistics for Lombard City College and crime is also down there as well with limited guide. So good job.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 4: I also want to commend your officers. I've had a number of community meetings as well in my district, as well as having your officers consistently attend the neighborhood association meetings where they reinforce again and again the need for self-awareness, the need for knowing your neighbor, the need for locking up when they leave and not leaving anything outside or in their vehicles to prevent crimes of opportunity. Because we all know that that's what they are the crime to arbitrate. In regards to your staffing, you just answered the question that I had in terms of your budget and where you're at currently. The you have an item here where you get some money from general grants. What types of grants would those be?
Speaker 9: You you're talking with a council member.
Speaker 13: Your anger that we actually have a number of of homeland security grants that come from FEMA and the federal government that account for millions of dollars, actually, of equipment training, overtime expense. And then we also have law enforcement grants from various agencies, both state and federal, that focus on specific aspects of crime, whether it's our JAG burn grants, whether it's focused on crime lab work or perhaps their real estate fraud grants. So there's a range of different funding sources that focus on different issues that that face law enforcement.
Speaker 4: Are these grants time sensitive in regards to when your grants to your grants, are there any grants that you have that might be institutionalized and ongoing services?
Speaker 13: Yeah, actually, there's there's a number of grants that we we've been the recipient of for six or more years. And you'll you'll actually see some of those coming your way as council members over the next couple of months, as we are awarded each year, grants such as the Office of Traffic and Safety. That's a $400,000 grant that that amount will fluctuate year to year. But those are those are reoccurring for the most part. Other funding sources that come from the state, they'll actually come from the appropriation in the in the state's budget like our 8109 money. That amount will fluctuate year to year, but it's now a consistent source of revenue for us in our special revenues.
Speaker 4: And continuing along those lines, are there other grants out there available that might be able to that you might be able to go after, that would be able to improve the level of service that we receive?
Speaker 13: Yeah, we have we're very active actually, and have been very successful, particularly with the Homeland Security Grant Program that's managed by Deputy Chief Farinelli of identifying projects that are regional in nature. That's where we get the lion's share, the larger grants. But there's there's really an active ongoing process each year within the department to identify funding sources down at the operational level. We'll hear about opportunities from the front line of of grants they've either heard about through their various professional associations that focus on different aspects of crime. So we're actively seeking those opportunities. And whenever they come our way, we will present them to the city management, to the council, and then apply for them as they become available. The other source that I'll just point out is, is grants that come through other departments, and the police department sometimes is a matching partner. We provide some law enforcement aspects of some of the other inter-departmental activity, whether it's with the Health Department, Development Services, neighborhood based grants. So sometimes we just partner as the law enforcement match in those grants.
Speaker 4: And one final question then in regards to your staffing, a big concern in this in the seventh District, obviously, is the spike recently in gang activity and shootings on the seventh District. So that would be my concern in terms of being able to maintain a level of service in the seventh District that would address those issues. And along with that, it's you're you're budgeted for 800. Six, you currently have 736. I'm going to make an assumption that there's attrition that will be taking place within the next year or so. Would you anticipate that attrition to be next year since you're going to be you do want to put in an academy this funding, this current fiscal year. Let me rephrase it. The next fiscal year. Right. And with attrition, I don't see you making any advancements in personnel to reach that fully funded 806 officers unless you hold two academies. What's the plan?
Speaker 12: Yeah, we we attract generally between 34 and 40 out on a high year to regular retirements and other separations as we're going through the tough economic times that we've been going through. We didn't have an academy for five years, so we're happy now to be on in the selection process for our third academy and in the last three years. So we're moving forward with that. We're trying to maintain the level that we've we've been budgeted for as we move forward and hopefully the city gets healthier economically, we we would hope that we could increase the overall T.O. of the department.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Chief. Thank you. I'll take fire. He gave me a high saying, when you're there, Kathy, we're here, sir. Okay. Thank you. Again, my experience working in the fire department. You have some wonderful men and women there that work for the department and and providing some wonderful and great services to the to the city. One of the things that really stood out here was I was there during the time when we were looking at hiring our first female firefighters. And there was an issue regarding facilities. And I'm glad to see that you're addressing those, although albeit, you know, it's taking you 20 years. But I know you're making progress. I guess I know a lot of the questions that came up have been on the R&D and my questions are no different. I know that some of the questions are related to two levels of service, and I know it's all about patient care. And I and I don't really think that there's an issue with the level of patient care that that the citizens are getting when we have this while we're in this, a two year study of R&D. So that means that we're going to be going through, what, two 2016 with the state?
Speaker 9: Yes, sir.
Speaker 4: Okay. And during that two year period, you're going to be allowed to make adjustments, to be able to tweak the service, to ensure that you're getting the optimum level of service that you think the R&D can provide.
Speaker 11: Council Member We AS Yes, yes, yes. But with the caveat being that we will work with the EMS agency, the local EMS agency, to ensure that they're very much abreast of any sort of changes we need to make or recommendations we make to make it more effective so as to make sure that they know what we're doing with. At the core of this really is the Data Safety Monitoring Board, who is evaluating all the data points. We want to ensure that they know every step of the way what we're doing, so that way they can measure the effectiveness of the delivery model. So we'll keep them plugged in as well.
Speaker 4: And if I heard you correctly, 83% of your calls are EMS related.
Speaker 11: 84.33%.
Speaker 4: 84.33. When there is a response like that, let's say, for a fire, is it automatic that you send the a paramedic ambulance service out, whether it's an A+ or a B? Ellis.
Speaker 11: Go ahead. Sorry. Yes. Councilmember one a structure fire response in the city of Long Beach for a first alarm or that the initial structure fire response includes three engine companies, one truck company, one rescue ambulance and one battalion chief. So, yes, an ambulance does go on fire calls.
Speaker 4: Now, my experience with working with the fire department has been that when there is a response of that nature, it's all hands on deck. Everybody has a job. Everybody does something. In this model R&D, does the EMS have any technical fire related duties to put right there? Or what does he do?
Speaker 11: Because remember, the the if you're referring to the ambulance operator on the ambulance, they are non sworn not they're not firefighters. So they do not engage in the firefighting component of that evolution or that operation. So our policies call for them to be assigned to a location that is outside the area that is immediately dangerous to life or hazardous to health. So they would either be assigned to the command post, possibly with the battalion chief. They could be assigned to set up a medical group in a in a location far enough away from the incident so as not to be harmed. Or they could be assigned to some other functions so long as they're not performing firefighting activities on the fire ground, they're not they're not trained to do that.
Speaker 4: In a worst case scenario, let's say that this unit is assigned to a fire and there should be a real A-list type of emergency response elsewhere in the city. Would there be sufficient coverage to respond to that?
Speaker 11: A councilmember? Yes. Yes. The the system, as we have it in place now, and this is consistent with the way it's been for ever since I've been here over 20 years or longer, ever since we started EMS in the seventies. We do have sufficient resources to run subsequent calls that happen in the city while there's a structure fire happening. But going back to comments I made earlier that if for whatever reason we did have more calls for service come in than we had available units, which is possible, then we would rely on our automatic and mutual aid systems to backfill the city. Probably the best example of that would have been in 2006, when we had the Paradise Gardens fire in North Long Beach. We literally depleted every resource in the city of Long Beach to fight. That fire was a huge fire. We relied on our partners from L.A. County Fire, Orange County Fire and from the region to come in to Long Beach to run calls for service. So that system is available to us anytime we need it. But on a day in, day out basis, I mean, 2 hours ago when we started this council meeting, there was a structure fire response in. The city. We continue to run EMS calls concurrently while we handle that structure. Fire.
Speaker 4: Very good. In regards to the total service of of EMTs there. I understand. And I'm newly elected. I'm going to be able to say that for another couple of meetings. But I'm trying to get my arms around around this in terms of how this happened. From my understanding, there was a contract with a private ambulance service. Correct. That was providing this EMT service or BLS type of service where non-emergency calls and transportation. Is that no longer feasible? Is that the goal, basically to eliminate any kinds of contracts of that nature?
Speaker 11: Councilmember in 2005, the city of Long Beach and the Long Beach Fire Department took over the basic life support transport functions. Prior to that, we did have contracts with a couple private providers. At one point it was Goodhew, then they were bought out by Amer American Medical Response. And in 2005, we we felt it important to take over that transport function for a couple of reasons. Number one, we felt we could provide as good or better service to the community by doing it in-house. Number two, we would the city of Long Beach would recoup the transport revenue associated with taking people to the hospital. And number three, we looked at it as a great opportunity to bring young men and women into the organization that had had aspirations to be firefighters either in Long Beach or someplace else, and provide them front line, real world kind of training and exposure to to the fire service. And all those things have proven to be true. We are in fact getting the transport revenue. The Bliss program does provide good opportunities for young people trying to break into the fire service. And and it's been a very effective program for us since 2005.
Speaker 4: Great. Last question. I promise this time. Has there been an increase in costs for the community in regards to having a two paramedic unit to the transports, both to having an EMT paramedic transport? Was it less expensive before or more expensive now? What's what's the relationship? I mean, I'm trying to determine the community the community aspect of this in regards to their levels of service and what they expect and what they deserve. And, of course, doing it reasonably within their budgets. Because I I'll tell you, I had I had a response a couple of years ago when my son had an allergic reaction to Hanukkah because he tried to die. Is here let me rephrase that. His girlfriend tried to die here and he had an allergic reaction to it. His head swelled. He looked like that puppet that was here. And I mean, it was it was it was it was awful. I mean, I went home and I said, oh, my God, you maybe I could punch away a puncture and go back down. But of course, they've been dangerous. But the cost to me was a lot. It was it was it was very expensive to have him transported to a to an emergency hospital, I think it was memorial at that time. And is that still true? I mean, is there is there a big costs associated with this? And if there is, what would that be? And what effect does that have in terms of the services that you provide and what the community deserves?
Speaker 11: It? Councilmember There there is it's included in the city's master fee schedule. There is a cost for transport, both ALS and bills to the hospital that that number gets evaluated annually. We have in the city of Long Beach been tied to the county's cost for transport for a number of years. Last year we adjusted which it can be found in the in the master fee schedule. That number was adjusted incrementally with the cost of inflation that has there's no change there. With regard to the RMD program, an ALS transport, advanced life support transport still gets billed as an ALS transport and a bus transport still gets billed as a bowls transport. So there's no there's no real change there with regard to this particular service delivery model.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Chief.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And finally, we had Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 9: Ben Ricks. Sorry about.
Speaker 0: Gonzales. Richardson actually let him go first. Okay.
Speaker 7: I mean, me and Councilmember Austin don't look that much alike. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to try. I know that there's some folks here, so I'm going to try to be as as timely as possible with my questions. Chief, so the first I want to touch on is Sirte, the Sirte program. So me and my wife did the Sirte program. We think it's awesome. We've got a bunch of residents who are excited about it. And I know there was chatter about I know that we were able to fund the Sirte coordinator position through grants. And there was chatter this year about that grant expiring. So. Can you shed light on, you know, if that's the case? And if so, what would be our plan to continue the program? As folks are getting excited about it and ramping up.
Speaker 11: And Councilmember, thank you for that. Yes, I do. Our Sirte program is perhaps one of the best in the region, and it has continually grown year in, year out. We have offset the cost for our Sirte instructor through UAC grants, through local urban areas, security initiative grants and other available grant dollars that we're able to cobble together with our partners in Los Angeles County to offset the cost of that certain structure. And it is true. Last year, we, we, we came up close to a deadline on losing or having those grant dollars run out. But we were able, through the leadership of the city manager and putting our heads together and figure figure out a way to continue to fund that through the remainder of this fiscal year. Going into fiscal year 15, the Urban Area Security Initiative has awarded additional grant dollars for certain functions throughout the county. We will definitely be first at the table to go after some of those dollars, and we'll continue to work for long term sustainable funding options for the SIRT program in the future. We do value it and we do place a high priority on the benefit it's providing our community.
Speaker 7: Great. Thank you. So the next question I have is about the GMT funding. So I know it's been I know we've been burned once in terms of expecting that program to roll out a certain way to where we can expect a steady stream of funding. So my question is, quite simply, where are we now in that discussion?
Speaker 11: Councilmember if you'll indulge me, I'm going to have Director of Finance John GROSS weigh in on that. They've been in receipt of the funds.
Speaker 9: Coming in, so. Council member, we are expecting to continue to receive GM funds. There has been a delay in what we are expecting for this year. We are very hopeful that it will come in early next year at the amount we think it is the and that is scheduled to be used to buy fire engines if council approves. The ongoing funding from GMT is expected to be in the 400 to $500000 range and that's included in the budget substantially lower than we had originally anticipated. But it is anticipated to continue.
Speaker 7: So what we anticipate is 400 to $500000 annually ongoing?
Speaker 9: That is correct.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. So the next question I have is, I mean, along the same vein is revenue for our fire department. I know that last year there was a motion by Councilmember O'Donnell and Councilmember Neel and a number of folks about potential reimbursement opportunities for public safety with the enterprise funds. And I see that you've taken great steps in in capitalizing on that with the fire boats and in the port of Long Beach. So the question I have are, well, what are other services that perhaps the fire department used to used to perform that they might not perform anymore? And what would those opportunities look like if we did look at other enterprise funds like gas and water?
Speaker 11: Councilmember The I don't know that I could speak specifically to anything that we've done with the Gas Department. One thing that has come up in the past with the on the water side of things is the annual hydrant servicing. We used to go out and throughout the entire city, all 5000 plus fire hydrants would get exercised by the fire department once a year. We go out and follow them and then report back to the water department on on those hydrants that were malfunctioning or not functioning to the standard we needed them to. But other than that, I don't know that we have anything specifically that we do for them.
Speaker 7: Was that like a major task if I mean, if we were to put a dollar sign on what we expended to do that? Well, what does that look like? Are we talking about this was, you know, something that Indian team took on and we just absorbed the cost and it wasn't insignificant. But if you were to put a number on it, what would that number be?
Speaker 11: Well, it it was a it was a fairly arduous task. And we go out in throughout the entire city, in the various response districts, those that front line company would go out and spend time over a period of a month, basically off and on, going out, exercising the hydrants to put it put a dollar amount to it . I think I would need to I would need a little time to kind of sit and figure out what that looks like. But it's a big task and.
Speaker 7: That makes sense. I guess the point that I want to make is I think we should close the loop or expand on that loop about those opportunities. Now, I know that our water department might not be in the position to enter an agreement like that, and I mean, given what their plans are. But we can expect that you can or maybe city manager, you know, we can explore those opportunities within this budget just to see what potentially could be there with gas and water. Moving on. I wanted to just chat about the academies quickly. So during these academies, how many how many firefighters that we put into service? And just as a general answer, how many folks have we recruited? I know we have a long, expanded, long, arduous process. How many folks from Long Beach are getting hired?
Speaker 11: Councilmember I don't I off the top of my head do not have the answer to that. I can get back to you. I can tell you, we graduated a recruit class of 28 people was the last class. How many are from Long Beach? I can't tell you. But I can tell you that this class that we're putting together that's getting ready to start in the next couple weeks is is going to is going to have a number of people that are from the general, either from the city or from the very close region. And it's going to be it's going to be a very good academy class that's very representative of our community.
Speaker 7: Sure. And finally, I want to talk about armed. Now, I'm not going to belabor anyone's points. I think the council council's ask a lot of questions and has actually clarified a lot for me. But I have some I guess some quick questions for you. This is a cheaper system, correct?
Speaker 11: This deployment model is less expensive than the model we had deployed prior. Yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. So are we saving money today?
Speaker 11: Yes, sir.
Speaker 7: Okay. Have we anticipated how much we're going to save this year by utilizing this program?
Speaker 11: Councilmember The target budget savings is $1.4 million a year.
Speaker 7: Is. Is that okay, that budget savings, are that being utilized to put other things into service? Or is that at the end of the year we're going to be able to diminish the budget? Like how does that work?
Speaker 11: Councilmember No, that would be our target, that that number was our target reduction that we we needed to meet in fiscal year 2013. So that that number, if you recall, if you recall back, we were given bridge funding, if you will, or one time funding to get us through the implementation phase of RMD. So that number is reflective of a reduction from a couple of years ago that we are now just actually realizing.
Speaker 7: Great. Now I understand that now the pilot period is over. It's a two year period, right?
Speaker 11: Yes, sir.
Speaker 7: I've heard a lot of discussion tonight about putting additional resources into play. Would that not distort the baseline for measurement for how successful the program is? If we were to say, you know, put another paramedic in to serve another engine or a rescue in a service, would that not distort the baseline for evaluation of how successful the model is?
Speaker 11: Councilmember I don't know that it would distort the baseline for evaluation because if you look at the comparison, what we were comparing before was two paramedics on a rescue ambulance and nine paramedic assessment units as compared now to 11 paramedic rescue units and 17 paramedic assessment unit engines. So the the study what we're attempting to study with this or what the data safety monitoring board through the EMS agency is studying is whether or not there is a degradation of service, whether or not we're equal to more capable or less capable with an alternative deployment model and the number of apparatus in the system that really only helps with response times to issues or the number of transports per issue. The effectiveness of the individual paramedic rescue ambulance with one paramedic on it is what's being studied. Not so much how fast they're getting there, although we're doing that faster. So, so.
Speaker 7: Response times not value. That's not a factor in how we evaluate.
Speaker 11: It is it is one of the 36 components that they look at in the study.
Speaker 7: Okay. So when I said baseline, just to be clear, let's say the fire department spends $100 on paramedic program this year. And if we put more into service next year and we change that $100 to $120, that might affect the outcome. And that's my that's my logic here. So you're telling me that the way that we evaluate this system, no matter if we put into place a different set of resources, that that will not affect the impact that will not impact the way that we evaluate the system.
Speaker 11: That's that's correct. We're not we're not studying how many resources are in the system. What we're studying is whether or not one paramedic can function effectively in the system.
Speaker 7: Great. So I guess the final question and you keep mentioning this, who's the agency that that is monitoring this process?
Speaker 11: The Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency, Data Safety Monitoring Board.
Speaker 7: Okay. So that's the group that's. So when do they report back to us on how well it's going?
Speaker 11: Councilmember I don't know that they feel they have any responsibility to report back to you specifically on how it's going. I do believe that they're going to capture all of this data that we provide them over two years and actually publish this in some sort of medical journal.
Speaker 7: So we're going to wait two years before we hear a third party analysis on these qualitative things that when you report, we hear about response times in and in those things. That's the language we've we've been speaking. But we're going to hear back from this group after two years about the issues that the 32 points that we really haven't discussed that what the plan is.
Speaker 11: Councilmember I mean, I'm happy to go back to the EMS agency and ask if the the Data Safety Monitoring Board would be willing to share.
Speaker 7: Some periodic.
Speaker 11: Updates or something with the council. And certainly happy to do that.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And then I guess the last thing I have for you is I think in your budget, in terms of your FTE, you left one off because you left that ghost in Fire Station 12 and now my staff has to deal with it. You sort to move them over to the councilmember.
Speaker 11: So you we, we tried we we did our due diligence trying to capture that ghost and move him to the new facility. However, he seems right at home where he's at. And so we will make periodic visits over there to to say hi. But he seems right at home where he's at.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Chief. So I just have a few remarks for the chief of police. So just quickly, I just want to plot the way that you and the whole city management team has presented your your budgets as a continuum of of of public service, public safety. I think that you've hit the nail on the head in that our residents need to understand their role and continue to understand their role in that continuum. The more active neighborhood associations we have, the more block clubs, neighborhood community watches that we have, that's everyone has a part in this. And I really appreciate the fact how engaged your officers are at attending the ten neighborhood associations in the ninth District plus community watch. So, so I just wanted to begin by saying thank you for that. I wanted to just touch base and I know the gang units and the special investigative units stuff has come up a lot tonight. So I guess my question is, it seems like there's been a transition from, you know, we used to calculate, you know, we got this many people in the gang unit, right? It was in the p t in the Gazette this week. You know, we're not funding this many units in the gang, this many bodies in the gang unit. Right. But at the same time, I guess my question is, what is the approach we've got? I certainly support the allocation of one times to overtime. But what would be the approach to meet the needs of and you've mentioned it before, and I'm going to ask this again because I have a follow up question to this. But what is the approach to utilizing overtime to meet the needs of these special investigative units? Great.
Speaker 12: Thank you for the question. And going into the gang enforcement section, the strategies that have changed over the years, we've got a department wide focus where everybody works gangs. As I mentioned, the downside to that is we lose specific expertize about individual gangs. It's only achieved over time and in repeated contact addressing gang enforcement through other efforts. We're looking, as you mentioned before, human trafficking realignment, prohibited possessor. Many of the suspects from those kind of cases are also gang members. We look at long term problem solving and strategies, cops projects where we have repeat calls for service to two trouble locations. We look at that long term and try and bring all the resources we can to bear on that. And that includes partnerships with other departments. We have constant communication and coordination of resources to be able to address emerging trends. We have hotspot analysis. We increase forecasting and planning evaluation of resource deployment, whether it's debt teams, impact motors, the realignment team. We use the tools that best fit the problem. We use curfew and truancy checks, party calls, blue line enforcement. And then when we have a case, a relentless follow up where we roll back on search warrants, do parole and probation searches, we very effectively working with the city prosecutor's office to use gang injunctions to be able to impact the gang problem. We have patrol resource officers in each of our divisions that focus on the areas that are most challenged. We use technology as much as we can, leverage that to be able to give us, as we say, a force multiplier effect. Community watch we went into and again, that's a critical component, whether it's property, crime, quality of life or violent crime. The community getting engaged and being our eyes and ears and helping us know what's going on in their neighborhood is critical. Graffiti, reporting and removal and then participation in the city's violence prevention plan. All of these kind of coming together as a comprehensive approach to gang enforcement and and trying to use alternatives to incarceration where it's appropriate to be able to use education prevention, intervention, as well as then when somebody goes to prison and gets out as best we can, reintegration back into society.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So by not specifically carving out a special unit like the gang unit and putting them into a larger pool where all the detectives sort of work those sorts of cases or that type of work, how do we quantify or how do we measure whether there might need to be a change or something? I know that, you know, you've done great work with human human trafficking, right. As an example. And I thought my understanding was when you did that, you dedicated some officers to work specifically on that. Wasn't that the approach? There was.
Speaker 12: Overtime? A lot of.
Speaker 7: That overtime.
Speaker 12: Right. And then just a point of clarification, we do have a gang unit. We don't have the gang filled team that we used to have, but we still have detectives, working gangs.
Speaker 7: So. So just so you have detectives that use overtime to fill the role of the gang. Now the gang unit.
Speaker 12: Now we still have a gang unit. We just don't have the gang field team.
Speaker 7: You don't have the gang field team. What is the difference between the gang unit and the gang fueled team?
Speaker 12: The the gang field team would be in the field on a nightly basis, interacting with people who were involved in gang activity. We have other detectives who do intelligence work and work behind the scenes on. Failing in and and developing intelligence and sharing that intelligence.
Speaker 7: Great. So the numbers, the statistics you gave earlier, there's the impressive they're really impressive. But I think in terms of there might be just a little bit of education we should do as leaders in the city to educate the community on the new approach. Just, you know, it was two newspapers this week, but there is in general, you know, I attended a neighborhood meeting last night. And the perception is there that we've cut our approach to to addressing gangs. And, you know, while the numbers are impressive, I definitely think that there since we're dressed, since we're approaching this differently, we should place some value on education in terms of getting out this approach and assuring that the public is comfortable with the with the approach that we're doing that. So that would be all that I have for you. Yeah.
Speaker 12: Thank you. We're trying to be as flexible as we can with the resources we have. And on the gang front, gang related murders are down. Year to date, 26.7%, and gang related shootings are down 36.8%. So when using the, you know, the the the manner we've been deploying our resources, we've gotten pretty good results here. So we continue to look at it, continue to monitor it. And as much as we can try and share what we're doing with the community, too, and ask for the community's help.
Speaker 7: That's fair, Chief. Thank you.
Speaker 12: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you both for your hard work. Your departments, you know, respectively, have worked so hard for our city. So thank you very much. Thank you. First police chief in the department. It's good to see that you're working on the tech, you know, technology grants. I know that we continually are really aggressive on that, so it'd be good to hear more about that. My next question is regarding the realignment.
Speaker 5: So how many do.
Speaker 1: We have in the task force.
Speaker 5: Or the team?
Speaker 1: And do you see any improvements? I know we're working really hard on that, but I often get questions about realignment. And.
Speaker 12: You know, we we it's a that's an evolving issue for us. It started October 1st of 2011. And we we basically have been responding to it since that time. As I mentioned earlier, we have about 900 people early release prisoners who live in the city of Long Beach, which is about 6% of L.A. County's entire realignment population . It is a big challenge for us, the addresses we have when we try and ensure that we're monitoring compliance with their conditions. The addresses on about a third of the individuals are not good addresses. So we then have to go out and find them and be able to develop good, good addresses and be able to continue to to ensure that they're compliant with their conditions. I mentioned that we've had 815 total compliance checks, which resulted in 265 citywide arrests. And I mentioned the off the offenses they were arrested for include narcotics, burglary, weapons violations, sex crimes, gang injunction violations and murder. And so looking at how we do this, we've been able to get, as you mentioned, a grant or our share of the compliance money from the state, which was about 525,000. And we get that to some degree. There'll be variance in how much that'll be, but on an ongoing yearly basis and we were able to use 1.1 million in nonrecurring funds to be able to help bolster our efforts in that regard. And and I attribute a lot of our success in being able to drive down the numbers for both violent and property crime, but property crime in particular, due to the efforts that the Council gave us the ability to be able to do last year with that money. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And then in relation to the 2.2 million for over time, does that is there any thought on the bike patrol? Because I know that's been brought up constantly with, you know, downtown residents, but I know there's also been issues with efficiency on that. So is that incorporated or included in this over time?
Speaker 12: They know the 2.2 million that we've been able to get this year for overtime will focus, will keep or maintain our ability to be flexible on that, using overtime to be able to deploy officers and detectives in the field on problems as they occur. If we see patterns, if we have shootings to be able to address those as well as then the potential for payback shootings, which dramatically reduces the number of people who are injured or killed, but the ability to look at patterns or trends or clusters of crime and be able to deploy people on an overtime basis to be able to address those issues to the degree that we can. We'd love to be able to go from violent crime to property crime to quality of life issues on that as well. Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thanks.
Speaker 5: And then my next.
Speaker 1: Questions are for the chief. Fire chief.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 1: So, Chief, I only have one question related to R&D. We talked a little bit about reporting, but are we.
Speaker 5: How often are we reporting to the local EMC?
Speaker 1: Is it do we have a reporting requirement?
Speaker 5: And how often is that? And then how often will that be relayed to us?
Speaker 11: A councilmember. It's a once a month on the 15th of every month. We will provide them the first 15 days of that month and the 15 days of the month prior.
Speaker 9: The previous month of the previous month. Previous months.
Speaker 11: So once a month, we're reporting.
Speaker 1: We'll hear.
Speaker 11: Data to.
Speaker 1: Them. Okay. And then thank you for that. And then another question related to.
Speaker 5: I know you have made improvements and we have made improvements in the city related to homeless are homeless population. So can you speak.
Speaker 1: A little bit about that and what improvements have been made? And I don't know if there's any cost savings on our end related to that because I know I mean, we're primary health care providers for oftentimes for.
Speaker 2: These people so.
Speaker 11: It councilmember the Lumbee fire we do we have historically seen a fairly high number of calls that are related to our local homeless population, both in the downtown area and other places throughout the city, for that matter. For all intents and purposes, the emergency medical services of of the fire department and it's not just the Long Beach Fire Department, it's this is a statewide and a national issue have become, in some respects, the primary care providers for those who have no other option to seek medical care. So we have we've employed a number of things within Long Beach Fire to try and address that. One of which one of the bigger ones is partnering with our Long Beach Police Department, with their met team and with their quality of life folks. We've worked closely with our health department to try and find other avenues for people to get plugged in to local social services. And there's a couple of exciting things coming. We're we're going to try and utilize some technologies to identify people that could be considered high propensity users of the emergency medical services system and and get them plugged in to the various services that exist in the city so as to not have them require, you know, daily 911 to go to the hospital for something that could be handled through a routine doctor's visit. So it's something we're in a constant state of evolution and are trying to figure out how best to deal with that population. But it's something we think about frequently. Right.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And then my last question, which I know.
Speaker 1: Our friends here will really enjoy, but you talked about our our newest fire academy. And so I think you've defined it as the most diverse class. And so I think this is a great Segway as well. My last question, but.
Speaker 5: What is the composition of this class? Can you tell us?
Speaker 11: Well, Councilmember, I can't tell you just yet. We have it's not because I'm trying to withhold it just because we haven't completed background investigations on a number of sites. But I can't I don't wanna put the cart before the horse, but I can tell you, we put 72 people into background investigations. The backgrounds are steadily coming in. I am confident and this is the cream of the crop and this is the the first class off of a brand new list. I am confident that this class will be very reflective of our community. It will be a very both gender and racially diverse court class. It's going to be very reflective of our community. And I'm very excited to bring this this new group online. And my commitment to you is we will be sure and let the counsel know who are new classes as soon as we as soon as we see them. Great.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And sorry for putting that out there, but thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And thank you to both chiefs and departments. A lot of questions, good questions and amateur and open for public comment on the budget hearing. If you have a public comment, please come forward and line up if there are any. On specific to police and fire. Mr. Goodhew.
Speaker 9: Yes, very good. You correct the address on the police budget or the police dynamic, I think is one of the things we should take a look at. And notwithstanding the fact, I think obviously we have the best police chief this city's ever had and it's going to be a sad day when we lose them. Good for the county. There's a problem, though, in my view, having lived in this city since 1978, that every police chief has been saddled with, and that is a dispatch department that is too often problematic. And I think even George Meany would say there's a need for some changes, specifically when the police are called to respond to something that is not an emergency. And let let me also preface this by saying I share the chief's view and every law enforcement officers view that when a officer is dispatched, you never want to dispatch them into a blind situation. But the realities are in today's society dealing with what the police have to deal with an everyday basis. We get an increasing number of, shall we say, social related calls, vagrants, homeless. And this is not to say that there are not vagrants. There are not serious crime problems there and dangerous crime. But when you have calls day after day engendered by and people, vagrants are homeless day after day at the same location, engaged in the same illegal conduct. There is no need to convene the Council of Trent. It's a 10/2 conversation. If that period now there either has to be a retooling of the paradigm of the dispatch or seriously considering contracting that out to disciplines that have an understanding of that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next speaker, please and please speakers come forward so we can make this as efficient as possible.
Speaker 1: Hi there. I just want to thank Councilwoman Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: And Councilwoman Price can.
Speaker 0: Identify yourself for the.
Speaker 10: Record, please. Oh, sure. Sorry.
Speaker 2: Claudia Scow with Friends of Bixby Park. I wanted to thank Councilwoman Lowenthal and Councilwoman Price for their interest in inquiring about a park ranger budget. Today, I'm here on behalf of a small group of neighborhood associations who have a strong desire for increased public safety at our city parks, and would like to ask for your consideration for adding a park ranger program or a few park rangers to the budget, specifically to address some of the needs that we have at our parks. The following neighborhood associations would like to request your support. The Wilmore City Heritage Association in the First District. Washington Neighborhood Association in the First District. Friends of Bixby Park in the Second District. Craftsman Village Neighborhood Association in the First and Second District. AOC seven. Second District. Rose Park. Seventh District. North Alamitos Beach in the Second District.
Speaker 10: East Seventh Street.
Speaker 2: Corridor in the Second District. Harvest Farmers Market in the second District. To end in the third District on Broadway Business Association in the second and third District. Bluff Park Neighborhood Association in the Third District. Belmont Heights Neighborhood Association in the third District Bluff Heights Neighborhood in the Association in the Third District. West Eastside Community Association in the fourth District. California Heights Neighborhood Association in the seventh District. Wrigley Association in the sixth and seventh District. Wrigley Historic District. Sixth and seventh District. Country Club. Manor Association in Bixby Hills. The Eighth District. Jane Addams Neighborhood Association in the eighth District. Highland Park Neighborhood Association in the ninth District. And Start King Neighborhood Association in the Ninth District. Incidents of pot smoking and drug use, drug dealing and other illegal activities make residents and families feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Many parks have lost countless park users as a result of these activities. Despite neighborhood groups efforts to revitalize their parks. One example of this epidemic is last summer, five drug dealers were arrested at Bixby Park within a four week period.
Speaker 10: This summer for drug.
Speaker 2: Dealers were arrested within a two week period. Most drug related arrests take place across the street from or in close proximity to the children's playground. The LDP has done an outstanding job responding to burglary, robbery, grand theft and petty crimes. But add to all these public safety concerns frequent incidents of public drug use and drug dealing at our neighborhood parks. The neighborhood associations represented on this letter would like to see the leopard's time spent enforcing the law in our neighborhoods and business districts.
Speaker 10: Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Price, you had a comment just briefly.
Speaker 5: Thank you for the your comments regarding the park ranger program. I did want to highlight that on September the fifth that our next public safety. Committee meeting, we will be asking for a presentation on the overview of the Park Ranger program and we will hopefully be encompassing some of the data that Vice Mayor Lowenthal requested during our last budget meeting. And I believe they'll be some data that we'll be able to talk about during the course. I just wanted to address them.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Mayor and council members. I am mark, libya. Resident Leader with community of community resident leader with housing long beach district 52741 North Bellflower Boulevard. I'm here today because to address issues on behalf of housing Long Beach and 15 organizations that have received that you have received letters from this week supporting the use of boomerang funds for affordable housing. I know this is in regards to the fire and fire and police, but there is no budget hearing on on housing. So we urge the council members to have dialog today on the use of these funds to move forward in protecting 20% of these funds affordable for housing. When talking about boomerang funds, we mean that tax increment dollars returning from the state after the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies. These funds were that were once legally protected for development, for quality affordable housing should be returned to this department for continued investment in our housing community. We ask the Council to protect in the budget 20% of tax increment that is critical to financing improvements and development of affordable housing stock. Affordable housing is important because it's about giving people a dignified place to live. It protects families, working citizens, children, disabled and elderly from homelessness. Many of these elders and disabled are often on fixed income, and this income may not be sufficient to sustain a quality living. Others are working locally and trying to provide for their family. Yet the abundance of low wage jobs requires a housing stock for this sector of our workforce. Improvements and community development is critical resources for healthy communities. This is a proactive approach in putting our citizens forward at the center for these developments, improving and preserving existing stocks of affordable housing support. Once again, campuses even more so families, veterans, children, disabled, frail, elderly and working citizens to be reduced at risk for poverty and homelessness. Today, we gather to help our leaders align with the intent on investing into our healthy communities. We have dialog with community members about affordable housing. Please prioritize to set aside 20% tax increment dollars into affordable housing just as other regions of California has. Oakland, San Jose, San Mateo, Santa Clara. And I have the list in terms of who has adopted this through. Through the community partnerships. We can realize this. Please take this conversation behind the rails tonight and behind and begin the movement toward protecting the boomerang funds tax increment dollars for affordable housing so we can lead improvements in housing that represents the needs of the whole community. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Hello. Good evening. My name is Jonathan Razer and I'm here with Housing Land, which is well and there were earlier there were nearly 100 folks sitting in there. Some had to leave. However, we wanted to let you know that community cares about language access and they also care about affordable housing and the poor fund. I'm a student at Castle Long Beach getting a master's in social work, and I'm also a resident of Long Beach at 94 Redondo Avenue, 90804. And I'm here today to urge you to discuss venture funding a lot. 20% of the Boomer Fund for the development of affordable housing. So after high school, I joined the military and there I learned about saving money and spending money. And, you know, I was able to buy my first car and I was I realized that the importance of spending money in a daily basis to make sure that my car was functioning, such as the tune up oil change or otherwise, you know, in order to avoid an engine breakdown later on in the future.
Speaker 9: Every year you're given the opportunity.
Speaker 10: To develop a budget, to spend money to avoid an engine breakdown. Today, many residents of Long Beach live in housing with infrastructure issues and affordable housing. Production needs are being ignored. If not taking care of this today, these issues will lead to public and health issues, as well as a significant reduction of quality of life for Long Beach residents. Within the past few years, the city of Long Beach has borne money from the redevelopment. 20% has been set aside. Today, the mayor is proposing to pay the money back, which we are really thankful for. However, we must acknowledge that this money was legally required to be paid back. Therefore, the city must continue to proactively find ways to permanently create a local source to invest in affordable housing. In California, there are cities like Mars Mansion, which are dedicating funds for affordable housing such as San Francisco, L.A. Tremens, San Jose and Oakland. San Jose has dedicated over 20 million over 20 million of them in funds to affordable housing. And Oakland has proposed has protected 25% of working women funds for affordable housing trust fund in addition to 10 million in one time dollars. San Jose in Oakland are cities which are about the same size, about the same size of Long Beach. So it is possible to make this happen here in Long Beach. You can see this. Well, Marcus, we're going to pass a sheet of paper where you can see these these numbers. One step to get there is by addressing the women fund as representatives of Long Beach. You move this because of a man fund. We understand that tonight police and fire budget are the focus. However, we urge you to discuss the women fund. There was a large supporters here present tonight waiting to hear from you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Time's Aaron. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 9: Hello. My name is Nicholas Commander from the second district. I'd like to speak to the issue of the $2.2 million request for discretionary overtime. By way of example, at 735 Gavin Avenue, recently, a well-known gang moved in and they were armed and adult in a variety of drugs, and there were at least two multiple shootings spread apart by approximately ten days. The PD stepped in with increased patrols, surveillance, multiple arrests, and they work with other city departments to eliminate the remaining gang members from this address. Another location nearby? I can't say the address because it's still under investigation. Dealt with methamphetamine and other drug dealing and had two marijuana grow operations and drug use, of course, and somebody was stabbed in the head there recently. PD responded with the same things increased surveillance patrols, arrests and working with code enforcement, nuisance abatement and the city attorney's office to address the problem at that address and in other address . Hills With even higher levels of crimes that I can't mention the location of, it's under surveillance currently. So I would implore the City Council to grant this $2.2 million request so that they can continue to respond to urgent situations that arise. And since I have a few moments left, I'd like to thank Chief McDonald, Deputy Chief Luna, Sergeant, I'm sorry, Commander Rocky and Lieutenant Michael Pena for their caring, their work and their accessibility. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Q Sir, next speaker them. It's been Rockwell who's above after Mexico. And then if there's no other speakers, I'm closing the speakers list so the speaker list will be closed. Ms..
Speaker 2: Chico I'm her Linda. Chico My address is on file. Mayor and Honorable Council. I want to thank you for asking such thoughtful questions. They really did help the audience members to the residents here understand and break down the proposed changes and issues and opportunities that we have. I'll make this brief. I support both budget recommendations, but I really do want to put an emphasis on the increase in Prop H support, especially the $400,000 for Schroeder hall costs, because we've been waiting for that for a very long time and we want to get it right the first time. And then the the other thing is the technology and increasing the capabilities of the technology that we have. Mayor Garcia has been wonderful and been a champion of technology here in in the city. And I think that this these departments really do need attention when it comes to increasing the efficiency that we work. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Rockwell.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council. I want to say that and going about through the various cities and our state and other cities throughout our United States, I've yet to feel as comfortable and a downtown of any city in our whole state of California as what I feel right here in the city of Long Beach. We have police officers and firefighters, paramedics that have been here in this city for well over 20 years. These men and women are some of the best public service officers anywhere in our nation. They have been there when I've needed them. They're there when the rest of us need them. And they are there to help and make sure that our lives, our help and our homes are safe in the event of any emergency. And I want to say they all deserve a round of applause from all of us here in the auditorium. Thank you. Fire and police. Men and women.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Rockwell. Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 7: Just quickly, I know that we talked about police and fire, but a couple of people talked about the the housing issue. And one person brought up something that stood out to me. I know that we're taking on department by department. Are we do we have a plan to hear from? So where would what apartment, what department? Would that be appropriate? Would that be? Development Services? What department is it? Oh, somebody's got it.
Speaker 0: Mr. West.
Speaker 9: Probably Development Services and Health and Human Services.
Speaker 7: So I know I know that health is next, right. Where they were going to be tonight. Would it be would it make sense to have that conversation at health when they come back at the next budget hearing?
Speaker 9: We can certainly have the health portion of it. And if we can squeeze in the development services, we will as well. But we'll work that out through the mayor's office in the next week.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And obviously always, regardless of the topic, we can always any item on the budget can be discussed at any meeting. So ignore the comments and the public hearing is now. We're going to move. Can I get a motion to adjourn and postpone the next hearing then to the next meeting? Because the motion in a second to move the hearing forward to the next meeting, please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a we have a time certain item that we need to get to. I do have if we can do this real quickly for speakers on the speaker public speakers list, that was obviously going to be a long a while ago. | 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 |
LongBeachCC_08122014_14-0579 | Speaker 1: Item to report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt resolution amending the master fee and charge charges schedule by updating strong motion instrumentation and seismic hazard mapping fee citywide.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 0: Mr. West.
Speaker 2: Amy Vohra Mr. Mayor, I just want to add for this public hearing, this is a state mandated requirement. It went into effect July 1st. That's why we are asking you to amend the master fee schedule now as opposed to as part of your normal budgetary process. So we would request your approval of this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Any public comment on the item? Seeing none. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Councilman Richardson. Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And now we're going on a consent calendar. Item ten from the consent calendar has been pulled. So if I can get a motion for all the other items. Okay. There's been a motion and a secondary public comment on the consent items saying non, please cast your votes. | Resolution | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt resolution amending the Master Fee and Charges Schedule by updating Strong Motion Instrumentation and Seismic Hazard Mapping Fees. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08122014_14-0591 | Speaker 1: Item 12 Report from Development Services and Financial Management. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications for the implementation of 14 commercial storefront on Long Beach Boulevard at Anaheim Street. Award the contract to corral construction in the amount of 394,000 for account for a total contract amount not to exceed 453,000.
Speaker 0: District one Clean in motion.
Speaker 9: Come on.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: I just want to say thank you to development services because it's been a long time coming and it's it's going to be a great beautification project for the area. So thank.
Speaker 5: You.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Public comment on the item. See now and please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight zero 13. Item 13 Report from Health, Human, Human Services and Development Services. Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all necessary agreements for the Fiscal Year 14. Emergency Solution Grant Program Allocation of 455,000 to fund for projects for the period of October one, 2014 through September three, 2015. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. ITB DV-14-078 REBID for the improvement of 14 commercial storefronts on Long Beach Boulevard at Anaheim Street; award the contract to Corral Construction and Development, Inc., of Commerce, CA, in the amount of $394,400; authorize a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $59,160, for a total contract amount not to exceed $453,560; and authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto. (District 1) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08052014_14-0545 | Speaker 2: Item one Report from the City Manager Recommendation to conduct a budget hearing to receive and discuss an overview of of the proposed fiscal year 2015 budget for Parks, Recreation and Marine Library Services and Code Enforcement.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I want to introduce Mr. West.
Speaker 7: Mr. Mayor, council members, thank you very, very much. This is the next in a series of budget hearings that we're having to review the fiscal year 15 budget. Tonight, we're going to see a snapshot of the Parks and Recreation, Marine budget, library budget and the code enforcement budget. I just want to point out that while 70% of our entire budget goes to police and fire, showing the importance of public safety in this community, police and fire get a lot of assistance to the rest of some very, very critical functions in the city. We call it the public safety continuum. So these entities assist public safety fire PD throughout the entire community. These are things like neighborhood services, just keeping a good infrastructure up. The city prosecutor in all the great work he does, workforce development and the jobs that they provide for our youth, our homeless plan and other health services. Affordable housing, of course. And then again tonight, you'll see Parks Rec and Marine Library and Code Enforcement. And next week, you'll see the hard core of our public safety continuum, health, human services, combined with police and fire. So I'm going to turn it over first for our Parks Recreation Marine Director George Champion to provide that review. Thank you, George.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. West, honorable mayor and members of the City Council. It's my pleasure to present to you the Department of Parks Recreation, Marine Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Fiscal Year 2014 has been incredibly successful and productive year for us and we look forward to what fiscal year 2015 holds. The 15 proposed budget provides the resources that not only help our city to be recognized as a national leader in parks and recreation services, but even more importantly, it provides us the opportunity to have a positive daily impact in the lives of the entire Long Beach community. As you know, the Department of Parks, Recreation, Marine is a large, dynamic operation, providing not only the more traditional parks, maintenance and recreation programing activities, but we are also responsible for our public marinas, six miles of beaches and our waterways and animal care services. The core services presented on the slide reflect the diversity of services offered to our Long Beach residents and visitors to provide for quality maintenance of parks, facilities, open spaces, beaches and marinas continue the implementation of the city's open space plan. Provide recreational opportunities to meet the diverse needs of the community, ensure the marinas are fiscally sound and meet the boat owners and community needs, and provide the public safety. Provide for public safety and the humane treatment of our animal population. As I previously mentioned, this fiscal year has been one of incredible achievement for our department. Earlier this fiscal year, we were once again recognized as a national leader in Parks and Recreation Management. The Gold Medal Award honors excellence in long range planning, environmental stewardship, quality staff, beautiful parks and innovative recreation programs. This is quite an accomplishment for the entire city team and could not have been done without the hard work and dedication of the department staff. Our Parks and Recreation Commission support from the city manager and support from the mayor and the City Council. We're also extremely proud of the recent investments that we've been able to make through the use of one time funds after many years of not having the resources to invest in our park amenities. This has been a welcome addition to our budget over the last few years and we can't thank the Council enough for your support. We don't have the time. We don't have enough time to go over all the projects as there were literally dozens in each council district. So we've listed just a few locations where these important investments have occurred. We reopen should it feel the spring, offering that community new athletic fields and a walking track in which to recreate. This past weekend, we opened the doors of the Park Community Center, which is a 3000 square foot, energy efficient building designed to accommodate afterschool programs, community meetings and events, and a digital training academy providing valuable technology job skills for our youth. This follows on the heels of major expansion and renovation at or Zarb a park. We've undertaken numerous improvements and a master planning effort, effort at Bixby Park. And I should point out that we're rolling out a new Park Patrol program at Bixby and Shattuck Field. There's the addition of a fitness zone at 14th Street Park, which gets tremendous use by the community and a new tot lot at Loma Vista Park. We have new dog parks at Coolidge Park and El Dorado Regional Park, bringing our total citywide to eight. The residents around Coolidge Park also benefit from a new basketball court and playground equipment, funded through a partnership with the Los Angeles Clippers. We've completed a number of projects at College Park, at State Park, including roof repairs and other amenity updates. There was roof repair and sports court recently resurfacing, and so Silverado Park building and fencing upgrades at Bixby Hills Park, completion of Basin five and the Alamo Bay Marina. And we're completing some critical upgrades to our park and street media and irrigation systems. Obviously, this is an extremely important project for us as we are working very hard to efficiently and effectively manage our water resources. I'll talk more about this later in the presentation. Our Animal Care Services operation has continued its success. It has continued its successes by reaching a 25 year low in Animal Pounds, resulting in our highest level library lease rates ever. And we want to leave you with one last accomplishment, which we believe tells an important story about the quality of our services. The demand for park programing is soaring. Visits to our senior centers are expected to surpass 400,000 this year, up from 300,000 just a few years ago. After school and summer programing, participation is booming at a number of our parks. In fact, Whaley Park's summer day camp is so popular that parents actually camp out to get their kids registered. This popularity is mirrored at other locations, including Water Park and at our Aquatics Day camps. We're having another successful summer with our Be Safe program, expecting over 50,000 participants in our ten week extended hours program. This is up from 40,000 last year. We're expecting close to a quarter of a million participants in our department's youth and adult sports programs. This is on top of the 10,000 participant participants in Long Beach has organized athletic leagues to call our fields home. 30,000 people are taking advantage of our contract class offerings, partaking in such lifelong learning activities as learning a new language or musical instrument, photography and arts and crafts provided by private instructors. This is an extension of the services that we offer, which serves not only as an economic driver for the small business community, but also an important revenue stream for us. And well over 100,000 people have experienced a municipal bank concert or movie in the park this summer. I should point out that our first movie premiered at Wellesley Park early this summer and had approximately 1800 people singing along with the characters in the Disney movie Frozen. These are truly staggering numbers, and they say a lot about the quality of programing that we offer our community. Often overlooked, however, is that many of our programs hire youth from our community. These programs serve as an important first job for many of our local kids. We take this employment responsibility very seriously and are proud to be the first stop on what is hopefully a long and successful career for these kids. We're able to provide these services with the annual budget that you prove each year for fiscal year 15. Our proposed budget totals just over 54 million across all funds, with 30 million coming from the general fund, while the majority of operations are supported by the general fund. We also have a large, very large tidelands maintenance and programing operation, and these include our three municipal marinas, six miles of beaches and waterways and other maintenance efforts in the Rainbow Harbor. I'd also like to point out that the department is working hard to identify other outside funding streams to help sustain our park system. In fact, since 2000, the Department has received well over 80 million in grant funds to improve our services throughout the city. These are outside dollars coming into Long Beach and helping to employ Long Beach residents. The 515 budget provides for just under 450 full time equivalent positions, which, during our busy summer months grows to over 800 part time staff who help run the POPPEA programs we offer. Again, these part time staff are mostly young Long Beach residents. The department is extremely pleased with the continued investment identified in the proposed budget. There's 2.4 or 5 million identified for replacing the irrigation system at Hartwell Park. At two, there's 2.5 million. Identify 2 million of that is for the irrigation system. 450,000 of that is for our water budget, which we haven't been able to keep up with over the years. We've seen a 40% increase in water rates over the past seven years. So this will help us at least come back to that level. These and these investments will help us address two of the most critical needs in our park irrigation system. Hartwell Park is home to our largest remaining manually operated irrigation system. What this means is that staff has to first go out and physically install an irrigation head where they want to water, then manually turn on the water and return 10 minutes later to move the irrigation it to the next area that needs to be watered. Using this antiquated system, it takes a full week. Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. to manually water the entire length of Hartwell Park, which measures well over one mile long. This investment will allow us to modernize our infrastructure by moving to an electronically controlled irrigation system, which will allow us to remotely manage the system and therefore will significantly reduce staff time expended. It will enable us more efficient application of our limited water resource, which could result in over 3 million gallons of water saved annually and allow us to better meet the watering restrictions, time frame and irrigation irrigate during times that the park is not in use. Once again, these are critical needs for us. In another investment that will help reduce millions of gallons of water in the future. There is 1.369 million identified for the completion of a synthetic turf field at Admiral Kip Park. The installation costs for synthetic fields have come back higher than expected. So this investment will get us a third field, including those at Seaside Park and Eldorado Park. Additionally, it's our hope that by working with partners like the Metropolitan Water District and local sports leagues, we can get a fourth field completed. The migration to synthetic turf fields will not only reduce our water consumption, but will also help address the growing demand for use of our fields. The proposed budget also includes 287,000 for ongoing maintenance and operation costs for medians, parkways and parks. It's important to note that this is not for new parks, but rather to fund the maintenance needs, such as custodial supplies and ground maintenance at parks that have been added or upgraded over the past few years. Examples of these parks include Chick Baker or Zebra and Crescent Parks, just to name a few. And lastly, we're reorganizing the Animal Care Services Bureau to provide for improved management and service delivery. This will help to address supervision in a bureau which has grown significantly over the last five years, while also providing a better ladder for staff making a career with us. This reorganization is both budget and fee neutral. One of the ongoing challenges is meeting the community's expectations for safe, quality athletic fields in fiscal year 15. We'll continue to work with industry professionals and our user groups to identify a more sustainable maintenance model for these fields. We've had great success partnering with a number of athletic leagues, and we'll look to further develop those relationships with budgets as tight as ever. Department continues to identify new opportunities to provide our services as efficiently and effectively as possible. One such opportunity is through investment in technology from our new cloud based contract, class registration and facility reservation systems to offering free public Wi-Fi in 18 parks to an upgraded maintenance work order management system to our Animal Care Services mobile app. We see how technology can help us reduce costs, improve service, and better connect with the community we serve. And with that said, we'll continue to explore any and all future opportunities to invest in technology. In fact, we just recently opened another Go Long Beach app where people can actually call us whenever they see a sprinkler running or broken head so that we can get out there and fix quickly. Mr. Mayor, member of the City Council, we have a large park system with over 160 parks, 3000 acres, 26 community centers, dozens of athletic fields, three public marinas, 67 tennis courts, five municipal golf courses, 54 playgrounds, three pools and an animal shelter. Our opportunities are many. Your continued investment in these community assets has been essential to our ability to meet the needs of the community. We thank you for your continued support, and that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We're going to go thinking, Mr. Chapman. We're going to actually do a library services, then code enforcement and open it up for questions from council and comment. So we've got the library services.
Speaker 7: Glenda Williams, our library director.
Speaker 8: You have. Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor Garcia and members of City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the 515 proposed budget for the Department of Library Services. Founded in 1896, our Department continues to provide our community with resources to meet their information needs and improve the quality of life. We partner with other city departments as part of the public safety continuum. According to our police department, public safety has three prongs prevention, intervention and suppression. The library assists with prevention. Many studies have shown that there is a correlation between literacy and crime. 85% of youth in juvenile hall cannot read above a third grade level. And here's another sobering statistic. Two thirds of the children that can't read by the fourth grade will either go to jail or be on welfare. This results in a definite impact on our cities and our communities resources. But the good news is that there is a correlation between literacy, the availability of books and reading aloud to children. According to the RAND Corporation, children who are read to and visit the library have significantly higher reading and math scores in school. The statistics for adults are also sobering. Studies show that 60% of inmates are illiterate. That's 60% once they have served their time and are released. There is a 70% chance they will return to prison if they remain illiterate and the cycle continues. But that percentage drops to 16% if they become illiterate. A small investment in literacy through library resources can yield huge results and help keep our city safe. Okay. So now on to our core services. The library has print media and online resources on a huge variety of topics. We have something for everybody, and since we're a public library, everybody is welcome. We have 12 libraries located throughout the city for convenient access to resources. There is no charge to attend. Library programs are used for resources.
Speaker 7: It's free.
Speaker 8: We provide lifelong learning, reading and enrichment, top of opportunities for our community, for our little ones. It's very important that they are ready for kindergarten. We have resources and programs for children to increase their vocabulary and get them off to a good start. The programs also provide in an environment where young children learn to interact with each other. The family learning centers at our libraries also support learning. They provide drop in one on one homework assistance with books and reliable online resources for our children. It's hard for some people to believe this, but not everything on the Internet is true. In addition, we have our summer reading club every year for all ages. Families enjoy the free programs, including magic shows, petting zoos and performances by groups like Musical Theater West and building Lego models and so on. And they earn prizes as they read. While this is a lot of fun, it also serves an important role to keep children reading in the summer and prevent the summer slide. The result is that they will be ready to learn when school begins again and some students will even advance their reading skills. And to borrow from our own police chief, McDonnell. I hope he doesn't mind. Reading and reading comprehension is a force multiplier for success in school, which leads to success in advanced education, whether college or vocational, which also leads to better paying jobs. And in our rapidly changing world, a college degree is equated to a high school diploma these days. So whether you want to know about local Long Beach history, gardening in small spaces, starting a business and not learning another language or refresh your computer skills, you'll find it at the Long Beach Public Library. We're perfectly positioned to support our community with lifelong learning opportunities and help them meet their goals. And of course, we strive to provide library services in an efficient manner by using library technology to select, organize and deliver information to our residents. We have automated many of our manual tasks and processes to save the time of library use and those with maximum benefit. For our accomplishments for FY 14, almost 80,000 e-books and audiobooks have been downloaded to smartphones, tablets, computers or e-readers. From our website at npr.org. And a few months ago, we also added online interactive magazines. Popular titles include Arbonne, Car and Driver, Esquire House, Beautiful, Macworld and the Nation. It's just like the print magazine, except that many people can read the same magazine at the same time but go. Long Beach Public Library Mobile app allows people to manage their library accounts, request materials and stay up to date on newest books at the library from the device of their choice. Usage has increased about 38,000 searches a month. Our 12 libraries are heavily use with more than one 2 million visits for FY14. That equals about 5000 people a day walking into our facilities. We're estimating that more than 6.8 million resources will be used in access for this fiscal year. The breakdown is from items checked out, items used on site, online database searches, computer sessions and website usage. For example, we had more than 1.3 million items checked out for this past fiscal year. We also have very successful community partnerships with the Long Beach Unified School District. Teachers bring the students to their local library to see what programs and resources the library has available to offer and also help with homework and reading assignments. And as I mentioned earlier, our annual summer reading club is very successful. During the last seven weeks, libraries hosted more than 70 presenters with a wide variety of programs. We had record participation this year. 5000 people signed up and read more than 15,000 books, which is another record for us. Beach Animals Reading with Kids. Our Bark is a great program to rotate through most of our branches and is a big hit with the kids. The dogs are great listeners. They're non-judgmental. They don't frown or make a noise if a word is misread. It really helps the kid increase in their confidence. And attendance is very high. All bark programs, capital improvements for our branches include repair of roofs. Dana and bark libraries have resurfaced. Parking lots, bathrooms have been upgraded, and community rooms are in the process of a process of being painted and recrafted. We're also receiving new chairs and tables. We received the California Reads Grant to explore important topics through books that invite community conversation, and this year's programs will focus on veterans returning home from war. So stay tuned for that. Our Early Learning and Families grant provided research based training for librarians along with tools, tools and supplies to enhance programs in all 12 of our locations. The grant also provided an enhancement to our children's areas. Lastly, we opened a makerspace called the studio in April at the main library and a makerspace is a place where people have access to resources and technology to learn, create and collaborate and a shared space. Available equipment includes a 3D printer, computers with video and editing software, tablets and so on. Our monthly monthly programing includes 3D printing, the basics of Photoshop, and how to download e-books and audible audiobooks on device of your choice. And then there's origami. One on one. We also have special programs last month with a scratch coding class for girls. And this month we will feature Music Technology Workshop. Again, workshops are all free to the public, but you must RV RSVP for limited spacing and more information is available on our website. And in addition, we have digital cameras, a greenscreen lighting and editing equipment available through a partnership with the Long Beach Public Access Digital Network at the main library. For our proposed budget for this year. The General Fund and supplies 95 sorry 96% of funding for library operations. And that's about $12.2 million. 3% is funded by general grants, which is mainly funding that comes from the Library Foundation for their family learning centers. And the remaining 150,000 is funding for the staff at this resource desk and City Hall. Proposed changes for FY 15 budget includes strategic investments for two important projects. We're really excited to see the new North Library moving forward. 2.1 million is needed to complete the funding for the library, which will be more than 24,000 square feet, includes three community meeting rooms and resources and programs for all ages. The current North Library is just under 7000 square feet and was built in 1951 to serve a population of 25,000. I'd say the community has quadrupled since that time to more than 100,000 people. The next item is to upgrade the communication infrastructure by obtaining VoIP phones. That's voice over Internet protocol, like the ones in City Hall. Current phones are more than 20 years old, and technology services is a challenge to even find replacement parts as they continually need repairs at the ten locations. There is a continued demand from Long Beach residents for access to computers and the Internet in the library and even beyond this basic need. People want to access the most recent operating systems and computer updates so they can maximize their computing experience. Using computers and technology is now a way of life for most people. We're excited to partner with our Technology Services Department to pilot virtualized public computers. What this means is that the software and applications for many computers can be run from one device. For example, one computer would be the server of the brain for 40 workstations. This would save staff staff time because updates can be deployed just on the server and would update on all the 40 workstations without having to touch and configure each one. As a result, equipment and maintenance costs would be reduced. Energy usage would decrease by 40%, since bulky public computers would no longer be needed and e-waste will be reduced as a result. As a result as well. We look forward to the pilot for a 515 for this efficient solution to meet the demand for computing services at the library. I thank you for your time. That concludes my report.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. And finally, we have code enforcement.
Speaker 7: Making this presentation will be Lee Rocha, our code enforcement officer, as well as Angela Reynolds, our deputy director for developing services.
Speaker 2: Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, thank you very much. I'm going to let Angela and Lee take over. Code enforcement is an integral part of the Development Services Department, and it is only appropriate to have Leon Angela do this presentation. They are the experts in this topic. So I'm going to hand it over to Angela. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Amy. And good evening, mayor and council members. We're going to talk about code enforcement this evening for 515 and we'll start with core services.
Speaker 0: We were good.
Speaker 8: Okay. Here we go. We code enforcement response to referrals to ensure compliance with the Long Beach Municipal Code, which is particularly Title 21. So we deal with zoning infractions. Title 18 that's the building code for the most part, and title nine for nuisance type properties. And we meet monthly to collaborate with fire police business licensed city attorney, city prosecutor and nuisance abatement to solve problematic and nuisance activities. So as I said, we do that monthly if we need to meet more often, we certainly do. But those are standing meetings where staff from all of those departments come together and we call them quad meetings, even though there's only three of them now. And we talk about some of the top priority nuisance or problem properties throughout the city and try to target those properties and put together kind of a roadmap where all our services come together to get some compliance there. And at Council's recommendation last year, we implemented a foreclosure registry due to the high rates of foreclosures throughout the city and neighborhood problems that may have resulted from them. And we also staff the Board of Examiners Appeals and Condemnations Board, and that is a board that here is primarily code enforcement and building bureau issues. And since 2008, code enforcement issued started to issue administrative citations for code violations. And we do that. We we work with folks and try to get them into compliance. But if they're just lingering and they are not coming into compliance, we can actually issue an administrative citation of $100.
Speaker 0: Kidding. Okay.
Speaker 8: So as I said, we instituted that administrative citation in 2008. And prior to that, we really had no effective I don't want to say Hammer, but we had no effective way to actually get people to come into compliance. And so we were carrying about a 7000 case back load backlog for the year and just continue to roll over for these folks that didn't come into compliance. So that administrative citation has been very, very helpful. As you can see from the first bullet code now handles about 10,000 code enforcement cases a year, of which 91% are closed within 180 days of initiation. So there is very little backlog. Sorry. Hundred and 20 days. Also, code enforcement inspected 80 properties for possible illegal garage conversions to dwelling units and issued approximately 44 citations. And that is just in the last fiscal year, we started to do that as in 2007, because of the Avila family tragedy that you may have heard about. These illegal units that people are occupying are certainly a roof over their head. But it's it's a dangerous one. So there's health and safety issues. Typically, there are aren't adequate exits, the wiring is faulty and so forth. So we're very that's a very high priority for the last council, and I hope it will be for this one as well. And we processed 956 registrations of residential properties in the foreclosure process, as I alluded to earlier, and collected $170,000 in registration fees. Those fees are $160 every time a lender files a notice of determination. So that's a first step in the foreclosure process. And what we do with that is we send a code enforcement officer out to that property to assess if there are any code violations. And if there are, we work with the either the lender or the owner to bring them into compliance. So they're not a blight on the neighborhood. We have three funding sources currently for code enforcement, community development block grant funding, which is federal funding, is a little bit over $1,000,000 development services money of 1.8, and that is from the multifamily habitability proactive inspection program that we just absorbed in 2014. And then three and a half million dollars in general fund. So some of our actual opportunities are that we're hoping to realize in FY15 are all about the mobile handheld devices. That's like an iPad type of device that all of our inspectors will be able to take out into the field with them. And it remote's back into our land management system. So it helps with efficiencies for mapping inspection routes so we don't go out of our way when we're going out electronically, document violations and conditions, which means we can create a case in the field real time, take pictures and notes in the field and have them recorded directly into that land management system I was referring to. And we can research the properties, history and verify whether work is properly permitted. So the efficiency there is that this happens out in the field one time. Currently we have to write it all down in the field. And then we then our our staff comes back into the office and has to record it in the land management system. So this is a one time real time efficiency for us and one of our significant issues continues to be that of safety. A few years ago, one of our code enforcement principal building inspectors was actually shot and permanently wounded. He's back to work, thankfully, but he was it was very problematic for everyone. So currently going forward, what we do is we work very, very closely with the police department to accompany us on these significant compliance case types. And so the last slide is one that just tells you all the opportunities that folks have to see what we're doing in code enforcement. So there's multiple ways to contact code enforcement. The first and most popular one is to just call five seven no code, which is 26335702633. And it's important to note that all referrals are anonymous and we take that very seriously and they remain anonymous. Another way to do it online is do a simple Google search of Long Beach code enforcement, and if you do that, it'll all nine council districts will pop up and you can go by council district, click on that and find out what all the open cases are and what the violations are on that particular property. And then we have the dynamic portal, which is at WW W Law DOT will be code.org. This allows the public to actually give us.
Speaker 4: Referrals.
Speaker 8: Online and it also tracks all code enforcement activity that has happened on that particular property, at least for the last ten years. So that's opened and closed cases. And that concludes my my report.
Speaker 1: AQ And with that, unless there's anything else. Mr. West We're done. Okay, thank you and thank you all for the great presentation. Three very good presentations. I'm going to turn this back to the City Council for some questions or comments and then open it up to the public. Katzenberg O'Donnell. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Just a couple questions. Three great presentations by three great departments working hard with regard to the Parks and Rec. You guys do a wonderful job. I always say about Parks and Rec, some people have a job, some people have a career, they have a vocation. They truly care about what they do. And I see it, you know, in my own family, with my own kids attending the parks and some of the summer activities. So I think you guys are wonderful. You get nothing but support from me. And I should take this moment to encourage the other council members annually, perhaps this year as well. We'll see. Money comes up that we label infrastructure money and typically we put it into.
Speaker 7: Streets and sidewalks.
Speaker 6: We have some.
Speaker 7: Available for parks.
Speaker 6: Too, or you have a choice to put it in the parks, and you should really look to put it in as some of the park facilities too, because those matter. You know, the fourth district, we've just finished a major rehabilitation of Whaley Park. We're not done. There's more to do, but it's looking good out there. It's top notch. Hadn't been touched probably 40 years. Stearns as well. And now we're on to the nature center. But, you know, don't just think this is you know, when we talk infrastructure.
Speaker 7: It's only streets and sidewalks.
Speaker 6: You know, you talk about we talked about force multiplier earlier that, you know, the same thing is true with our, you know, our infrastructure in our parks. And you might not always get the biggest awards for it and you might not get, you know, the greatest accolades because, yeah, it's, you know, it's, you know, a good distance away from your neighborhood. And maybe it is isn't always the people in your district that use that park. But it is important to our city. It is important to keep our kids busy during those Gordon Golden hours. So please look at that. With regard to Mr. Chaplin, just a couple of questions with regard. You talked about some upgrades for the irrigation system and we have some money set aside as at one time money for that. We had about 1.1 million set aside from last year. Okay, great.
Speaker 1: So what I would ask you to do is.
Speaker 6: Reach out to the water department and ask them to participate in that, because certainly there is a nexus between the water department and the expenditures that would go into the system. And they should you know, I would think they'd want to participate because this helps them as well. So I wouldn't want this burden all to fall on the city. We have precedents for this when we're talking about some of the replacement of the soccer fields with some of the synthetic turf. And if you want to comment on that tour, Councilman, we do have a relationship with the water department. We've used some controllers, electronic controllers that they've given us haven't quite matched our system. They're a little bit difficult to work with, but we have used them. Some of the rebates that they've offered don't really apply to some of the like, sprinkler heads. We don't use the kind of sprinkler heads that they they're giving rebates on. So but we are looking for opportunities with them. They are helping us with the MWD grant for the artificial fields. I think there's a three $53.50 cent rebate on each square foot of artificial fields. So we should be able to get some money from the Metropolitan Water District for their help. Great. And I'm not just asking for the Metropolitan Water District money. I think that's great. But I'm asking that department to participate as well. If you could maybe give me some feedback as to the specifics with regard to the sprinkler head issue that that should be, I would think, easily fixable so we can move forward together. It shouldn't be just on us, nor should it be on them, but it should be a partnership to save water and make us more efficient . So let me be a partner with you and making sure that they respond to this issue, because I think it's a big deal. It's absolutely a big deal. We don't want them just to be a pass through the MWD. I think that's great that MWD is doing that. Vice Mayor But I mean, the water department in of itself should be waking up to the fact that they need to be a partner. The port is a partner with the city. The water department should be a partner with the city as well. So thank you. Thank you. And I think we should also look to developing some.
Speaker 7: Policy with regard to new parks so that we can.
Speaker 6: Make them the capital improvements. They're more along the lines of the landscaping as efficient, water wise as possible and maintenance, because it's not just water, it's also maintenance. You know, we shouldn't be having you know, right now, I don't know that we have the money to open parks with lots of grass because that takes dollars, certainly to maintain the grass cut. It might, you know, keep it alive. But on the with the fertilizer but also the water side.
Speaker 7: So I don't know if we need to develop.
Speaker 6: Some policy with that because I know every new councilmember.
Speaker 7: Wants a new park.
Speaker 6: I was one was yeah, I was there. I get it. But you know, the fact of the matter is, as we keep adding on your department duties and we keep, you know, we and your budget, quite frankly, is shrunken on a per capita basis. And so, you know, I don't know if we need to look at policy with regard to that. So we kind of rain some thoughts in here, but maybe we should do that. I don't want to rain anyone's parade, but at the same time, we you know, new parks are great. But remember, every time you add a new park and you're not paying, you know, you know, you don't have an adequate dodge. The parks you have you have to look at what you're doing. And and also when we you know, we talk about fields, whatever we can do to support the sports fields, that's baseball fields. Soccer fields in particular. You know, I'm big on that. I'm going to be talking to these two beside me about what we do because we have some issues on the east side, actually across the city with regards to our sports fields. We need to do we need to do something different there on how we maintain them and how we keep them user friendly because the parents are concerned. My own kids play on those fields, so I bring my own experience and it's not easy. I get it. It's not easy because our numbers of users are only growing. Yeah. And they're used all the time. So we need to look at some, you know, I talked about over in North Eldorado Park, some type of permanent maybe some permanent opportunity. And we'll be talking about that. And how do we fund that? I don't know. And I don't want to just want to throw stuff on that we can't fund. But again, that would have to be synthetic, minimal costs, etc.. So with that, I just thank you and thank the library as well. And I turn it back to you. Mr..
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Mongo.
Speaker 2: I first want to thank the department heads who did an excellent job in pre briefing and then going through the details of ensuring that we knew every single item of this agenda during this time of drought. It is just of the utmost importance that we continue to invest in opportunities. The. Hartwell Park Project, from what I understand, could save up to 3.9 million gallons of water a year. And that's striking. It's both good for our ongoing budget. It's important for us to maintain these fields, for us to find better times, to water them so there's more opportunity for kids to play, especially during the summer. So thank you very much for putting that forth. And I want to continue to encourage investment in one time expenditures that save us ongoing revenue. So thank you. With the libraries, I'm ecstatic about the partnerships that you've made with nonprofit organizations to extend the resources you have. Congratulations and great work and we look forward to more of that and code enforcement. Thank you for keeping our communities clean and safe.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Katzenberg. Richardson.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Let's see, we've got parks up here, so I'll. I'll comment on Parks. So I think we've. You nailed it. We've done some amazing things these last few years with the one time infrastructure funds. I'm really excited to keep that going. But I want to I want to chime in quickly about the the maintenance. I know we switched maintenance contractors and then switched back and now we have an appropriation of 287 K of an increase to for our median maintenance. So can you just walk us through where we are since since the last time we had that debacle with the last contractor and now we have as taking are we keeping pace with the maintenance of our medians and our parks? Councilmember I believe we are keeping pace. The current contractors are much better than than the the work that was done by the previous contractor. The 275,000 is really unrelated to that. These are four fields of electric field is two new fields that were added that we didn't have money for. So this helps to help maintain those additional fields. A lot of that goes to check because Trillick is four fields total, whereas before we weren't maintaining it at the level that we need to maintain it. Right now, we want to make sure that we can keep that green and usable for the community, which also means not playing in all the fields, rotating more, more aerating, more watering there, just so that it doesn't end up being a dust bowl again. Thank you. And and maybe you can just chime in on the the Force Wetlands Project. I know it should be breaking ground in this next fiscal year, and I'm not quite sure if the project's going to be completed in the next fiscal year, if we should talk about the maintenance associated with that. But can you just chime in briefly about the the forced wetlands restoration? Well, I believe we should be going out the bit soon. We're working with public works to go out to bid soon. So when that is done, it's a lot of natural vegetation. It should be low maintenance. So it's not like a typical park where you have fields to maintain. It'll be in natural vegetation, so it would be low maintenance. So of course we'll still have to go through there, still do cleanups, that sort of thing. But that's in the contract. We should be able to do it. Great. And lastly, congratulations on your success with the Be Safe program. It's it's been great at Highland Park. I know it's in a number of districts here, but I'd like to ask if there's a plan in this budget to continue that going in the next fiscal year? Councilmember These are one time funds. They're really we're really dependent on more one time funds in the future. It's not part of our structural budget. We just couldn't increase our structural budget at this point. So we love the program. It's great. It serves a lot of kids, keeps kids off the street, keeps them out of trouble. It's a wonderful program, as you all know, but it's just not part of the structural budget. And just just to be clear, this is a I truly support the program, but this is really something, you know, council member Austin Aneel initially tried to champion and I'd just like to see that because I'm not sure that we have flexibility in the upcoming one times to support these sorts of programs, should council members want to support them. So I'd like to entertain that conversation when we get back to the capital budget on limiting some on limiting some of the flexibility on the street and sidewalk money or perhaps carving out additional funds to support programs like this. Because this is the second year we've done the Be Safe program. The results have been outstanding. It's you know, we see thousands of kids in the park. The lights are on, it's productive. And it really brings a positive synergy to the park that I really don't want to lose. So that's what that's what I had for, for Parks and Rec. I just wanted to chat with code enforcement, with neighborhood services briefly. Thank you. So I'm pretty sure you guys know what I'm going to ask about instead of that foreclosure registry program. I was delighted to see that you tracked what the progress was, how much it generated, because that was my first question, how much that it generated this year. I believe it was 100 and 770,000 and registration fees this year. So the first question I have is, have we I know that we haven't had the need to actually fine a bank for not maintaining a property. Last we checked, has that changed? Have we assessed that $1,000 a day fine yet to a bank?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 8: Well, Councilman LaRocca, the expert, says, no, we haven't had to do that. They've come into compliance.
Speaker 6: Great. That's great news. The fact that by registering, keeping track of these of these foreclosed, vacant, foreclosed properties, we can sort of we haven't had to actually find a single bank for its maintenance. I think that's outstanding. The next question I have is how does this 170,000 registration fees? How does that compare to last year and the year before? Because we began collecting fees about two years ago, I believe.
Speaker 8: Well, I can't give you the exact statistics, Councilman, other than to say it's going down. So the foreclosures, we know by tracking them that they're actually going down in the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 6: Great. And has have these additional. So it's going down, I would imagine, because the foreclosure rate is going down.
Speaker 7: We started right at the peak.
Speaker 8: We can get you that information over the I think it's been in effect for at least three years and I can provide that information.
Speaker 6: Good. Yeah, that'd be interesting to find out. And then I'd like to just chime in on the facade, the CDBG facade program. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate here under code enforcement or wind development services comes.
Speaker 8: It's really not a code enforcement issue. Okay.
Speaker 6: Great. Well, thank you. It's a lot of.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you for the presentations. I'll start with code enforcement. Just have a few questions. How many inspectors do we currently have? I just want to make sure I'm getting a good frame of reference.
Speaker 8: We have boots on the ground. Inspectors about 28.
Speaker 5: 28. Okay. And has there any I know in the past there may have been discussion for code enforcement on the weekends. Has there been anything? I know it's not in the proposal, but.
Speaker 2: Yes, we are actually looking at what the city of Los Angeles is doing in a little bit of a different capacity. They are offering building inspection services on one Saturday a month. We are going to be contemplating whether we have the ability to provide code enforcement activities on weekends or through a hotline. That's something that we'll be working on in this fiscal year to see if that's something that we can accomplish. We understand that there is a need. We do see that there are a lot of code enforcement violations that tend to occur on weekends, particularly within our historic districts and in the downtown. So we're aware of that need.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. And then just moving over to library services. Thank you. Just had a quick question on library services. I think it's great digitizing the books. It's wonderful we don't have a library in the first District. So access in that capacity is wonderful. But what is the the focus on veterans exactly. Can you just brief on that a little bit?
Speaker 8: Yes. I have Darla Wagner coming up here for main labor. And she's been working with the veterans services on how to answer.
Speaker 5: Hello. We received a California reads grant from Cal Humanities for a program called War Comes Home. And it has a focus on a on reaching out to our community veterans, as well as the community itself to help with educating and informing about how to transition our veterans back into our communities. So we will be looking at having different types of programing, including a film festival where we focus on documentaries and feature films about that process, as well as having a panel come and talk to the community about that, what they went through when they came home from either Afghanistan or some other war experience. We are trying to get maybe an author to come in. We weren't lucky enough to get the author that they're focusing on, but he will be nearby and we will be asking people to read his book and and learn a bit. He wrote a book called What It's Like to Go to War. And his name is Karl Marlantes. So we'll be looking at a lot of different other programs and working with our local veterans collaborative here in Long Beach with Patty Laplace and and another number of other organizations here to to do a full program that we can feature our veterans as well as learn about our veterans. Thank you, darling. You're welcome. And then just moving on quickly. I know for sake of time to parks, I'm really glad to hear about the park maintenance specifically with Seaside Chavez, Drake Park. We tend to have issues constantly with safety, of course, and then also maintenance. So upkeep with cleaning, trash, landscaping and also bathrooms is certainly key for us. But question about the update and technology, I know that there had been issues in the past with revenue collection. Is that incorporated in that update for technology or councilwoman?
Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely it is. It is.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. And then what is the Long Beach up? I know you had it's an enhanced application for parks now, which is great. So in addition to sprinklers or anything else, what else does it include?
Speaker 6: Well, this is new for us. Sprinklers. Any any time you see runoff water or things in the park that catches your eye. If the sprinklers broke in or there's a main break, call it. You just take a photo of it and it sends us the notice right away and we'll get staff out there to shut that off and fix it right away. So it really helps us in our water management system.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And I want to have Parks Rec and Marine. I just want to start with you and express my appreciation to the department staff, the commitment of everybody in the department, to making sure that our parks are well programed in the top quality. Councilmember Richardson mentioned maintenance issues that we have, particularly in North Long Beach parks, oh, last year. I want to commend the department for the rebound in the contractor. Things are looking a lot better in all of our parks up there, particularly in my district. To Councilmember O'Donnell's point. I do think I am one of those newer council members. And yes, I do want to get more green space in my district because it's park poor. Actually, we have opportunity to do that and we're going to take advantage of it. But in planning with the community, we're going to be very mindful of our responsibility to be good environmental citizens and conservation, conserve as much as possible. And to that end, I do like the idea of us moving toward artificial turf, particularly in athletic fields. We plan to do that, particularly, hopefully at Davenport Park, where we'll be having a community planning process on August 16th. I wanted to make that little plug in there. The BCA program, I do think it merits our attention as a city council to discuss, you know, two years to summer straight of success with that program. It was a little controversial and there was some of the readiness of this. But behind the rail here to move forward with one time plans to do that. But I think it has paid huge dividends for for our community. You know, I think we talked about investing in our youth and investing in quality neighborhoods. I think it certainly has made a big difference over the last couple of years. And so I certainly Councilmember Richardson would entertain ongoing discussion as we move forward in the budget process to carve out monies to ensure that we can at least continue to do that. If it's a one time ongoing, one with the one time ongoing, however we want to call it, we need to fund and invest in our youth. I guess my my question for for Parks Rec and Marine regarding the the the ongoing maintenance cost, you know, I think you he broke broke it down. I think it's up over $200,000 for new new expenditures for for new medians and parks. How much of that is actually going to the parks?
Speaker 6: I'm sorry, Councilman. For maintenance. All of it all of all of it is needed for the park upgrades and some of the newer parks that were built.
Speaker 9: Can you tell us like what type of maintenance needs are we going to be paying for?
Speaker 6: Well, you know, Baker, many Park, Chaddock and some of the other newer parks, we've had to absorb maintenance from our own budget, which meant taking away from things like gopher control and some of the other important field maintenance items. So this will help offset those those costs that we've actually shifted from other parts of our budget to help us maintain these parks. But again, the majority of it is traffic field and it is a specialized field that needs to again stay green and playable because of the soil conditions over there. It's a catch basin or detention basin. So we need to make sure the soil is in proper condition. We need to aerate more often than we do in normal fields and probably seed a little bit more often. So those are the type of things that that are involved in the maintenance.
Speaker 9: So looking back in, you know, I was involved in the planning aquatic field, but I mean, what would have what would it whatever that whatever what would it have cost us to make that a turf field?
Speaker 6: Probably each field would have been an additional $500,000. So 2 million more maybe. But we looked at that option and it really wasn't a viable option because of the fact that it's a catch basin, flood basin. The material would have lifted right off it. The investment would have been it would have been a bad investment from the beginning. So we looked at that. We really did want to make that a synthetic turf field throughout the entire complex there, but we just couldn't do it.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you very much. I did have a question for for Glenda. Just a quick one. Library services. Hello there.
Speaker 0: Well.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And I want to just just commend you and your department. And you guys have done a great, great job. I do agree with the definition of this budget presentation of public safety continuum, because our parks certainly provide safe haven for people to risk to recreation, as well as our libraries. And libraries are a cool place right now in the hot summer. So and obviously the services are fantastic. I did want to just just go on record to find out exactly when we expect to break ground on the new North Library.
Speaker 8: Tough question. That is an excellent question. I did not have an exact date for late September.
Speaker 9: Okay. So we're looking at late, late September. Okay. And then the second piece is, when do we expect to to to open the doors after we break ground?
Speaker 7: 18 months.
Speaker 9: 18 months. Okay. So that would be an FBI. 17, 16.
Speaker 7: 16. Okay.
Speaker 9: And I know the last couple of budget cycles we've actually appropriated what we need to appropriate to openness. This new North library and one times as well as a midyear adjustment is the $2.1 million going to get us what we need and finally put the put that the rest.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. And I guess for the benefit of the public, what are what are we looking to to purchase with the $2.1 million in one time resources that we are expanding this time?
Speaker 7: Counselor, I'll answer that. The $2.1 million will do all of the infrastructure work around the library, parking lot, utility work. Take care of the. A cell phone tower that's on the building that was on the building. So basically it just wraps everything around the library. We have the library bid that was a that will be awarded shortly by the city council that came in under budget. But we still have some infrastructure work around the library, utility work, cell phone tower, things like that.
Speaker 9: So that that those resources won't go to buying purchasing books and equipment and put furniture inside the library.
Speaker 7: No, last year in last year's budget, this year's budget actually includes one time dollars that the city council approved and appropriated last year that will take care of fixtures and equipment and books.
Speaker 9: And we do still have our library foundation who will also be working with us to assist, correct?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. They're wonderful every year. They provide X amount of dollars for books and other improvements.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Got some more?
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you. I mean, thank you, Mayor. Things are moving fast when you be a long time. What I'd really like to say, I want to hurry up because I know you individuals are trying to get home and go to get to dinner. But what I'm just wanting to just say is that all three departments, you know, Parks and Rec and Public Safety and Library, I just like to just send out kudos because the fact that you guys have done such a great job, and especially in my district, I think any of you individuals who have not had a chance to come over and see Cherry Field, you will see the management of how things have been done, come up and take a look at who used to be Hamilton Bowl. The Dust Bowl now is chilling. Feel Taj Mahal just come up and take a look. So I want to thank all you individuals, you department heads. Thank you for everything. Now you guys can go home and get something to eat.
Speaker 1: And thank you, Councilmember Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I just had a couple of questions for Parks, Recreation and Marine Park. And as they're getting back to their seats, I wanted to just thank the departments that came here for their presentation as well as all the discussion we've had. Mr. City Manager As you know, a couple of us have received a request from neighborhood leaders in the second and third district. Councilmember Price and I have to reestablish a citywide Parks Ranger Park Ranger program. And you're aware of this. This is for our parks, and I truly appreciate the dynamics behind the request and believe it's worthy of council discussion, especially since the request is for a citywide reinstitution of this program. But I think it'd be beneficial for this Council, as we are today, to receive background information on the Ranger program before entertaining a position on that matter. Some of us have context from a certain time period and some of us have context from another time period. I think it would be a good point in time to have the full context of that program and what it would cost. So I would like to request the following information to be reported back to the Council and the Budget Oversight Committee at its first August 19th meeting. One would be the loaded costs, certainly, which for members of the public would include recruitment, training, equipment, salary and benefits. The full cost, not just the hourly cost of a ranger. I don't think that gives us an idea of what it would cost. And this would be for the Citywide Park Ranger program at full strength and a program whereby a city wide ranger program would only cover maybe the hotspots. We should have some options to look at. Certainly, if this is something that we would entertain what it would cost for a citywide program or what it used to cost before each of us in our districts have hotspots. I certainly know which are the ones in the Second District, other council members, we all have them. No matter where the district is in which part of the city it is, we have them. So perhaps what Parks Rec and Marine can do is use the data such as calls for service and make their recommendations or even connect with councilmembers and have them refer what they're known. Hotspots are based on constituent responses and that should come back to us. I know you don't have that ready today, but certainly if it could come back to us prior to the August 19th Budget Oversight Committee meeting for and make that available to the full council. I also wonder, Mr. Chapman, if you would be able to take a moment today to share information about the Park Patrol program, which you mentioned earlier, and I know several of us have discussed it. It's being developed by you and your team. And certainly I know what that is, what the description of the program is. But I think if we could have an understanding of what your goals are and intention is and how that may help cover these hotspots and other areas.
Speaker 6: Councilman, thank you for asking. And I'm sorry I didn't go deeper into it in the presentation, but we just implemented the Park Patrol program. We have about 10 to 12 staff members who were trained by the police department, same type of training that the the LBA ambassadors get. So they're going to be trained or they are trained now to look for incidences where police would have to be called in and they will call things like drug use, you know, loitering, you know, some of the activities that aren't conducive to users of the park, but they also will engage with all of the park patrons. They're going to be talking to the park patrons. If there's an issue or instance where they can intervene and ask them to stop, they will do that. If they can't, they'll call the police department. We have some really dynamic staff that have been assigned to this program and they are not shy as the Bixby Park community folks met them last night and they can attest to that. Our hope is that they're going to take ownership of these parks. This is these are their parks and they're going to call in problems. They're going to identify problems. And I think, you know, in just a few months, we'll see a dramatic improvement in the park system because they're out there. They're the eyes and ears of the department, but they're also the eyes and ears of the police department and the neighborhood. So I think will make a tremendous improvement in the park system with the park patrol program.
Speaker 4: What's the number of staff members you have that you envision for this?
Speaker 6: Well, right now it's for Bixby Park and we're also using it for critic. So we have 12 in the hours right now. The hours at Bixby and Shattuck are evening hours Monday through Friday from four to about 8:00, 830 weekends. It's 8 hours a day, Saturday and Sunday. They're out there 8 hours a day. So they're a team of two walking together, working together. Those are the hours.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And going back to the request for information, do you think you'd be able to have that ready by the August?
Speaker 6: Absolutely. Get it ready.
Speaker 4: I appreciate that. The second part of my question or comments and question for Parks Recreation Marine has to do with the irrigation. Councilmember O'Donnell brought this up and the rebates and more of what Long Beach water can do to participate on the sprinkler head issue. We have a very aging system. And so what what metropolitan rebates, we will not rebate on aging systems because their interest is to get us to update our system so that we can be more water efficient. So I don't want to leave us with the impression that we're not qualified for those rebates. We are if our systems are up to date, our systems are not. And so I want to be sure that. And is that accurate, Mr. Chapman?
Speaker 6: Yes, ma'am. That's accurate. And I think we're working on updating, like, as you said, these one times really will help to build in calcium sensors, electronic sensors. So at some point, we'll probably qualify more for rebates from the water department.
Speaker 4: And one of the things I wanted to share with my council colleagues is that about four, maybe five years ago, Mr. City Manager will remember with our previous department head, Parks Rec and Marine, we went to Metropolitan Water District with a proposal to do a facilities master plan, a facilities update, master plan for irrigation systems. We still have areas in the city, many areas, unfortunately, where it requires a staff person to go and turn on the sprinkler system, requires a staff person to go and turn it off. When you mentioned earlier that if there is a leak, you're notified of it and you go out there and you address it. But daily on a daily basis, we are literally firefighters out there with our irrigation system, which is a huge waste of staff resources. So at that time, several years ago, we did have funding commitment from Metropolitan Water District to update to at least conduct a study on what it would require to update our irrigation system so that it would be on a master command control type of an operation. That is the direction that we need to move as opposed to making these incremental fixes. And so what I've asked the water department to do is to dust off that report that was done by Mr. Tom Shippy back in the day. I thought it was a good report at the time. Certainly your staff can update that, but that's the direction we need to go. Otherwise we will constantly be fighting these fires and spending really good money after bad as opposed to doing an overhaul. And Mr. City Manager, I know that I've discussed this with you. That's something that I we made a decision at the time, meaning city staff did not to pursue it. I don't remember exactly what the argument was then. And it's a regret that I have on on our collective part that we did not pursue that because the timing would have been right at that time and we would be well underway to having a facilities update. So that's something that I would like you, Mr. Champion, to talk with Kevin Wade here at the Long Beach Water Department and get briefed on where we were with that. I know there's interest on the water department to pursue that again as a long range plan. It's not going to fix anything right now, but I'm on a long term going forward basis. We need to do that.
Speaker 6: Just Vice Mayor, I should let you know that we we did receive a $95,000 grant from with the help of the water department through the Metropolitan Water District to do an audit of 20 of our parks, 20 of our large parks. So we do have an audit that's somewhat very lengthy. It's about two, 300 pages, and it addresses each park and there's about 20, 30 pages for each park in terms of the type of fixes. So we've started that process and we'll continue it and we'll do the rest of the parts as well. So just to let council know, we have started it and we've been working with the Technology Services Department over the past six months to upgrade the technologies. And in about a month, many of those systems will be updated to the Cal sensors. So we have started that and we do have a big audit and we're moving ahead with those fixes.
Speaker 4: I appreciate that. I think in addition to that, we do need to automate our systems so we don't have human beings going out there to do that, which it's great to have even beings out on the park, but maybe to do other things, not to turn on sprinkler systems. The other piece I would like to address also is when I have asked the city manager for this, but also for the budget oversight committees consideration, if you could provide a list of the irrigation system needs and separate them between potable systems and recycle water systems because there is a difference in in priority. Certainly if we still have parks that are on potable systems, we most likely would need to address those first and balance those needs. But it's good for us to know and good for us to see which systems we're talking about and where the needs are. And finally, on Long Beach Water Department's participation, one thing I will share, which I think all of us know, is that we do have a $10 million transfer from Long Beach Water Department through the pipeline fee. We don't call it a transfer, but it is a pipeline fee that brings $10 million into our system. So they do contribute very heavily to supporting City of Long Beach efforts. And I know the mayor and I have chatted about this in the years past, and so I want to be sure everyone knows that the water department is doing its part in assisting the city to the tune of $10 million. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Price.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. To the department heads who gave us presentations tonight. I share. Councilmember Lowenthal, please. Questions and interest in finding out more about the park ranger program. And I want to commend you on your staff in implementing the Park Patrol program. I understand that the the initiation of that program was successful and well-received. So I want to thank you for that. I think it's very important that we as city leaders take every measure to make sure that the parks are safe and take the attitude of if our own kids aren't okay to play in that park, then why should other kids? So I think that's the attitude with which I will be looking at the information that you provide for us. I did have a question for library services, if that's okay. Well, first of all, as a mom of two elementary school age boys, thank you for giving them the outlets that they need to hopefully be literate and maybe go to college. But the question that I, I have for you is that's our hope. That's what we're working towards. But the question I have for you is, what is the status of library hours on Sundays and what would be involved for us to be able to allow our libraries to either be open additional hours on Sundays or if we were able to move some of the scheduling around to allow some more access on Sundays so that working parents could have opportunities on additional opportunities on the weekends to take their kids to the library.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 8: Councilmember Price, those are some great questions. Currently, we are not open on any Sundays. Right now, we're a five day operation to maximize the staffing that we have are open Tuesday through Saturday. To be open on Sundays, we would need additional funds that have to get back to you as far as what that would cost in the way of staffing. So I have to get back to you on that.
Speaker 5: Okay. Would it be possible to move some of the days around at various libraries to accommodate more openings on on Sundays and other days?
Speaker 8: That's something we can look at. Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 8: You're welcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our final number is concern for your anger that will to public comment.
Speaker 3: Boy, did I learn something today. You want to be in the queue? Get early and good. Yeah, I'll be late. And really, a lot of the stuff that I had had already been answered. So what? I just closed my book and let's go to night out. Actually, I do have different spin on some things, but I'm not going to play musical chairs. I hope I don't, but I think I will. I'm going to talk. My question is mostly related to Parks and Recreation. So one more time, last time. Then you can rest. Look, it's a good exercise opportunity. It's been pretty much pretty well discussed in terms of what's going on with our programs for artificial turf, as well as the replacing outdated and irrigation systems, not only at this part but at others. And Suja touched a button with me in terms that I was going to talk about, and that's about reclaiming the water and just wanting to know if there is any that that you might have that says how many of our parks are on reclaimed water and maybe how many projects you have out there that would convert some of these irrigation systems into reclaimed water? Since we are we know very well that we are in a drought and we have to look at creative ways of being able to keep our parks. GREEN. And do you have any any of the plans out there in terms of converting some of our irrigation systems or to reclaiming water
Speaker 6: ? Councilman, we do have a list of parks. We have about 24 parks that are on the reclaim system. You know, they differ from Cherry Park, Colorado Lagoon, Eldorado. Most of the East Side parks are on the recycled system and the West Side parks from potable in. Those are projects that in terms of converting, converting the other parks to recycled water is something that the water department would do because they have to lay the foundation and the infrastructure. So really right now kind of at their mercy in terms of converting those parks that are on potable water to recycled. So it's just a matter of them laying the infrastructure for recycled.
Speaker 3: Well, maybe that would be something that we want to investigate and study. Perhaps we could convert more of those. And the only reason I say that, although while it might be a noble effort to convert many of these fields into artificial turf, to me it's the more you do it, the more we turn into a cardboard jungle , concrete jungle, if you will, where there's nothing alive, nothing thriving, nothing adding to the atmosphere. So if we can, I'd like to see an increase in the parks with recyclable water, and that would include some of the medians and parkways to convert some of those where we don't need to use of the water better to go into somebody's hydration than dehydration. The other point I want to talk about that you have here an item regarding the reorganization of animal care services. And in it you say that there is no budget or it's a neutral budget and FTE neutral. But are there are there are there are ideas for revenue generation. I mean, it's also you do raise the revenues in animal control. Are you having any plans for raising revenue, raising fees that would provide a better opportunity for the city to get some revenue in to help animal care services provide better services?
Speaker 6: Councilman, we're always looking at our fees and what we want to make sure is we balance our fees with the needs of the community. Even things like dog licenses. You know, we've got areas that people have a hard time affording the dog license. So we've got to be able to maintain it at a level where people can at least come in and pay for the license for the dogs, because we want to get as many license dogs as possible. And even, you know, the the spay and neuter, we try to keep those low. We have spay neuter clinics where we provide it for free. There's a large community out there that is going to need some of these services at a low level. But we are looking at it. We always look at revenue potential revenue sources. We've got fundraisers for animal care. We have the friends of the Long Beach Animal Shelter who are always doing fundraising. They've helped us with a new clinic, a separate trailer this year that costs, I think, $100,000. The city council kicked in 50,000 and they raised the other 50,000 to provide some extra space down there. So we're always looking at that. We're also looking at other cities contracting with other cities and can we raise revenue from other cities? So we have we've talked to another city recently and we're looking at a potential potential contract that could at least help us bring in more money to serve all the cities that we serve.
Speaker 3: Well, you touched all the right buttons. Thank you. And I thank you for the orientation you gave me this afternoon. It was a very informative. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, thank you. At this time of the budget hearing, I'm going to open it up to members of the public. So please come on down and form a line here for public comment on the budget, come forward and as before any comes up, I just want to just take. A quick sec and thank also all of the budget officers and all the people over here that I see that have worked so hard and all these budget. So thank you all for the hard work as well as the department heads and all the presentations tonight. So thank you. Please.
Speaker 5: Hi, my name is Annie Greenfeld. Thank you very much for this budget presentation. I'm going to give you just a little tiny bit of background. Better balance for Long Beach has been kind of overseeing 14th Street Park at the request of Washington Neighborhood Association, and we're really pleased with the improvements that have been done. I'd like to thank the First District Council Office and Mayor Garcia for putting in the fitness zone in that area. There's just one little hiccup and that's no fence. This is a median strip park, as some of you may know. And the mommas go out there with their kids and they try to work out on the fitness equipment, but they have to keep one hand on the kid because they're afraid they're going to run out into the street. And I'm hoping that somewhere you'll find a little bit of money to put in that fence so that the children can be safe. That's the first request. And that actually came from Linda Palacios at Washington Neighborhood Association. My second little issue is and it's not really an issue, I'd really like you to study the artificial turf. In the soccer field at Seaside Park. That soccer field has been a problem from day one. And because of the transient neighborhood, I think it's really going to be a problem having the artificial turf. So I'd just like you to take a second look at it. Also, the park patrol. I have to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal for. And if she's not here right now, but, you know, for for bringing the community in on what's going on. The problem has been at 14th Street Park, there are drug dealers, there are kids and people smoking pot. And I'm just not sure why. 14th Street Park is not one of the pilot programs on that park patrol. And I'd like you to really consider that because there are so many homeless issues down there. And I just really think that Washington neighborhood area deserves to be safe. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Very good. Clark has the adjustment to item, and I'll be brief. First of all, in terms of water, obviously we face a crisis in this state and in the city. I think part of our solution is to return to having the city of Long Beach. Not contract out. It's landscaping. The landscape contractor could care less about the city of Long Beach, not sell with its employees. I've worked with when the when they were there in those services. They took a great deal of pride and care and interest. In keeping the sprinkler systems operating properly and efficiently. And I think we need to get inside of that. And return to having the city of Long Beach employees take care of that. And secondly, and before going to the second point, I appreciate the fact that this has been a data dump, as are by necessity. You have to process an awful lot of information both tonight and in future nights. But if there's one piece of information you leave here tonight with. Let it be this. That there exist no conditions. Under which any existing structure. Within the Marine Stadium. De facto or de jury as defined. By the original organic documents will ever be raised. Unless. Unless at the same time. There is a permit for a replacement with funding for that building. And the reason for that is brought into sharp focus by what so many of you had mentioned this evening relative to the explosion over years of the population of the city. That applies to our waterfront dynamics. The ability to serve is directly related to how well we can serve them and the structures that we have down there to support that activity. Much of these. We have a number of buildings there. Some are already repurposed. Some will be repurposed in the future. Those are needed for storage to support the dynamics on the waterfront. We can't build anything more in the Marine Stadium because of the houses. That's understood. You wouldn't want to buy a house and then have something built up two days later. So understand that. Never again will a building come down unless a replacement has been approved and is in place and the existing structures we have will stand. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor Garcia and honorable counsel. My name is Dave Zanardi and I hail from the great eighth district. And I'm here this evening to represent a wonderful city organization, the sister cities of Long Beach. We are a 100% volunteer organization that spans all nine districts in our city. We have been involved in the city for over 50 years. And I do want to. For the new council people to want to mention our six existing long term sister cities.
Speaker 7: Mombasa, Kenya. Nam.
Speaker 6: Penh, Cambodia. Monta. Ecuador. Sochi, Russia. Qingdao, China. And this evening, it's my great honor to introduce a delegation from our oldest sister city, which is celebrating its 51st year here. David Chi Chi.
Speaker 1: Japan. I actually think that you probably want to speak to in public comment. This is a budget hearing. Public comment. Oh, but is there here and you've introduced them already? I will I will let you introduce them and then just make sure that everyone else is here for for the budget hearing comment and then public comment will be after.
Speaker 6: I apologize. Okay. Thank you for continuing us to do that. Sure. So now keep it short. I'd like to introduce Mr. Michael Bond, who is the past chairman of the Sister City Association.
Speaker 7: Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council is my privilege to present to you tonight the goodwill ambassadors from the city of York to Japan, for this is the 49th exchange of a teacher and students that we've had. This program is designed to create new leaders for our new century. And I'd like for them to introduce themselves. They have some gifts. First of all, they were selected by the mayor and the city assembly to represent your chi chi. And they are the official representatives from the city. They have brought a number of gifts, one particularly for Mayor Garcia from Mayor Tanaka, but also a book that celebrated the 50th anniversary that we celebrated last year, both in your chi chi and here. So may I present them to you, Megumi? Just introduce yourself.
Speaker 5: Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Megumi Kondo. I'm an English teacher in junior high school in your city. 30 years ago, I had a chance to be treated on the beat as an exchange student with a YMCA program. This year, I could be back here, Long Beach, and we had a wonderful experience, I should say. Thank you very much. Alive, Long Beach. I just I'd like to tell my students how. Rhonda Rowland. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Me?
Speaker 5: My name is Amy Scala. I'm 17.
Speaker 2: Years old.
Speaker 5: Thank you for your kind of warm welcome. I want to develop the language and the sister city relationship.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Hiro.
Speaker 5: My name is Masako Tagawa. I'm 16 years old and I'm. I, I'm happy because I can.
Speaker 8: Have a.
Speaker 2: Wonderful experience here.
Speaker 0: So I'm. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you for.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 7: Mayor Garcia Masako has a letter from Mayor Tanaka for you and a gift from him to you. And these are gifts from the City Assembly for the members of the City Council. And if we may, may we get a photograph with you and the. The trio.
Speaker 6: Well, they're doing this. I'd like you to close your eyes and envision two of our students and one of our teachers doing the exactly same thing in their city each year as an exchange.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Mr..
Speaker 6: And thank you for letting us take this slot.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: We're not talking.
Speaker 5: Mayor Garcia and council members and staff. I just wanted to thank you for having these budget presentations and allowing the Department of Library Services to present all of the information they presented. I always learn something new. We try to keep on top of all of the programs they're doing, but they really are amazing. I'd like to thank Linda and her staff for the tremendous job they did and for the presentation they gave and congratulate them on the summer reading program and their record attendance. I think Glenda said some really terrific statistics about why libraries are so important to our community and why we really need them as that tool to help with the prevention of crime and keeping our kids busy, especially during those summer months, to both prevent the reading slide and to help them get the tools that they need to raise those literacy rates which will benefit all of us. We I represent the Long Beach Public Library Foundation, but we also have members of a separate nonprofit, the Friends of the Long Beach Public Library, also in attendance. And so I'm speaking on behalf of both those organizations and our supporters. And I want to thank you for both having the Department of Library Services here and for many of you coming to see our libraries, attend our programs and make time for tours. For those of you who have not yet seen our studio space that Glenda mentioned, I'd love to host you on a tour. It's amazing what libraries are doing. And I'd also like to say that we were so pleased to see in the recommendations from Mayor Garcia the $200,000 in one time funds to add to books and materials. We, both organizations and our supporters support this recommendation, and we hope that you will understand the importance of it. The books and materials. We monitor state statistics to see how we compare with our with our sister cities and Oakland, which is usually the best comparison. City spends $3.84 per resident on books and materials while we spend $1.73. And we really can do better. And so we appreciate Mayor Garcia recognizing that education and libraries are so important in making that recommendation. So we do hope that when it comes time that you will see libraries is an important, important use for those one time funds. We look forward to a continued partnership with all of you. We welcome the new council members and look forward to continuing to talk about the branch libraries in your districts and the libraries that your constituents use. So we also thank you for your comments on open libraries and look forward to a continued discussion that does match what our constituents are saying to us as well. So thank you again.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir, very much.
Speaker 8: Kathleen.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Kathleen Irvine.
Speaker 8: I'm the president of Whitmore City Heritage Association in the First District. And although we are a preservation organization, part of our mission statement has to do with the quality of life in our area and in our neighborhood. So two of the things I wanted to address is, first of all, for code enforcement. My understanding is that there were 28 people boots on the ground, as Angela said, and originally code enforcement used to patrol our neighborhood. But I have not noticed that happening any longer. I don't know if that's because of cuts or just the safety issue, but it was very helpful because especially if, as Ms.. Burdick said, they instigate Saturday patrols. There's a lot of stuff, you know, in the cat's away, the mice are playing, and we're kind of tired of watching the things that happen on weekends. And we have no recourse if there is a patrol around, a lot of things will not happen simply because there's a patrol and they know somebody is watching. So that would be very helpful. The other thing I wanted to address is our parks. I was just made aware of the Park Patrol program and I am aware also that it's my understanding that there are three park rangers over at El Dorado Park. So my request is simply that all parks are equitable as far as safety because we all have the same issues. There are homeless, there is drug use, there is narcotics going on, and if the parks are to serve all of us, then we all need to feel safe, especially Drake and Chavez, which are so close to the river where you guys know what that means. It means homeless. And it's sad to me to hear that parents that are living in the downtown feel that these parks are unsafe to take their children. I don't like hearing that. The other thing about the parks is I don't know what the hours are at the other parks, but if you are serving our community, if you go to Drake at any time on the weekends, there are at least 150 literally.
Speaker 2: Children playing there.
Speaker 8: Why are we not open on Sunday? Why is Chavez not open on Saturday and Sunday? Why are they not closed on Monday and Tuesday? Surely there's a way for our population of children to be able to go to the parks on the weekend with their parents or their grandparents and their family. So I really think that if you guys could look into that as. Well as code enforcement patrols on Saturday. That would really help us.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Kathleen.
Speaker 7: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Jim Danno. I'm also with the Bellmore City Heritage Association. Councilwoman Gonzalez, I support your solution to having code enforcement work on the weekends, maybe take a day off during the week. I think that would really help us out with the illegal activities that are happening mostly on the weekends. With that being said, I'd like to also see the administrative citation that's over $100. Quite honestly, if you're installing $7,000 for the vinyl windows, $100 bills are going to make a difference. I'd like to see that be the first action, possibly even increasing it up to, let's say, $1,000 to where you had 35 days to correct the violation. And if you decide on your own to waive that correction, then you will be assessed that thousand dollar fine. That will also help with the general fund. Hopefully it will collect quite a bit of revenue going that route. Parks. Parks does a good job. I like to see that the new water app also have to do with maintenance. The best tool the citizens of Long Beach have right now is to go Long Beach app. It puts the power of the people right in your hand when you're seeing the violations. If maybe to help out parks, seeing some of the maintenance issues that aren't being addressed, it'll make it quicker to get those things changed. Going to Councilman Austin, I believe you were talking about parks and you have kind of underserved area with a lack of parks. Chavez Park and Drake Park have helped the community. Community has helped Parks and Rec combined with private partnerships, and it gives the community a chance to invest in their neighborhood with their parks and kind of get more bang for the buck. Actually. Also really quick with that is that you're talking about the wetlands program of a DeForest. We've also hopefully the Drake Park, Chavez also has a wetlands. We've got millions of gallons of water running freely right down the L.A. River. I'd love to see some of that water diverted over to maybe wetlands so that we can take that and use that as a greywater system to water our irrigation on the West Side parks. With that being said, thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jim. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Hi there. My name is Claudia Skow and I'm president of Friends of Bixby Park. And I first wanted to thank Councilwoman Susan Lowenthal and Councilwoman Susan Price for bringing this Park Public Safety program to the attention of the council. One of the biggest public safety concerns by your constituents right now is at our local parks, and we've got about 160 parks in Long Beach. And it's not just at Drake Park or Chavez Park. It's citywide. And ever since the park ranger program was cut from the budget three years ago, our city parks have are in desperate need of support from park rangers. And until Parks and Rec can come up with a program that will work to provide public safety at our local parks. We have public drug dealing and public drug use, a lot of pot smoking right in front of families. Parents are really annoyed and very disappointed about this. The park patrol program that Mr. Chapman just mentioned is actually the second program that we've had at Bixby Park over the past couple of months. The first program was a park ambassador program that we funded ourselves with funding that we obtained from Mercedes-Benz of Long Beach, specifically for park safety, public safety, because we found hypodermic needles and glass crack pipes, and that man is snoring really loud. So I hope I'm not boring him. But so we have this program in place and we asked Parks and Rec to cancel it because we were getting emails from residents who were complaining that the ambassadors were not being effective in their jobs. There was still public pot smoking, and there were situations where residents felt that there may be drug dealing over at parcel one near the planters, which is a hotspot. And so after complaining to Parks and Rec and forwarding all these emails, we did successfully get Long Beach P.D. out there. They sent in undercover police officers and.
Speaker 4: They did arrest.
Speaker 2: Two drug dealers there. So this is where.
Speaker 4: All this frustration is coming from.
Speaker 2: It's not just Bixby Park, it's citywide. I have reached out to the neighborhood association presidents around the city, and I'm hearing similar stories. And they're all very happy to sign a letter to city council asking for help immediately with either park rangers that we already have on staff or pleading to please find some small budget for one or two extra.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Carrie Gallagher. I'm the executive director of housing Long Beach, and my information is on file. We're really grateful at Housing Long Beach for the conversation that was opened tonight about code enforcement and the existing program that serving our city. Because for us, it really relates to housing quality and substandard housing issues, which are often referred to the code enforcement department. We had the opportunity to have a positive meeting with Ms.. Reynolds and Ms.. Ranka just last week. And we learned, just like all of you did tonight, that the existing code enforcement department is extremely effective. As you heard tonight, 91% of cases come into compliance within 120 days. So the critical question in front of us is not is it working, but it is working for whom? The question really has to lie. Who are the current cases? Who are the people reporting these things? And through our conversations with many of you, I've often shared that the large majority of existing cases being reported are oftentimes by homeowners about their neighbors, whether it's weeds, you know, paint issues, trash, things like that. The people who are not reporting are the renters living inside a substandard home with health and safety violations who are absolutely fearful of retaliation. And there is no question or doubt it's not a complex issue. That is why people are not reporting. And so, again, it's this question of we see really good numbers, but we have to ask who is not currently being served under the existing program? Housing Long Beach has done hundreds of surveys, primarily through laundry mat outreach throughout the city, and less than 5% of the residents with whom we've spoken have received a routine inspection or if they have had issues, have ever reported it to the existing code enforcement program. One of the most disheartening stories we've heard was of a mother who whose children were very ill. And so she took them to the doctor. And the doctor quickly determined that the illness was due to lead poisoning. The doctor said, I'm sorry, but I have to report this. And when the inspector came out the following day or a few days later, the next day, the woman received an eviction notice. Now this woman and the thousands of renters across our city have little or no protection under the existing city ordinances for fear of retaliation or rent increases if they are to report safety and health violations within their home to the existing code enforcement program. So, again, we really have to ask ourselves now who is currently being served but who is falling through the cracks? And so we really look forward to working with you. I have really good news for all of you that protecting people doesn't cost anything. It causes it's political will from you all to say that people who are renting in this city matter and they deserve to be protected. And so we look forward to working with you on the upcoming ordinance on other protections for renters and on the issues of housing quality within our city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Hello, everybody. My name is James Hall, currently known for being a sort of guy in auto on one lap and 45 seconds. Some professional track athlete. I was focusing on the Park and recreation and also the library too as well. I've put together a program that focuses on 21st Common Core values. I've noticed that the children, they love academics, they love athletics. Too bad politics is mainly their main focus. I've noticed that with this program we're able to attack literature, English, math, geography all through fitness. We hook kids up to one of my sponsors, which is Polar, hook them up to heart rate monitors, and they get to see how graphs go up and graphs go down when they stay in his own. Kids are happy and excited when they get to win awards. So incentives matter too, as well. So I came here today just to discuss that. How could we come together to get into the school systems? Because it starts with who you around the most you are who you surround yourself around. And if anti-bullying is going on at school, if drugs and different things are going on at school. That's the foundation. It's getting late at school. So they take it to the parks and it continues to go on and on and on again. So I would think we should form a program that focuses on attacking the schools first with the people in the workers that you have already at the parks and the staff grooming them to be able to display what it is that I've already put out in structure this program that I've created. It's already at five schools in the city of Long Beach, Barden. Duly Garfield, Carver and MacArthur. And you duly have seen the Graves race within three months. So just imagine if I had a whole school year to again work with the Parks and Recreation on again building a safety. Healthy community as we come together to form one thing, to be able to focus on these children. All right, you guys have a good day.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And her last public speaker.
Speaker 2: Hello. I'm Maureen Nealy. I'm on the board of Long Beach Heritage. And just quickly, I wanted to reiterate what several people tonight spoke about with the code enforcement issue. This has been on our radar for quite a while, as most of the council members know. We see we see code enforcement in our historic districts are 17 historic districts as not just a nice thing to have happen, but it is definitely a crime issue. It's the broken window theory. These historic districts often have homeowners. They are community minded residents and homeowners, and to support them through code enforcement so that things the wrong things don't denigrate these districts is very helpful overall to the city. We have spoken with the police and the development services as well as. See the police development services and the city prosecutor, and I anticipate having some meetings with them this year to move this forward. So we if we could make a statement that we really support having weekends and on call and ways to reach out to code enforcement when issues happen in our historic districts off the 9 to 5 clock, that would be fantastic. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: You. Thank you very much. That's our last comment for the budget hearing. And so with that, I would like to ask for a motion to continue our budget hearing to the next meeting, which is on August the 12th.
Speaker 9: So move.
Speaker 1: Okay. There's been a motion, actually, Councilman Gonzales. I see you cued up. Who is at the gym. No comment. Okay. So there's been a motion in a second to continue the budget to October 12th. Members, please go ahead. And Castro votes.
Speaker 4: Okay. August 12th. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Motion carries nine zero.
Speaker 1: Okay. Excellent. Thank you. And thank you all for being for being patient. This is budget time. So these are regular meetings to start a little bit later because of the hearings. So from that, we're going to move on now on to public comment. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to conduct a Budget Hearing to receive and discuss an Overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2015 Budget for Parks, Recreation and Marine, Library Services, and Code Enforcement. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08052014_14-0558 | Speaker 1: Thank you. Moving on to first item two, which is it was requested for the pool from consent from Councilmember Urunga.
Speaker 3: Yes. Just for the record, I have some corrections on page three of four, the swearing in ceremony, the correct name of the council person that being sworn in is Roberto with an O muranga and the person doing the swearing in was Supervisor elect Hilda Solis.
Speaker 1: Okay, the changes have been noted. So there is a motion to approve with those recommended changes?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Kaser second. Okay. There's a motion and a secondary public comment on that item. See nonmembers, please cast your votes.
Speaker 3: That way.
Speaker 2: Forward motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Now we have item four and five and Mr. City two. And we will take both of these together. They're similar in scope.
Speaker 7: That's at the option of the jury.
Speaker 1: Can I'll go and do that? Item four and five have been requested to be pulled by Councilmembers Gonzales as well as council members. Austin. So I will first to maybe Mr. City Court. Did you want to begin by kind of giving a brief on those items or. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to approve the minutes for the City Council meetings of Tuesday, July 15 and July 22, 2014. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08052014_14-0562 | Speaker 1: Can I'll go and do that? Item four and five have been requested to be pulled by Councilmembers Gonzales as well as council members. Austin. So I will first to maybe Mr. City Court. Did you want to begin by kind of giving a brief on those items or. Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: So on four and five, the destruction of records. I just wanted to first off, they're potentially a very important and substantial primary sources of language history. So with that, I wanted to direct City Clerk to work with the Historical Society of Long Beach on the management of these records and perhaps digitizing them. And then also report back in about 30 days and then just going forward to continue working with community groups in this respect.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 9: I was second that.
Speaker 1: Seconded by Councilmember Austin to the motion in a second on the on the item. Mr. Herrera, did you have any comments on that?
Speaker 6: I wanted to thank the council members for pulling this item, as well as the public for paying attention to our agenda. Putting this on the agenda serves its purpose where the public is notified consistent with the Long Beach Municipal Code of records about to be destroyed. And we will hold those in abeyance until we come back to the council.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So there's a motion on the floor to take any public comment on the item.
Speaker 7: Mayor. This is items four and five.
Speaker 1: Items four and five. Yes.
Speaker 7: Larry, good. You click as we address specifically zeroing in on four and the destruction of the records from the Cal and and O'Neill administration of certainly the integrity of those two terms has never been in question. Like our esteemed governor, they got a standing invitation to stand side by side with Caesar's wife. The last eight years, however, is an entirely different matter, which prompted me to ask right at this point to the city attorney, what assurances do we have? That Rosemary Woods will never have access to these tapes or any future tapes or records. Mr.. Where can we ever speak to the the agenda?
Speaker 1: Continue your.
Speaker 7: Career? I think it's very important to understand the integrity and the level of integrity we have with records, period, and I think the concept of destroying the records of the past eight years. When on the heels of learning that there will be a federal and state investigation relative to a number of people in that. Within that past eight years raises. So serious questions and strains, even the weakest of olfactory senses. And I would suggest moving forward, if there's no objection from Mayor Cal or Beverly O'Neil of destroying their records. But hold, pending the outcome of a federal and state investigation of the complicity relative to the matter, which was earlier referred to , i.e. in that ten page package, dealing with the complicity to gift illegally $300,000 to a select few. Delete the first two there. O'Neals and Madam Park and Ernie Kels. If they don't have an objection. But do not destroy these records. Think apps and such. Those who vote for such a call, the City Council might in fact be viewed as complicit in addition to ones they've already uncovered.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker 7: Evening again, Mr. Mayor. Gary Shelton. My address is on file and I'm really glad the item was pulled. And for the reason it was pulled, it sounds like we have a a good solution to, you know, these things come up every once in a while and they're kind of pro forma in the way they work. And what I appreciate is that what I was concerned about in simply reading the item, which was somehow or another, we need this to be a last call for folks who might think that they have some use for these old records. And that's exactly what's happened. I didn't realize that it was easy, as it seems it's going to be, to create that gap of time for folks who are listening and thinking, Gee, maybe I am interested in finding out what was said or what some internal memos were or some emails, that sort of thing. Issues that have come and gone, which haven't really gone, they're still on our table today in the period is covered by these records are like the disillusion of the RDA, the creation of the housing element and the downtown plan. The Civic Center request for proposals, which is still in the mix right now, has been going on for a long time. The Belmont Pool, Queensway Bay in the park, specifically in regards to replacing the cyclone racer or maybe its access to South Pine some way from North Pine. The Gerald Desmond Bridge is an issue that's been on the in the records for a long time and certainly public safety staffing, which is all part of the budgeting that we've heard and we'll be hearing next week also. So I'm glad to hear that this motion has been made. I think it's fitting that the historical society would be obtaining these records, especially that they would be digitized because that's a really economical way to save records for a very long time. I would ask if there's a way that the public will understand when that digitization, if that's what they're going to do, will come back and if it will be in fact, made public, and how that might be publicized as to what their output becomes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Craig Hendricks, and I am the secretary of the Historical Society of Long Beach. And I just wanted to come here.
Speaker 6: Tonight and thank the mayor and the city council members for pulling those items off the consent calendar, because a destruction.
Speaker 7: Of public records should never.
Speaker 6: Happen, certainly in a city the.
Speaker 7: Size of Long Beach. And those records are could be very, very valuable in the future. So we really would like to thank you for pulling us off the consent calendar. And we look forward to working with city staff.
Speaker 6: To find a way to preserve these records. But speaking on behalf of the City of the Historical Society, we will gladly accept these historical records for our archives. So thanks very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 7: Mr. Mayor. No council people. I'm not a resident of Long Beach, but I'm a resident of the great county of Los Angeles in the state of California and a friend of a little plant called Marijuana. And I know it's another agenda item, but I'm concerned about these records, too, because when I was last in the city council chamber, the mayor asked me to leave because I'm a medical marijuana patient and I'm concerned about the five or six years of those records concerning the all the years I came here and testified as a man living with AIDS for 20 years, that stood up to the federal government and has been in the room with two presidents , one that inhaled and one that didn't, and have the benefits of knowing that 23 states in this country have legalized medical marijuana. And I was just at the White House on the 4th of July for the 45th annual smoking. And if I was to destroy my records of the 20 years of the historical use of AIDS drugs to keep me alive and marijuana to keep me alive, we would have a big problem. So I'm glad to hear the Historical Society. And you have changed your mind about destroying Mayor Foster's records, because I believe my friend Eric Holder and the United States Justice Department might want to subpoena those records and even the records of some of the council people that are now mayors or or our new council people, because there is corruption in the marijuana world, including politics , because the mayor of Upland went to jail recently for his corruption and state Senator Leland Yee, who some of you might know is going to jail for his corruption involving marijuana. And I don't want to say that you, Mr. Garcia, will go to jail in the future like the man over here said, because of your corruption with marijuana or if you're not corrupt with marijuana. But and I don't know how much of the time I have a minute left. You know, living with AIDS for 20 years hasn't been an easy thing. You know, nausea, vomiting, taking 40 pills a day for many years, taking seven or ten pills a day and having a couple of puffs on my medical marijuana makes me hungry. And there's a lot of AIDS patients that live in Long Beach. And you're aware of all the homosexuals and gay people and straight people that have AIDS, aren't you, Mr. Mayor? Garcia Because, you know, Long Beach has the highest incidence of AIDS in the state of California, besides the great city of Los Angeles, where I live, and San Francisco, where my friend Dennis Peron was on the phone with me a few minutes ago. Now, I came here because I'm concerned over you trying to limit things on another issue that I'll speak later, but I want to congratulate this issue. Yeah, I got a couple more minutes. I want to congratulate you, Mr. Mayor, for not throwing me out, for raising my voice a little bit like Mayor Foster. Maybe he was concerned about what they'll find in those records when my friend Eric Holder subpoenas them, because I'm asking the federal government like I did previous times, they're to investigate the entire county of Los Angeles, the city of Long Beach, the city of L.A. and the state of California, for upsetting the will of the rights of the people of Proposition 215, which we passed in 1996. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Sir. You have to identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 7: Richard Eastman, former HIV AIDS commissioner for the county of Los Angeles, representing 70,000 people living with AIDS in this great county. And I believe Long Beach is there. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 6: Good evening, City Council. My name is Patrick Rhodium with the American Patients Rights Association. I just wanted to speak to you because, as you can tell, many medical marijuana groups are very heated over the subject of the X Mares records. And I'd like to thank you guys for pulling these items from the list, because we do not want these records destroyed. There's actually many groups that are interested in the mares records because of the issue that Mr.. He's been just brought to your attention. Yeah, there is a pending federal investigation and there are a lot of groups and a lot of attorneys that are looking forward to seeing the mayor's records. So we highly appreciate the fact that you guys were willing to recall these items, and we're looking forward to reviewing them as soon as they're made available. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. There is a motion and a second on the floor. Count's embarrassed. Barossa. You have any comments? Okay with that? Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. And this is for Mr. City Attorney. Okay. For four and five. BOTH Right. Great.
Speaker 2: Motion carries nine zero.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. With that, we're going to be moving on now to the regular agenda. Madam Clerk. | Resolution | Recommendation to approve the destruction of records for the Legislative Department, Seventh Council District; and adopt resolution. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08052014_14-0574 | Speaker 2: Item 17 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute agreements with Long Beach Unified School District for the operation of after school education and safety programs at various schools and authorize the required 15% in-kind in-kind match of 207,000 in the form of community development block grant and General Fund monies and Increase Appropriations in General Grant and General Grant Fund in the Parks and Recreation Marine Department by 1,103,000. Districts one, two, four, six, seven and nine.
Speaker 4: Can we have a clarification? Who was the maker of the motion in the second floor of the city clerk? It was moved by Councilmember Andrews and seconded by Councilmember Miranda. Thank you. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wish to address the Council on item 17? And I'd like to recognize. Board L.B. USD board member Megan Crowe. That's in the audience. Thank you for being here. Members, cast your vote. I mean. Yes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries nine zero.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Item 18 Madam Clerk. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute agreements with the Long Beach Unified School District for the operation of the After School Education and Safety Program at Burbank, Edison, Garfield, Grant, King, Lafayette, and Lee Elementary, and Hudson K-8 school sites; authorize the required 15 percent in-kind match of $207,929 in the form of Community Development Block Grant and General Fund monies; execute any future documents, including amendments, necessary to accept, implement, and administer the agreements; and increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department (PR) by $1,103,000. (Districts 1,2,4,6,7,9) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08052014_14-0576 | Speaker 4: Thank you. Item 18 Madam Clerk.
Speaker 2: Item 18 Report from police recommendation to receive and file the application of be assigned one one.
Speaker 4: One moment. I'm sorry, I can't on this one. Okay. Sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. Item 18 Report from Police Recommendation to receive and file the application of B.L. Flint Corporation for an original application of the Alcohol Beverage Control Life License at four 4111 North Viking Way at District five.
Speaker 4: Mr. City Manager, is there a report on this item on this issue? No.
Speaker 7: Here comes Commander Pfaff. And I do believe the council member has set limitations on this, and we recommend approval.
Speaker 4: Okay. Conditions. And are there any questions for.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to. Is Steven here? Did he get it? There he is. I just want to say it's been wonderful working with you, and we're excited that you've worked so closely with the police department. If you'd like to come forward, we're excited to introduce this new business into the fifth District. It will be a fine dining establishment. We were passing around the menu earlier today and many council members are looking forward to having meetings there and dinners there with their families. Thank you for agreeing to everything the police department has asked for, and we have not one complaint from any constituent on this business. So we're really excited about this. Is there anything you'd like to say?
Speaker 0: Unless you have a question. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 4: There's been a motion and a Second Amendment with conditions. Councilmember, your Urunga.
Speaker 0: Yes, I was.
Speaker 3: Q I guess you didn't see it. No, I wasn't. I also want to commend the proprietors, their outstanding gentleman, and I'm looking forward to sharing that venue with you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Unger. Thank you.
Speaker 4: And Councilmember Andrews, you did not.
Speaker 0: Want to do that.
Speaker 4: But you are looking forward to this venue opening. Yes, thank you. Is there any other member of the public that wishes to address Council on item 17? I'm sorry, 18 CNN members cast your vote. I mean. Yes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries nine zero.
Speaker 4: And moving on to ordinances.
Speaker 2: Item 19 Item 19 Report from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapter 9.16 in its entirety. Relating to the relating to abatement of public nuisances caused by illegal conduct involving sale of manufacturing of controlled substances, read and adopted as read citywide. | ABC License | Recommendation to receive and file the application BL Flynn Corporation, dba Stiks and Stohns, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 4111 North Viking Way. (District 5) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_08052014_14-0546 | Speaker 2: Item 19 Item 19 Report from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapter 9.16 in its entirety. Relating to the relating to abatement of public nuisances caused by illegal conduct involving sale of manufacturing of controlled substances, read and adopted as read citywide.
Speaker 4: The items being moved and seconded. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on Item 19? Please come forward. State your name.
Speaker 6: Yes. My name is Patrick Brody of the American Patients Rights Association. I have a specific concern over the definition of controlled substances, because that may apply to medical marijuana within the city of Long Beach. Now, if that is the case, this action is not in compliance with federal or state law. I should bring it to your attention. The Department of Justice did recognize California's Proposition 215 last month, and that.
Speaker 7: By Proposition.
Speaker 6: 215, restricting the growing of medical marijuana within a person's domicile is illegal. The city may not prohibit that because that that is recognized by federal law and it is state law. So. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 6: My name is David Zink. I live in the seventh district. Our city doesn't have a very good history.
Speaker 7: Of dealing with this issue. I'm afraid it's sad. But at the July 17th Planning Commission meeting, our chief of.
Speaker 6: Police stated that his men have.
Speaker 7: Watched dispensaries and they determined that the people didn't look very sick going in and out of these places. That is the most absurd assertion I have ever heard him make, and it angers me. No doctor. Doctors? No doctor. Ah, but. But why would a bus load of doctors would not sit and try to diagnose people from afar? But this is the kind of leadership and example our department is getting. It's not right. As long as the unreasonable attitude of the prohibitionists that exist in our city government.
Speaker 6: Continue.
Speaker 7: Their unreasonableness. There will never be a reasonable resolution because we have a 48 page document produced by the City Attorney's Office that is the most atrocious thing. And after they looked at the task force that had put together some work look, looked at their work, they only had 41 pages. They added seven more pages. They thought of more ways to restrict and choke this. They're following the lead set by our former attorney general when he called them together after the police chiefs and the sheriffs to discuss how they could undermine, circumvent and otherwise scuttle this law. That's not the job of any police officer. They are not to make judgments about the law. And that's why I say our department is poorly led, poorly disciplined, poorly trained and out of control.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Zinke.
Speaker 7: Distinguished Long Beach City Council Mayor Garcia again. It's Richard Eastman, former HIV AIDS commissioner, county of Los Angeles, friend of Dennis Peron, the author of California, Proposition 215. And I sat on the committee that drafted S.B. 420, which was Mark Leno. Paul Koretz and the state legislature and a man living with AIDS for 20 years. It was 77 years ago. Mr. Mayor, you don't want to look at me now that this government made marijuana illegal. 77 years. July 12th, 1937. I've been coming to this council now for quite a few years, except for when Mayor Foster asked me to leave. And, you know, going back to that last point, I'm glad you saved those records, because we need the Justice Department of this great nation to subpoena the city of Long Beach and get Mayor Foster's records. And every record from the fake lottery and the taxation and everything in corrupt cities in the state of California that stifles the demand of the voters of the great state of California. In 1996, when they passed this historic law that saved my life. I'm a gay man, Mr. Mayor. So are you. There's a lot of people in your town living with AIDS. I don't like to yell at anybody, but, you know, I don't know how many more years I'll be able to come down here. I'm 61. Mr. Brown was on the phone with me a few minutes ago. He's 68. He's going to his doctor tomorrow to find out if he can come down here, maybe want to talk to you in person, because obviously you don't listen to the people of this great state of California and the federal government, because everything you're done is against federal law. You can't tax marijuana. You can't lottery. Is it? You can't say that patients can't grow 12 plants because it says and does before 20. They can. And you're actually putting yourselves all in jail eventually because marijuana is hemp and hemp is rope and rope can heal you or hang you and marijuana can heal your hand you. And sure, it ain't perfect. But we saw somebody in here earlier. I don't want to say the man had alcohol problems or he was a stroke victim. But, you know, you just approved an alcoholic beverage place. How many people in this town die from automobile accidents and vomit on your streets and piss in your gutters? Pardon my English. AIDS patients don't do that. They vomit. If they can't eat, they choke on their vomit. They die if they don't eat. I'm asking you for a final time, Mayor Foster, in this council before I go to Washington again and demand Eric Holder to issue all subpoenas. And my friend Senator Patrick O'Leary of the Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on September 10th in our great nation's capital. I hope to be there and maybe, perhaps they will give me some good information about when they're going to indict you guys because you need to be indicted for corrupting a law that saved my life. God bless you. And may God bless the city of Long Beach, because when we're done with you, some of you are going to jail.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Melissa Techno and my address is on file, nestled right in the middle of this ordinance. And between all the legal jargon, it talks about heroin and methamphetamine and cocaine, and then it says or any other controlled substance. So everybody's already talking about medical marijuana. I'm curious if that is what's being talked about in the ordinance itself. And if so, where are the way? I'd like it stricken from the audience. I'd like to know what exactly we're talking about, what clarity in the ordinance. It's way too broad in overreaching. It just feels misleading as well. And in addition, I'm curious if there's any appeal provision in this ordinance. It's giving way too much power to a city attorney to work hand in hand with the police officers with no appeal provision. So anybody could go in there, say, this person is doing that. And there's nothing you can't even appeal what's going on. And I'm curious if the citizens of Long Beach, if this city council is ready to give that much power over to the city attorney who's been here for a long time to within a new city council . I mean, it's it's moving quickly and I feel like. Intentionally. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. To additional public comment. Please come forward.
Speaker 0: Petitioning Mayor Price and City Council.
Speaker 7: Council. My name is Madeline Johnson. I have one more thing to say, and this is directed to Charlie Parker. And then neither of you to think that the patients in Long Beach are going to get away with this.
Speaker 1: Just so you know, you have to direct all questions to the chair. So if you can directly.
Speaker 7: Us, we are not going to allow you as patients to put this ordinance and put it through. We will sue the entire city. And this is not collective owners. This is not dispensaries owners. We are patients that's going to come after you and we're not going to stop until you are in jail.
Speaker 1: There is a motion on the floor for the ordinance council. Are you Kira? Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Yes. I just wanted to get some clarification before we vote on this. I know this came before our council last week and this is the second reading. Am I correct? Mr. City Attorney, can you just give us just went through briefly what the intent of the ordinance is.
Speaker 7: Yes, Mayor. Members of the council, as you recall, last week on the first reading of this ordinance, the city of Long Beach has been conducting this program for over ten years as part of a pilot program authorized by the state of California under the civil code. We are now enacting our own ordinance, which mirrors the civil code, and it uses the unlawful detainer process to allow us to remove those individuals who are dealing narcotics from residents. And we've been able to use this program very successfully without challenge for the last ten years.
Speaker 9: So the intent is not to to prosecute people who are using medical marijuana in their homes legally. That's that's correct. I understood the intent to be to go after dealers and apartments and homes that have been reported by by by other residents, correct?
Speaker 7: That's correct. Or from police reports. It's, for example, in the last year, we probably reviewed approximately 3000 police reports and only applied this program in approximately 250 situations.
Speaker 9: All right. Thank you for that clarification. I'm ready to vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 0: Well.
Speaker 2: Motion carries nine zero.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Item 20.
Speaker 2: Item 20 Report from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 5.46.060 relating to the public posting prohibited, read and adopted as read citywide. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapter 9.16 in its entirety, relating to abatement of public nuisances caused by illegal conduct involving sale or manufacturing of controlled substances, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0545 | Speaker 2: Thank you. Members. Here this report from the city manager with the recommendation to conduct a budget hearing to receive and discuss an overview of the.
Speaker 6: Proposed fiscal.
Speaker 2: Year 2014 budget. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mr. West. You want me to you want me to get started? The return of you coming to go and start. So what? I know that the Council and the public have had a chance to review the budget as presented by the city manager. It's a it's a budget that, in my opinion, has been well, well thought out. And a lot of the the the top management team, the financing put a lot of work into. I'm going to start by going through my recommendations as mayor for the 20,000 for the 2015 FBI budget. As part of that. And when I go to this presentation, it's one that I made earlier. And in fact, a few of the council members were here earlier. From there, Mr. West will take it over and walk us through the budget itself and there'll be opportunities for any questions as well as public comment towards the end. So you should all have the recommendations in front of you that have being passed out and we're going to go out and go through those. I want to just start off by saying what I said this morning is that we have over the last few years gone through a very difficult financial time in the city. It's been a really in large part to a lot of the work and the returning council members that have been here that have been able to get the get the budget back into a strong position, we've been able to eliminate a lot of that structural deficit. We've been able to go and work with our city employees to reform our public pension system. So we're in a position today where we have a small surplus, and I think rightly so. Management has proposed that surplus move forward so we can look forward, look for savings in the future. I want to reiterate some key messages that Mayor Foster left on the way out. I think it's important that moving forward, we continue our partnership with all of our employee groups. The only way we solve our future budget challenges is by working with our employee groups, by working with management to ensure that we are providing the best possible service to our employees, while also looking at the financial future of the city. So that that is going to continue. And the budget message reflects that, although the items that Mayor Foster suggested are items that like in any case, in any budget cycle, will always be on the table and we'll review those thoroughly. I also, as part of the budget message, I want to reiterate my support for benchmarking oil at $70 a barrel as we know oil. Is still a pretty volatile commodity. And I think we've learned our lessons from the past and the fluctuation of the oil price certainly caused the city some financial strain. But but more importantly, the way we value oil also has a direct relationship to our bond rating and our credit rating. And our bond rating is incredibly important for the city. And so keeping that responsible level of the $70 a barrel is something that I continue to support. And as part of this message moving forward, however, it made some additional budget recommendations. Most are budget neutral. And in fact, it's really about restructuring the way we we do business and engineering a lot of what the council incoming council has been talking about for the last few months. The first proposal is to continue to strengthen our reserves. The manager's budget allocates 3.1 million of F 15 surplus into the CalPERS stabilization fund. And as we know, that's going to help us smooth out our deficit challenges in the future. I propose, in addition to that, we take two mil, 2 million, up to 2 million of any FY14 surplus, and we will have a surplus like we do most years and also put that into the CalPERS stabilization fund. By doing that, we are ensuring that we're taking care of our future challenges today rather than pushing them forward, and that will allow future years to have it really be in a more stronger position when it comes financially. So one is to strengthen those those CalPERS Stabilization Reserve by an additional 2 million, up to 2 million, depending on what we have. The second thing is I'm proposing that we look at restructuring the way we organize economic development. And this is something that I heard also pretty loud and clearly from almost all of the council members that the new council that's here is their interest in returning and having an economic development department within the city of Long Beach. And so I'm proposing and reorganizing. We currently have already in place an economic development and property manager within the city manager's office. What this will do is part of the budget is also bring over seven staff from the asset management division of our public works to to form the new the new department, which will be economic and property development. There is no additional cost. We're essentially bringing staff members from different parts of the city together to restart this department for Long Beach. One key component of this is the new department will work directly with city council offices and business improvement districts to create synergy among the initiatives. And I think it's important that the Council have a point person in this office, as well as a director of this department that is willing to work directly with council offices as they do business recruitment and work with the community and the business improvement district. So that's the second part of my proposal. The third is to.
Speaker 2: Restructure.
Speaker 1: Our technology services department. We have a great group in technology services that do a lot of a lot of fantastic work and have implemented a lot of changes over the last few years. But I like to restructure and rename the department, the Technology and Innovation Department. And in doing so, not only will I would like to instruct the manager to look at the department for ways of really bringing innovation into the department, partnering with the university, partnering with the community college, and looking at ways that we can take our government into the 21st century. I'm a firm believer that innovative technology with open government, with making our services more accessible, we can create a stronger city, one that works for people, that creates efficiency, but also supports the men and women that are working there currently. And so that also is no addition. No, there's no cost to the general fund, but it will really shift a little bit of the focus, and that department will become a real center for innovation. The next proposal is, again, something I heard from a lot of the current council. During the recession. We lost a historic preservation officer who essentially, as we know, we have 17 designated historic districts throughout the city of Long Beach. They're in every part of the city. They're incredibly important. And we have lost the the person, the position that essentially helped facilitate historic preservation with the city. And while we've done some great work, part of my budget recommendations is to reclassify a planner three position that's already in the proposed budget and designate them as the role of historic preservation planner. To serve all these historic districts and to have one highly dedicated staff planner be able to help manage all the really great needs that our historic districts have. And so this is something that, again, I heard from the community, I heard from council members, and I think it's important to move forward on next is additional support for libraries and the arts, our libraries and the way and the type. Some materials they have are changing. I've asked that we added this an additional $200,000 of one time funds to increase the materials budget for the library. I included in that would be also a focus on digital books and digital media as the types of use is changing. We're getting more interest in ebooks and media and so we're this will also help the library adapt and add to some of those needs that they need. We've also asked that we'd give an additional 50,000 to the Arts Council. This is a request that they made. In fact, I think they probably sent letters to to all of us up here to allow them to do some new marketing and to look for other private funds to match those dollars. The 250,000 total for libraries and the arts. I'm recommending that we take out of a a line item for each VAC systems. In talking to the manager. The we aren't yet ready to replace those systems and so we have some time to replace a couple of those HVAC systems. And so we're able to use this money and still have no issues and then come back later this year or next year and replace those, those systems that we need that need replacing. And then the last two items I know that over the last few years, we have had, particularly last year, a discussion here at the council about privatizing our street sweeping. And the manager went out and did a study and looked at efficiencies in the street sweeping operation. My recommendation is that we that we table and shelve the street sweeping contracting our proposal and that we instead look to our street sweepers and our program that we have currently and ask them to look for efficiencies and ask them to look at ways of strengthening our street sweeping function. It's my belief that just because something is less expensive doesn't mean it's better. And this is a way of looking at our street sweepers that we currently have and allowing them to bring some solutions to the table as far as street sweeping is concerned. As part of that, we're asking to look to for to look to reduce the four hour window to 2 hours, particularly in parking impacted neighborhoods for the community and other efficiencies that are available. And finally, I want to just a few things about affordable housing. As we know, the game has changed when it comes to funding for affordable housing because of the elimination of redevelopment. And there's a bunch of things happening currently in the legislature when it comes to funding affordable housing. The current budget has presented a is pretty tight as we know, but we need to start having a discussion about how we do affordable housing moving forward. And so what I propose in the budget is a way of starting that discussion. We've had a housing trust fund for many years. As we know. We expect to get back about 24.7 $25 million from the state over the next few years for affordable housing. As part of this proposal is to take that 25 million and put it into the housing trust fund so that we can then begin to look at ways of actually building and working on our affordable housing challenge. But in addition to that, as part of the budget message, I'm asking ways of reaching out to the community and housing advocates to see how can we strengthen the housing trust fund now that it will actually have money for the first time since it was created and also look at ways of other funds as we come down the pipeline and as is available in the future and in future budgets, how we how we end up funding affordable housing is a discussion that we need to have throughout this budget process. So I know that was a little lengthy, but I wanted to make sure I got through all those recommendations. Those are as presented. And I'm hearing this over to the city manager. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. Thank you. Councilmembers. I do want to highlight that we prefer to take the capital improvement budget at the conclusion of this. So we have discussion first and then get into the capital improvement because it's so separate from our operating budget. So I have the pleasure of introducing our fiscal year 14 budget to the community. And let's just highlight some of the things that have happened. Our Mayor and his city council have steered Long Beach through the Great Recession. This council has made difficult cuts and balanced past budgets. We've cut $134 million out of the general fund and 714 positions. Over the last eight years. We've invested in maintenance, efficiency and effectiveness. We've established and we followed those established financial policies. We've also used 14 temporary surplus fiscal year, 14 temporary surplus dollars to reduce or eliminate deficits as we proceed into the future. We've also addressed pensions. Our pension reform in conjunction with our employees saves almost $250 million over ten years. We also want to point out that the CalPERS board actions will ensure that this plan is funded over 30 years. You'll see later in this budget this is going to be a very, very difficult time for Long Beach. It is extremely necessary so we can pay down that unfunded liability with the help of peers. We've also created a CalPERS stabilization fund. This will help protect against service reductions due to fluctuating CalPERS investments and earnings. There's also been many operational and efficiency improvements recently. We've reduced the general fund management team by 28%. We've eliminated hundreds of vehicles from the city fleet. We've consolidated clerical staffing. We've streamlined permit fees and consolidated inspection services. We've even eliminated two entire departments, and we're implementing a more efficient ambulance service as we speak. We've also implemented what we call Long Beach Cops. This leverages technology to fight crime. This is under the leadership of Chief Jim McDonald and provides a camera system that is in our emergency operations center that oversees much of our 52 square miles to fight crime. We've also reduced skill and stand by pace throughout all of our nine employee organizations. We're also in the process of implementing new systems that will take us into the 21st century. We've introduced a brand new parking citation system which will improve improved collection rates. I want to make it clear that this system is not about issuing more tickets. It's about going after scofflaws who have not paid their tickets. We're in the process of implementing a brand new business license system, which will make it easier for the public and our business folk to get business licenses and improve the way that they do business. We've also implemented a brand new utility billing system that's been very, very successful throughout the community. And finally, one of the things that this city council has talked about for the past four years, we've implemented a brand new financial and our system, which is underway. We funded that. That's going to take another year and a half or two to put online. But it's a huge undertaking and will take us into the 21st century with technology and computer efforts. We wanted to focus a little bit about the fiscal year 14 accomplishments that have happened just recently and throughout the past few years. We are experiencing a 41 year low in violent crime throughout our community. Chief McDonnell tells us we're continuing to see violent crime drop even this year. We're also seeing major projects completed or underway. These include the brand new Molina health care buildings, a Fortune 500 company expanding their on Pine and Seventh Street, bringing over 1000 well-paid jobs to North Pine. Mercedes-Benz is building a brand new facility there at the old 717 site, and Douglas and Canaan, and they're in the middle of that construction period. And that will be a game changer for us. If anyone's driven by Douglas Park, which is north of the airport at the old Boeing property, this is becoming a grand slam home run, run for us. It's rivaling the Irvine spectrum property in Irvine as an industrial and office facility. More and more buildings are going up every month. It's just fantastic. The park continues to be a great partner and leader in all of our economic activities with the Middle Harbor as well as the bridge. Numerous restaurants have opened up in the past year. We're getting to be quite the location for this. We've got Chia Nina. We've got the Socialist Retro Row Bobo's on Pine, James Republic, the Federal Bar. And more and more restaurants are expanding and relocating like E.J. Malloy's and Hamburger Mary's. The Pike retail component is ready to take off. We hope within the next year the park is moving to be a quality outlet facility there and adjacent to the convention center. And it's anchored by the Restoration Hardware Outlet Store, which we're told is the most successful restoration hardware outlet store in the United States. We continue to get awards for things like the downtown plan and our mobility element. We just learned recently, while we knew we had a county award in the mobility element, the state of California has issued us their chief award for that. Our Parks and Recreation Department continues to win awards, getting a golden medal for the best Parks and Recreation Department in the entire United States this year. When we had to close the old Thelma pool, the city council acted so quickly. We had a brand new temporary pool open within just a ten month period, which was unheard of. After many years, the City Council adopted a new billboard ordinance, and this will go a long way in reducing illegal or grandfathered billboards on our corridors throughout our city. And finally, through the City Council's efforts and their own council committees, we are now receiving A and B grades for water quality. And all of our bodies of waters were once we just got D's and F's. So let's get into the budget. Our first core is to preserve services police, fire, public works, libraries, parks and all major services are preserved in this proposed budget. We're using proportionate share again, and that keeps budgets aligned with council priorities and incentivizes departments to be efficient. So you can see about 50% of our general fund goes to our police department. Approximately 19 or 20% goes to fire. And then the rest is divided among various various sources. Our focus continues to be on public safety. 70% of our general fund budget is devoted to public safety. We continue to have police and fire academies funded for this current year going forward. We're also adding police officers for Long Beach Transit and firefighters at the port. This budget also includes $2.2 million for enhanced overtime for gang prevention and other efforts and our Long Beach Police Department. We are also investing in police technology and also adding a brand new police station at East Station there at Willow and Lakewood Boulevard. And that should break ground shortly at the old Schroeder Hall and get our men and women out of that old, decrepit East police station there at the traffic circle. We're also using GMT money, state revenues for for new fire engines. I have to point out, if you look in the budget, we have five engines. But the council recently allocated some of the money for one of the engines to sidewalks for infrastructure. So they'll go to four. We also are going to fund our prior year commitments in the past when we would build a park. Sometimes we wouldn't provide parks and rec the money to maintain that park, and they would have to just divide up their expenditures to do that. This year, we're changing that. We're providing Parks Rec and Marine $287,000 for park maintenance and new parks like the expanded Shattuck Field. We're also adding $109,000 for a position to oversee things that are important to the Council for their policies. Language Access Plan, Violence Prevention Plan, Long Beach Grip and the Human Dignity Program will also provide $49,000 for a position to help improve our homeless services. As we prepare for the future, we also have some one time dollars available, about $11 million. And here's how we plan to spend that. Basically, we're investing in future efficiency improvements. We're investing in $2.45 million for park irrigation upgrades and water needs, as well as $1.37 million for artificial turf version. So we'll get a fourth artificial turf soccer field to match the three that were funded last year. This alone will save millions of gallons of water every year for Parks Rec and Marine. We're also setting aside $800,000 to purchase and install smart parking meters in Belmont Shore in the downtown, as well as $1.3 million in state air quality funds for fuel efficient vehicles and anti idling technology, which will save lots of fuel for us. We're also having a huge focus on critical infrastructure while the budget has $4.9 million in our residential street program. We're adding $1 million of one time dollars to match this. While our normal budget in the capital budget has $3 million for sidewalks, we're recommending another million dollars or one times to match that. We're also setting aside $2.1 million to guarantee that the library looks like I'm going to have them close the inner thing as we're testing out these new curtains here because it's a little sunny. So this won't close the whole thing. But it's just the. Actually, there's a there's an inner one, I think, from what they told me earlier. All right. There we go. Now it's so dark. Thank you. I was on the $2.1 million to make the North Library. All I can be are. But our bids came in for the North Library on target, and we're in great shape. But we want to guarantee that we can do the offsite and put all the fixtures and equipment in the new North Library that will get started shortly, as well as $400,000 for other critical equipment. We've done a lot of efficiencies and reorganizations. Our Long Beach Police Department is reorganizing to add 18 sworn police officers to the front line in police services to meet the needs out there on the streets. Development Services is restructuring their permit. Counter Public Works is reviewing project management and organization structures. Our health department is increasing grant funded positions to maximize money. Our Parks and Recreation Marine is reorganizing the Animal Care Bureau for more efficiency and oversight. We continue to fund our future commitments. The Council authorized or recommended 5% of non-recurring revenue for unfunded liabilities, and that is in here. And we're also recommending to transfer $3.1 million of temporary surplus to the CalPERS stabilization fund, which will protect us in the future from market fluctuations. There are challenges coming. City revenues are not sufficient to sustain service increases. We know that fiscal year 15 and fiscal year 16 are transition years. We know that expenses have been and are likely to continue to outpace revenues. Revenues excluding one time events have declined in the last five years. There's been negative basic growth. Our key personnel expenses category has increased an average between one and 7% over the last five years. So as we look for fiscal year 15 and fiscal year 16, it looks like we are going to have two years of what we call budget peace. But here's where I get to my winter is coming. Slide. Here's the CalPERS rate increases that is going to take care of our unfunded liabilities. As you can see, 15 in the blue area is the $41 million that we pay annually to pers. PERS is going to increase to smooth out the unfunded liabilities. And as people are living longer, they have to put more money into that as well. So in 17, we're going to see what we're predicting as a $13 million deficit in 18. We're looking at a $20 million deficit, and these are cumulative. In 1926, 20, a $33 million deficit, and in 21, a $35.6 million deficit. Now, after 21, we'll see that start to decline slightly, but 21 will be our big year. But again, winter is coming. We have other challenges. We have expiring employee agreements that we'll be taking up shortly. Our employee benefit costs continue to outpace inflation. We have unfunded liabilities, as we saw on Cal's a CalPERS pension that's going to be taken care of through the CalPERS payments. But we still have unfunded liabilities and sick leave, retiree health care subsidies and workers comp. Mr. West I also want to just make sure that that we know that, because I think it's an important point. If you look at that CalPERS chart on page 15 that Mr. West just went through. It's important to note that the the deficit that we're going to accrue is in direct relation, has a direct relationship to our payment that's going out to CalPERS. And so what we're essentially doing over the next few years is we're paying off what we really should have been paying off many, many years ago. So it isn't it's a deficit that we are that's been created because of our increased payment into the system. So the payment into the system is a really good thing because we need to obviously deal with our with our liabilities. So as you look at at those at those deficits in the future, those deficits, while certainly are are painful, and they will be over the next few years as they smooth out. We're going to be doing great damage to that to that pot of money that we owe. And so that is the really positive thing out of this, is that we're actually taking care of those payments through this new model with the staff level in the finance department. Couldn't agree more. As you pointed out earlier, it's going to be difficult, but very, very necessary. So we totally agree. We know that we're facing a $2 million. We're facing a deficit of $2.5 million in 16 and 8.5 and 17. This proposed budget applies $3.1 million of our fiscal year temporary surplus to help solve 16 and 17. So if we carry that surplus forward, we look for a zero deficit in 15. A zero deficit and 16. And a reduced deficit in 17. So the plan for success is to maintain our current services through proportionate share. This budget doesn't decrease any services. There are no new services without offsetting reductions. The police and fire academies provide for new police officers and firefighters. The budget continues to develop efficiencies and explore cost reductions. Are one time expenditures focus on reducing operating car calls costs. We're adding to our CalPERS stabilization fund and carry over temporary surplus moneys to address future deficits. And there's an additional funding for unfunded liabilities for the 5% council policy. This maintains a strong city services for our very diverse and vibrant community. It continues investment in city infrastructure. It maintains fiscal discipline and continues to develop efficiencies and explore cost reductions. We continue to maximize existing revenue and continue to look for new revenues and maintain our Long Beach fiscal health. So here's the budget timeline. Here's how we got to today. Beginning in March, the budget outlook was presented to the city council. On March 12th, we had instructions to the to the departments. In July, we started to submit all of the proposed budget to the mayor. July 3rd, July 9th, Mayor Foster submitted the proposed budget to the city council. And tonight we have Mayor Garcia submitting his recommendations on the budget. Let's take a quick peek at the budget timeline, and this is where we'll need input from. The City Council. While all of August will be devoted to community budget meetings, whether they're at in different districts or they're at various organizations, the mayor requests them during August. We're also expecting to have budget oversight committees with the new Budget Oversight Committee. So the next council, the next council meeting, we will have a budget hearing. We'll have budget hearings and all of our council meetings until we adopt the budget. So the next one we're recommending to begin with our public safety continuum. August 5th, we will start with public safety related items like code enforcement, parks and Rec, Marine and Library. On August 12th, we'll see public safety items like police and fire to continue that public safety continuum. August 19th will recommend public works, harbor and water. September 2nd, we stand prepared to have other departments as well, and that's the first opportunity for the council to adopt anything. And if you have any recommendations or requests for us, we certainly could alter these upcoming public hearings. And we could also add second meetings, of course, like one at 4:00 or 5:00 in another, one at a time certain at 7:00. So before I conclude, I do want to thank our department heads have worked so hard to put this budget and others together. I want to thank our finance director, John GROSS, the budget manager, Lia Erickson, Joe Martin, Tom Modica, Jeff Hall. And I mostly want to thank Suzanne Frick, who is going through her seventh and last budget with us. Her 250th city council meeting and next Friday will be her last day before she heads up to Idaho. So thank you very much. And we'd be happy to respond to any questions. But again, Mr. West, did you want to perhaps go through a capital improvement budget now and then? Any questions? We'd prefer to say that because it's so different than the average. Absolutely. Well, at this time, are there any questions from any council members REC and Councilmember O'Donnell? Just quick question with regard to the.
Speaker 2: I believe is $24 million cited coming back to the city had to do with redevelopment? Was that a $24 million figure?
Speaker 1: Yes. Some time ago, the state this goes into the the education augmentation fund. So we paid that once sometime ago. And then the state asked the agency to pay more money and a supplemental education reimbursement. It's called the CRF. So the agency to pay that needed to borrow the money from our low mod 20% housing fund. So we did that. And now as money is coming back to the city in the demise of the agency, that money has to come back and be paid to our 20% set aside fund. So that's something we knew is happening and it's coming back to repay the loan to the state of California for from our Longmont set aside fund.
Speaker 2: That that is you answer my question which is that money is locally dedicated.
Speaker 1: Typically dedicated to affordable low very and low affordable housing. It can't go to moderate our workforce.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 2: Yes. I mean, you know, Pat, I'd like to ask a question. You know, on Slide ten, what projects are going to be covered with the park irrigation upgrade and the.
Speaker 0: Artificial turf.
Speaker 1: The new irrigation system will cover Hartwell Park that's been identified as the one needing the most work and then the artificial turf field. We were hoping to get ADM Kid Park last year, but we just couldn't get the funds. So this will ramp up. ADM Kid Park for us. Thank you. Councilmember Gringo.
Speaker 5: On page 18, you have the police and fire academies to provide the new police officers, firefighters. Do you have an estimate as to what we're looking at for new hires?
Speaker 1: I'm I'm going to turn that over to John.
Speaker 2: The the both the fire and police academies will be based on attrition, and we'll be making those decisions later. We think the fire academy will be pretty close to the maximum size we can handle.
Speaker 1: Cotton blossom.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. City Manager, let me first of all commend you and the entire city staff, the administrative staff, for putting together this this, I think, very responsible budget thus far. I'm certainly looking forward to haggling over it a bit with my council colleagues. I support the the prefunding strategy to deal with the unfunded liabilities. I think that's very responsible. But I did have a couple of questions. I mean, I have a few questions, and I'll most of them will probably be answered as we would deal with department specific budgets in the weeks to come. But there was a couple of things that jumped out to me. On the $2.2 million in enhanced overtime for gang prevention and other efforts. Do you can you elaborate a little bit on that.
Speaker 1: Those dollars, that $2.2 million, this will go for overtime activities in the police department. We usually provide this every year out of the one times. This will be strictly under the the the observation of Chief McDonald and his team on where to put those dollars. In the past they've heard a lot of talk from the Council on the Community about frontline gangs teams and that's what they're preparing to use that for. But as I said, this will be at the discretion of the chief of police.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. And then regarding from funds for prior year commitments, the 280,000 $87,000 for park maintenance for new and expanded parks. Is this for park maintenance? These one time one time maintenance?
Speaker 1: This is this is excuse me, councilmember and mayor. This is structural money that will go to pay to and to take care of the extra added open space that we've put in, say, to the field. This will guarantee that we structurally can maintain the airfield and water it and any of the new parks that we've expanded or added.
Speaker 6: Do we have any other parks that we would apply this money to?
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely. Okay.
Speaker 6: And then the the the 1.3 million for artificial turf conversion, that only one soccer field.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's one soccer field. It's much more expensive than we thought it was going to be.
Speaker 6: Okay. And where exactly is that?
Speaker 1: That will go to Admiral Kidd Park. And that was a park that was on the list last year. But we can only do three instead of four. So we're keeping our commitment to get to Admiral Kidd Park.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also wanted to ask a few questions and and my compliments to the city management staff as well for the start. I am not aware you may have shown this on a slide, but do you have a schedule for the department specific presentations you did?
Speaker 1: Yes, we did. And again, we're looking for input on that. These are just our recommendations. So August 5th, public safety items like code enforcement, parks and Rec, Marine and Library, August 12th. Public safety items. Police and fire and the 19th. Public Works Harbor and Water. But as I said, we're looking for input and direction from the council.
Speaker 4: And in terms of how much time we have allocated historically, I don't think we've spent a lot of time necessarily to go over area by area, for instance, public safety for violent crime statistics. And so what I think we'll find from our individual council areas or neighborhood associations, I see one of mine in the audience right now that while citywide we have a 41 year low for violent crimes, we're going to hear hotspots. We're going to talk about hotspots. I have one of my commanders here as well. And so in the allocation of the $2.2 million for enhanced overtime for gang prevention and other efforts, as it's stated, can we anticipate more detail from the chief of police as to how that would be allocated? Not necessarily calling out particular areas and tipping off exactly where our focus would be, but to provide some assurance to neighborhoods that are really struggling, that aren't quite feeling this prosperity of the 41 year all time low.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Vice Mayor Yes, we certainly we want to see that. And I think I feel much better having the chief of police respond to those than myself.
Speaker 4: But will that be an instruction to your department head to do that?
Speaker 3: Absolutely, yes.
Speaker 4: That I wasn't clear about my question, but that's what I was looking for. And then on page nine for homeless services, the halftime position. I think the question was asked, but more specifically, would it be to improve the services in the field or administrative services or at the multi-purpose or multi-service center?
Speaker 1: I'm going to turn that over to Leah or John.
Speaker 3: Specifically, it's in the home, is in the center. However, the administrative duties that it performs will free up the equivalent of time in the field. So people who are currently now in the field and doing administrative duties can spend more time in the field.
Speaker 4: So do we have a situation where the folks that are in the field spend a considerable amount of administrative time? That is correct. Okay. And all right. So we should see a like for like our for our replacement of that. So ostensibly, that could translate to halftime in the field. Okay. And then page ten, we have the park irrigation upgrades. I know Long Beach Water and I and others have been working for a long time to get our irrigation systems upgraded so that we aren't manually hand cranking certain medians. Is this the type of upgrades that we're talking about so that we will be on a central command center type operation?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. This will be 21st century irrigation systems. And then when Parks and Rec Marine presents, Mr. Chapman can go into his other things that you've been working on with you for the past couple of years with MWD and our water department.
Speaker 4: Okay. And finally, for now, just a compliment to the $800,000 to purchase the smart meters. Those of us who have 100% parking impacted neighborhoods have been working on this for quite some time. I want to recognize Dave Roseman, whom I don't know if he's in the audience, but he made a trip all the way to the other end of the coast to Santa monica and and learn about how parking meters have increased revenues to about $100,000 a month in Santa monica, just by installing the sensors and the smart meters. So I want to thank the staff for making that field trip and doing their research. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Got some advice?
Speaker 3: Special thanks to the city staff for preparing this budget for us. I did have a question about the one time revenues here, the $11.7 million. It appears from looking at this list that there is no discretionary money set aside in there for the districts to use on their needs in their community. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Yes, correct.
Speaker 3: Having said that, I also note from the mayor's proposal that at least one of these anticipated costs is not quite ready for the expense, and that would be the emergency communications. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Councilmember, in looking at this, is the $400,000 that is set aside for operational needs. These are for some versus HPC systems, systems in some of our facilities. As you know, we've put together we started this budget about four months ago and putting it together and we put in the systems and as we got closer and closer to having public works, somebody analyzing them, we have some of the systems that actually do have some useful life on them. So this would come out of the VA system, HVAC system centers, so.
Speaker 3: That 300,000 is going to be allocated and is ready to be spent.
Speaker 1: The yes.
Speaker 3: Is there any other expenditure that's identified here that is maybe not ripe? For for us to spend money on quite yet.
Speaker 1: No, I haven't. I couldn't say yes to that. But again, all of this budget is at the discretion of the city council.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm going to also, just in addition to Councilmember Price, the one one of the one time discretionary that's in there that was the city manager proposal was to on top of what we're putting in for infrastructure and capital improvements. I believe he also put maybe I think it was 2 million additional to that capital improvement. So it's at the discretion of the council if that in the past has been used to infrastructure in the past. Former councilors have also used that for projects within districts, smaller infrastructure projects for park projects as well.
Speaker 4: Mr.. We may ask for clarification of Councilmember Price's question on the H. Vasey upgrade. So under your recommendations, your set of recommendations, I believe the fifth one was for Library and Arts Council, and it was a redirect of an HPC system funding that wasn't quite ready. And I think that's what I understood some. Mr. West that to 50 from HPC that is different is that different from the 300 that's on page seven of the community booklet. For Emergency Communications and HPC upgrade.
Speaker 1: We'd be able to handle most of the stuff in the EOC system, but was also allocated. Some of the money was allocated for other field HVAC systems. So that aren't ready at this time.
Speaker 4: That are not ready.
Speaker 1: Yes. But the rest of the money is going to be allocated. Definitely.
Speaker 4: So what you've identified here is ready to go? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Consumer prices driven into questions or no?
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Chancellor Richardson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So I want to begin by acknowledging this budget. I so you just referred to it as as a couple of years of budget piece. As chief of staff, I guess I was in a place of budget war. There's what Council Member Neal dealt with. So I'm happy this is our first budget. So good. Good work. A couple of things. I just want to note some steps in the right direction, but a few things I have some questions on. I think the the funding of the language access position is definitely most certainly a step in the right direction. I think the commitment that's being proposed to the North Library to make that project whole, that is certainly a step in the right direction. It's a long story there. But the fact that, you know, due to state action and loss of redevelopment and so on and so forth, many very important projects that we'd like to fund and we've taken steps in that direction. We haven't been able to see them to completion, so I'm happy that we can finally do that. So thanks. Thanks. On that, I think the the fact that the health department is increasing grant funded positions, I think that's that's that's a step in the right direction. I think the budget stabilization fund is a huge step in the right direction. However, I want some clarity on that. So is this 3.1 million, which is the one time that we didn't spend last year? Is that money? So we've got that that we're going to place into this budget stabilization fund. Is this the first allocation to the budget stabilization fund?
Speaker 1: I'm going to give that to Lia.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Richardson. So the there's 3.4 or 5 million from the 514 adopted budget that will be deposited in the stabilization fund at the end of this year. And then in the 15 proposed budget, there's an additional 3.1 million in the temporary surplus from 15 that would be deposited into the stabilization fund. And then based on Mayor Garcia's recommendations in the year end of 14, an additional 2 million, if realized, would be also deposited into the stabilization fund. So all told, totaled it would be about eight and a half million.
Speaker 2: So I certainly support the budget stabilization fund. I think it makes a lot of sense if we want to continue to have budget peace. But at the same time, I'd like for us to plan how large we want this fund to be so that we can make plans to allocate one times strategically. So they're not competing with other priorities, like the North Branch Library, like the one time funds. Councilmember Price mentioned, like the Highland Park Community Center that we took steps to fund in the last budget, we funded $3 million. But in this budget, as you can see, there's there's nothing allocated there. And in one budget we're making in one fell swoop, we're going to make an appropriation to two sounds like eight and a half million dollars to one fund. So I think that I absolutely agree that this is a step in the right direction. But we need to make sure that we make sense on how we do it and build that fund so that we're not damaging other projects that, like the library, haven't seen the complete funding to see to completion. Secondly, I don't know if this is the appropriate place to talk about this stuff, but I just want to acknowledge the mayor on some of the things in his recommendations. I thought they were they were pretty awesome. Just to name a couple of them. I talked about the stabilization fund. I think the the the Economic Development Property Property Development Bureau or the department. It's a great idea. It can add some. We struggled the last few years to build the uptown bid. And I see these folks here. We'll talk to them later. But we struggled the last few years to see that. And the fact that we'll have a department is focused on helping to support that, I think is really telling our businesses and and all of our sort of economic development partners that we're struggling since the last redevelopment, that we're going to be a partner with them. It's not just council officers and chiefs of staff figuring it out on their own. So thank you for that. The fact that you're investing in libraries, I think is a great step. I'm going to support that. I think the most impressive thing is, is asking that the council and city manager remove street sweeping. I think that's a great gesture to our city employees, especially considering that we're going to have to go into bargaining with them very soon. So it's a good step in the right direction. So I did want to acknowledge that I don't know if the timing was appropriate, but since I got to make them and talk about it lastly.
Speaker 1: It's always.
Speaker 2: Appropriate. It's all good. It's all good. Lastly, Councilmember Price, that I'd love to talk with you about how I've seen how the council in the past is unrestricted, some of the sidewalk and the street dollars too. So council members have more discretion on how that spent as long as it's maintained an infrastructure, just like the mayor and the vice mayor mentioned. So I'd love to talk with you offline or maybe in public. I guess that's how it works. Works now. I love to explore heading in that direction because we've done creative things in North Long Beach with that funding to improve our infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 3: Thank you. City management staff. This is, you know, really great. I appreciate it. And it hits on all of the first District kind of issues. Homelessness, of course, parking. So thank you. I did have a question, though, on on page 12. It just said briefly about restructuring the permitting counter for improve customer service. Were there any details that we can include in that? But Councilwoman Gonzales, by what they're going to be doing is converting some positions to two and I won't forget the title, but two professional level positions so that they're able to to provide better service. And then there is an actual addition of four positions at the permit counter. And those will be offset though by, by cuts elsewhere in the department to be FTE neutral. So it will be basically additional staffing and a professional level position. And I'll look up the title and get back to you in a second. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Any additional questions?
Speaker 4: Council Member No, no, thank you. Oh.
Speaker 1: See that there's those are all the council questions. What I'm going to do, Mr. West, is have you do Skype and then we'll open it up for public comment. Thank you. Mayor Councilmembers I'm going to turn it over to our public works director, our morning who's going to walk us through the our capital project. We're going to look at some of the projects that have just been completed. We're going to look at the projects that the council has already approved but have not yet broken grounds. You'll see those on a bullet list. And then we're going to look at the projects that are in the fiscal year 15 budget that the council needs to approve. Your basic duty tonight for this is to out to review it and give us direction. But obviously it needs to go to the planning commission and the commission needs to find it in conformance with the general plan, and then it will come back to the Council for adoption. So with that, I think our is ready. Mr. Russell, is there a handout for the council on this or no? Here they come.
Speaker 6: Honorable Mayor and the members of City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to present the City of Long Beach as a 514 Capital Improvement Program's accomplishments. Approve projects already in progress and 515. Proposed Capital Improvements. Budget. Before presenting the 515, I'd like to provide a short review of our efforts in FBI 14 in the Marines, beaches and waterways. We have completed the construction of the Belmont temporary pool that opened in December of 2013. Rehab, location and renovation of nine different beach restrooms from eighth place all the way to 62nd place. Restroom locations are eighth place. Cherry Beach. Coronado Junipero Bay Shore, North Bay Shore, South Grenada, Mothers Beach and 62nd place. The same fund. We had continued with a rehab of four beach parking lots, which were Mother's Beach, Claremont, 54th Street and Laverne and the Streets Section F y 14 Funds. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to conduct a Budget Hearing to receive and discuss an Overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2015 Budget for Parks, Recreation and Marine, Library Services, and Code Enforcement. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0528 | Speaker 2: By item eight is a.
Speaker 6: Report from Parks Recreation, Marine.
Speaker 2: Marine with the recommendation to authorize City Manager to action agreement with J.A. Michael Tar for three for a period of three months. October 1st, 2014 to December 31st, 2014 for the sale of Christmas year trees using a portion of the Pacific Electric Right of way property located on Seventh Street and Seymour Avenue in District three.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Price, would you like me to start with that city staffer? Would you like to take it away?
Speaker 3: I'm going to make a motion.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm going to make a motion to approve this particular item with the conditions that were submitted. Mr. Clarke, does everyone have a copy of the conditions that were submitted? Okay, so I'd like to make a motion to approve with those conditions.
Speaker 1: There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? CNN members, please go and cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Mr. O'Donnell had to leave for the rest of the.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next item.
Speaker 6: Item number 11 is a report from Councilmember. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute the Eighteenth Amendment to Lease No. 22897 with Jan and Michael Todd, for a period of three months, from October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, for the sale of Christmas trees, using a portion of the former Pacific Electric right-of-way property located between 7th Street and Ximeno Avenue. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0548 | Speaker 6: Item number 11 is a report from Councilmember.
Speaker 2: Rex Richardson, ninth District with a recommendation to approve the transfer of nine districts fiscal year, one time infrastructure funds and the amount of $100,000 to the Uptown Property Business Improvement District to fund early community services during its initial started period.
Speaker 1: How much of this over to Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. So the this this item is pretty self-explanatory. At the beginning of this year, the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District began operations and their essential purpose is to revitalize the Artesia and the Atlantic corridors. Along those corridors, the city, our school district, is making immense investments from our new library. We've had a lot of discussion on today to the revitalization of Jordan High School, to the new Halton Park Community Center that's proposed. And so this group has really stepped up in terms of agreeing to help keep our investments maintained in these last six months. They've taken great steps in creating a youth program to hire youth to help maintain these investments. But given that this is the first established business district post redevelopment, it's it's they're having some tough times getting off the ground. So what I'd like to do is make an appropriation to help them out from our ninth District Infrastructure Fund on a one time basis to help some of their startup costs associated with sort of, you know, uniforms and and getting their programs up, up and going. And and we work together on establishing an ongoing structural budget, not based on this, that they can continue to to to operate. But at this point and I don't know if is appropriate, but I want to introduce as you can see, there's some youth here. I'd like to make I thank you. So I'd like to make a motion to I'd like to mention one word. Oh, here we. Make a motion to approve this as a as written. Okay. This motion has meant it as written. Got it. But. But what I'd like to do is just introduced before.
Speaker 1: We do that. There's a there's a motion headed the second seconded by Councilmember Austin Councilmember.
Speaker 2: Thanks, but I want to introduce Lorraine Parker, who's our program manager, and Shawn, during who's our program coordinator and all these youth who are working with this bid through a special program with Pacific Gateway. And I don't know if it's appropriate time for them to say a few things now or just wait till public comment. Your pleasure.
Speaker 1: This is fine. Is part of the presentation. Please go ahead.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and councilmembers. My name again is Lorraine Parker and I am the program manager. I am joined by Shawn Durham and the.
Speaker 4: Youth group that's with me here today.
Speaker 3: First of all, I want to say congratulations to Mayor Garcia and all of the new councilmembers. I was privileged to attend the inauguration ceremony last week. Many of your words and messages were inspirational. Speaking of inspirational, I wanted to introduce you to the rest of my team. A couple of weeks ago, they arrived as youth workers from Pacific Gateways Hire Youth Program. Today, they are transitioning into a solid leadership team to help transform the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District into a thriving community by keeping the district clean, watering the newly planted trees that Mayor Garcia helped us plant, and interfacing with the business community and even participating in economic development discussions along with my team. Our goals are to develop a series of programs to improve the overall economic vitality of the uptown people. And we are carving that path through the various programs that we have already started to develop, such as our maintenance program. We are also currently working on implementing our own facade improvement program in conjunction with the one that's offered by the city a security program, an economic development program, and a marketing program. This proposed motion before you will help us to provide some of the financial resources that are much needed in order to kick off and accelerate these programs. And we thank you again for for your support. And I hope that you will support us in this endeavor. Go uptown.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And thank you all for the work of the speaker. Absolutely. Please come forward.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Irwin Galarza and I'm part of the Uptown Clean Team. I'm proud of it. I'm proud to be making a difference in their community. I'm looking for way to make it make it to like a better in their head for all of us. And thank you, Rex. And thank all of you guys. They gave us the opportunity to work and how they.
Speaker 1: Great job. Thank you. Thank you all for your service. Giving them a round of applause.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. At this moment, I'm going to take it back to the council. An additional public comment will do that. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor Garcia. And I want to thank Ms.. Parker and the Uptown Clean Team for coming out to the city council meeting this evening. The work you are doing is important and exciting. Exciting. It's exciting to watch the transformation of the North Atlantic corridor. And I want to commend my my new colleague here, Mr. Richardson, Councilmember Richardson, for his vision and leadership on this and very, very bold investment in the business district, as well as to the youth. And having having an out of the box vision. So thank you very much for what you're doing. And you can count on my support here this evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Got somebody, Ranga?
Speaker 5: I do want to express. Excuse me. I do want to express my. My presentation to Councilmember Richardson for his willingness to share his funds to fund such a program. It's always wonderful to see young people doing such good work. I also want to thank Mayor Garcia for his work on the of the day of service for the tree planting. I never worked so hard, not even in my own yard.
Speaker 1: But I'm going to tell you.
Speaker 2: I you watching. But what I.
Speaker 5: Want to also express is.
Speaker 2: That it's so.
Speaker 5: Great to see young people out there willing to participate in programs like this, because there are so many youth out there that don't take advantage of programs like these available that this program is able to grow and prosper.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Without any additional public comment on the item C nonmembers, please go out and cast your votes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Moving on to the next item.
Speaker 2: Adam 12, is a report from Financial Management with the recommendation to adopt specifications and award of contract to Chevrolet of Watsonville doing businesses wonders for recoup for the delivery of police pursuit vehicles an amount not to exceed $162,000 from. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to approve the transfer of the Ninth Council District's Fiscal Year 2014 one-time infrastructure funds in the amount of $100,000 to the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) to fund early action community services during its initial start-up period; and
Decrease appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $100,000, and increase appropriations in the General Fund (GP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $100,000. (District 9) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0532 | Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes. Yes, 1414 is a report from Health and Human Services. It was the recommendation to authorize city manager to execute agreement between the city and the county of Los Angeles, to provide bioterrorism, prepared preparedness and public health infrastructure development for a total grant award of $2.8 million.
Speaker 1: The second grade has been in motion in a second. On the side of any public comment on the item seen on Mr. Wesson, this is a pretty important topic and is a big grant. Do you want to give us a quick update so we can have a quick report from Cheryl Barrett, one of our health department bureau managers.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Members of the City Council. This grant is something that we get as a recipient of funding opportunity direct from the CDC to L.A. County. We have been partners in this endeavor high as a regional effort in terms of increasing our capacity as a local health jurisdiction in responding to public health emergencies. Your health department will be the lead in terms of mass prophylaxis effort. And in particular, the funding that we're getting.
Speaker 4: This time around is.
Speaker 3: Really building our capabilities.
Speaker 4: For our public health laboratory and additional surveillance, as well as our community.
Speaker 3: Resilience effort to take part in an overall regional approach to community disaster recovery and also increasing the number of volunteers that we have in terms.
Speaker 4: Of surge capacity for those.
Speaker 3: Emergency situations.
Speaker 4: Let's remember your anger is.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Having worked at the Health Department and having been there with some of these exercises that the that they do in and the emergency preparedness totally supportive of this. It's another example of how our health department provides a wonderful service to the city in providing the safety for its citizens. And I totally support this.
Speaker 4: Seeing no further comment here. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on item 14? Seeing none of members cast your vote. I'm a yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Would you please cast your vote? Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 4: Item 15. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an amendment to the existing grant agreement between the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles to provide bioterrorism preparedness and public health infrastructure development, to extend the term of the agreement from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2015, and to accept additional funding of $919,328, for a total grant amount of $2,817,484. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0538 | Speaker 2: Item 22 Recommendation received for the application of Tiers Catering Dude and businesses the urban table four for an original ABC license at 5000 East Second Street. This is in District three.
Speaker 1: Turn this over to Councilmember Price.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have spent quite a bit of time working with this business owner, as well as the residents. It's going to be my recommendation that we approve this item with the specific conditions that have been drafted. And I believe this business is going to be a great addition to our community. And I know that the business owners are here and they'd like to address the council and be my I move at this time to approve this item.
Speaker 1: There's been a motion and a second now we'll open it up to public comment. Please come forward.
Speaker 3: I'm Carolyn Bear, and this is my husband, Sam Isaac. And we really want to thank all of you for hearing us. Thank you so much, Suzy and Ricky and Julie, for getting us through this process. We're opening up a market cafe on Second Street, and we're really excited about it and looking forward to welcoming, welcoming all of you to visit us soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Sounds delicious. We'll be there.
Speaker 2: I might. Sheldrake. I'm the president of the Belmont Shore Business Association, and I'm also the proprietor of Polly's Gourmet Coffee. I recommend that you approve this license. These folks are food service professionals. They have experience in handling alcohol in a commercial environment. They're going to put in a great operation, and I support them completely. I would also suggest that you approve this license with as few conditions as I'm sorry, as few unnecessary conditions as possible, because any limitation on their ability to sell illegal product in a responsible manner reduces the public's opportunity to enjoy their product and also reduces their chance to generate revenue and be successful.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Am I going to get some good coffee back here?
Speaker 2: Is this coffee? You have some pretty good coffee. You don't have some good coffee.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Why don't you bring him good coffee? Ready?
Speaker 2: I move. I so move. We do it. Good evening, everyone. My name is Bill Beer. I haven't had a chance to meet some of the new council members, so I'll take a real quick opportunity to say hello and congratulations to all of you. Mr. Mayor, congratulations to you again. I'm pretty well known in Belmont. Sure. And I wanted to come down here tonight to support these guys, the business that was there before them, which they will have a fairly similar business to. They didn't do so well. They failed after seven years. That's why this couple has an opportunity to try again. One of the reasons I think they failed is they didn't get a liquor license, a beer and wine license. I think it makes a big difference to this kind of a business. I've saved a couple of businesses in Belmont. Sure. We have a hardware store in Belmont. Sure. Because I went out of the way, was willing to take a lower than market rent, help them stay. We have a bike store because I do the same thing for a bike store down there. They basically couldn't afford the rents otherwise. This is the kind of business we need to keep. It's a market. We don't have another market in Belmont. Sure. If you need a carton of eggs, if you need some bananas, you need something like that. You can't get it at Rite Aid. It's not in Belmont. Sure. So this is the kind of business we need to help make. Makes a very good point about the conditions. These need to be conditions that are reasonable that will allow this business to operate and be successful. That's my $0.02. And I really appreciate you listening to us and I hope you'll approve this. Thank you very much. Thank you. And one last thing I know, Susie put a lot of time to this. I know it was her first alcohol issue in Belmont. Sure. And congratulations, Susie. Good job.
Speaker 1: Thank you. See no other public comment and take this back to. Do you have any anything else, Councilmember Price? No. Okay, great. With that, we have a motion on the floor to approve with conditions as submitted. Concern. Boston. Northern accident. Okay. With motion on the floor. With approval as submitted by Councilmember Price. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes. Okay. Thank you and.
Speaker 1: Congratulations. Look forward to a great new business. And moving on to the next item, Mr. Kirk.
Speaker 6: Is a. | ABC License | Recommendation to receive and file the application of Cheers Catering, Incorporated, dba Urban Table, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 5000 East 2nd Street. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0543 | Speaker 2: A motion carries eight votes to 25, so a recommendation to adopt plans and specifications and award of contract to Sully Miller for the improvement of Artesia Boulevard between West the West City limit and Butler Avenue for an amount not to exceed $965,000, and to also enter a cooperative agreement with the City of Compton for two additive bid cost items.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just want to take the time to acknowledge the city staff, more specifically public works for their great work on this portion of Artesia Boulevard. For folks who might not know, this is what connects. This is adjacent to the Compton border, and it connects Compton College to essentially star King Elementary. So it's an important corridor and there's a bike lane and other things built into it. So we're really excited about this and we're hoping that in the years to come we can go ahead and connect the Artesia Corridor and improve it from Compton to Long Beach to we board of Paramount in the City of Bellflower. So this is really important and I think city staff in the work and so moved together.
Speaker 1: Has been in motion in a second. Is there any public comment? See none. Members, cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Richardson. The motion carries eight votes. 2626 is a recommendation to drop specification awards contracts for as needed. Landscape architectural services to four landscape architecture firms in amount not to exceed in the aggregate $3 million cash. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6974 for the improvement of Artesia Boulevard, between the west City limit and Butler Avenue; award the contract to Sully Miller Contracting, of Brea, CA, for the base bid in the amount of $744,660, and additive bid items AB-1 through AB-22 in the amount of $94,913, for a total of $839,573, plus a 15 percent contingency of $125,936, for a total contract amount not to exceed $965,509; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto;
Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Compton, including any necessary amendments thereto, for reimbursement of additive bid costs for items AB-1 though AB-22 in the amount of $94,913, plus a 15 percent contingency of $14,237, and prorated costs estimated at $22,186 for design, construction engineering and inspection, project management and administration, for an estimated prorated share amount of $131,336; and
| LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0546 | Speaker 2: Vote. Motion carries eight votes. Next item this is a recommendation to adopt declare an ordinance amending the municipal code regarding the abatement of public nuisance as a rental properties and related to controlled substances and manufacturing. Read the first time lead over to the next regular meeting.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 1: Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Councilmember Turanga.
Speaker 5: Yes, I had a couple of questions also with the city attorney earlier today and he satisfied my my question in regards to the involvement of the property owner in this in this thing, because I'm sure that there will be some future concerns from property owners that they are having tenants evicted without their knowledge or without their support . So I think it's an opportunity to give property owners an opportunity to evict nuisances if they if it's so fun to be that way. And City Attorney Park in LA satisfied my questions regarding that.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Is there any public comment?
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Clive Graham, and I'm the president of the Apartment Association, California Southern Cities. Three, three, three, West Broadway, right across the street. First of all, Mr. Mayor, no members of the city council. Congratulations on your election. Welcome aboard. Good to have you all here. For those of you who are returning, it's good to see some familiar faces, too. Our association is a nonprofit professional association for apartment owners and managers. We are composed of over 3000 members in the 56 cities surrounding Long Beach, the Greater South Bay area. And we want to be here to help you in your jobs. And we do plan to meet with you all and get to know you personally, all the new members, and and be on your team, too. Regarding this particular ordinance. Mr. TURANGA This is nothing new to the apartment owners. This is a blessing to the apartment owners. This is why it has saved some apartment owners lives. This pilot program has taken offenders who need to be evicted, who have threatened the lives of their landlords and property owners and taken it off the back of scared landlords. And the city attorney's office has taken it on. The city of Long Beach has done a marvelous job with this over the past many years. We applaud that this item has been renewed and encourage it being continued. We do, however, request that a couple minor changes be made to it. There is in the State Assembly Assembly Bill 2485 Dickenson on the same subject. We would request that since the city ordinance is almost word for word verbatim of that bill with a couple of minor exceptions, those exceptions be included in the city ordinance. One simple one. The city ordinance calls for the notice of the tenants to be in 13 point type. The state law calls it to be an 14 point type technical problem, but a defendant could use that as a great defense and have the whole notice process thrown out because it didn't conform. Secondly, we request that paragraph 19.6030. Paragraph E include the additional language. An owner shall only be required to pay the costs or fees upon acceptance of the assignment and the filing of the action for unlawful detainer by the City Attorney. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So I'm just curious, Mr. City Attorney, would you mind walking me through, just step by step, how something like this happens, how you use this ordinance? How this ordinance works?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. Mayor. Members of the City Council.
Speaker 2: Thank you. As I've mentioned.
Speaker 1: The city has been.
Speaker 2: Doing this process or processing these types of evictions for over a decade. We've been participating a participating jurisdiction in evicting landlords using the unlawful detainer process. We are one of three cities that were the pilot program Long Beach, Los Angeles and Sacramento. And over the term of this pilot program, Long Beach has used this program more than any other city. We allow it allows us to file against tenants for illegal drugs and illegal weapons. The ordinance before you this evening only deals with the illegal drug component. And the goal, of course, is to eliminate nuisance and improve the community and to assist. As you mentioned, there are certain landlords maybe who are afraid of the tenant or.
Speaker 1: Other tenants who are afraid.
Speaker 2: To come forward with their complaints. As mentioned, the city attorney has to provide the landlord with 30 days notice prior to filing the legal action against the tenant, the city attorney. And we also notify and provide the tenant with the documentation supporting the eviction or the reasons for the eviction. And then the property owner may move forward after we've notified the property owner. So they have a choice that they can move forward or they can request that our office brings the unlawful detainer action, or if we don't hear from them, we can move forward and bring the action on behalf of the city to.
Speaker 5: Eliminate the nuisance at that location.
Speaker 2: So we in the last year, I think we reviewed almost 3000 police reports, and I think we caused about 280 or 290 relocations during the last year in which the records were kept. And I believe that's calendar year 12. So we have found this to be a very effective tool in working with the police department to eliminate certain problems at certain residential locations where the tenants are known to be dealing narcotics in this particular case. So we have found we can and to address the two points raised by the Speaker. The ordinance, as it's currently written, is Sunset has sunset, but it allows cities to adopt their own ordinance. We were currently or previously following authorization under the Civil Code. So the Civil Code allows us to adopt.
Speaker 1: Our own ordinance.
Speaker 2: So we don't believe, while we could certainly.
Speaker 1: Change it from a 13 point.
Speaker 2: Font to a 14 point font, we are substantially compliance. All of our other city notices are in 13 point font. That's why we went with that notice font provision.
Speaker 1: And then for the filing, we don't actually file.
Speaker 2: Until after we've completed, so there's no chance of us running afoul of the state law. In fact, if 24, I think it's 85 passes, it's currently pending. So we don't know if that ordinance is going to pass or that legislation in Sacramento will pass, but it's currently pending as indicated. So we believe this is a good opportunity for the city to maintain this program, that we have code enforcement, we work closely with code enforcement also and the police department. And we would hope you would support this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Got somebody, Ranga?
Speaker 5: Thank you. Is there a threshold in violations that would trigger an eviction or is there a low tolerance or no tolerance? So whatever on this, whatever others.
Speaker 2: May are members of the council. That's an excellent question.
Speaker 1: There is a a balancing test.
Speaker 2: If you will, on the eviction of the offense. We as I said, we reviewed almost 3000 police reports that were submitted for potential action under this program. We only have one attorney handling it. So we do try and take the most egregious cases and deal with those as fast as we can. But there is a a balancing test so that if there is if they're cooking it on the stove, it's pretty obvious everyone in the house knows what's going on in the house. And so we would we would move that forward to evict if it's something that's hidden in one of the children's backpacks in a bedroom where there wasn't any a notice and the parent has that person leave the house. You know, that's another that's the opposite in a situation where there maybe wasn't notice and then we would not move forward with that. So we do look at each and every case as an individual case and depends on the facts and the circumstances, a situation that we can feel, that we can go to court with the officer's police report and that officer's testimony in order to withstand the scrutiny of the court.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Q Mustache.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Concern over a price hike.
Speaker 3: I'm fully supportive of this this item. I want to commend our city attorney's office. And I'm sad to hear that we only have one deputy city attorney working on this, because when it comes to quality of life issues, if you live in an apartment building with a drug dealer that is sharing space with your child, that is the worst condition to live in. So and for the landlord and for anyone else who is involved with with a an environment where there is drug dealing and drug possession going on, it's it's a really terrible way to live. So I support our city's efforts to do everything that we can. I absolutely would support a zero tolerance, but I understand that because of staffing, we can't go after every single situation that comes up. But I certainly think we need to be aggressive. And I had no idea that our city was working for so many years on this effort. So I commend you for that and I fully support this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 3: Also, I want to I also want to voice our support. We were lucky enough to utilize this at a particular instance in our district, and it was a lifesaver to the family and the community. Drugs are not welcome in our community, especially in these kind of situations. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We've had public comment as well as council comment. There's a motion on the floor, so please, members, cast your vote.
Speaker 2: A motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Moving on to the next item.
Speaker 2: It's a recommendation to amend the municipal code relating to the distribution of handbills or other printed materials or written matters of merchandise. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapter 9.16 in its entirety, relating to abatement of public nuisances caused by illegal conduct involving sale or manufacturing of controlled substances, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0547 | Speaker 2: It's a recommendation to amend the municipal code relating to the distribution of handbills or other printed materials or written matters of merchandise. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting.
Speaker 1: Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Mr. City Attorney, do you want to kind of brief the council briefing on that?
Speaker 2: Certainly. Thank you. May remember as the city council, this this is strictly a cleanup item based upon recent case law decision. It has caused us to reexamine this particular section of the municipal code. And we have changed that to.
Speaker 5: Be in compliance with the recent case law. So we're eliminate a challenge.
Speaker 1: Excellent. I see no public comment on the item. Oh, there.
Speaker 0: Is. Please come forward.
Speaker 2: Just when you least expect it. Hi again, council members and Mr. Mayor, Gary Shelton once more. I appreciate all the work to our wonderful new city attorney does to keep us out of trouble on things like this. On this particular item, in looking at the discussion on your on your agenda packet, the front page of that, it mentions exactly what is being gutted out of this ordinance, which is, you know, the distributing or handing out a printed merchandise, advertising, so on and so forth. That's leaving the ordinance. And the ordinance is basically I'm I guess I'm stumbling because I'm having trouble understanding what it is prohibiting now. Whether it's requiring a permit to do all it says is that it's you need a permit to post a permit to post notices on public property. So the order and it's talked about things that were pretty obvious and but those won't hold over the people will look at this in the future to figure out what can I do. Won't won't quite.
Speaker 1: Understand.
Speaker 2: Whether it means putting a yard sale sign on a tree or whether it means like across the street, Bono's putting a a sandwich board out on the sidewalk or in a Victory Park public property, of course, or perhaps driving.
Speaker 1: I mean, strange things.
Speaker 2: Driving a bus down a city street with a sign on the side of it. These are notices and they're posted according to the there's no definitions. And so my initial thought was.
Speaker 1: The ordinance needs some.
Speaker 2: Explanation as to what posting and what notices would be defined as, but maybe even better is that you simply gut the whole thing and replace it with nothing and repeal it. I don't see how what we're left with is going to be enforceable. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And the other public comment on the item. Casey None believe there's a motion on the floor. Mr. Clarke. Yes. And so please cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 1: Okay, next item.
Speaker 2: Everyone needs a recommendation to declare an ordinance amending the dress code relating to real estate purchase contracts read and adopted as read. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 5.46.060, relating to the public posting prohibited, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0441 | Speaker 1: Item one. Item one requires a note that it does report from financial management recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of rice and beans located at 2142 East Fourth Street for entertainment without them seen by patrons to stick.
Speaker 0: Thank you to all those who intend to give testimony in the matter of hearing item number one. Please stand and have the clerk administer the oath.
Speaker 1: Please raise your right hand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Speaker 0: I think I heard around the yeses.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: All right. You're going to win one. Miss Frick?
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am. Members of the council, Jason McDonald will provide the staff report on this item.
Speaker 0: Mr. Dome.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor. Council members Jason McDonald for the Business Services Bureau. Tonight you have in front of you the application for entertainment without dancing for rice and bean diva for street vine at 2142 East Fourth Street in District two, all the necessary departments have reviewed the application. The application and proposed conditions are contained in the packet provided and we are prepared to address any questions or concerns along with the police department regarding the application or those conditions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is there any public comment on this? Anyone wish to give public comment on this? Hearing an application. Please come forward. Identify yourself. Please make sure you identify yourself. And when you see the yellow light, you'll have 30 seconds left in your testimony. Thank you.
Speaker 2: I'm Michael McTigue. I'm a resident of that area.
Speaker 0: I moved in there about 14 years ago, bought.
Speaker 2: A small apartment building. And I want to show my strong support for the entertainment license application. And the impact this business has had on the neighborhood is measurable in many ways. Prior to their opening the Wilson Little Node on Fourth Street, the area was perceived as stodgy and was over lackluster. Since then, Fourth Street has grown into one of long beaches, most vibrant areas, and the owners of the fourth Street buying played no small part in this renaissance. The Street bustles with boutiques, restaurants, galleries has received national exposure in print and of course, the renovated art theater. This is a true synergy that is homegrown and not dependent on grants or handouts. Throughout the course of opening and operating a business, the owners have worked doggedly to support musicians and artists and have developed a unique atmosphere conducive to conversation and a place where you can meet your neighbors. There are no television sets here. It was interesting. Art shows events to cater to. The diverse nature of that has.
Speaker 0: Grown up around retro rock.
Speaker 2: Throughout this time, we have never seen a disturbance, rowdy drunks, squealing tires, vandalism that of late seems to define second and third street areas. In part, this has to do with the hours of operation, but mainly the high standards and hands on management over managers. This type of dedication, hard work, risk taking and forward thinking should be encouraged and celebrated. I do hope you can see that this application, if approved, will not only strengthen the neighborhood and this terrible loss of more jobs, more renovation, greater property and sales tax revenue, and personally allows me to attract good tenants to my property, which a few years ago these people would be hesitant to cross for a street. And Redondo.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You appreciate that. Next, please again, please state your name. Yellow light means you have 30 seconds left.
Speaker 2: My name is Porter Gilbert. I'm the executive director of the LGBTQ Center of Long Beach, Mayor and members of City Council. Thank you for the opportunity.
Speaker 1: To speak this evening.
Speaker 2: And I'm here because the LGBTQ center of Long Beach strongly supports the application for an entertainment permit, as we believe this will lead to increased public safety along the fourth Street corridor, fourth Street. Bane's presence.
Speaker 1: On Fourth Street, particularly in the evening.
Speaker 2: Hours when retail stores are closed.
Speaker 1: Is integral to the increasing sense of safety our staff.
Speaker 2: Volunteers and clients report. When entering and leaving our organization, which is just down the street.
Speaker 1: The center deeply respects and maintains.
Speaker 2: A strong professional relationship with the owners, management and staff of Fourth Street Vine. And we have never.
Speaker 1: Experienced any nuisance.
Speaker 2: From the customers entering or leaving their.
Speaker 1: Business.
Speaker 2: On the contrary, the increased foot traffic resulting from customers patronizing for street buying creates a safer fourth street for residents.
Speaker 1: Customers.
Speaker 2: And business owners. The customers Patronizing Fourth Street Vine represent the right kind of people. We want that fourth street people who support local business and our local economy conduct themselves with respect and create additional foot traffic in the evening hours. The customers of Fourth Street Vine.
Speaker 1: In addition.
Speaker 2: In addition to increased foot traffic.
Speaker 1: In the evening hours, act as a deterrent to those.
Speaker 2: Along Fourth Street.
Speaker 1: Who.
Speaker 2: Are visiting us with the intent to engage in criminal activity. As businesses keep later hours along Fourth Street, we've.
Speaker 1: Felt safer entering and leaving our.
Speaker 2: Organization and have noticed a decrease in graffiti and vandalism along the street.
Speaker 1: Many of us at the Center Patronize.
Speaker 2: Fourth Street, buying for both business and pleasure and have never experienced any nuisance associated with their business again. We strongly support this application for an.
Speaker 1: Entertainment permit.
Speaker 2: And we support our fourth street line as a thriving local business along Fourth Street and rely on their customers to serve as the eyes and ears and our community in the evening hours. This permit will only serve to improve public safety and create a stronger and more vibrant retro. Roberto, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next to.
Speaker 1: Good evening, counsel. My name's Janine Pearce. I'm a second district resident. I'm not going to repeat too much of what I did and said. I just wanted to say I live right directly behind the establishment. I think it's a wonderful establishment and the owners have done a great deal to include the entire community and making sure that it's something we can all benefit from and and really feel like it's changing our community. So I really look forward to seeing your support tonight for this great small business. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Actually.
Speaker 1: Hello, mayor and council members. My name is Joel Family and I'm a first district resident and also an area representative of the newly formed Long Beach Music Council. I'm here this evening to respectfully request that you approve the entertainment permit for Fourth Street Line. I'm also requesting that their permit be extended to host live entertainment at the venue starting at 11 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays as opposed to 5 p.m. so that they may also participate in Fourth Street Retro World Events.
Speaker 2: Fourth Street Vine has had a.
Speaker 1: Positive impact on both the Fourth Street Corridor and the Greater Long Beach area. Since operating at their current location, they have consistently provided a place for Long Beach musicians and visual artists to perform and display their art. Access to quality content is paramount in.
Speaker 2: Enabling a thriving art.
Speaker 1: Scene. Supporting life music is a proven economic driver in cities such as Seattle, Austin and Dallas, and with the right supports put in place for all stakeholders. The kind of sensible foundation that has helped other cities to succeed is well within our grasp, and our community has commonly held a commonly held belief that Long Beach is a complaint driven city. And although I understand the needs of residents, it is it seems reasonable to allow our businesses to freely operate within appropriate restrictions so that they may effectively provide the kinds of content that bring people to choose to spend their dollars within our city's borders. Increased traffic to areas during times when live entertainment is being provided is a good indicator that this is something our community values in terms of numbers are simply more people supporting music and art than there are people complaining about it. The recommendations provided by the Department of Financial Management Chief of Police Jim McDonnell in the Planning Bureau of.
Speaker 2: The Department.
Speaker 1: Of Development Services appear to be more than adequate to ensure that noise issues are managed in a way that is fair to both Fourth.
Speaker 2: Street Line.
Speaker 1: And the surrounding neighborhood. So we ask you respectfully to please approve the Fourth Street Band Entertainment Permit, and thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next to.
Speaker 2: I am Jim Ritson, one of the owners of Fourth Street Vine. And I just wanted to thank you for your consideration for our application permit and just just request one change if we are granted the application for the permit for entertainment, if we could adjust the hours on Saturdays and Sundays to allow us to begin entertainment at 11 a.m. instead of the 2:00 time. Noted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Everyone's got to remember the window.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank those residents and stakeholders that came out to provide some comment. We also had just just so folks know that there were a lot more interested parties in this issue than those that were able to come today. We had several letters and emails sent to us, Mr. Mayor, just to get the conversation going, or at least make a motion. I'd like to make the motion to close the hearing and approve the permit with conditions, but also make some comments and amendments to the conditions. If I could have a second.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 5: Councilmembers. And Mr. Mayor, this item was postponed from our last meeting, as you know, to allow the applicant an opportunity to work with neighbors and give certainly my office some time to consider whether any additional conditions might address concerns presented by neighbors whom we heard from last Tuesday. Those concerns mainly focused on music, volume, noise and smoke emanating from customers on the patio, open doors and rooftop windows open during entertainment and trash or recycling being emptied late at night, creating further disturbances as individuals rummaged through their containers, which is all very understandable. Those of us who have entertainment venues in our districts and certainly in the dining and entertainment district and downtown, these are similar concerns that we've heard and not unreasonable. They're very real concerns, but ones that I believe that the owners and our city staff can address through responsible operation and enforcement. We have experience with that through also the venues that have come through our dining and entertainment district. I appreciate the residents who suggested additional conditions for the permit in an effort to seek compromise. I'm also very appreciative of the owners, Jim and Sophia, who reached out to and listened to the concerns of their neighbors and are taking action to address these concerns. I've actively witnessed them doing so, and I'm very thankful for that. Those actions include moving and delineating a smoking area on the patio away from residents, installing baffling, which is a sound wall on the property line to reduce noise and installing signage and changing protocol to eliminate loitering and dumping of trash and recycling at night. I'd also like to point out that the conditions required for entertainment include language that also protects residents, such as requiring that all doors and windows, including rooftop windows, be closed during entertainment, prohibiting loitering by entrances and exits. No speakers on the patio, no dumping of trash or recycling into outside dumpsters between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.. Requiring the owners to monitor and reduce any nuisance to neighbors, including loitering and loud talking and sound, shall not be audible beyond 50 feet from exterior of the premises in any direction. These are all articulated in in the agenda item. I'm pointing them out just to illustrate that the owners are very aware of these conditions, are very amenable to them, and have been working with the community to accommodate them. I believe these actions and conditions mostly address the resident concerns but want to modify the recommended conditions in the following manner. Number one, in recommended condition number 12, it is stated that should the permits operations give rise to a substantial increase in complaints, calls for service or trash found in the parking lot or neighborhood, the perimeter shall increase staff or employ uniformed licensed security guards as directed by the chief of police. So that would be that would be something new, and that would certainly be something that is very doable and honoring and understanding that this is a neighborhood as well. Number two, I would like to amend the condition to read should the permits operations give rise to a noticeable increase in complaints or calls for service concerning noise, loitering or other elements of the entertainment permit, the permittees shall be required to make changes as directed by the Chief of Police. Finally, number three, I would also like to amend condition number three to read as follows Entertainment activities indicated on page seven of your entertainment application shall be restricted to Sunday through Thursday, and this is, as it was stated, 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. and Friday through Saturday 5 p.m. to 1 a.m.. I know there's currently a request to have it start earlier. I think we can start that with sweeps and revisit that at a later date, but we can do the occasional event permanent to accommodate that request and then look at it again. And I'm very open to doing so and I think that that would not be problematic. If we can start with an EP, I think the neighborhood is amenable to that as well. But if we start with OPI, I think it's a good show of faith. I believe these amended conditions strike a compromise. Enable enabling live entertainment to be offered on retro road while protecting residents from the noise impacts associated with the patio late at night. This is not the downtown dining and entertainment. District or even Belmont Shore, but rather a small business corridor in the heart of our residential neighborhood. And I want to commend both the owners for being.
Speaker 1: Very.
Speaker 5: Dynamic with their business operation in an area that is really just a neighborhood and a business corridor and being very much a part of the vibrancy of that community. The hours and conditions of entertainment are in keeping with other operators on Broadway and Fourth Street, and therefore I hope that this Council can provide their support for these conditions and also provide their support for these business owners that have done a tremendous job over the last several years in growing their business and really becoming a part of a fabric of that community. With that, Mr. Maher, I'd like to call for an eye vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion as amended.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 0: Council discussion. All right, members, cast your votes on hearing item number one.
Speaker 1: Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 0: Thank your members. We're going to hearing item number two, which also requires an oath clerk read. | Contract | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Rice & Bean, Inc., dba 4th Street Vine, 2142 East 4th Street, for Entertainment Without Dancing by Patrons. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0465 | Speaker 1: Item number two report from financial management recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Tree Cut Productions located at 4 to 3 Shoreline Village Drive Suite E for Entertainment Without Dancing by Patrons District two.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, all those who intend to give testimony in the matter regarding hearing item number two, please stand and have the clerk give.
Speaker 1: They'll please stand and raise your right hand, you and each of you, to solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the course now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 1: Think it.
Speaker 0: Is fair.
Speaker 1: Yes, me or members of the council, Jason McDonald will provide the staff report on this one also.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. Council Members. Jason McDonald again for the Business Services Bureau. This next application is for Entertainment Without Dancing for Trick Out Productions, LLC, Deviation and Egan's Irish Pub and Grill at 43 Shoreline Village Drive, Suite A in District two, all the necessary departments have reviewed the application. The application of those conditions are contained in the packet provided and we are prepared to address any questions or concerns along with the police department regarding the application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: The Council questions the public comment on hearing item number two. If there is, please come forward. Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 5: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move the item received and support documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with attach conditions for the application of shenanigans. Second Pub and Grill.
Speaker 0: Moved and seconded any council discussion. CNN Members Cast your votes in hearing item number two.
Speaker 1: Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Members will now go to hearing item number three, which I think also requires vote clerk read. | Contract | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Treecat Productions, LLC, dba Shenanigans Irish Pub & Grille, 423 Shoreline Village Drive, Suite A, for Entertainment Without Dancing by Patrons. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0466 | Speaker 1: Item number three report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive supporting document documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of EGIS Business Investments located at 4115 Viking Way for entertainment without dancing by Patrons District five.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Frick.
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 0: And all those who intend to give testimony in the matter of hearing item number three, please stand and have the clerk administer the oath.
Speaker 1: Please raise your right hand. You and each of you do solemnly state that that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Mr..
Speaker 1: Yes. And once again, Jason McDonald will provide the staff report on this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. Council members and Jason McDonald for the Business Services Bureau. You have in front of you the application for entertainment without dancing for ages. Business Investments LLC doing business as the station at 4115 Viking way in District five. All the necessary departments have reviewed the application. The application and proposed conditions are contained in the packet provided and we are prepared to address any questions or concerns along with the police department. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Sir. Any any council discussion? I know any member of the public wish to address the Council on item number three. Please come forward when you see the light. You've got 30 seconds left. Please identify yourself.
Speaker 2: Jean Rotondo. Living at 7488 El Paseo in the district of which the establishment is located. I am the consultant for the establishment. Seeking a entertainment license. I was called in or about three months ago to help save the institution. Previously known as Sara Bellows is on the verge of failure. So we implemented a few things in there and we've reestablished and reached out to the community. Getting back to the things that it did, made it successful way back when it did have an entertainment license. But the people who were operating it, they really weren't up to date on what was going on. So that's why we're here today. We have no issue with any of the conditions on the entertainment license except to request a modification on the time of the entertainment. One of the things that's a little difficult is the entertainment. It's a sports bar restaurant, and a lot of the sporting events don't finish up until nine, 10:00. So the entertainment, consequently the difficult to get it started until that time. In general, you have to engage these people for about 3 hours. So I'd request, if we could, to have the entertainment finish about 15 minutes to closing on the day. So we have entertainment. The entertainment is essentially comedy and country and blues and what they call cover music. And we don't have any hip hop in there or any of that type. We need to be competitive with the establishments right across the border over there. Lakewood and a lot of the business that we get later in the evening is from the service industry. And unlike regular people who go to work, finish up five or 6:00, get cleaned up, go out, have some entertainment, eat whatever the people who serve you really don't finish up until ten, 11:00. So we like to be able to service the people who service us. We want to be competitive. We've created since we took the management position in there, we've created about a 15 to 20 more jobs there. So we'd like your support to make that adjustment. There is also a thing that says that we can't serve anybody under 21 after 10:00. And part of the problem is because you have sporting events, sometimes they don't finish. I like to be modified so that we as long as we're serving food there, that families can be there with their their family. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: CUSTOMER Maciejewski Could staff respond on the request of the applicant?
Speaker 2: Councilmember in conferring with the police department. That's an acceptable change.
Speaker 1: I think he mentioned a couple of things. One was the hours of the entertainment and the other thing without being able to served anyone under 21. Obviously they can't serve alcohol, but it is a food establishment. And is that our requirement or is that an ABC requirement?
Speaker 2: We're checking. Please hold on 1/2.
Speaker 1: Sorry, sir.
Speaker 2: We might need to confer with the applicant. Their original application where we granted all the hours as requested, minus Sunday. So to change it, to serve their condition, additional conditions of operation to serve 21 have 21 year olds in the establishment after 10 p.m., as long as they not serving alcohol acceptable to the police department, as long as their serving food is acceptable. And the hours we would need to confirm with the applicant as their original request was granted what the changes requested.
Speaker 1: Mr. Mayor. Do we have him respond on that?
Speaker 2: Mr. SWAN.
Speaker 0: Yeah, please.
Speaker 1: We get this worked out tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It's not really a problem, but it's divided into two places. So there really is what I would call the grown up side, and then you have the family side. So on the family side, we're serving food. You have little leagues. And I think that's all.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Think that's done is they've they've agreed to the change. Okay. Now, what about the entertainment?
Speaker 2: The entertainment? The issue is it's not going to start until nine or 10:00. And we closed during the week at 12:00. So if we can have the entertainment wrap up at 15 minutes to 1145. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Does that work for you guys over there?
Speaker 2: That's acceptable. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I make a motion to receive the supporting documentation to the record, conclude the hearing and grant entertainment permit with conditions on the application, including those modifications we just discussed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Moving. Seconded. So the amendments are to serve food to those under 10:21 o'clock as long it's only food and you can go to 1145. All right. Correct.
Speaker 2: Well, 15 minutes to close, because on the weekends, we're.
Speaker 0: Sorry, 15 minutes prior, close proportionately. All right. Any any comment by councilmember senior members cast your votes in hearing item number three.
Speaker 1: Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 0: Thank you, members for not going to go to public comment. We have one member of the public tonight to address us and that's Dennis Dunne. The drill. Look, the other way means you got 30 seconds. | Contract | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Aegis Business Investments, LLC, dba The Station, 4115 Viking Way, for Entertainment Without Dancing by Patrons. (District 5) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0503 | Speaker 1: Item for communication. Premier Bob Foster Recommendation to receive and file a report on travel to Dallas, Texas for the United States Conference of Mayors Annual Annual Meeting.
Speaker 0: Okay. Members, just real quickly, I attended the which would be my last conference of Mayors June 20th and 24th in Dallas to participate in their 82nd annual meeting. I served as a panelist on the Environmental Committee on June 20th and as chair of the Mayors Business Council on the following morning and presided over the plenary session at breakfast and also attended the Executive Board meeting, which I'm a member and I would entertain a motion to approve some old wooden seconded any member of the public to suggest council item number four and the Council discussion members cast your votes an item for.
Speaker 1: Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 0: Thank you members to just go to item 24. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file a report on travel to Dallas, Texas for the U.S. Conference of Mayors Annual Meeting. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0502 | Speaker 1: Item number 1336, the dispute.
Speaker 0: Sorry I threw a curve.
Speaker 1: Item number 36 Communication Premier Bob Foster Recommendation to direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Division four to Chapter 2.8 for relating to real estate real estate purchases. So moved.
Speaker 0: To second. To your second. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Members, let me just explain real briefly what this is. In my tenure here, there's been a number of very large real estate transactions that the city might be involved in. And one of the concerns I've come up with is that there's not adequate transparency on who's being paid and what they're being paid for. And what this does is any compensation for a project, over $1,000,000 that is in excess of $10,000 needs to be disclosed. It's that simple. You would direct the city attorney to prepare an ordinance and he would bring it back. I think the first reading would be on the eighth, if I'm not mistaken. And it really is a way to try to make sure that any transaction that is going forward, that there is there's complete transparency. So we have a motion in the second there. Any public comment on this mean comments from commissioners, commissioners, county council members? My members cast your votes in item three.
Speaker 1: The motion carries six one.
Speaker 0: All right, thank you, members. Appreciate that. Good item 3038.
Speaker 1: Item number 38. Communication from Councilmember Gary DeLong. Councilmember Suzette Lowenthal Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell Recommendation to Receive and File Report from City Manager regarding Belmont Port Schedule. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Division IV to Chapter 2.84 relating to real estate purchase contracts. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0485 | Speaker 1: Yes. Item 25, report from the City Manager Recommendation to receive information and provide direction relative to the geotechnical analysis peer review report for the Ocean Boulevard Bluff Erosion Enhancement Phase two Project District three.
Speaker 7: Coming up. Let's just hold 110, 15 seconds till we get the the group out and we'll start.
Speaker 5: 38 in an hour. 25, right. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Okay. Mr. West.
Speaker 1: Vice mayor, members of the council, Eric Lopez, will provide the staff report in conjunction with the peer review engineers. So I'll now hand it over to Eric Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, honorable vice mayor and members of the city council. The purpose of today's presentation is to provide information that was requested by the Council on April 29th, including the results of the geotechnical peer review. Before I introduce the lead geotechnical engineer to discuss the peer review results, I will provide some project background and existing condition details . The purpose of the Ocean Boulevard Bluff, Erosion and Enhancement Project is to stabilize portions of the bluff between 20th place and 36th place. The city's engineers have recommended using cylinder drilling technology and a ten colored chocolate phasing there that contains planter pockets. This project also includes improvements to Bluff Park. The original project plans and specifications were originally approved by the Council on July 9th, 2013. The project area consists of two main phases that that can be separated into various sections that have received different levels of treatment. Phase one at the bottom right corner, which is located between Redondo and 36th place, was stabilized with solar panels in Shop Street in 2011. Phase two Area one, which is located on the left hand corner adjacent to the Museum of Art between 20th place and Lin. Darrow has received most of the required selling hours, but no shark creep. Phase two Area two between Temple and or Asaba has received selling hours, and approximately half of the area has received the final shot recoding. The other half has exposed someone else. Phase two, area three between Rosalba and Paloma has received also on hours and the full shot pretreatment and is ready for staining. On April 29th, the city council voted to delay implementation of to delay continuation of the project construction and directed staff to conduct an engineering analysis. Consider all other alternatives to blood stabilization. Advise the Council on Community Improvements that do not involve concrete, and report the results to the Council and to the public. 40 requested peer review. Three independent geotechnical firms were hired to review the project. The committee was led by John Chandra Wood Layton, consultant, who will now discuss the process and results of the review. Thank you, Eric, and good evening. The other two members are Dr. Carol Morley and also Daniel Crandall. They're here as well. We were asked by the city to review, to perform a peer review of the geotechnical reports to verify the selected slope improvements are the preferred method, I'm sorry, and to evaluate feasible alternatives. The subject of our reviews was the to report prepared by Kleinfeld, the geotechnical engineer of record. Along with the two reports we were provided with the construction plans memorandum by the City Manager dated May 13, 2014, and the memorandum by S.A. P.W. A. The slowest look I located in the coastal environment with existing improvement right on top of the slope. Therefore they are parameters that are unique and specific to the site. It's an overview of the provided documents. We understand that grading to flatten the slope is not an acceptable option because grading will move the top of the slope back and will cut into the size of Bluff Park and or it will move the total of the slope out. They will encroach into the beach area. We also understand that retaining wall at the tall or the middle of the slope are not desirable due to a static and cost reasons. Despite being in a seismically active area, we understand that the design of the slope improvements will need to meet the seismic design requirements. We had these parameters in our mind when we performed a review. The summary of findings. The full exploration consisted of 14 borings and three colon penetration testing, and the borings were advanced at the top of the slope as well as at the beach area by the toll of the slope. It is the committee opinions that the full exploration was adequate considering the extent of the project as well as the consistency of the subsurface soils. The sole parameters were selected based on lab testing and also testing in the field. Along with public correlation. Again, it's the opinion of the committee that the SOL parameters are reasonable for the site. The seismic parameters were developed following the guidelines by California Geological Survey and also Southern California Engineering Center. Those parameters are reasonable, and they follow the practice of the County of Los Angeles. We also review the methods approach and the parameters using the slope stability analysis. And we agree with the approach and method and. The report found that portions of the slab had that fact of safety lower than the court. The court requirements and the committee agreed with that findings. We had a factor of safety with the fission kleinfeld recommended for nailing to stabilized the slope. The committee agreed with that finding that some type of deep soil anchor, such as for nails or tiebacks, will be required to improve the static and seismic stability of the slope. Where solariums are installed, the face will be protected with shot. Creating the shot. Will be stained and sculpted. And also provided with plenty of pockets for vegetation growth. Should create a final along with child credit has been commonly used for blood stabilization along the Pacific Coast Highway from Santa monica to San Clemente to San Diego. It is the community's open ended phone, mailing and short clip are appropriate for the site and opportunities to show it is the use of bio technical techniques, which involve using three routes to encode the use of its soil. This option is feasible for the site where create has not been installed and depending on the contour and inclinations of the slopes, the deep rooted vegetation may be implemented with other elements such as steel, wire mesh or timber grids to hold the topsoil and the slope planting. This method, however, is not recommended where it has been installed because it will require remove removal of this shortcut, which it's a tedious process before it is structurally connected to the solid nailing and removal of the shortcut may impact the integrity of the existing soils and also the chocolate is placed places. The poor is fraught directly on the slope phase. So removal of the shortcut work may also take out some of the source that would decrease the stability of the slope. It is the conclusion of the committee that the solar system is an appropriate solution for the project and for the site by the technical techniques may be considered for slope area where Short Create has not been installed but is not recommended in the area where it has been installed. Thank you. Thank you, John. The we have looked at some of the bio technical options and we found a couple of pictures prior to landscaping and after our technical option had been landscape. And we have a couple of pictures included on on this slide. So this is on the top right hand. Hand corner is a steel mesh option and then in the bottom is a fully vegetated bio technical option. We've also included picture of the of a of the shark treats with without any landscaping and without find no staining . And we included a picture of an area that had been created and landscaped. Additional pictures were included were are included in the staff report of before and after scenarios with and without shark creep and landscaping.
Speaker 7: Mr.. Lopez, just briefly, if you can, to the quick question of once so back the the diving when the from the bottom left that's an of shark treat.
Speaker 2: That no the bottom bottom the bottom left hand corner is a bio technical vegetated method.
Speaker 7: Got it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And the bottom left hand corner here in this slide is a shot. Create an out and shot treat area with landscaping. With mature landscaping. As discussed in the peer review report and by the by the Geo Technical Committee, there are viable alternatives to short create for areas that currently do not contain financial create. However, these bio technical solutions do require significantly more maintenance. A cost estimate for those for those areas are listed on Slide 13. For phase two, area one that currently has most of the required selling hours but no shot create an estimate. The estimated cost to install a bio technical alternative is 1.04 million for this for the portion of phase two Area two that currently does not have final shot create. The estimated cost to install a geo technical alternative instead of 683,000. The total estimated cost to remove all existing chocolate and install a bio technical alternative is estimated between 9.8 and 11.5 million, and the breakdown between the removal of concrete and the installation of a bio technical alternative is listed on the slide. The timeline. If a biotech the treatment were to be selected would be between seven and nine months to go through. From design and engineering to implementation. The duration of construction has yet to be determined. If the existing Shah were to be removed to install a bio technical option that would require 9 to 12 months to complete the duration of construction is also estimated to increase, but that time has not been determined. The timeline to complete the project per existing plants and specifications will require one month to re mobilize and and another month to complete our remaining major construction. What an anticipated completion date of August 29, 2014. If the Council would like to explore the option of sloping the bluff by extending onto the beach or bluff park, the timeline to design and implement the option assessment is estimated to take 14 to 23 months. In addition to community concerns with impacting the beach or Bluff Park, the city's local coastal program requires that bluff stabilization measures should be designed to cause minimum encroachment on existing sand areas. And that's a reference to page two to page two. That's 29 and the local coastal program. Options to complete the project include proceeding with existing plans, improving landscaping and finishing park improvements to finishing shock weed wearing complete improving landscaping, finishing park improvements and evaluating botanical solutions for Phase two Area one three Removing shot, create and starting bold technical alternatives for an entire bluff or for starting additional alternatives that may not have been considered today. Before I conclude, I would like to thank the by the geotechnical engineering committee led by John Chandra with Leighton, a rural and Daniel with Earth Mechanics and Delta. They have played they have committed such this time, significant time in order to assist the city and council in compiling this report . That concludes that I recommend a staff presentation.
Speaker 7: Okay. Mr.. Was that complete?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir.
Speaker 7: Okay. I should like.
Speaker 6: To just go to the public. Sure.
Speaker 7: Let's go ahead and open up in the public comment on the item. So as you come forward, please make sure that you identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. I'm Mel Nutter. And before I get started, I do have a memo that some of you may already have seen. And I just want to make sure that you all have a copy. Knowing that my time is undoubtedly limited, I want to refer to notes which usually I prefer not to do. But I want to say that on December 21st of 2009, the city gave notice that the zoning administrator would hold a hearing on this particular application for a coastal development permit for the Bluff Park Project. And in February of this year, there was a request under your Public Notice or Public Records Act requirements for a copy of that permit, as well as the plans associated with it. And unfortunately, your staff was unable to come up with what we were looking for. And instead we ultimately obtained a copy of much of that from the Coastal Commission where a notice was provided to them about the action taken on December 21st of 2009. And I mention that because there are a variety of conditions we found in that documentation, including an indication that certain plans had had been approved. And we've never been able to locate those plans, nor apparently has anybody at the city, as far as we can tell, are at the Coastal Commission. And in that connection, one week after the zoning administrator acted on this coastal development permit, there was a an engineering report. It was labeled preliminary or draft, but it did not talk about Short Creek at all. It talked about some of the other ways of dealing with stabilizing the bluff. And I can only speculate that whatever the plans were that were submitted to the zoning administrator and where the subject of that permit action, in fact did not include shot, create the memo that I've provided you and I seem about running out of time if you're strict about that. The memo I provided indicates, as did your staff, that in spite of the fact that your consulting firm or the peer review group did an admirable job of dealing with the issues, given the constraints that were provided.
Speaker 7: Thank you. We're going to leave.
Speaker 3: We believe that if you take a careful look at that memo that I've distributed, you will see that it's quite possible for there to be some encroachment on the beach, if that's a better way of dealing with this.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Bill.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 7: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Hi. Gabrielle Weekes, Sierra Club. Hi, Al. Long time no see. I was just hounding him this afternoon about something else, so this sign pretty much says it all. Let's. Let's take our time and get it right. The neighborhood associations were shown drawings of something that was mostly plants to stabilize the bluffs the way it had been. I've lived in Long Beach for about 15 years, and that's been stabilized by plant the whole time I've lived here. The Sierra Club is out there once a week with a regular hike that we've had since the eighties. That goes up and down that and I'm there out there early in the morning. So, I mean, I've never seen chunks of dirt fly loose or anything I can understand. Maybe one has shored up a little bit with some new plants, but we're absolutely confused by why the whole thing looks like a target parking lot at an angle. But let's take our time and get it right. There's been a lot of damage done. There's a lot of cement and pins and steel plates. And, you know, and thank you, by the way, for actually giving us a price on how much to remove all that. I think it was horrible mistake. I don't know anybody who says, yeah, lots of cement. Our beach looks like the monitor or the Merrimac. Maybe we will have to spend the big bucks to remove all that, but at least let's take our time and get something right. And maybe we decide that this is that the GEO staff needs more supervising so that we don't accidentally spend 9 million on shock treat that nobody meant to be there. It is sturdy and that's great, but it was pretty sturdy before. So I don't understand why we've got like the, you know, Civil War bunker going on there, but let's take our time and get it right, because this thing will last for 20 or 50 years. And if we spend more money removing all that ugly stuff before teenagers graffiti it, well, maybe that's what we do, because it's going to be there for many, many years. And that's what we've hinged our tourism on. Tourists aren't going to come to hang out and spend money at something that looks like Attica.
Speaker 7: Making. Gabrielle next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Seamus and I'm a licensed civil engineer in the state of California. I live in the fourth district and I have property in the second district. I'm the vice chair of the Long Beach chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, and the Lummis chapter thinks the alternative is horrible. We need to pull it out and pretty much follow alternative for option number four. So there are alternatives. And I got a little bit ahead of myself. I wanted to start off with Go Team USA 2018. We'll come round next time. Okay. So one recommendation is to finish as much work as you possibly can that doesn't involve concrete and demobilize all that equipment off the beach so we can study the alternatives for the concrete removal while we can finish everything else and just make the beach not look like a construction zone. Another recommendation I recommend for you guys is to get the stakeholders involved in some sort of stakeholder workshop because there's a lot of plans and details that you guys don't need to be involved with, with, and the stakeholders are happy to spend their time getting into it and all the little options and alternatives. And this concept about the stakeholders don't want an alternative extending out onto the beach. I don't know what stakeholders they're talking about, but some of the people right here are perfectly happy with that alternative. The peer review is flawed due to the narrow scope. If you can go to the second slide on that on this slide up here, can we go back to the different slides? The second slide is up there. Whoever is in charge of that? No. All right. Well, the city council has to ask the the staff to do a peer review of all alternatives before they scope the peer review. Most of the alternatives were wiped out and not even considered. So if you need a peer review, have them go back and do it again. I disagree with as a licensed civil engineer, I disagree with the conclusions of that peer review. The conclusion said that because it's going to be expensive and because it's going to be damaging to remove the shock to the existing soil, then you shouldn't do it. Well, that's not a good reason not to do it. We all knew it would be expensive and time consuming and damaging to the existing soil. And if you're going to rebuild the bluff in some way, you're probably going to have to damage the existing soil. So those are givens and that's not a reason not to remove the shot. Cory, thank you for your time. Next Speaker Hello, my name is David Revell. I'm a coastal geomorphologist and was the lead author on the essay. P.W. A Report. On April 29th, I presented to the City Council on a range of bio technical stabilization alternatives. I've said that I was here to work with the city to try and come up with some alternatives. I promptly followed up with Mr. Lopez with two of the three peer review committee members, and I followed up with a report two weeks later which was submitted to the city looking at a wide range of alternatives. In that report, we also raised nine questions for consideration by the geotechnical committee. None of them were addressed or answered in the by this committee. These questions ranged from the potential size of a catastrophic landslide, the inclusion of the existing seawall and the slope stability analysis and the angle of repose related to the geologic unit that this block is made up of. After review of the report, I noticed that several of the alternatives were included. I heard in the presentation that the by the vegetation stabilization was actually considered feasible, and however, the big missing piece was the slope regrading and slope stabilization caused by recreating a stable slope and apparently was precluded for the same reason that it was not considered by the Kleinfeld to report. The Kleinfeld to report was specifically told not to look at regrading because of this concern about going out on to the beach, a decision not to include construction of an additional wall was the cost in esthetics. Can we regrade this slope? Technically, absolutely. We've done it in many places and engineers do that a lot. The bluffs of Long Beach have evolved over time. The once wave attacked cliffs have been sheltered from waves. The artificial sand fill has been placed to widen the beach. And as that cliff has gradually retreated, we've started to get closer to an equilibrium angle of stability. This natural process would have given us this free, constructed, stable angle if we had just given it time. And that has obviously not been the case we've now injected in an urban environment. We need engineering and we need some partners to make sure we get the plants and the slope stable now. In my professional opinion, there are several technical alternatives for stabilizing this bluff. We absolutely need to consider slope regrading and slope stabilization. We can achieve a lot with that. I don't think that either the KLINEFELTER report or the peer review committee was given the freedom to look at that alternative in earnest. And I think that is what city staff should be directed to do and to provide another option in the suite of stabilization tools. Thank you. Hi. I'm Will Collin. I live on Loma Avenue. We greatly appreciate the opportunity given to.
Speaker 3: The community during this temporary pause in.
Speaker 2: Construction. We've been busy researching records, contacting other cities about how they've resolved similar issues and putting together alternatives for our bluffs. With that in mind, I'm here to support the council directing staff to do two things. First, continue the pause on the bluff stabilization until all alternatives can be compared. No more work on the short creek, no more piecemeal. Work on repairing the revegetation. Failures of Phase one and two staff should put together a complete list of alternatives for bluff, stabilization, revegetation, and then do a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits. And staff should provide the community a way to participate in the analysis so that options for cost savings and assurances for final successes are fully vetted prior to spending any more money. Second. Contract contractors and renegotiate a modification of the contract. We'd like to see work on the Bluff Park complete as soon as possible, and we understand this may require some temporary handrails that can be removed when the bluff work starts again and maybe some time. Other than that, modifications can be made to that contract. But we think that there are ways to do this that will allow public use of the park on schedule. And we hope that the city attorney can negotiate a contract modification that keeps the crew working while the city figures out what to do with the Stuff Revitalization Project. Now it's clear to everyone that mistakes were made prior to the permit getting approved. We do not believe that there was any intentional wrongdoing. But telling the engineers from KLINEFELTER to upgrade the slope was prohibited by the Coastal Commission was wrong. This is not prohibited by the city's LPC or the Coastal Act and telling the peer review team to also omit any consideration of that alternative is just repeating the error. So we do not know who asked the Coastal Commission for that opinion or what the Coastal Commission said. But we know that the that the beach fill is not only allowed for for bluff stabilization, it was anticipated when the LCP was adopted and if the city told the Coastal Commission it.
Speaker 3: Wasn't necessary because there was an.
Speaker 2: Alternative that didn't require beach fill, that would also be wrong. The alternative of short Crete is prohibited in the Coastal Act. Finally, if the community is allowed to contribute to that comparison of all the alternatives, we believe that we can find innovative ways to reduce costs for all the necessary repairs. We appreciate the opportunity, given the community during this pause, and we look forward to bringing our ideas on how to fix the mistakes to this point.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Great.
Speaker 1: Good evening. As City Council vice mayor. Temporarily. My name is Gordon a cager and live at 235 Loma and thank you very much for bringing this subject back to City Council. Thank you. For those of you who participated in the special session at the end of April for making this happen, I'm also very happy to tell you that I've been renominated to the city's Sustainable City Commission, and I'm honored to represent the third District. I'd like to very briefly finish Mel Nutter's comments. This was something that he was prevented from speaking about as a result of the time constraints. I'd like to read specifically a paragraph that he was not permitted to to say because of the time. What we can say is that a Kleinfeld or engineering report dated a week after the December hearing describing slope stability techniques that did not include the use of shock create. This is back in December of 2009 because shark creep was not being considered then. Presumably the approved plans did not provide for the shock treatment suggested later. Is that is the case? The work currently performed appears to be unpermitted and in violation of your LCP requirements. I'm here to ask specifically two things this evening. I'd like your assistant assistance to direct staff tonight to finish the Bluff Park Project. The residents of the city deserve their park back. The Bluff Park residents deserve their park back. We can finish the sidewalk. We can finish the handrails. We can do the lawn. We can do the irrigation and finish the construction. Separate that project from what's happening on the bluff, please. It's a whole different project, whole different constraints. We should finish the park fast, and we should do the Bluff Erosion Project much more slowly. Secondly, I think it's very, very reasonable to request a cost benefit analysis, a feasibility study, and stop me if this sounds too eco terrorism or unreasonable. But this is a very complex project. You've just had numbers prod up to you in public that no one has had an opportunity to look at independently. Have we had a competitive bid put out? Do we know what it costs to remove shot create? By the way, when I did construction at my house and I got to do demo and my new kitchen is going in, I use the same company who's doing the new construction to do the demolition of the old work. That's what saves costs. And if you're interested in saving money on this project, please consider directing staff to more competitive notions of how to cost these kinds of projects to benefit the community. Please slow down. Cool your jets. There's no hurry here. We're looking for a long term solution to a problem that's been decades in the making. And there's no reason to do this fast. Thank you so much.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Sydney Simon. I live in Belmont Heights and I'm a property owner in Alamitos Beach. First of all, I want to reiterate that whatever we do, we've got it forever, certainly as long as any of us are going to be around here. So I say let's slow down and not rush to judgment. We've been given the impression that these concrete walls are going to be covered with plants. But I actually really question the utility of these planter pockets. They measure about two feet by two feet. They are they are laid on a in a cement wall that South facing that's got the sun beating down on it every single day. And I just question how legitimate the growth, the promise of lush growth is that it's going to be coming out of there. I don't actually even know of a project that has successfully used planter pockets. Another thing that I'm really worried about as it's configured now and even what the peer review suggested. It sounds to me like a patchwork of solutions and there isn't any kind of consistent design that's going to get to bring the whole thing together, and that's just a recipe for disaster. So I propose absolutely separating the park from the bluff finish the park. The neighborhoods would be so indebted if we could finish the park, get the irrigation going, and then address the bluff. Then consider the costs and alternatives to removing the shock rate, flattening the slope for erosion and seismic control and revegetated with carefully selected native plants. Thanks a lot.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Hello. Council and Vice Mayor. My name is Isaac Waxhaw and I live on First Street in Bluff Park. First of all, I'd like to say that I don't think it's possible to separate the park from. From the bluff. I've seen this construction going on, and whenever they work on the bluff, the park is not accessed, accessible. Not to my point. This Council approved plans and specifications for the Bluff Corrosion and Enhancement Project not once, but twice. The second.
Speaker 1: Time.
Speaker 3: Was a year and a half after the first project was completed and you voted to continue it. A vote to change this project from the existing plan is you approved twice is telling us. That you made a mistake. Twice. A multimillion dollar mistake. And he waited for for many years until the project was weeks from completion. Three weeks to stop and admit. Your costly mistake? I don't think so. I don't think so many of us. And I think it's really most of us feel that you showed good judgment when you voted for the first time and again when you voted for it the second time. The 2010 report explains in great details why the existing plan is right. I read the entire report and it makes a lot of sense to me. I also spoke to some experts about it, too. Four years later, we have a new report. Concluding that the first report was correct. Let's finish the project. You approved a plan to ensure people that your decisions were right. And let's get it finished real soon. And please, let's not waste any more money. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Council and vice mayor. My name is Elise McConaughey. I live in El Ninos Beach neighborhood. I really appreciate the council taking the time to stop and look at this and stop this from moving forward. I have to agree with or disagree on a multitude of levels with the last speaker, except for the fact is that the decisions of the council, I believe, were based upon inaccurate information that was given to you. So I do not fault the Council with this. I do agree that they could be broken up and that we could finish the bluff, we could fix the sidewalks, install the handrails and get our park back. Second, I believe that we need to take the time and do a feasibility study on the bluff and really take a look at some of our alternatives with costs and benefit to help the Council to make an informed decision. This means considering all of the erosion control options. Unfortunately, due to budget challenges, we had lost some of the key folks that had been involved originally with this project in the initial discussions. I believe that there was vital information that was lost and that did not get communicated to the new focal people. Let's not be in a hurry. Our City Council has spearheaded a lot of new and great ideas. There has not always been the most popular choices from plastic bags to bike lanes and parklets. But let's also be honest too. Those were easy fixes. If they didn't work out, we could repaint. We can move a pot. This is not the same thing. This, unfortunately, is something that's going to be with us forever. And we don't want to regret it. So please, please us, do the right thing and let's stop and look at all of our options on the bluff. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Alex Monti.
Speaker 3: I live at First Street in Molino.
Speaker 2: In Bluff Park, and like many of my neighbors in Bluff Park, I'm in favor of finishing the project. Under the current design, experts have drawn attention to the risk involved in removing the shot created at this point. Well, if as a result, we maintain the shot create and the other remediation methods which have already been used in place, and add yet another erosion control by a technical restraint system we heard about. We are. Changing our bluff into a showroom of erosion control techniques available for other people to select from. And this is not what we're looking for. We do not want to become a showroom for others. We have made, we believe, the right decisions, given the fact that we live in a seismically active area and.
Speaker 3: We are weeks from completing the.
Speaker 2: Project. I ask that you maintain the project.
Speaker 3: In place and completed.
Speaker 2: As designed. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I have a handout for you folks because I'm a slow speaker. So if I get cut off, I'd like you to finish reading my comments. They continued. Mayor, vice mayor. Soon to be mayor, council members and staff. My name was having this single hardest and I lived in the Black Park Historic District. As long time residents, my husband and I are equally disappointed and frustrated with the chain of events leading up to the current state of affairs. Since the mid 1970s, many of us in the neighborhood have been requesting that the erosion issue that the projects with the park condition be addressed. In the year 2000, many give us participated in said it sponsored to workshops came monthly with the impression natural solution was to be implemented. There was never anything said about Shaqiri on page ten of the 2000 report. Ken Public entities such as the Park Association and the Alameda Speech Association were listed as parties of consultation. I do not recall any additional public hearings, workshops or presentations regarding this topic to any neighborhood association in a specific purpose of caring for a local coastal development. Permanent here of five 1412 regarding the Bixby Park left portion also also only also listed on the same page, known regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Corps, Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services were listed as being anticipated to be involved. My question is, were they? I'm page 34. The 2010 crime failed to report. It stated that the city has selected so I want a chart crate facing page 38 report talks about the need for what appears to be a complicated drainage system which without which lead to adventure loss facing along with greater damage to the bluff has the drainage system currently installed at the over appropriate chart proving it is my experience so eager that once city works with public organizations, the outcomes are infinitely better. Third recommendation to separate out the completion of part from activations but fair approach and stabilization projects make sense to me. Give the park.
Speaker 7: I'm going to let you finish. I'm going to let you finish up. I want to you know that I know the last paragraph, so I just couldn't finish it.
Speaker 1: I think if. And it gives back to the to those who want to use it in a timely manner. And if there's no time to come up with a more appropriate solution to the black problem, using a cost benefit analysis of the alternatives available for observation and control to. This will be a legacy of yours for future generations. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Helen. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Hi. Sorry. I turned to be too loud. My name is Jenny, and I'm a resident of the edge of the second and sixth District. And I just wanted to start out by saying thank you to the first, second, fourth and sixth District for park improvements and green initiatives. In my neighborhood, we just got trees put in along 10th. Last year we had Craftsman Park installed and there's ongoing redevelopment and fixes at MacArthur Park. I've been a very active member of the O.C. seven neighborhood Group since it founded in 2012, and I've been a member of Surfrider since the mid 1990s. I'm going to try not to repeat everybody else's concerns, but I have a few things that I want to bring up that I haven't heard yet. Just talking about the green initiatives. One of the biggest things, the last big group that was here that spoke, they were really pushing the tourism and the aquatic capital of the world or the West Coast or the city slogan. It was really, really important to them. I was disappointed to see them leave. The more of them didn't stay for this issue because we are talking about the same area. But I just want to present is this a postcard that we'd really be proud to see? Welcome to Long Beach. And we've got to pay a bluff. The L.A. River, they're huge initiatives, part of L.A. County to unpaved because it's more natural, it's healthier, it provides more greenspace, it reduces runoff. All the other things that we're talking about, wetlands and dune restoration here, do we really want to have a pay bluff? We keep talking about the price, how expensive it is. We have one single quote that was 9.8 million to 1.5 million. Is it really going to be cheaper in 20 years? Do we really expect it to have a 20 year lifespan? What are the additional costs? What if it fails underneath? That was an address the last time we did discuss it. And also if there's any upkeep and repainting and also replanting because we haven't discussed whether there's an irrigation system as part of it and what if that fails underneath. Also, anything that's cemented will increase the runoff and the erosion of the beach. So there may be additional costs. I know that was a consideration with the local coastal plan when we were talking about putting in parts tonight an additional 167,000 in restaurant, restroom improvements and other path related expenses were approved. We're going to be building things that people are going to walk along the path and look at at a concrete barrier. And as a resident of Long Beach, a fifth generation Californian, I support everybody else that is asked to separate the park and the restoration.
Speaker 2: Projects there from.
Speaker 1: The bluff. It makes sense if we're looking at a redesign in re slope implemented in 18 to 24 months. That doesn't sound unreasonable considering that this plan has been 16 years in the making. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia and members of the Council. My name is Kobe Sky. I'm a registered civil engineer in California who works in environmental engineering for the county of Los Angeles. And I'm a resident of the second District. I won't repeat some of the great comments that were already presented about how important this issue is. Obviously, people are very passionate because this is the heart of our city. It's so important to our economic development and our enjoyment of our beach. So I'll just focus on what we hope to take away from this issue, and that is that we definitely need more transparency and information sharing with the residents so that they can participate in this process. I think that you've heard from residents in Long Beach and in the area that have amazing expertize that they can learn and provide and they want to share. And we've had several cases recently where we don't have the full information about a project until it's moved along to close to the end of the process. And then residents are alarmed and concerned and there is definitely a better way where we can engage, are great resources in this city and have them participate and be happy with the product. And I know that a lot of of you like that model better. And this is a great opportunity for us. We have work that we can have the company finish to get our park back while taking the time to, you know, essentially get this right or as right as we can, given the resources we have. So I hope the city council will do that tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: My name's Survivor, and I live in Belmont Heights. I'm an environmental consultant and I've worked on Coastal Act enforcement for many years, and I have experience with coastal farming projects up and down the coast. So I offer to help the community as a volunteer by researching the documentation leading up to this project, as well as suggesting other cities to contact about cost effective alternatives to shore crude. As I told you in April, it was clear to me at the beginning that mistakes were made in choosing this short, crude alternative. I know from experience the Coastal Commission would never approve this project, and I confirmed in consultation with Mel Nutter that contrary to what the community and the engineers were told, your local coastal program does allow grading and beach fill for this specific site. I have to tell you, it's somewhat unusual for LCP is to be that specific. So it's troubling. The city management misinterpreted the law and eliminated the cheapest and best answer alternative from the beginning. And now in the peer review, I discovered something else in my research that I've been reluctant to share with the community, but I think you need to know what it is before we make a decision. After months of repeated requests, city management of city management has been unable to produce a coastal development permit for this project. They've given us a notice for a zoning administrator hearing in 2009 to adopt the CDP. But there's no record of the hearing nor the CGP under consideration. We got conditions of approval with reference to the CTP and project drawings, but not the CTP on the drawings. We got communication from the Coastal Commission about the CTP, but it didn't include the CTP. Really, I think we've got an every scrap of paper about the creepy except the permit itself and the approved drawings. Further, if this permit was issued in December of 2009, why did the city have Clint and Felder finish a report on the alternatives in 2010? Look, if there was irregularities in the permit or the permit can't be found, the city may be vulnerable to a cease and desist order, but it's important to see exactly what was what was permitted.
Speaker 3: Before you.
Speaker 2: Decide what to do now. And here's a really important point. The community is offering to work with the city management in a constructive and cooperative effort to fix both phase one and phase two. I think you should take them up on that offer. Don't do it just because there's a.
Speaker 3: Potential for an enforcement action and a cease and desist order.
Speaker 2: Do it because the community is genuine in their quest to find.
Speaker 3: Solutions.
Speaker 2: To it, because it's the right thing to do. Do it because this project can be a proud legacy.
Speaker 3: From this generation to the next.
Speaker 2: You can restore and beautify the natural bluffs. You didn't have to arm of the bluffs and then try to make them look natural. Natural solutions were available, available in 2009, and those alternatives are still available now.
Speaker 7: I think you've got to wrap it up.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm going to quit there. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Hi. Thank you. Council and Vice Mayor. My name is Roger Faruqi. I live in the Bluff Park community in the neighborhood. I work for a large general contracting company in Los Angeles. I'm very familiar with building large projects that involve doing slope stabilization and have examined the reports on the project and read them very carefully. It's very apparent to me that there are a couple of solutions to this. One is to regrade and one is to come up with some kind of structured solution to it. In my opinion, I had heard in when this project was being restarted or done something about two and a half years ago, I was pretty excited that we were actually going to do something with it. I walk the park on a regular basis and it's very disturbing to me that it had gotten to the delirious, dilapidated condition that it was in. It was very frustrating for me to walk into one of the most prime parks in the whole city and have it be so in bad disrepair. And it was obvious to me that one of the reasons it was in disrepair is that there's not a great foundation for it. We needed to do something to stabilize the slope there, either regrade it or reinforce it. I think that's been pretty clear in all of the reports, including the peer report recently done, that those that needed to be done in order to be able to maintain a park there. It's my belief that the solution that was put forth is a reasonable one. The we have a lot of people here that want to villainize concrete on the face of that or short creek. I want to point out that the reason that is a bluff and the nature of it is, is that there are loosely or in the original report, KLINEFELTER describes it as weakly cemented soils. What we basically have there is a bluff with very weak concrete on it, naturally. And all we're doing is making it stronger. I want to make that point. It's very frustrating to me that we've gotten that this has been delayed, that we're spending extra money with it. I really want to see the park finished. I think you should implement the program that you have put in place. Finish the park if you'd like to restudy regrading it. You can certainly grade over the top of this stabilization and it'll certainly be very strong if that was done.
Speaker 7: Anyway, I'm done. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. And before we speak, is there any other speakers? I'm going to cut off the speakers list. Casey None. To the gentleman behind, you'll be the last speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Alan Ross. I've lived in the bluff now for six years, so I'm kind of a newcomer to all of this. But I'm not a partizan, as so many people here. I'm just someone who sat back and watched you. You had two reports. You acted on them. You built what you've built. I'm not going to sit here and say that. I think the shot is the most esthetically beautiful thing I've ever seen. But it's okay and it seems to work. I haven't heard one thing tonight that would indicate that it doesn't work. You stopped the project, you spent money. You had engineers come in and look at it again. And I didn't hear one word that says what you did doesn't work. So as a resident, I would like to see you finish this project. We're being told that it would be $11 million to take this out. And someone suggested that Mr. Parkin could cleverly renegotiate the terms and get it cheaper. I don't want to see you spend $8 million or $7 million to do this. Take your money. Spend it on something worthwhile. But you've you've run this project all the way to the end. No one is saying it doesn't work. And I think you should finish it. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Your last speaker on the item. Sir.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Andrew Virtue. I'm a resident of Belmont Plaza, adjacent to the bluff. I've lived in Long Beach since 1989, and I'm a professional landscape designer based here in Long Beach, California. And I use the bike path a lot in the bluff. And I have to say I hate the shot create. I think it's ugly, but as many people do. But I also can see the potential practicality of of it as some the last people have said, considering the fragile crumbling nature of a bluff and bluffs do tend to crumble down into the ocean over time. So I I'm not going to offer any expertize as far as whether or not the shark creed is the best idea. I do like the idea of exploring whether there are other solutions for the remaining area that hasn't yet been covered with concrete. But I have one piece of very practical advice, I think, which is Ice Plant addressing one of the earlier people who spoke about what could be put in the planter pockets that would actually cover the concrete. And it's very unsexy. It's very odd. Glamorous. It's not fashionable, but it actually can grow to up to 160 feet in diameter from a single plant. We see it all over Southern California. It's not native, unfortunately, but it really does do the job of covering slopes. It will grow in foggy, salty, coastal conditions. It will tolerate hot, scalding sun on a concrete bluff. And it's the only plant that I know of in the world. It's actually Latin name is Capo Broadus at Dulles. It's an ugly name for sort of an ugly plant, but it really will cover a hot, scalding hot bluff that's covered in concrete. And if the shark remains and if that's what has to be there in order to keep the bluff from falling down, even though it's not a native, it's not exciting, it's not glamorous and it's not fashionable. I think it's very practical and we should look at what actually grows versus some of the earlier landscaping projects that were done, exotic things that were put on the hillside that all failed. And we ended up with a crisscross of white PVC, plastic irrigation pipes and a lot of weeds adjacent to the staircases. And the unglamorous ice plant is one of the few things that really will grow and hopefully would cover some of the concrete. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. That concludes the public comment. I have a couple of councilmembers, Councilmember DeLong and Councilman Bishopsgate.
Speaker 6: Thank you. After our last speaker, somebody needs to get Gordon on Advil or adult beverage, one or the other. But, you know, to my colleagues, let me just say that, you know, you're going to miss me while I'm gone when you don't have these stimulating and exciting projects before you on a regular basis. Start with that. You know, as you know, we've you know, obviously, it's been a bit of a divisive issue in the community, particularly recently, I think just this evening. We have experts on both sides that recommended completely different approaches. And accordingly, I think that some compromise is in order here and to try and thread the needle and see if we can make everybody as happy as possible or at least equally unhappy. As we go forward and we'll find out the outcome. You know, certainly looking back and hindsight being 2020, I do agree. I think that a different approach clearly could have been taken with this project or just even starting with something simple like finish phase one before moving on to phase two, because we really don't know how this will end up looking like. But had we finished phase one, finished the irrigation, finish, the landscaping, it might look just great. And we wouldn't be here tonight because the community would be looking at it and saying, yeah, you know, that that that actually turned out okay. Let's continue on that with that process. But unfortunately, we don't know that. So what I'm going to recommend is my motion is very similar to the staff's second alternative. And what that is, is that, first of all, to move forward expeditiously with the work on the top park portion of the bluff and any other infrastructure improvements regarding the railings, sidewalks, etc., let's get that finished as quickly as we possibly can. Secondly, as you know, although the the peer review studies do support shot create is a viable option for bluff stabilization. We've we've heard that several times, particularly from the peer review committee. They've also indicated that other options are viable as well, potentially. So we would ask staff that on the portions that have not been shot created to go look whether it's geo grid or whatever those other appropriate alternatives are, let's take a look at that and see if there's a better solution on a going forward basis. In regards to the shot create, I think we should finish what we started with. I do agree with the gentleman whether we can negotiate down from 10 million to 9 million or 7 million. It's still a tremendous amount of money for the city to do that. Again, I think we could have done it differently perhaps in the beginning, but sometimes you are where you are. So I think we need to finish with the short creek. We need to finish getting it stained. We need to get the irrigation here. We get it. We need to get it landscaped. I will also ask staff that as the alternatives are being considered, meet with the local bluff part and Neighborhood Association and perhaps others to keep them updated. The progress so that as we move forward, this is a project that the community feels that they're a partner in every step of the way. And in addition to the city council and that's my motion.
Speaker 7: Second Councilmember Chips Lipski.
Speaker 1: One of my concerns is the I think it point's been brought up twice tonight. And I have this city attorney and city manager on this is to the difficulty that residents had when they asked. They did a public records request and lo and behold, there's a missing permit, which obviously, if we didn't have it permit, it could
Speaker 2: . Subject.
Speaker 1: The city to have an enforcement action, and we may have to take the Shot Creek out anyway. So I would ask what happened with the permit? Why hasn't it been able to be disclosed in the public records? Do we do we have a permit that you could share with us tonight? Give copies to everybody?
Speaker 2: Eric Lopez We do we do have a local coastal permit on file. That's that clearly lays out the special conditions of approval. That permit has been provided. We can distribute copies and put a copy of it on the website as well.
Speaker 1: Eric and. In all due respect, I have their packet that they received as a public records request. It's not in the packet. They wouldn't have stood here and made these allegations if they had received that.
Speaker 2: Councilmember It's in the incident. The projects are construction specifications and it was.
Speaker 1: It was out. It was you may have it, but was it provided as part of the request for the Public Records Act? Response is apparently not.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if it was provided, but we do have it and we can provide it.
Speaker 1: Mr.. And who who's responsible for responding and Public Records Act requests.
Speaker 2: I believe the channel through the city manager's office.
Speaker 1: Okay, Mr. West. So the reason they didn't get a copy of this.
Speaker 2: I didn't see that public records request.
Speaker 8: We certainly will get back to you and see whether we got it and why it wasn't provided and whether it was or not.
Speaker 1: Well, but if if we could if we could indulge just for a moment with Mr. Nutter, since he has talked with the Coastal Commission as well, they apparently don't have a copy either.
Speaker 2: Well, you've heard we have a copy and well.
Speaker 1: You may have a copy, but we've got some serious allegations. And I really understand the public coming and saying, listen, you approved it. Get going, finish it off. But if there are some serious allegations being made here tonight that this may be unpermitted work and that the shot was not presented and that decisions were made, so if they didn't get a copy and most of the commission doesn't have it, then can we get a response about what's going on here?
Speaker 2: Yes, we have we have the permit.
Speaker 1: Will you have at the council? We have we have the permit.
Speaker 8: And the issue that you're talking about is whether or not a pre was sent and whether we responded appropriately to the APRA. I don't know that and we will investigate that immediately tomorrow.
Speaker 7: Well, Mr. Russell, I'll get you a copy of it because you need a copy. We'll get them a copy.
Speaker 8: As well, sir.
Speaker 2: Well, if the council.
Speaker 1: Would indulge, could Mr. Nutter just because he was cut off, he was handling things, could he just comment about his interactions about this issue? Because this these are serious allegations, folks. This goes to the heart of the argument that the residents are arguing about is you made a decision and apparently the documentation isn't there. Could Mr. Nutter address what he was told?
Speaker 7: If you have a question, Mr. Nutter.
Speaker 1: Could you could you address what you were told?
Speaker 3: Yes. I was told that staff could not at the city council at City Hall find anything other than the initial application and a notice of the hearing for December 21st, 2009. As I tried to explain in my earlier comments, I was able to obtain some additional information from the Coastal Commission, which, in fairness to your staff, does indicate some of the conditions that apparently were attached to that permit. But but that's the scary.
Speaker 2: Part of it.
Speaker 3: Is that one of the one of the points was that there were approved plans. Haven't seen them. Don't know where they are. And I'm a little concerned that if all we're going to see are a series of conditions that reference some other documents that actually reflect what the project has described to the zoning administrator was in December of 2009 that we don't have a complete picture package, and I'm not sure whether Mr. Lopez is referring to a few pages of conditions that reference approved plans that we have not seen. And I don't know whether he's got those.
Speaker 1: So in addition to the permit, are the plans available?
Speaker 8: We'll certainly look tomorrow and see what's been provided and what's been asked for. Yes.
Speaker 2: So we're talking about a plan.
Speaker 1: Well, because the plans the plans are very important about the permit, because the plans set out what was requested, obviously, in the permit.
Speaker 8: And so all I can say, they will investigate tomorrow. I'm not sure who Mr. Nutter talked to or what staff members replied. All I can say is we're taking this in. We're writing notes. We're paying attention. We'll respond tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, then I'd like to make a substitute motion that we we lay this over for the new city council so that the appropriate documentation can be provided to the council.
Speaker 7: Cape motion dies. Councilman Alonzo.
Speaker 2: Told you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I wanted to thank the community for coming out and certainly engaging us in this effort. It is certainly worthwhile. I think most of you that are here in the audience were part of the initial group that came forward with your concerns and having read and reviewed what the peer review group has come forward with, and I appreciate that process as well, where you were involved in ensuring that the selection of the group was amenable and agreeable to those of you that are very interested. I am in agreement with Councilmember DeLong, who had articulated, while this is not perhaps the most esthetically pleasing option, we have spent money going down this road. It is an option that was validated by a group of experts as an option that's acceptable. I do wish we had finished our phase one, as Mr. DeLong said, prior to multitasking and and starting. But I think that in in earnest is because we wanted to complete this project long overdue as as quickly as possible and ensure that we revealed progress along the path. But having said that, I will support continuing with what we have right now and looking at the alternatives as the motion, such as the motion called for looking at alternatives for the remainder of the project. I have a question for staff, Mr. City Manager or or your designee in terms of the contractor that's currently doing the work would. Perhaps as a city attorney. QUESTION Do we have to take any extra measures for considering alternatives for the remainder of the project?
Speaker 2: Well, the consideration.
Speaker 7: Of.
Speaker 2: The remainder, I guess it depends. I mean, the depending on what the alternative that the council wants to go forward with, could either one be a change order to an existing agreement with our existing contractor? Or if it's such a significant change, a departure from what was planned, then there may be a rebid requirement, but until those options come before us, we couldn't give you a concrete answer.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, I appreciate the. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much, along.
Speaker 6: With all my questions been answered. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Karen Braxton.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I want to thank everybody for coming out. Certainly learned more about bluffs than I ever thought. I know tonight. I do have a question regarding the motion. Does it need to be date specific in terms of when the options should come back to the Council?
Speaker 7: Mr.. Brown.
Speaker 6: Well, I think there was looking at the presentation for a period of time that said it would take to look at the alternatives.
Speaker 7: To step one coming in.
Speaker 6: In 2 to 3 months or something. As I recall, I heard to look at whether there are alternatives that are feasible.
Speaker 8: So just to clarify, to come back with alternatives on the two areas that have been soil nailed but not shot created. So we would like the ability to talk to the contractor and engage with the community and look at what.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 8: Whether it's a bio technical alternative or a landscaping alternative, then get back.
Speaker 2: To the council.
Speaker 6: And we're looking for that to be a 2 to 3 month process.
Speaker 2: Eric 44 The concepts. Yes, we can. We can look at the bio technical alternatives, concepts and engineering within that time frame. Great.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Austin.
Speaker 7: Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 2: That was my question. Is the it does the motion have or does it include or is it a limit? The options that you're asking them to evaluate to the bio technical or is are other options? I'm not clear on what direction the council's giving staff for the areas that are not to be finished with Short Creek.
Speaker 6: So it would be, as I understood, the peer review report which I have here. Bear with me just a moment. So so the purity report said an available alternative Shot Creek for slope phase production is using prior technical techniques as outlined in Section 3.0. So that's what I'm looking to have addressed.
Speaker 2: I think that came about and.
Speaker 8: Will bring will bring those alternatives back to the council at a later date once they've been worked out with the engineers in the community.
Speaker 6: But I think, as Mr. Lopez says, I think we're looking for as kind of a conceptual as a viable. Does it work? You know, maybe some kind of an order of magnitude in terms of cost to the community to support it as opposed to shock, create and then come back.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 7: Mr. Olson. Joe, anything else? Okay. I have a couple of things. From what I understand, emotion. And you want to just make sure it's clear the motion is one to complete the work at the park, but obviously at the park, anything that can get done as soon as possible. And I think that's obviously been pretty clear that the importance of it, the community certainly wants that. The second is to continue with the current short street project as and part of that one phase and finish the the other portion of the landscaping portion of the other phase that was done initially, correct?
Speaker 6: Absolutely possible.
Speaker 7: And then the then the last piece of that is for the areas that have not been completed to evaluate about tactical solutions. Now, could it be evaluated by a technical end or other landscaping or other solutions that are that are possibly out there? Because and maybe I understood this roundabout, but are from what the from the peer review report that are both biotech the goal solutions as well as possible other landscape or other solutions. Or maybe I misinterpreted misinterpreted that. Is that correct? Mr..
Speaker 2: LOPEZ The the available alternatives are only the bio technical alternatives. So there's various iterations of these about bio technical techniques that will be explored. But those are what what is feasible.
Speaker 7: And that's not what I thought I heard. But is there anyone else appear that differently?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Mr. Vice Mayor, as they talk about in section 3.0, the bio technical techniques, and they give things such as deep root of vegetation, deep root of vegetation and combination of geographic timber grid and life slope grading with a lattice like a river and horizontal table. So I think biochemical techniques is pretty all encompassing.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 7: And that would include landscape options and. Yes. And other types of I want to make sure that we're not limiting to one one type, but we're looking at the a broad range of options that, according to the engineers and others, is all within this bio technical solution group. Okay. So that's that clarifies the motion for me. Can you comment answer the question, Mr. Lopez, on the current shot street section, that's that's I know that we were a few weeks away from completing. How much is the short crit work actually completed?
Speaker 2: In an area in area three, the shaft work has been fully completed and it just requires the Steyning treatment and area. Two half of the half half of the area has been fully completed, which out create and just require sustaining. The second half still has to expose someone else.
Speaker 7: Okay, so it's essentially half of the second phase. It still needs complete that we would actually be finishing on the shock route side.
Speaker 2: It's now because the different areas consist of different length. So it's if we can go back to the to the exhibit and go through the three areas and face to page three.
Speaker 7: Yeah, no, I think, I think I got it. Yeah I it's different. It's a different so it's not half. So I, I get that piece. Okay. And. I think that is all I had. Any other questions for council? Okay. So we have a motion on the floor from Consumer DeLong and second by Councilmember Lowenthal. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Vice Mayor Garcia.
Speaker 7: I'm a yes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries six one.
Speaker 0: It was. Okay. Thank you. We'll move to item 2026, correct?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Please click or read item. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive information and provide direction relative to the geotechnical analysis peer-review report for the Ocean Boulevard (Bluff) Erosion and Enhancement Phase 2 project. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0486 | Speaker 0: Please click or read item.
Speaker 1: Item 26, report from Development Services Report to receive a recommendation to receive information and provide direction to staff related relative to the proposed project in PD one Southern Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan that requires an amendment and the local coastal program and optionally adopt resolution allowing the initiation of a consolidated coastal development process. Permit Process District three.
Speaker 0: Mr. Logan.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This is a tremendous opportunity for the entire city of Long Beach. This is another very positive step moving forward to restore our wetlands and make the motion to approve the staff recommendation second.
Speaker 0: Reading second and any public comment on item 26 and the Council come. Mr. Parker. Whoever is sitting there.
Speaker 2: With you before we take a vote, need to put something in the record that pertains to the environmental review of this resolution. And Mr. Black is prepared to do that.
Speaker 1: Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council, just for the public record, we want to make it clear that staff has made the determination that the adoption of this proposed resolution, referring this matter to the Coastal Commission, is not considered a project within the meaning of secure, nor is this action an approval of a project under Sequa. The proposed resolution merely delegates the city's coastal development permit authority over the pumpkin patch and related wetland and adjacent areas to the Coastal Commission. Any action involving a physical change to the environment will be subject to all the required and environmental reviews typically known that we do or perform under Sequa. In addition, Sequa does not currently apply because the city is not committing to a definitive course of action with respect to the involved properties at that time, at this time, and that the city will ultimately retain the ultimate authority to approve or disapprove any project processed as a result of the procedure contemplated.
Speaker 5: By this resolution.
Speaker 1: So in essence, doing this resolution is a commitment to moving in the correct direction. There's still a long road ahead in terms of reviewing an actual project application and going through the secret process and so forth for the purposes of sequel. This action tonight is not considered a project.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Product. Any public comment on it? Please come forward. Identify yourself. If you see the light, you might.
Speaker 1: My name is Elizabeth LAMB. I'm executive director of the Low Stress Wetlands Land Trust. And I have some very brief remarks. It is fair to say that my organization that advocates every day on behalf of Lois Rita's wetlands, we are very intrigued by this proposal. We, because it is so early on in the process, don't have a position other than we think anything that moves the process forward so that we all can get more information is is a good idea. One of the things we'd really like to do is thank the landowners involved in this proposal for reaching out to us early on and involving us and helping us be a part of the process from the beginning. And that gives us a confidence or greater confidence. I do have to say that the language about Studebaker Road that we saw in the staff report, I got some concerned emails about that and was curious to know how that plays into this . Currently, that area is zoned so that if you develop that pumpkin patch property, it includes extending Studebaker Road. We would find that to be of grave concern to us. But setting that aside, the proposal is an intriguing one and one that we're looking forward to learning more about. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Land present. Any other comment? The motion is second. Members cast your votes at 26. Thank you for the disclaimer. Ms..
Speaker 2: Bodak But and just so we're clear, that motion includes adopting the resolution that's prepared in the council packet.
Speaker 0: That is correct.
Speaker 1: Motion carries five zero.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate that. We're good. I'm 27 clock read. | Resolution | Recommendation to receive information and provide direction to staff relative to a proposed project in PD-1 Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP) that requires an amendment to SEADIP and the Local Coastal Program; and
Optionally, 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 Los Cerritos wetlands/Synergy Oil Field located at 6433 E. Second Street and the “Pumpkin Patch” located at 6701 East Pacific Coast Highway. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0509 | Speaker 1: Item 39. Communication from Councilmember Gary DeLong, Councilmember Sudha Lowenthal and Councilman Al Austin. Recommendation to restore the 517,000 and sidewalk funds appropriation to the fire department on a divide by nine basis. 57,444 per council district. Back to the original intent. Sidewalk Repairs.
Speaker 6: Mr. DELONG Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On September 3rd of 2013, the City Council approved a budget that included loaning $517,000 of sidewalk repair funds to the fire department for the restoration of services, specifically Engine eight and Rescue 12. Specifically, the motion stated 517,000 for two months of funding for restoration of fire station engine eight and Rescue Unit 12 taken from sidewalk repair funds with the provision that the sidewalk repair fund would be backfilled upon receipt of excess funds from the State of California EMT program. Shortly after that, it started becoming clearer that our hopes for EMT funding perhaps were overly ambitious and it was going to be significantly less than what we had originally hoped for. So at that point, a decision was made to postpone for 30 days the restoration of services just in case the money wasn't going to come. And then when a little more time went on. It became clear that it wasn't coming. And in fact, what what ended up coming would be a significantly smaller number. So it was certainly my expectation as the maker of the motion that since those services were not restored, that the money would be returned back to the Sidewalk Fund . For whatever reason, that didn't happen. So that is my recommendation tonight, is to restore the $517,000 in sidewalk funds that were previously appropriate. The fire department restored on a divided by nine basis $57,444 per council district back to their original intent sidewalk repairs permit.
Speaker 0: Mr. O'DONNELL.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr.. DELONG And I had some conversations about that with about this. And he is correct that when the Council gave direction with regard to that $500,000, that it was to be returned for, I believe, further sidewalk use, as he has stated. I don't have a problem with that perception because I think that is accurate. My only question is, is this the right thing to do given that this money is in the fire department budget? And I want to know what impact removing this money will have on the fire budget.
Speaker 0: Mr. West.
Speaker 2: Our budget manager.
Speaker 8: Leon Erickson, will answer that.
Speaker 1: Mr. Beyer to Councilmember O'Donnell. Right now, the fire department is using that money to support their operating budget. And if they're if the money is redirected to sidewalks, what would happen is previously approved, funds from the EMT that were appropriated in November by council wouldn't be needed instead for the operating budget and fire and without wind mean is that the administration's plan to use to EMT funds for fire equipment next year would be would be challenged.
Speaker 2: Maybe the chief can weigh in on this because we had a conversation today. I think he's I think his comments were similar to yours. I just want to make sure that your reaction here. I want to I want to know what impact we would have on the fire budget. That was the question. And I know it's been explained just a minute ago. Could you Chief, can you could you offer your opinion? Mr. Mayor? Council members, council member O'DONNELL If the council were to elect to take the $517,000 that was appropriated into the fire's budget back to be used for other purposes, that would leave us $517,000 whole, that would have to be filled. We would anticipate filling that hole with available GMT one time revenue that would come in, which would into the next fiscal year diminish our ability to use that GMT one time revenue to offset the cost of apparatus, vehicles or equipment or other one time needs within the fire department. So it would have an impact and some of those one time needs where there gender equity issues that were being addressed for some capital improvement projects, is that correct? Council the the fire department has been granted funding by the council to address our privacy needs within the fire stations. However, additional one time funding we use for things in the facilities that may not be specifically related to privacy. But because we have the station opened up and we are remodeling it, we want to use additional one time funding to offset the cost of some of those things. For example, if we were to create private spaces for our mixed gender workforce, the kitchen might not necessarily be a privacy issue. But while the station's open, it's it's more fiscally prudent for us to deal with it while it's all open, rather than button it all up and then tear the kitchen out later. So that one time funding could be used to offset the cost of that sort of stuff too, I guess. Right. Right now what I'm doing in my head is I'm trying to figure out what the best use of this money is. I mean, it's accurate to say that it should have been slid back to the to to the sidewalk fund and divide among council districts. I don't have a problem with people having that opinion. I'm just wondering if a better place for this money right now is in the fire budget, given that you are opening walls and you have old fire stations and you find a lot of needs when you do go in to remodel and then you have some equipment needs that you described to me on the phone today. So I'm just have the position that it's probably better off staying in the fire department budget at this time, that that's my point of view
Speaker 0: . A member of the pub groups, Mr. Dawn?
Speaker 6: That's right. Go public first, Mr. Arora.
Speaker 0: And remember, the pub was just canceling the sale. You know, Mr. Dillon.
Speaker 6: Thank you. You know, I can understand Councilmember O'Donnell's point of view. I do agree with him. I think that there's very valid uses in the fire department for those funds. But I'll also point out that, you know, 500,000 on a $400 million general fund is one eighth of 1%. So, you know, it is a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things if you're trying to find money to do things. I would also say that, you know, if we're going to look at reallocating, let's look a little more holistically on this. Parks and Rec needs as public work needs, our police department always has their needs. So I don't know that we would look at one particular organization and I do go back to the I think there's a point here and a principle that the original policy was it was a loan, there was abuse for restoration of engineering and rescue. 12. And again, that doesn't mean that the fire or any other department couldn't come to the city manager and perhaps the city council and say, Hey, I've got a great idea, I could use some funding for it. Hopefully we're to entertain those requests all the time. But in this particular case, I think there's a principle to be upheld here to follow the council direction. And I would like to see that money restored. And, you know, perhaps the council might look at a subsequent meeting and say, hey, you know, the best use for that is not sidewalks. The best use for that in my district or across city wide is to put it back in the fire department. And that's a decision that the city council can make it on any Tuesday.
Speaker 0: It's trust.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I signed on to this this item for the sake of discussion, and I think it's worthy of our time. I did want to get some clarity on the budget because as I recall, during the last budget process, we did appropriate one time moneys for gender accommodations in the fire department. And how much was that? If there's any way to have.
Speaker 6: 900,000 or 1.8 million, I recall.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 6: We've done that for a couple of years in a row.
Speaker 2: And I don't think that was enough to finish the entire need. But I think on a go forward basis, we were looking at looking at doing that again in the 2015 budget cycle. I certainly hope the mayor will put that and take that into consideration as he brings forth the budget. So so with that, I support the motion as set forth. Thank you. So now my only point when when you look at the gender equity issue in particular is that we were in a legal situation where there's been some legal activity and we need to pay attention to that so that we don't get caught in a lawsuit . That's why I believe that's so important. But either way.
Speaker 0: We are where we are. All right. We have a motion in the second item. 39 members cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries five one.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And we'll go to item 40. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to restore the $517,000 in sidewalk funds appropriated to the Fire Department on a "divide by 9" basis ($57,444 per council district) back to their original intent - sidewalk repairs. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06172014_14-0441 | Speaker 0: Item one report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of rice and beans located at 2142 East Fourth Street for entertainment with Dancing Without Dancing by patrons District two Moffat.
Speaker 4: Mayor. Members of the council, Jason McDonald will do the staff report.
Speaker 2: Mayor Councilmembers Chase McDonald for the Business License Division. This is the receiving the supporting documentation for the entertainment permit with conditions on the application of race and being TBA fourth street fine two one for two East Fourth Street for entertainment without dancing by patrons in District two. We're here to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to actually move to postpone the hearing until July one due to receipt of letters from residents adjacent to the operator expressing concerns with several noise related issues. I did not get these letters until just shortly before our study session started, so I'd like to have time to vet that and review their concerns and consider how best to address them. So that's a motion to move to July one. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. We have a motion move. July one, any member of the public would just counsel item on hearing, item number one say none of question's members. Cast your votes.
Speaker 0: Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. That's the only hearing we had. And by the way, I mistakenly didn't call for an oath, so we have to do that next time. We're not going to move to public comment or to members of the public which address council with. | Contract | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Rice & Bean, Inc., dba 4th Street Vine, 2142 East 4th Street, for Entertainment Without Dancing by Patrons. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06172014_14-0440 | Speaker 0: Item 20 Communication from Council Member Gerry Ship's key chairperson and Civil Service Committee Recommendation of the Personnel. Personnel and Civil Service Committee to receive and confirm appointments and re appointments to the Civil Service Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and the Water Commission.
Speaker 1: Chair Ships Key.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Robert Foster On the recommendation of the Mayor to the City Council, Civil Service and Personnel Committee, we met and approved the following recommendations for the consideration of the full council. First, as the Civil Service Commission, it's a new appointment for Ric McClinton Glamor. He is from Council District three Parks Recreation Commission New Appointments. David Sonata Council District eight. Stacy Morrison Council District seven. Rudolph Galindo Council District two. Ron Sievers County Council District four with two appointments. Ron Antoinette Council District five and Benjamin Goldberg Council District three. And last but certainly not least, the appointment with the Water Commission with John Allen of Council District four. I some of the seconds.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think you just can have those people that were named that three or stand up because I want to just thank you for your past service. Your future service. Thank thank you so much. I really appreciate it. People don't realize it's a lot of time people put in in the city could not be as effective as it is without their help. So I want to thank you all. Vice Mayor Garcia.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also want to congratulate all the commissioners that are coming in and those that are being re appointed. I absolutely look forward to working with all of you as we build and continue to strengthen our city. I particularly want to thank, you know, you know, Rudy, Dave, Rick, I know we've all had a chance to have separate conversations about the city. And and I just really in particular, I just want to congratulate the three of you who have been so patient but so committed to to Long Beach. So thank you all.
Speaker 1: Well, we have a motion in the second members cast your vote tonight of 20. And again. Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 0: Council member, Austin. Motion carries seven zero.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Members will go to item seven clinical read. Thanks again, everybody. Regulations.
Speaker 0: Ivan seven Communication from Councilwoman Jeri ships key recommendation to receive and file information about the wing winged Wonders Banner Project at Eldorado Park Duck Pond Council Memberships. | Appointment | Recommendation of the Personnel and Civil Service Committee to receive and confirm appointments and reappointments to the Civil Service Commission (1 appointment); Parks and Recreation Commission (4 appointments) (2 reappointments); and Water Commission (1 reappointment). | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06172014_14-0445 | Speaker 0: Ivan seven Communication from Councilwoman Jeri ships key recommendation to receive and file information about the wing winged Wonders Banner Project at Eldorado Park Duck Pond Council Memberships.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It was with great pleasure that we bring this in front of the City Council. We were able to implement it after numerous years of working with Lazaridis Wetlands Trust as well as the Audubon Society. I just saw Mary, but she's not here. Oh, there's Mary and a number of individuals who worked on the fifth Council District, Lakes, Ponds and Wetlands Task Force. But the focus of this project was was to try to figure out a way to educate the public about the importance of the birds and the wildlife that live in the duck pond and in many of the other water areas of the city of Long Beach, because we have major wetlands or we had them and we have the proximity to the ocean as well as two rivers. We enjoy being on the flyway for many, many important birds. And so we thought, how can we work with the community to let them know the importance of these birds to our environment and also at the same time understanding that we have a responsibility because we're the stewards, because as they visit our lakes and ponds and wetlands, we have to do what we can to make sure we take care of them. And I have to tell you, I as many people in here in other places, you know, traditionally thought it was okay to go and take bread and go feed ducks and thought, gee, this is great. They come up there, they're obviously very aggressive, very hungry, because why would they be coming up for this food? And what we found in the numerous years of research we did is that the food that we use as humans hurts the wildlife. And so we set about to have a program where we could educate people that we can't tell people they can't feed the ducks or they can't feed the birds. It just doesn't work. So we came up with a program to educate them on what the appropriate food would be if they want to visit. So when if you go to and I invite all of you to do this, go to the duck pond in Eldorado Park, you will find a series of banners as you walk around them at the pond. You can also listen to your cell phone. We work with Cornell Ornithology, Cornell University, their ornithology department. They gave us the rights in the city of Long Beach to use not only the information that we're able to place on the banners, but when you listen on the cell phone presentation, you can actually hear the actual noise sound of those ducks, so and other birds. So you get a better appreciation of these. We worked with local photographer Evan Butterfield, who took the photos. And as you see the banners, the banners are incredible. The color in them is just outstanding. It really gives you a great sense of the majesty of these of these birds. And so if you would just bear with me for a couple of minutes, we have a very short clip. We want to show you that channel, the Cities Channel came out and did for our heart of the city. So if you can roll that.
Speaker 5: I think that.
Speaker 6: Some of the Texas employees.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 6: We've got some very important news to tell by the news about a project called Eldorado Park. One wonders. Today I have kind of the grandmother or the mother or the end of the bird center in this park. She has done just an incredible job since I met her.
Speaker 5: I am very, very leery. And I think it's a the of.
Speaker 6: How you all got involved in what you did regarding the ducks and the different birds that around this pond?
Speaker 4: Well, one thing that we did early is take a census or keep track of what birds are here. And really, we have the birds that are here year round, and then we have migratory birds that come through a lot of migratory ducks.
Speaker 6: And that's important. A lot of people don't understand. These are not birds that just stay here. These birds sometimes are visitors, and that makes it even important, more important that we treat them as wildlife.
Speaker 4: Correct. We're on the Pacific Flyway. So, you know, migratory ducks come through any time from October, November. They stay here, usually leaving around February. And that's the thing that's that's very important. These are wild ducks and they're not they're not our pets.
Speaker 6: Yes. Tell us a little bit about what you think the most important things people need to know about these birds. And there's a variety of them coming up onshore.
Speaker 4: Uh, that we need to let them eat their proper food that they not eat. That would be things you would find in the grouse or things they find in the in the water. It wouldn't be food prepared by humans like bread or potato chips.
Speaker 6: Let's talk a bit about what bread does to birds. Because, listen, I. I have to confess, before I really was educated on this, I had brought my children over here and I'm sure generations do you want to bring Bran? And it's fun to feed them. But what is what does bread do to ducks?
Speaker 4: I think is I think they can't digest it correctly and in incubating them sick basically and then.
Speaker 6: And they access my understanding excess bread that sits in the bottom starts to grow bacteria which then is unhealthy for water. And then it also because they, they, they defecate or they poop a lot because of the overfeeding personal bacteria problem. Then you have algae and then it chokes off the oxygen and then you have a very unhealthy situation.
Speaker 4: Correct. And just overcrowding, right?
Speaker 6: That's right. It's overcrowding also. It makes the birds, some of them aggressive because they depend on human feeding instead of the natural way they're supposed to eat.
Speaker 4: Exactly. And then there's competition. And, you know, Audubon has a long history of in the schools, educating kids early about the birds and what birds they are. And I think if you're educated, you know more about it, then maybe the more you know, the more you can treat them correctly.
Speaker 6: Well, I want to.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Joy, and I.
Speaker 6: Want to thank you. And I want to thank the Alabama Society. I know when we put the project together that you were very diligent in helping us check out to make sure we were accurate because we wanted to really educate people with the correct information. And I know that we've worked with you in a number of organizations on the issue. You just can't simply tell people they can't feed because people are resistant. So what we've tried to do is educate them about what they can feed. And today, as a matter of fact and we're going to show it in a couple of minutes, we actually brought some samples of beef, the non-human food that you have in your kitchen that you can feed them.
Speaker 4: I think that's a great idea. Can you give people examples? Then they can understand what they could bring to work.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. That's going to be on Heart of the City. I want to thank the following organizations that donated the money so that we were able to do the banners and the guide buy sell tours. I want to thank the partners of Parks, the Port of Long Beach, the last three tours, Wetlands, Land Trust, Waste Management, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and the Eldorado Audubon Society. And, of course, we want to thank Evan Butterfield for his fantastic photography. So with that, I would make a motion for people to come on over and take a gander at these wonderful birds and to receive and file the report.
Speaker 1: June 2nd, any member of the public was just counseling him. Seven And he can answer questions. Members cast your votes on item seven.
Speaker 0: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 1: Thank you. To make the grade. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file information about the Winged Wonders Banner Project at El Dorado Park Duck Pond. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06172014_14-0449 | Speaker 0: Item 11 Report from Human Resources Recommendation to authorize City Manager to purchase excess workers compensation insurance for the period of July 2014 through July 2015, through the city's casual broker Aon for a total premium not to exceed 3380 5000 citywide.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 1: Moved and seconded any member of the Public Watch Press Council on item 11. CASA membership.
Speaker 6: In Samarra. I just had a question for the city attorney. My understanding that you are going to be looking at worker's comp and how it's handled in the city of Long Beach and possibly hopefully maybe remove it from the city attorney's office.
Speaker 2: I had not heard that.
Speaker 6: No, I thought you talked about that.
Speaker 2: You know, we talked about.
Speaker 7: We are doing a audit of our best practices, not of moving the department from the city attorney's office. We have retained outside folks to begin that audit. We're doing the scope. And so we will be coming back with proposed changes and findings from that audit.
Speaker 6: And that they will entertain. Also, looking at the current structure of it being the claims handling, being in the city attorney's office.
Speaker 2: That is not part of it.
Speaker 6: Okay. I would strongly recommend we look at that because it's kind of well known in the worker's comp community that that's part of the problem about the cost is that it's litigated instead of handled as a a case management. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mr. Austin.
Speaker 2: Here's some I'm was a little perplexed on this one and apologized for not speaking with the city manager earlier about this. But why exactly are we we're doing this. I'll give it over to our risk manager. Mike Aleo, a council councilmember and members of the council may have the access worker's comp. Insurance is basically catastrophic insurance for large events. For example, a large warehouse fire where we would have several fire, firefighters injured, a large earthquake. Those type examples is what the insurance is for. So it kicks in at a very large amount where the city self insures the basic amounts under the 4 million. So does this one move or was this forecast that. In our FY14 budget? Yes, it's in our budget. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Members cast your votes on animal heaven.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 0: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Item 12 clerk will summarize. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to purchase excess workers’ compensation insurance with Safety National Casualty Corporation for the period of July 1, 2014 through July 1, 2015, through the City’s casualty broker Aon, for a total premium not to exceed $385,000. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06172014_14-0454 | Speaker 0: Item 15 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to Authorize City Manager to execute a nonexclusive commercial license agreement with George River from Operation for Operation of Farm for a farmers market. For a two year renewal option. Renewal option at the discretion of the City Manager, as recommended by Parks and Recreation Commission on March 13, 2014.
Speaker 1: District seven so moved to Johnson.
Speaker 7: I'll go ahead and second, the motion. I just want to congratulate George for continuing support and service. You know, having fresh foods available us wasn't part of a city is very important. And I hope that this farmer's market continues in the years to come.
Speaker 1: All right. We have motion in second. Any member of the public to stress counsel on item 15 saying none, no council discussion. Members cast their votes on item 15.
Speaker 0: My motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 1: Okay, good. I am 16.
Speaker 0: Luxury Item 16 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to Authorize City Manager to Execute Second Amendment to Amendment with the City. City of Cerritos. City of Los Alamitos. City of SEAL Beach. City of Signal Hill. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a non-exclusive Commercial License Agreement with Jorge Rivera for the operation of a farmers’ market at Admiral Kidd Park for a term of two years, with two, two-year renewal options at the discretion of the City Manager or his designee, as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 13, 2014. (District 7) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06172014_14-0456 | Speaker 0: Item 18 Report from Public Works. Recommendation to approve the convention. Sorry. The conversion of 55th Street and Louis Street between Linden Avenue and Long Beach Boulevard to One Way Street. And request the city attorney to prepare an amendment to Section 10.14 .20 of the municipal code, adding a new sub subsection to read westbound 54th Street between Linden Avenue and Long Beach Boulevard. Eastbound Lewis Street between Long Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue.
Speaker 2: District 8/2.
Speaker 1: Moving second. In any member of the public with first council on item 18. Any to council members. Cat of Mr. Austin.
Speaker 2: Yes. Council. Mr. Mayor, thank you for the recognition. I have decided this these one way propose one way. Couplets are located in District eight. They have been a under in the works for for several years and were happy to see that they are finally coming before the council. And we can really improve traffic flow in a in a neighborhood that desperately needs it. Thank you very much. And encouraged the unanimous support.
Speaker 1: Gay marriage cast your votes on item 18.
Speaker 0: Motion carries eight zero.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Members Item 19 Clerk Read.
Speaker 0: Item 19 Report from Development Services Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and relating to Long Beach Municipal Code 21.54 related to billboards read and adopted as. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to approve the conversion of 55th Street and Louise Street between Linden Avenue and Long Beach Boulevard to one-way streets; and
Request City Attorney to prepare an amendment to Section 10.14.020 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, adding a new Subsection to read “(Westbound) 55th Street between Linden Avenue and Long Beach Boulevard, (Eastbound) Louise Street between Long Beach Boulevard and Linden Avenue." (District 8) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06102014_14-0399 | Speaker 4: Item one report from Development Services Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and declare the ordinance. Amending the Zoning Regulation of Long Beach Municipal Code Title 21 Relating to the regulation of billboards. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading.
Speaker 3: Southwest. Mayor are members of city council making stout presentation will be Amy Bullock, Director of Development Services Department.
Speaker 4: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, we are here today to have a first reading of the billboard ordinance based on direction that you provided to staff back in January. Specifically, we made modifications to the language to allow development agreements to be utilized in the event that copies cannot be utilized. And that we also made changes to the regulations requiring private room prior or removal of billboards that are to be demolished before a building permit can be issued for construction of a new billboard. We have made additional minor amendments to the language to reflect suggestions that have been provided to us by billboard companies related to the Outdoor Advertising Act when they preempt the city. We've also made some clarifications on how we would measure light and glare studies and the technical specifications related to that. We have provided consistency now that previously did not exist in distances that billboards can be allowed, electronic billboards can be allowed from residential districts or institutional and park districts. And we've provided some other clean up language that you have in your red line version. The sum result of this is, I believe that we have struck a balance and have two different processes that various companies can use, depending on whether they have a lot of inventory or no inventory in the city in order to achieve the goals of electronic billboards in specified locations, and then clearly the removal of billboards in the neighborhoods where they may not be as appropriate. So with that, I'm going to wait to answer any questions that really does conclude my staff report, and we're available to answer any technical questions you may have.
Speaker 5: Mr. Mayor, do you like a motion.
Speaker 3: As always, in order.
Speaker 5: Moved to accept the staff recommendation?
Speaker 3: I believe there's three. Mr. Page, want to help me here? Three separate votes.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. Yes, Mayor Foster, members of the City Council. There is a ordinance and two resolutions.
Speaker 5: Can one motion cover all three?
Speaker 0: No, we need three. So the appropriate thing is just to take the motion to adopt the ordinance first.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 5: Okay. So moved.
Speaker 3: Moving, seconded. All right. Any questions from council members on this? Any public comment? Janeane members cast your votes on the ordinance.
Speaker 4: Motion carries.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Go to the first resolution. So moved that moved and seconded a any comments or questions from council members? Any public comment saying none members cast your votes on the second resolution. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, related to billboards, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06102014_14-0400 | Speaker 3: Thank you. Go to the first resolution. So moved that moved and seconded a any comments or questions from council members? Any public comment saying none members cast your votes on the second resolution.
Speaker 4: There's a comment.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm sorry. I did not see that. Please come forward. Identify yourself.
Speaker 5: I need to. Goodman I work for a company called Bulletin Displays, located at 3127 South Street in Long Beach. Honorable mayor and Council Members and staff. I sent this letter to each of you today and I'd like to go ahead and read it, please. As one of the only two local billboard companies located in Long Beach, California. We are writing to you in opposition of this ordinance. Bulletin displays is located at 3127 East South Street, Long Beach, California. As a local billboard company, we have not proliferated the surface streets, residential or commercial with our billboards at the detriment of the city . Over many rewrites, this ordinance continues to favor those companies who have overbuilt within the city or who have challenged this ordinance. The ordinance does achieve most of your objectives, the most important being the takedown of billboards on surface streets located in residential areas, mixed use areas and planned development areas. But the Council has also given good direction to staff through many hearings to create a level playing field that allows companies who haven't proliferated the surface streets with billboards or have taken down all their legal non-conforming billboards to write a development agreement. This allows the city to generate additional revenue based on the criteria in the ordinance. These two options. Diaz Being development agreements and leasing city property create competition among the billboard companies and the city is the benefactor from increased revenues. I have met numerous times with Amy Boda and staff when I was working with CBS Outdoor and now bulletin displays. Over the years, the industry has worked openly with staff to help craft an ordinance that is both fair and workable for the city of Long Beach and the billboard industry. After my most recent meeting with staff on February 13th, 2014 to discuss the section on development agreements and the definition of infeasible staff has returned with a more restrictive ordinance. The information that we discussed and the concerns that we raised were turned around and used against us. The intention of the development agreement and the language that defines and feasible could be achieved by bulletin displays. One staff had this information. They used it to add a section in the ordinance that mandated a trade ratio takedown. Based on our circumstances, bulletin displays met the word infeasible, met the definition of infeasible aspect of the ordinance. Now only to find another hurdle that doesn't make sense. In the staff report paragraph cited below, staff states they believe these new provisions reflect the direction and desire of the City Council in specifically addressing freeway oriented signs. I again assert that this paragraph below was added to the report and to the Development Agreement section based on staff's meeting with bulletin displays and staff's realization that bulletin displays may have an opportunity to build new.
Speaker 3: Billboards, which Patterson have to ask you to conclude.
Speaker 5: In conclusion, as Amy stated, the development agreement was added to the ordinance to allow for a competitive billboard situation within the city. Then what staff does is they go ahead and they add a 1 to 1 ratio of takedowns for development agreements based upon the word infeasible. I mean, I'm sure you understand where.
Speaker 3: You're out here well over the 3 minutes now. So I'm sorry then. Really, nothing I can do. All right. We will enforce that with everybody. Sorry.
Speaker 5: All right. All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Any questions? Okay. Is this on the resolution to direct the direct directing to development? The Director of Development Services. Members, cast your vote. Motion carries okay and final resolution is on the M.P. in charge of schedule. Our our entertaining motion. | Resolution | Adopt resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit the ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission for a finding of conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program;
Accept the Categorical Exemption CE-13-118; and | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06102014_14-0412 | Speaker 4: Item 14. Report from the City Manager Recommendation to receive and file communication from the Fire Chief to Marine Safety Division Staff regarding staffing of the city's four rescue boats.
Speaker 3: City West.
Speaker 0: Mr. Mayor. Council members during the public comment period of the last council meeting also this evening and also in closed session or prior to close session, a number of our Long Beach lifeguards spoke out about issues surrounding the staffing of the city's four rescue boats in the Marine Safety Division. The mayor and city council requested both a closed session and open session item B scheduled for tonight. As you know, we already had the closed session and the city attorney reported that out. This obviously is open session. The closed session was held earlier this afternoon. And as you heard from the city attorney, the council has instructed us to go back and meet with the Lifeguard Association to discuss the staffing plan and training that the fire chief is planning to move forward with, which will be completed no later than October 15th, at which time the fire captain will be placed on the shoreline . Vessel will vacate the vessel. With that, we'd be available to answer questions. But again, we're being directed to go back to the table, to work with our lifeguard department, to create this training program and be concluded with the entire training program and conclusion of the fire captain on the shoreline vessel on or before October 15th.
Speaker 5: Would you like a motion, Mr. Mayor?
Speaker 3: I would love to.
Speaker 5: Move to the receiver file, so.
Speaker 3: I'm moving. Second, any member of the Public Trust Council on item 14.
Speaker 0: Larry, could you clear? Cassie address. John Could you pull up, put on the screen the transparency? As I mentioned last week or the last time you met, my views relative to the lifeguards are based upon interfacing with them since 1982. When it comes down to the details, with all due respect to the fire department. When in doubt, I would stand behind the judgment. But a lifeguard as there is to that which is on the 14th floor. Of the city hall. That was not always the case in terms of the city hall management. It was generally in sync with the management of the lifeguards. What you see there is an interesting photo that is from the one of the members of the Swift Water Rescue Scheme. I would rather rely on their skill and judgment and their counterparts. As I say, then, these people in this building and in emergency. Be it on water or be it on be it on land? Yes. There's an interesting back story which is on the backside of this, which will come into play in about 6 to 8, less than six, eight months and so forth. This was just a very little side note here. This was the first branding or marketing of the effort of the two nearly two and a half decade effort, which will culminate hopefully within six months of securing the next Olympic bid, if the IOC if the USOC decides to bid. But again, the message is I would rather rely on the talent and the skills of somebody able to accomplish that. Then those on the 14th floor of this city. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next, please.
Speaker 0: Automated Council members public. My name is Erin Fletcher. I'm a board member for the Long Beach Lifeguard Association. First, thank you guys very much for all your energy for these last several months, both in listening and meeting with us and responding, and for your energy behind closed doors to get a firm deadline of October 15th on this plan. We look forward to working through the meeting confer process. One of the questions I have is, are we gonna go through the entire meet and confer process prior to.
Speaker 5: The implementation of.
Speaker 0: Putting the captain on the rescue boat? Or is that going to be is that going to be done.
Speaker 5: Prior to the completion of our meeting confer process?
Speaker 0: And what we don't understand why the captain is still going out there and we don't agree that he has to be placed out there, especially considering budget cuts when we talk about the R&D program and also about budget and now we call back to the lifeboats and we're talking about increasing the amount we're spending. It just begs some questions from us. And with that, just again, thank you for your time. Thank you for your energy. We still have concerns and.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr.. Actually. You have to identify yourself again.
Speaker 0: Okay. My name's John Rancic. I wear a lot of hats.
Speaker 3: I'm the current Commodore of the Association of San Pedro Bay Clubs.
Speaker 0: Which in Long.
Speaker 3: Beach encompasses SEAL Beach Yacht Club, Little Ships, Fleet Yacht Club, Navy Yacht Club of Long Beach. Long Beach Club. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club and the Marina Yacht Club.
Speaker 0: And I went at our last meeting.
Speaker 3: I was directed to express to the City Council the fact that we really felt the need for the lifeguards to be on the boats, even in the firefighting capacities, primarily because when we're out there on the water, especially when we're racing or.
Speaker 0: Especially during.
Speaker 3: Peak times like 4th of July.
Speaker 0: I want the lifeguards out there who have our license.
Speaker 3: By the Coast Guard that have the experience.
Speaker 0: In the rescue.
Speaker 3: Operations and not necessarily.
Speaker 0: The firefighters.
Speaker 3: Who, you know, their job is to fight fires. So I commend the.
Speaker 0: Council in their efforts.
Speaker 3: To keep the lifeguards on the boat.
Speaker 0: And I want.
Speaker 3: To express the appreciation of the Association of San Pedro, the Yacht Club. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comment? Okay. Was there emotion? I forgot.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Yes.
Speaker 3: Emotion in second. All right. Members, any questions? Members, cast your vote for an item 14. The receiving firelight, but.
Speaker 4: Councilman. What? Motion carries.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Item 15 Clinical Reid. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file communication from the Fire Chief to Marine Safety Division staff regarding staffing of the City’s four rescue boats. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06102014_14-0414 | Speaker 4: Item 16 Report from Development Services. Recommendation to request the Department of Development Services to work with the city attorney to draft an ordinance dissolving the Disabled Access Appeal Board and transferring the responsibilities of the B to the Board of Examiners Appeals and Condemnation and returning to the City Council with implementation ordinance.
Speaker 5: So move.
Speaker 3: Moving, seconded. Any public comment on item 16? Any counsel request. Mr. JOHNSON.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you, Mayor. Yeah. My question for staff is, is why do these two boards exist? And I never know why we eliminate it now. I mean, I guess my question is why when the second one was proposed, why didn't they just roll those functions in to this other board at that time? Councilmember I'll turn it over to the development services director, Amy Bodak, and the Deputy Director, Angela Rounds.
Speaker 4: Thank you. City Manager, West Mayor, City Council Councilman Johnson I can't really tell you the genesis of the two boards, but what we're proposing is a is an efficiency because they were both they're both seated to hear appeals of the building officials rulings, one for accessibility and then one for everything. So it's just a matter of efficiencies. The disabled board rarely meets, so we wanted to just combine them with the back that already exists. Board of Examiners Condemnations and Appeals.
Speaker 0: Has that received any comments or concerns from disabled community or others about the change?
Speaker 4: Well, part of the change would require that two disabled folks served on the back, and that's the same in the ordinance for the disabled board.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. Any further comments? Members cast votes on item 16.
Speaker 4: Motion carries.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Item 17, Mr. Park. And this has got just one motion or do we have to? | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request Department of Development Services to work with the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance dissolving the Disabled Access Appeals Board (DAAB) and transferring the responsibilities of the DAAB to the Board of Examiners, Appeals and Condemnation (BEAC); and return to the City Council with the implementation ordinance(s). (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06102014_14-0416 | Speaker 3: Thank you, members. 818 We have the similar situation, Mr. Bergman. Can that be consolidated as well?
Speaker 0: That may be consolidated will have to know if there's no objection from the Council.
Speaker 3: Any objection to consolidation. We'll do that. Our 18 clerk read.
Speaker 4: Item 18 report from Language, Gas and Oil, Financial Management and Technology Services Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize city manager to execute contracts and any amendments thereto with Census USA.
Speaker 0: Some moved.
Speaker 3: Second, moved in second, and a member of the public was stress counseling a meeting? Ms.. Well.
Speaker 0: Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, yes, yes. First of all, I liked it, you know, like the savings that the new media will be, bring it to us, as well as a new communication that they offering the public to connect with the gas and oil company. And I would really like to think the individuals who really got together and put this together. Thank you guys again.
Speaker 3: Okay, Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor. Mr. City Manager. My understanding is with this item, the gas heat, our gas utility is moving to a wireless meter system. Edison has already moved a wireless meter system. Whether the water permit will remain with the current system, meaning that we'll still have someone checking water meters, but not gas meters or electric meters. So I guess my question is, is that accurate? And you tell me what the Water Department's position is or nothing. And let's hear from the water department. Are they interested in this working on this project or what's what's their their thoughts? Councilmember I'll turn this over to Cris Garner or Craig Beck, Manager to Council. Councilmember Johnson We've had numerous discussions with Long.
Speaker 3: Beach Water about this. In fact, they were part of the early process in this way. Along the way, they felt.
Speaker 0: That the technology may not be there as far on the water.
Speaker 3: Side than it is for.
Speaker 0: Electric and gas. And so they chose to sit out at this point. One of the benefits with the system that we're going with tonight is that the backbone system is identical. If it's gas alone or gas and water. So there's nothing that precludes water from joining us one year, two years, three years down the road, if they so choose. Okay. And in order for them to do that, what would need to happen? I mean, they would need to agree and there's some additional fees or something like that. But you're saying that the technology is there. They wouldn't need to install new hardware, essentially. Yes. Yep. At some point in the near.
Speaker 3: Future decide to go this route.
Speaker 0: They would have to.
Speaker 3: Install the units onto.
Speaker 5: The water meters themselves.
Speaker 0: But the backbone system will be there. Okay. And I received one of the other bidders sent a letter concerning the fact they seem to represent that, oh, a consultant who was retained by the city to actually draft this RFP then is now getting work under the RFP. In other words, kind of helped design the process and is now getting work out of that process they designed. Is that accurate? And if so, do you do you have I mean, is this a fair and open process? No, Councilmember, that's not accurate. They were chosen under a separate RFI and RFP process. And then the actual decision making as far as who to select as far as the final vendor was a joint effort.
Speaker 3: By.
Speaker 0: Long Beach gas representatives, representatives from technology services, raptors, from financial management and also.
Speaker 3: From signal have a water. So they certainly recommended and made.
Speaker 0: The advice.
Speaker 5: But it was our final.
Speaker 0: Decision. But they are not part of this.
Speaker 3: RFP that is before you tonight.
Speaker 0: But we're asking you tonight to do is extend the.
Speaker 3: Terms of the RFP that they were chosen on in 2013.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. Any further questions? Our members cast your vote for an item 18.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Jones. Motion carries.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Item 19, click read. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP GO14-014 and authorize City Manager to execute contracts and any amendments thereto with Sensus USA, Inc. of Raleigh, NC, Harris Utilities of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Utility Partners of America of Greenville, SC, and Utiliworks Consulting of Baton Rouge, LA, in an aggregate amount of $20,085,466 plus a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $2,008,547 for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $22,094,013; | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06102014_14-0418 | Speaker 4: Item 20 Report from Police Recommendation to receive and file the application of Cuban Peter Leather Ribbon Lounge for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License at 245 Pine Avenue. With conditions district to sell moved.
Speaker 3: Second move and second any member of the Public Research Council on item to consumer law.
Speaker 4: Q I just wanted to make sure that it was with conditions. Madam, quick. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Members cast your votes in over 20.
Speaker 4: And the council met a lot of. Council member Andrews. Council member? Austin.
Speaker 3: Did you? They're all on.
Speaker 5: A.
Speaker 4: Motion case.
Speaker 3: Thank you. They'll go to item 21.
Speaker 4: Item 21 report from Police, Financial Management and Harbor Recommendation to adopt Adobe specifications and authorize the city manager to execute a contract with an air inflatable of an airport for the purchase of 130 foot down 3840 foot multi-use port police boat. | ABC License | Recommendation to receive and file the application of Cuban Pete’s Rhythm Lounge, LLC, dba Cuban Pete’s, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 245 Pine Avenue #200-220, with conditions. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_06102014_14-0419 | Speaker 4: Item 21 report from Police, Financial Management and Harbor Recommendation to adopt Adobe specifications and authorize the city manager to execute a contract with an air inflatable of an airport for the purchase of 130 foot down 3840 foot multi-use port police boat.
Speaker 0: So moved back in. I want to know whose boat.
Speaker 5: Will be bigger places or find.
Speaker 0: Out if movements moved.
Speaker 3: In, seconded anywhere the public officer does to council an item with a head going on. 21. Any council discussion members cast your votes in over 21.
Speaker 4: Motion carries.
Speaker 3: 22.
Speaker 4: Item 22 Report from Public Works Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute MRU with the Los Angeles Gateway Regional Integrated Regional Water Management Joint Powers Authority two for administration and Cost Sharing of Preparing and Implementation of Coordinated Compliance, Monitoring and reporting plan.
Speaker 3: Select moving seconded. Any member of the public is just outside of 22. Any council discussion CNN members cast your votes and I 922. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. ITB FS-14-061 and authorize City Manager to execute a contract with NAIAD Inflatables of Newport, Inc., of Portsmouth, RI, for the purchase of one 38-40 foot, multi-use Port Police boat, in a total amount not to exceed $777,076, inclusive of tax and fees. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05202014_14-0379 | Speaker 6: Adam, 12, is communication from the Office of Mayor Bob Foster with the recommendation to receive the Charter Commission appointment and reappointment pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.6 moved 3/2.
Speaker 1: Moved there by way of explanation. The Police Citizen's Police Complaint Commission has one new appointee and three reappoint these and they have an awful big workload. That's why I'm doing this. A little out of order. It does require two votes. The first is to move the appointments to the council from the Civil Service Committee. I think that's correct. Mr. part. You want to describe this.
Speaker 7: Mayor. Thank you. The pursuant to the language municipal code, these appointments need to be reviewed prior to placing on the council agenda by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee. That action did not happen, and the Council has the authority to waive at its discretion that requirement. So the first motion would be to waive the requirement to present it to the personnel in civil service.
Speaker 1: So moved, moving, seconded and any member of the public to address council on that motion. Seeing the members cast your votes on that motion.
Speaker 6: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 1: And secondly, we would we would vote on the nominees. The way I'm buying them is here. And she's the nominee to fill the about one year left on the term at the Harbor Commission. And then there was a big baby with the first district representative. Mr. Garcia, you might want to say something about. And then three re appointees, Raul of Norway, Brian Ryder and Emmanuel Walker from the second an at large and ninth district, respectively. So.
Speaker 3: Mr. DELONG Yeah, I just want to make a comment that I'm extremely supportive of all your nominations, but in particular, Lou Ann Bynum. I've known her for a decade, and she's going to be an outstanding addition to the Harbor Commission. So thank you in advance for your service. Lujan.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr.. Whoever you are, Mr. Neal. And a brain cramp there for a moment.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I concur with my colleague, Mr. DeLong. I'm in complete concurrence, but I would like to acknowledge Mr. Manuel Walker, who has been a tremendous leader, and Nawaf Lone, beaten in the ninth District and commend him for his exemplary service to your community. Thank you so much, my friend.
Speaker 1: Mr. Garcia.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, I'm going to start off with congratulating and welcoming Terry. Terry has been a fantastic advocate in the Long Beach area, particularly in Wilmore and the historic area. So we look forward to having you on board and thank you for your for your service and for serving the city of Long Beach. I also want to add my my remarks also to Luann. I think, Luann, you and I have known each other for probably 15, 20 years or so. And it's been a pleasure to work with you at Lombard City College as colleagues and as as friends as well. And so I welcome you to the the Port of Parma commissioners. You could do a fantastic job. The mayor made a good choice. And so good luck because a lot of work to do.
Speaker 1: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 10: Well, thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank all the nominees for your service. You know, we've said it before, but really couldn't do the work of the city without people like you willing to step up and volunteer. So I want to thank you in advance. I would like to. Mayor, if it were okay, just maybe invite Ms.. Bynum up to say a few words. And I just had a one question I want to answer.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 10: I think one thing we've done very well over the city or at the port last few years is reach out to the community, particularly the west side. And I just wanted to hear from his Bynum. I know you've had already done a lot outreach at Lumbee City College, but your thoughts on how because the port is so tremendously important from economic development perspective, but also because of the effects, the negative effects on the West Side, what your thoughts are in terms of reaching out to that community and and having kind of a sustained dialog over the next few years.
Speaker 2: Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Mayor Foster and all of you for this consideration. I consider an honor. I think it's an awesome responsibility to be involved with the harbor and be a harbor commissioner. But your question is, is right on the harbor and the port is a major economic engine in this community, and there's a lot of jobs tied to it. It's jobs creation. It's job retention. I think our future in terms of where jobs are going is tied as well to the port and advanced transportation. But having said that, the port is also doesn't operate in a vacuum. It operates with the city of Long Beach, and it's tied to the residents in our community. And I applaud the work that the port and the commissioners have done in the past to take leadership to mitigate the environmental concerns that our our citizens have to deal with. And I would anticipate I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. I think they can be done together and I think they can be done. Both of them, you know, to make sure the port's competitive at the same time ensure that our citizens have clean, healthy environment and are able to to coexist well with the port and the means for both of them.
Speaker 10: I want to thank you for for the answer and very excited to see your service. And I would invite you to know when you have a chance to sit down some of the West Siders and I can help facilitate that. And I think we've done some great things in the past. The West Side plan is one thing you may have heard about that I think really creates the conditions for a win win, that the poor can grow and succeed in the neighborhoods and get better at the same time. Just like you talked, I don't think we need to have a zero sum game. So thank you for being who was willing to serve and I look forward to working with you in the coming years.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Mr. Neal.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I would also like to I don't see Mr. Northey in the audience, but I would like to publicly commend him as well. But prior to him moving into District two. He was a vital asset in District nine, serving on the Human Rights Commission. And I would like to acknowledge his service to the city as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you for doing that, Mr. Neal. He is all over the place and he's a he's a great citizen to have in this city. He's always willing to help. And I'm glad to bring that because I have all the nominees stand up, please. If you're here, I. I want to publicly thank you for your willingness to serve me. A lot of people don't realize this. It is time consuming and a lot of energy to serve on commissions. These two in particular take a lot of time. And I want to thank you for being civically responsible, willing to give your time for the betterment of the community that we could not do this without you. So thank you very much in advance for your service. Appreciate. We have a motion and a second. Any comment on this? This motion? My members cast your votes on the nominees.
Speaker 8: It's.
Speaker 6: And this motion is to appoint the nominees. That is.
Speaker 1: Correct. We already dealt with this as the appointment.
Speaker 6: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 1: Thank. Thank you, members. Congratulations to you all and thank you again for your service. Item 20 clerical read.
Speaker 6: Item 20 is a report from the Long Beach Airport and the city manager with the recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute documents for a new lease with cinema aircraft. Executive Transportation for property located at 4301 Douglas Drive in Long Beach. | Appointment | Recommendation to receive Charter Commission appointments and reappointments pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05202014_14-0367 | Speaker 6: She has a report from the city attorney with the recommendation to authorize the city attorney to pay some $50,000 in settlement of the lawsuit titled Dorian Brooks versus the City of Long Beach.
Speaker 1: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 10: Well, thank you, Mayor. And tonight, it looks like we're discussing a settlement of $50,000 for alleged police misconduct, although I know it's only alleged. I guess my question for Mr. Parkin is moving forward from tonight, what are we doing in terms of risk management for preventing this from happening again at PD and preventing this kind of litigation in the future?
Speaker 7: Mayor, our members of the council, Mr. JOHNSON. As with all cases and all settlements, we discuss the issues that arise in this case with the appropriate client, in this case, the police department. And they would then review their training techniques and tactics on this particular type of search and make any changes that they deem appropriate to their policies and procedures.
Speaker 10: I will certainly, you know, I hope we make some changes and this is only $50,000. But my concern is if it got a jury trial would have been could have been a lot more so. So now to support the settlement tonight. But I think the question isn't the settlement. The question is what are we doing to prevent these kind of issues from coming up? Not just for the money, but also protect innocent parties. So with that, I'll go ahead and make the motion to approve.
Speaker 1: Second moving second to Mr. Austen.
Speaker 11: Yes. I just wanted to comment on I serve on the NF, along with Councilmember Neil. This came before our committee. It was discussed and the same question was actually asked in committee before we recommended for it to be approved. I want to applaud the city attorney's office for working to get a settlement and potentially saving the city a great, great settlement or lawsuit. And so, again, I think you were asked a very pertinent and real question, the question that necessitated a response. And the public should know that the city attorney's office, as well as our PD, work to try to minimize this and mitigate this as much as possible.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion in a second. Any member of the public would suggest councilor outside. And please come forward. Identify yourself. Has to be on this item. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 9: Honorable members of the Council. My name is Stephen Downing. I am a resident of Long Beach living in Belmont Shore area. I hope that in accepting this recommendation for a settlement, that you reject the transmittal from the city attorney that serves the city and the officers deny using excessive force. I agree with the recommendation of settling for $50,000 as a good deal for the city. In light of the brutality, the egregious violation of Mr. Brooks's constitutional rights and the over destruction of property executed under the color of authority. However, the City Attorney's Letter of transmittal establishes the city's position that the city and the officers deny any excessive force was used. Judging from past actions, including the recent false and misleading representations and election law crimes perpetrated by the Long Beach Police Officers Association upon the electorate and the continuing influence they have perpetrated and have maintained the status quo within the City Attorney's Office. I fully expect that the officers would deny that any excessive force was used, but it would be a travesty for this Council to let stand the position taken by the city attorney that supports the legitimacy of involved officers actions in the eyes of the Long Beach community. To do so would to would be to denigrate the police department, its leadership, and the rank and file professionals whose reputation and hard work have been tainted by those few incompetents who were able to worm their way into the ranks of the police department and remain there, remain there because of the vested interests of the police union that continues to outweigh the interests of the people. The city attorney's office, since the time the brutality of this case was first shown on that screen to this council, the entire city council two years ago saw it. He's tried to obfuscate this incident, as well as threaten those who tried to bring the scope of its horrors to the attention of the public. The Long Beach Post first wrote about the incident, and the city attorney Robert Shannon retaliated by sending a letter to the publisher demanding that the article be retracted, threatening unspecified legal action if the publisher failed to do so. Shannon was most upset with the fact that the Long Beach Post revealed that one of his own deputy city attorneys was present at the raid, which gave rise to the question that the officers.
Speaker 1: Had to conclude.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: You need to conclude your time has expired.
Speaker 9: All right. Let me conclude.
Speaker 1: Now, quickly.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Quickly, please. Okay. 3 minutes. I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: That's okay. I've been a while.
Speaker 1: I think we get. I think I.
Speaker 9: Saw a few other moments this evening go for more than 3 minutes. But I've asked the city clerk to enter my letter into the record and offered it to the press. I think this is going on too long in this city.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Parkin. It sounded as if you were describing something, not advocating something, just. Can you put some color on that?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mayor. This evening, the action before you tonight is a recommended settlement. There was no admission of liability by the city of Long Beach. And Mr. Dowling is incorrect. So the. The action speaks for itself. It's a favorable settlement. We recommend settling this matter.
Speaker 1: You were conveying to us that the officers still deny any wrongdoing.
Speaker 7: That is correct.
Speaker 1: I want to make that clear. In the interest of fairness here. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any additional public comment? All right, members, cast your votes.
Speaker 6: Motion carry six votes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Item 13 Cllr Cary.
Speaker 6: Out of 13. That's communication with the office and Vice Mayor Robert Garcia, Councilmember Susan Lowenthal and councilmember James Johnson with the recommendation that the rec to request the city attorney to prepare a resolution in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 115, which affirms support for the accomplishments of Senator Jenny Oropeza. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Attorney to pay sum of $50,000 in full settlement of lawsuit entitled Dorian Brooks v. City of Long Beach, et al. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05202014_14-0378 | Speaker 6: 15 is a report from Financial Management, the harbor department with the recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the incurrence and issuance of by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of a loan provided by the United States Department of Transportation. And related subordinate Harvard you harbor revenue vote you know aggregate amount not to exceed $325 million.
Speaker 1: So moved move moving seconded any member. The public was just outside of 15. Any council discussion, Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 10: Well, thank you, Mayor. And I guess I just want to hear from the director. I think Mr. Morrow is here. My understanding I remember we originally talked about the bridge, the ports contributions would be around 10%, which I think was $90 million. And then that became 180 million. And now it sounds like it's higher. So I'm just kind of curious, what is the port's share right now and what are efforts, if any, to kind of contain those costs?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Al Moreau, acting executive director of the Harbor Department. The current budget for the bridge is approximately $1.2 billion. When we initially initially started the project, the budget was about $950 million. So roughly $350 million increase in in cost. A lot of that was associated with the revenue clearance for clearing. Right. Excuse me right away. Clearance clearing the right of way for the new bridge immediately north and adjacent to the existing bridge. The majority of that work is behind us, so we feel very confident with the current budget of $1.2 billion. We are similar to financing schemes where we look for low interest loans that help repay the the the debt that we've incurred on this bridge. We are also working with state and federal government to find any kind of transportation grant funds that are available, and we'll continue to do that through the life of the project.
Speaker 10: Now things tomorrow. So I guess on that last point. Right now we're bearing that additional cost, but you're exploring every avenue to see if state or federal partners may be willing to chip in, maybe given the escalations that what I'm hearing.
Speaker 4: That's correct.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any other any other questions here? Cast your vote tonight at 15.
Speaker 6: Motion carry six.
Speaker 1: Voted item 16 Clerk read the report. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the incurrence and issuance by the Board of Harbor Commissioners, on behalf of the City of Long Beach, of a loan to be provided by the United States Department of Transportation and a related subordinate Harbor Revenue Note, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $325,000,000, both secured by subordinate Harbor Department revenues. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05202014_14-0381 | Speaker 6: Report from Long Beach Airport with a recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement with the American Association of Airport Executives to host the 2017 annual conference.
Speaker 3: Call moved.
Speaker 1: I can move and seconded. Do we want to do this, Mario? Good. And here them.
Speaker 3: The city council. This is a very good conference for everybody.
Speaker 1: I know you worked hard on this. And I want to thank you for that's a great thing to come to the city. Thank you very much. Any any member of the council any council discussion. Mr.. Austin.
Speaker 11: Well, I think this is a great accomplishment, and I support it. I just want a commitment from our airport director, outgoing airport director, Mr. Rodriguez, that he'll be here to attend.
Speaker 3: And yeah, most definitely I'll be here.
Speaker 11: All right. We look forward to.
Speaker 1: It occur, Mr. Rodriguez. 2017th September.
Speaker 4: 2017. Honor about the weather's good here.
Speaker 3: Better than where you'll be.
Speaker 1: Hey, thanks again. Mary did a great job. And as I was there when we first pitched this and it was this terrific.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right. A council discussion. Members cast your votes on item 18.
Speaker 6: Motion Carry six vote yes. Item 19 to recommendation to adopt specifications award a contract convergent technologies for the airport security system. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute any and all documents necessary to enter into an agreement with the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) to host the 2017 AAAE Annual Conference and Exposition. (District 5) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05202014_14-0394 | Speaker 6: Of correspondence from the Office Council Mentorships Key Council Member Lost and Council Member Stephen Neal with a recommendation to the City Council to contend the inhumane treatment and abduction of female students by our militants from the government. Government Girls Secondary School in the north defense northeastern province of Borneo.
Speaker 1: Distrusted.
Speaker 11: Yes. By now, most of you may have heard about the kidnaping of almost 300 female students that took place in Nigeria on April 14, 2014. Most of the students, these are students, most of whom are in the ages of 18, 16 and 18 and are thought to have been abducted by armed militia group Boko Haram, a well-known group known to oppose the education of girls. While few of the girls managed to escape, most almost two of 200 of them remain missing. The Senate recently passed a resolution condemning the abduction. And we're asking this is body language city council to adopt a similar resolution tonight. Joining the mothers, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Senate and communities around the world in protesting this this atrocity, Russia's crime. This resolution outlines the situation in great detail. But let me provide you with a few details to help explain our request and add the voice our voice to the international community on the issue. As I mentioned, the girls were abducted in the middle of the night from a boarding school in northeastern Nigeria. Hundreds of students have been killed in the past year by this terrorist organization in this region of Nigeria. Boko Haram is known to oppose the education of girls and has targeted schools, mosques, churches, villages and in a violent campaign of terror based on extreme interpretation of Islam. The leader of the organization has taken responsibility for the abduction and has said that the girls will be sold into sexual slavery. With this resolution, the City of Long Beach expresses its strong support for the people of Nigeria, especially the parents and families of the girls abducted by the terrorists. Recognizing that every individual, regardless of gender, should have the opportunity to pursue an education without the fear of discrimination and reaffirms its commitment to ending discrimination, violence and violence against women and girls. I ask for unanimous approval.
Speaker 1: So we have a motion to have a second. Second. All right, Mr. Neil.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I stand with the coauthors of this resolution. And also on a secondary note, in regards to the issue of sex trafficking and sex slavery.
Speaker 3: Which is a.
Speaker 10: Huge issue here in the city of Long Beach. Many of our residents are not aware, but this city happens to be one of the areas where the the sex trafficking occurs right through our corridors, particularly Long Beach Boulevard. So on several levels, I stand in agreement with this and I asked Councilmember Austin for unanimous approval. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mr. Austin.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 11: And I'd be remiss if I did not recognize a council member who was not here for her, her or her leadership in putting this this item forward.
Speaker 1: We have a motion. And second, any member of the Public Trust Council inside of the council discussion members was cast your vote tonight and 23.
Speaker 6: Motion carry six vote. Yes.
Speaker 1: You business, Mr. Neal.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to inform everyone to please join me this Saturday for the third annual Latin Jazz and Blues Festival. This event kicks off at 2 p.m. and we will have nonstop music, food, fun until 8:00. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to City Council to condemn the inhumane treatment and abduction of female students by armed militants from the Government Girls Secondary School in the northeastern province of Borno in the Federal Republic of Nigeria by passing the following resolution which was introduced in the U.S. Senate. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05132014_14-0339 | Speaker 3: Cllr greg item made his report from the office of council member. I lost in council member patrick o'donnell where the recommendation to request the city manager to communicate the city's support for Assembly Bill 1147, which would return local and land use authority to cities and counties applicable to massage businesses.
Speaker 2: Mr. AUSTIN.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll first of all, I'd like to thank Councilmember O'Donnell for joining me with this item. I'm asking my colleagues to join in supporting AB 1147, the Massage Therapy Act of 2014 in 2008 and unintended consequence of a newly adopted state law removed many of the local controls the city has. Cities have to regulate massage businesses. Since that time, there's been a significant increase in the number of massage businesses in cities throughout the state. I'd like to emphasize that most massage businesses are good, upstanding and reputable businesses. However, a small number of massage businesses have been known to engage in illegal and illicit activities. Our police department does an outstanding job of investigating complaints about these businesses and making arrests when appropriate. However, this bill will give our city more tools to regulate and enforce our local laws to protect the public safety, health and safety. This bill would also prohibit the use of sexually suggestive advertising of massage services, and the League of California Cities actually supports this legislation. I understand that our city staff has a few concerns with one section in this bill. So as part of my motion, I would like to request the city manager to communicate with the city's the city support of HB 1147, while continuing to work with the bill's authors and other stakeholders to further improve the bill for the city's interest. Their second.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 12: So, yeah, this is a this is a I think.
Speaker 2: This is using their.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 12: Pretty common sense. This promotes responsible business and local government authority.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Ross. Mr. O'Dell.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Actually. And Mr. Austin said it. Well, the goal this bill is to retain in our hands the ability to plan what to to plan our our local our local land use. What happened with this previous bill that took away our decision making power so that we couldn't require that these establishments wouldn't be allowed in our city? So this is a good bill. This is a smart bill. This is about public safety. This is about retaining local control. So I'm very supportive with that. I'll turn it back to you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have a motion in the second. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the council on this bill? Please identify yourself.
Speaker 10: Very, very good. Do. Kirk has the address. I'm wondering whether or not there's any way this can be amended to deal with those elements that are attempting to various means of massaging various members of the elected in this city or city staff.
Speaker 2: Do you want this? This is ridiculous. It's not relevant. Please. I mean, I know you like to be witty, but this.
Speaker 10: Is there's a serious issue there.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate you made your point. Thank you. Jesus Christ. All right. We have a motion in the second members. Cast your votes.
Speaker 3: Would think motion carry six votes. Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to communicate the City's support for Assembly Bill 1147 (Bonilla, Gomez, Holden), which would return local and land use authority to cities and counties as applicable to massage businesses and which promotes public safety by giving tools to local governments to address such establishments that are involved in human trafficking. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05132014_14-0350 | Speaker 3: Status report from Development Services and Financial Management with the recommendation to award a contract to Melendez Associates for the development of the West Long Beach Livability Information Implementation Plan.
Speaker 7: I'd like to move and I'd like.
Speaker 6: To second in May.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know that.
Speaker 8: Councilmember.
Speaker 6: Johnson was called away today and just really wanted to give credit to Councilmember Johnson for his interest in seeing this through.
Speaker 8: I think this puts the city in a better position.
Speaker 6: Where we can give community experts as a community.
Speaker 8: As well as experts an opportunity.
Speaker 6: To provide consensus. And it also provides the city an opportunity to be better positioned for grants. And so I do want to compliment Councilmember Johnson on this effort and hope that you'll join me in supporting it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Lowenthal. Any member of the public would just council on item number ten. Please identify yourself and see the light. You have 30 seconds left. Thank you.
Speaker 13: Good evening, Mayor and friends of the Council.
Speaker 2: City Manager.
Speaker 13: West and city attorney Charles Perkins. My name is John Taylor, resident and longtime advocate at West Long Beach. And I think it's important and I would like to encourage the council and the mayor to approve and authorize this proposal. Item number ten. West Palm Beach has been waiting for a long time to have a definitive study of infrastructure needs in life's good, forward, positive, proactive conditions to live by. In addition, I'd like to add to that that the West Long Beach will also welcome inclusive with this study the Santa Fe Corridor opportunity. So I think it would be substantially important if we could utilize this opportunity to secure a study to improve the Santa Fe Corridor in conjunction with the open space that the West Long Beach residents are seeking to receive on that freeway. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any further public comments? Members cast their votes in item ten.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: Motion carry six votes.
Speaker 2: Yes. Item 11 Clerk. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP DV14-019 and award a contract to Melendrez Associates, of Los Angeles, CA, to develop a West Long Beach Livability Implementation Plan, for an amount not to exceed $300,000 for a period of one year; authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; and increase appropriations in the Development Services Fund (EF 337) in the Department of Development Services (DV) by $300,000. (Districts 1,2,6,7,8) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05132014_14-0351 | Speaker 2: It's like item 12 cookery.
Speaker 5: It's not a comment.
Speaker 2: Mr. Clarke. Try to extract quietly, if you can, please. Mr. Clarke item.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. Item 12 is a report from the police department with the recommendation to receive and follow the application of Pacific United doing business in Sorrento, Italian Kitchen for an original ABC license at 4102 Orange Avenue with conditions in District seven.
Speaker 2: Don't move. Second. Moving. Second. Any member of the public have any comment? Item 12. Mr. Manager, any comment?
Speaker 5: No, sir. All right.
Speaker 2: Members, cast your votes in item 12.
Speaker 3: You. Councilmember Lowenthal. Motion carries five votes. Yes.
Speaker 2: I've got we've got a bare quorum here. So everybody stay in place, please. Item 13. | ABC License | Recommendation to receive and file the application of Pacifica United, LLC, dba Sorrento Italian Kitchen, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 4102 Orange Avenue #123, with conditions. (District 7) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05132014_14-0363 | Speaker 3: Communication from the Office of Mayor Bob Foster with the recommendation to cancel the meeting of June 3rd due to the general municipal election.
Speaker 2: Members, it's customary. I'll need a motion to move moving. Seconded. Any member of the Public Trust Council. Mr. Good. You.
Speaker 10: Sorry I left the glasses here. Very good. You clear as the address as I did on April three.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 10: Name's Larry Goodhew. Clerk as the address of. I oppose this motion and I do not think the council should council cancel the meeting for next week. I think it should follow through the on my suggestion that I may on April 15th and also made last week that instead of certifying the election, what you should have done and what you should do have an opportunity to do now is declare a state of emergency. Suspend the election for a year and hire a federal judge to oversee the city to be squared away. And then go for an election. If you'll turn to the screen or look here. We've got I want to emphasize what I think brings into sharp focus the need to do that. Try this the other day, the Premier.
Speaker 5: Can we focus on the motion?
Speaker 10: This is the motion, sir. You'll hear.
Speaker 5: What if you could turn.
Speaker 10: The volume up, the kill or be in all three holes and in volume six? That's right.
Speaker 2: When can we get on the way?
Speaker 5: Dammit, that's five compartments. She can stay afloat. But the first four compartments breached. But not for.
Speaker 10: Excuse me. It's not.
Speaker 2: Fate. No, I don't have to excuse you.
Speaker 10: Out of the water.
Speaker 2: To show a.
Speaker 5: Film.
Speaker 10: Is not it for one? Not a film. Back and back. It's in such a blessed.
Speaker 2: You know, this is the only open the door.
Speaker 10: To the time.
Speaker 2: It's not staying here for another year.
Speaker 10: From this morning are very fortunate on that. Trust me, nobody wants that more than I do.
Speaker 2: I can.
Speaker 10: But here's my point. Here's my.
Speaker 2: Point. What's your point?
Speaker 5: She's made of irons.
Speaker 10: Her point is we're facing a disaster such as they this ship here faced on April 15. All right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're by about what measure?
Speaker 10: By what measure.
Speaker 2: To what measure? Finances. Environment. What measure?
Speaker 10: This city has it an iceberg. No, it has not had an iceberg.
Speaker 2: In an iceberg. We've had several iceberg. You might want to get checked out, actually.
Speaker 10: Thank you for making my point. Why? We need to suspend it. All right. The voters have already spoken. Mr. Mayor, you haven't seen that message. Two of the most putrid candidates available. All right. We need to get a better sense of the public, all right? And we need to find a mayor who understands protocol, who understands Robert's rules of order, and that when one is entitled to speak for 3 minutes on a subject and this is a subject. All right. That we are able to find one. We have not been able to find. Obviously, you don't understand it. So we need to take the time to search out a mayor like that.
Speaker 2: We'll put you in charge of that. Good luck in finding one. And good luck. Find something that works for you, buddy. All right. Mayor Members, we have a motion in a second. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 3: Motion carries five votes. Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Okay. Of those, the city council. If I can adjourn in the memory of Doug Carpenter. Doug was a lifelong Naples resident, was the president and co-founder of Paragon Steel, and known to many as a fun loving man with a big heart. | 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 June 3, 2014 due to the City's General Municipal Election. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05062014_14-0328 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Cast your votes, please. Motion carries. Item two is a report from the city attorney's office with the recommendation to authorize the city to execute an agreement with the firm of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck in order to provide legal services in connection with the city's proposed development of a new civic center.
Speaker 1: There's been a motion. Your second. Second gives the motion the second counsel for Johnson.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I mean, I'd like to ask Mr. Parkin, could you describe.
Speaker 2: The process by which we chose this firm for this project? Yes. Vice Mayor remembers the city council. This firm was selected after. We solicited proposals from various law firms. We actually received multiple proposals. We interviewed six law firms, Hawkins, Delafield, which was the law firm that did the courthouse. They were the state's attorney, McKenna, Long and Aldridge. The Norseman firm who's working on it with us on the job, Desmond Bridge, the Brownstein Hyatt Firm, which was ultimately selected written in Tucker. Who are currently working on a public private partnership in San Francisco on the Park Presidio Project and Cuttack and Rock. So those private those all submitted proposals with estimated budgets and timelines. And we selected the bouncing hired firm and you said solicited. Was it a request for qualifications? Was it posted online? How did if you're a law firm out there in Los Angeles or San Diego or wherever. How do you know about this opportunity to participate? We solicited and talked to various firms that have expertize in this area. We did not do a posted online because there aren't a lot of firms that have the experience on the public private partnerships with working with municipal municipalities. So we did not post the item online. So you basically you your office contacted folks you thought would be interested in and asked them if they were participate. Is that correct? That's correct. We talked to other firms and others municipalities who have although there were no other municipalities that have prepared or done a public private partnership for a civic center. So we started with talking with other firms such as Nasr Men, who has been has an expertize in the three piece on the doesn't bridge on a public private partnership and a design build. And from there, we talked to the state of California to about the law firm that they use, the Harkins Delafield firm out of New York. And then we also had spoke with Richard and Tucker based upon their experience at the Presidio. Okay. Well, thanks. I appreciate the explanation. I think, you know, this is a very large contract, $450,000. And I appreciate there was some process here. But I do think that for large contracts, just as with all other contracts, it should be posted publicly. It doesn't mean you're going to take those those folks as solicitation. But I do think transparency, that's a better process. That's my concern.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second on the item for the consent calendar. Public comment. Kate seeing none. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Donnell. Yes. Thank you. Council member, Neil. Motion carries seven votes. One vote. No.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. So we're going to we're going to move on now. We do have a hearing and then public comment before we get to the agenda. So let's go ahead and start with the hearing and I'm going to turn it over to the city clerk. I believe the oath is required because. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City to execute an agreement with the firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber & Schreck, in order to provide legal services in connection with the City's proposed development of a new Civic Center. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_05062014_14-0316 | Speaker 0: If you would, please stand for those who are going to testify in this case. Do you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in this course now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and now turn this over to city staff.
Speaker 2: Vice mayor, councilmembers. I'm going to turn this over to our development services director, Ms.. Amy Bodak, and she'll give us a staff report on this item.
Speaker 7: Vice Member and Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. Thank you for your attention to this public hearing item tonight. It is related to an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission related to the construction of a ready to eat establishment with a drive thru on Seventh Street in the third District. I would like to go to the next slide, please, which will just show you a site plan of the location of the business. In February of 2014, the Planning Commission heard conducted a public hearing related to a site plan review and approval of a conditional use permit for a drive thru. This request did generate some public comment related to mostly the signage that exists on site. Today there is a, for lack of a better word, a giant donut sign that exists at the site today. And there was a number of public comments received in February related to the sign and requests that this type of signage be incorporated into the eventual site plan of the new facility. Additionally, there were concerns raised about traffic and the Planning Commission directed staff to add conditions of approval to address both the thematic sign and to address some of the concerns related to potential traffic impacts due to the project and its configuration of the site. A staff came back to the Planning Commission in March and there was an additional public hearing that was continued to the March Planning Commission meeting. At that time, there were a number of folks who spoke out against the project related to traffic impacts. Staff did proceed to point out to the Planning Commission the changes that were made to the conditions of approval, and the Planning Commission ultimately approved the project. I would point out that this is a project that is an existing drive thru donut facility business and an existing vacant building that used to be a liquor store. Those two facilities are going to be torn down. Any new, new donut shop by Dunkin Donuts would be constructed on the screen behind you as a site plan of the facility. And if we can go to the next slide, it would show you the site plan in its location as it's currently designed and configured because it required ACP for the drive thru. Staff was very concerned about the impacts of the drive thru and directed the business to orient the drive thru against Seventh Street in order to avoid any potential impacts to the neighborhood. The drive thru was also originally presented, was too short and did not meet our current standards for stacking in a drive thru. So the project was also modified to to make the drive thru long enough. In addition, part of the conditions of approval require the closure of three of the four existing curb cuts on seventh Street and consolidate all of the traffic entering and exiting the site either through one entrance exit on seventh Street in conjunction with an existing alley, or orienting, exiting and entering off of Flint Avenue and then proceeding on to Seventh Street. Additionally, as I said, there was a condition of approval that was added to retain the thematic donut sign and eventually incorporate that into the site plan. And there was a condition of approval that was required, which was eventually approved that would require the applicant to work with the traffic engineer in order to evaluate any potential impacts to traffic that may occur in the neighborhood. Once the facility was up and operating, it gives the traffic engineer the discretion to go in later and modify some of the traffic patterns to prevent impacts to the neighborhood. The proposed project will significantly improve this busy corridor. It will remove two non-conforming existing uses. It will result in improvements to the public alley. It will, in addition, as I said, closed three of the four existing curb cuts along Seventh Street and will result in a new approximately 1900 square foot modern facility. For those reasons, the Planning Commission did approve the project. There were four appeals filed within a timely manner. And we are we are required by a municipal code to present this hearing to you within 60 days of the appeals being filed. The first appeal was received on March 13th. Hence, we are here today to schedule the hearing. We do have a number of appellants, but they are grouped into four separate appeals. And so with that I would close my staff report, remain available with the zoning administrator and the traffic engineer to answer specific questions, but then allow the the appellants to speak if that's the the wish of the council. That concludes my staff report.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move on to the appellants and Mr. City attorney. How did you. Did you want to have all four different appellants or the grouping of the four appellant speak? What was your preference?
Speaker 12: I don't think we discussed a preference with the appellants. I think they've organized themselves into four separate groups so they could just approach the podium one group at a time if that's how they want to do it.
Speaker 1: Okay. So one of the one of the four appellant groups come forward. Mr. Mays on for each group. Are you thinking 5 to 10 minutes per group?
Speaker 12: Our code.
Speaker 9: Allows for a reasonable time.
Speaker 12: And I would hope that they could do it no more than ten per.
Speaker 1: Group. Okay, so let's try to go between this notes between five and 10 minutes per propellant group. Okay. So if you don't have 5 minutes as well, that's that's okay. Whatever time you'd like to please.
Speaker 9: Or need 5 minutes. I'm John LaBelle. I live at 636 Ultimo. The plan is for this fast food restaurant.
Speaker 2: Thinly disguised as a food ready to eat.
Speaker 9: Restaurant as it is constructed now is going to have very detrimental impact on our neighborhood.
Speaker 1: The primary problem.
Speaker 2: With this plan.
Speaker 9: Is that as this project, as it is planned right now, is that the fast food takeout window directs the traffic down our alley. Right now, my security camera has recorded over the past couple of months that we get 14 cars a day down that alley. Mr. Steven Valdez, in a telephone conversation, indicated that this alley could easily handle.
Speaker 2: 2 to 300 cars a day. And quite frankly, during.
Speaker 9: Rush hour, I expect.
Speaker 2: That the 14 cars a day will be exceeded in a few hours in the morning of operation. The problem is, is that getting back out onto.
Speaker 9: Seventh Street is very difficult. And because the curb cuts have been been reduced in this new development, it offers less opportunity to get out of the development. The the the plan.
Speaker 2: Is supposedly.
Speaker 9: Just like or the same hours what is there.
Speaker 2: But in fact, the traffic flow through it is completely different.
Speaker 9: The donut shop is about twice the size of the existing donut shop and the hours.
Speaker 2: Of operation are quite different. The existing donut shop provides for service from 530 in the morning to.
Speaker 9: 6:00 at night. This operation would like to be 24 hours and is indicating that the cut off will be at 10:00 at night. This alley that.
Speaker 2: Is between Flint and.
Speaker 9: Ultimo is very narrow, nine.
Speaker 2: And ten feet wide. It's there's no place to turn around in it.
Speaker 9: It's it's a dangerous and difficult alley. Bumping the traffic up to hundreds of cars a day is going to be hazardous. And I think that.
Speaker 2: If the city permits this to happen, the city should assume certain.
Speaker 9: Liabilities and responsibilities for the damage caused by traffic. Right now, the telephone poles and walls in this alley are sculpted by the collisions with cars and in traffic at 14 cars a day. I think this is a most unreasonable proposal and it needs to be changed. I'd like to see.
Speaker 2: That property developed.
Speaker 9: But this development as it is constructed or proposed at this point in time, is very unreasonable on the residents of.
Speaker 2: This residential.
Speaker 9: Community. That's it.
Speaker 1: For me. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: My name is Anita Ricci Kaysen, and my husband, Jeff Bowerman, and I live at 655 Ultimo Avenue. We filed our appeal because we are contesting the decision made by the Planning Commission. Some of this was repeated by Amy Burdick just a few minutes ago. That is the picture. The approval was based on the erroneous belief that the proposed project was similar to the existing site. Unfortunately, other decisions, including granting a categorical exception, followed this faulty premise. The reason we are here today is because these two sites are not similar and then the comparison chart is the next for the details. We prepared a.
Speaker 4: Hope. Oh. You know.
Speaker 9: Forget it.
Speaker 6: Comparison chart. It's the was the second one. We prepared a comparison chart for the details. And there is an excerpt from a memo from Amy Burdette regarding the decision. Can we get this together?
Speaker 9: This is not not the correct presentation.
Speaker 6: Okay. There it is. It was on the side.
Speaker 1: Just look at the right one for you, okay?
Speaker 6: The proposed project will be a high volume fast food site. It will produce increased pollution and noise to the neighborhood by having longer operating hours, hundreds of idling cars and delivery trucks arriving and leaving the intense volume of it. Business will impact traffic on seven, creating greater gridlock and extended wait time to even get through this intersection. It will make the right lane of seventh impassable for blocks. It will impact our neighborhood streets with cars cutting through, trying to avoid that congestion. Further, it will impede garage access, which John was just talking about. During two planning commission meetings, the developers stated that they anticipated at least 100 cars per hour or 400 cars during the peak commute times between six and 10 a.m.. The current volume at original ground is 25 cars per hour, as you can see, even with the conservative estimate of 100 cars per hour. The intensity of traffic can easily be 4 to 5 times greater than now. The following photos give you some idea of the congestion on Seventh Street that exists currently at this site. Cars now back up for at least 2 to 3 blocks during peak rush hour traffic. Cars entering this proposed drive thru waiting and idling will cause backup on the seventh and make again the right lane impassable. The next photo is taken from the crosswalk at Fleet Street looking down seventh Street. It only takes two cars to block Flint Street and the site exit. If there's a pedestrian crossing at seventh and PCH, the right lane is stopped. If a bus is stopped at the seventh and Bellflower bus stop, cars back into the intersection. Now there's gridlock, preventing cars from passing along in the right hand lane. These are all existing conditions at this extremely congested intersection before a fast food drive-thru is even in place. We have three maps which we can just really whip through. The first map shows the stop points on seventh when cars turn into the drive thru and the next stop point at Flint and PCH. The second view shows some routes to drivers who will use to cut through our neighborhood to avoid the congestion. And the third map shows the streets from Santiago to Flint that will be impacted should this drive thru be allowed to proceed. Again, we cannot stress enough that there were incorrect assumptions made in this decision process. First, the assumption that the proposed and existing sites are quote similar in terms of square footage and having a drive thru . As we have shown, that is misleading and not a complete or accurate picture. Second, in another quote from the memo, it states that S.E., the categorical exception was considered as an appropriate environmental clearance, given that the level of development that is being proposed is not significant. Of course, with these mistaken assumptions in place, no pollution impact or traffic impact studies were even considered much less requested. We do agree that the site needs rehabilitation, but to say, quote, anything would be better than what exists now ignores the very real problems in this project. However, as I hope we have been able to show you with this presentation, there is significant negative impact for the immediate neighborhood and the community in allowing a drive thru on this site. A contemporary building and pretty landscaping will not compensate for having a fast food, high volume drive thru in a residential neighborhood and a few feet from an impacted intersection. Please protect our safety and our neighborhood. Please do not allow a drive thru on this site. Thank you.
Speaker 9: My name is Jeff Overman. Anita's. What I need is wife and husband. Depending on what I'm doing. A couple of points that need to be made is one, No. Number one, no. Traffic study was done of seventh Street in the approval process of this project. The only the only traffic account that was done was on neighborhood streets, which by association will allow the developer to shuttle traffic without in impedance through the neighborhood by proving that not much traffic goes through our neighborhood currently. Number two, the and number two, the measures are impermissibly deferred. So there is no assurance to the neighborhood or to the users of PCH that the proposed traffic mitigations and methods, whatever they were. Or will ever be implemented. There's no commitment to that. I think that the Council needs to realize that based on 2008 to 2012 on trial car statistics eastbound on seventh Street, there are 2750 cars per hour that cross this intersection between Ultimo and Pacific Coast Highway. There were 28,500 cars that crossed this intersection every day, Monday through Friday. Those cars do come from districts one, two, three, four, five and six. To commute commercially and to commute to their businesses are accessing the 605405 CSU will be the Veterans Administration and Pacific Coast Highway going north and south and Bellflower Boulevard. What we will request, because basically what has been offered to us is a mitigated negative declaration, which is what the city is based on, that this will be mitigated potentially if a problem does arise. That to foresee that we would like to request a traffic study, a comprehensive traffic study of Seventh Street, not of the neighborhood, that any traffic and traffic problems or alternative routes that are used for a drive thru lane queuing. A study that shows how many cars based on the design that was submitted by Frontier Investments, can actually handle the quoted flow of 100 plus cars per hour that was quoted by the developer in two subsequent planning commission meetings. I myself personally do not believe that 100 cars per hour can pass through a ten queue lane in a drive thru without blocking the right hand lane of Seventh Street, which immediately impacts and delays. Long Beach Transit lines, 81, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 96 going eastbound. These are big deal. So what I'm requesting basically is a traffic, a comprehensive traffic study, a drive thru lane queuing study. And then based on the precedent from Santa Barbara in 2008, I would also like to request a pollution study done based on idle times of cars stuck in the queue. But with engines running because this is avoiding a residential neighborhood is not abutting a commercial environment. So I think I have the right and Santa Barbara has already granted that right to the developer to approve a development for a like for like drive thru before it passed or actually in this case disapproved the allowance for that development to proceed. I am offering, as the appellant in this issue, to pay for and organize these three studies. I will do them under the condition that the developer agrees with, with the experts that I hire to do to do this work. And the city also agrees to those people. I think if that's deferred to the developer, they will get a skewed study that allows them to put it in. We're talking about 90,000 cars per day that travel through this intersection, impeding commuters, commercial vehicles and the residents of Long Beach. So thank you very much. And that's what I'm requiring. And I ask only for an exemption and a denial to the drive thru. I would very much like to see this property developed and I believe that they have a very good design for development is just not acceptable as a drive through. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We'll have our next appellant, please.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name's Carolyn LaBelle. I live on Ultimo. I've lived there for decades, and I was here today because I'm very concerned about the traffic department.
Speaker 1: Just before just real quick and you one of the appellants, the official. I am. Because right now we're just of the appellants.
Speaker 6: Excuse me. I did I put a Freedom of Information request in at the very beginning of March for traffic studies for a section of Long Beach. I marked it all off and it was through official channels, and I got an official response back. Well, it was only about a week ago that I finally got the section that I had requested about traffic studies in East Long Beach. There was one page from Dave Grossman that showed where he'd gone up there, or one of its associates had gone up there for 3 hours and saw how many people bought donuts. That was the sum total of traffic reports that we got. This kind of information should be made available. If they haven't done anything in the last year and a half. Maybe we should put this project on hold. Maybe Traffic Department needs a lot more time to take a look at what's going on. So I'm here saying we need more information. And I also want to say to Gary DeLong, this is your legacy. Please help us. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, apparently.
Speaker 2: Vice Mayor, Council members, thank you for the opportunity to be heard. My name is Mark Nevin and I live about 100 feet away from the proposed drive thru on Flint and also share the alley with the proposed project. Was born and raised in Long Beach and have owned. Lived in my home with my family for 13 years. It's the only home my daughter Jordan has ever known. I'm here representing 56 other appellants. We are not elitist activists, troublemakers or chronic complainers. We are just residents who are committed to protecting the safety and quality of life of ourselves and our families. We don't oppose the applicant's restaurant, just the discretionary scope for the drive thru. This drive thru will be nestled in sharing property lines with two single family homes. Even though the Long Beach Municipal Code prohibits a drive in restaurant from abutting a residential district. Imagine this. It's 4:45 a.m. in the morning. You're sleeping like a baby. Then a few minutes. The drive thru restaurant that's just a few feet from your window springs to life with late to work commuters yelling their orders into the Squawk Box in the drive thru exhaust fumes and noise from 100 plus idling cars per hour. The ones in the back of the line have their radios cranked up to kiss off from Rush Limbaugh or whatever they're listening to. Then you see the cars jockeying for position at the alley or to get out of the driveway on Flynt, trying to get the seventh, wondering when the first child on a bike or early morning stroller is going to get hit by one of these late to work in a hurry commuters. When you close off access to seventh Street so only Flint and the alley is the sole ingress and egress. It's going to happen. We conducted and recorded a video that demonstrates the path of travel that the applicant has designed and staff has affirmed. We will only accept this will only accommodate a maximum of 75 cars per hour. That's for all the that's for all the existing neighborhood and retail traffic. Plus the traffic that the drive thru will generate. Since access to seventh street is so limited, there is virtually no storage. The cars will take the path of least resistance, which is south on Flynt or south on the alley. Those are the only two choices. If they can't get out on Seventh Street and just 450 feet traveling south on one of those two paths. They're going to intersect. Long Beach, bike route number 16. Bike Route 16 is the primary path that children take to get to Lowell, Rogers and Wilson. It's a major safety issue involving our children. Then you realize you have to deal with this until 10 p.m.. That's 4:45 a.m. to 10 p.m.. Assuming a ploy, employees and customers won't get there more than 15 minutes before they open. Then you have to wait for the semi-truck to deliver the food. Duncan Brands uses tractor trailers to make all their deliveries. The drive thru element causes the proposed use to be defined as a drive in restaurant by Title nine of the Long Beach Municipal Code. In fact, the city has declared drive in restaurants such a nuisance that they have devoted an entire chapter in Title Nine for the nuisances they cause. According to the city, these Drive-In restaurant nuisances are revving your engine, doing burnouts or sudden stops, hawking your horn, blocking driveways, bringing alcohol on the premises, uninvited use of the premises and loitering. All of these are not including the other nuisances prohibited by the zoning regulations. The city already knows drive in restaurants are a nuisance. That's why zoning regulations prohibit prohibit drive in restaurants from abutting a residential district without the drive thru. However, it's not a drive in restaurant. The municipal code says that certain findings must be made before a cup can be approved. The approval is must be consistent with and carry out the general plan and all zoning regulations. The land use element of the general plan says that seventh street traffic volumes are heavy, particularly at peak hours, and owing to increasing volumes of traffic. Some management techniques will eventually be required. Thus, it will be important that auto dependent uses be restricted if not eventually eliminated. That was the late eighties. Eventually, as here, the proposed drive thru is an auto dependent use is exactly what the general plan says needs to be restricted or eliminated. The existing use is a nonconforming and grandfathered. The new development will eliminate this use just as the code intended. The proposed project is in land use District eight in the land use element states that these projects are numerous clusters of neighborhoods serving. Centers and are intended by the plan for every community with within about one half mile of each residence if feasible. The applicant testified and the staff report states that the proposed use will primarily serve commuters traveling eastbound on Seventh Street. This is commuter serving, not serving as the general plan states it should be. The code also requires that the drive thru will not be detrimental to the surrounding community, including public health, safety or general welfare, environmental quality and quality of life. I've already touched on that. The code also says that a drive in or fast food restaurant is a prohibited use when abutting a residential district. This is a drive in or fast food restaurant, yet it is being classified as a ready to eat restaurant so it can be built with a drive thru.
Speaker 1: Sir, just, just one quick is for for housekeeping. I just want to make sure you're part of a separate appellant. Correct.
Speaker 2: Of representing 56 other applications.
Speaker 1: This one additional and the third presentation. There should be one more appellate presentation after this one is that I try to make sure that that's the way it's organized. So please continue.
Speaker 2: It means every single element of a fast food restaurant, which means supplies food and beverages, primarily in disposable containers. Yes, it does. High automobile accessibility. It has a drive thru self-service. There is no table table service. So yes, it does. And short stays by customers has a drive thru. So short stays. It's difficult to say the following without sounding disrespectful. And I want the council to know that we think the development staff do an outstanding job, especially with their workload. This is the only administrator at the time. I believe it was. The previous zoning administrator said it cannot be a fast food restaurant because it doesn't have a cooktop. In other words, because they cook their chicken and sausage sandwiches in an oven instead of a grill, that means it's not a restaurant. And if it's not a restaurant, they can't classify it as a fast food restaurant. Otherwise it would be a fast food restaurant only if they had a grill. This was really missing the spirit and intent of the code. He has classified it as a restaurant ready to eat, and it doesn't meet any of those requirements which are cells food in a form that is ready to eat at the time of sale. The food is made to order, per Duncan Brand's website, primarily designed for takeout. They have a 600 square foot dining room, plus another 250 square foot of outdoor dining area. Full service kitchens are not allowed. It has a 1200 square foot kitchen with sinks, ovens, prep tables, walk in cooler and freezer. It doesn't have a range, though. On site service area is limited to 150 square feet of dining and in front of a counter area. This has a 600 square foot dining room that far exceeds the limitation of a restaurant of 150 50 square feet. The applicant testified at the Planning Commission hearing that the location will be just like a Starbucks because they are so successful. In fact, his exact words were they were emulating Starbucks. All of the Starbucks in Long Beach, except one in the Lowe Center on Bellflower does not have a drive thru. So if the proposed use is emulating a Starbucks then it should be fine without a drive thru and be successful. I was taking my daughter to school recently and she told me something that surprised me. We were on a bike Route 16 and Alamitos Heights, and she said it looked like a movie. I asked her what she meant. She says, Look at the trees and leaves the people jogging, walking their dogs, the moms with the strollers. It's like a scene out of a movie. I didn't really notice it until she said something, and she was right. That's beautiful. I don't think anyone wants that ruined by cut through traffic caused by a high capacity drive thru just 450 feet away from that bike route 16. During your during the Council discussion, I urged the Council to ask the City Attorney if the proposed use has a dining area bigger than 150 square feet. Can it still be classified as a ready to eat? If not, what are the classification? Would it best fit to doesn't meet? Does the use meet every criteria of a drive in restaurant? Three. Do the zoning regulations say that a drive in restaurant is a fast food restaurant? Four. Can the zoning regulations supersede any other title of the code if that other title imposes stricter regulations? That concludes my comments.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. There was exactly 10 minutes, so perfect. An hour. And our next and final appellant.
Speaker 12: Okay.
Speaker 6: I think I have a question. If there are in the last group of there are two of us who want to speak, but we each contain it so that the total is just 10 minutes.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. That yes.
Speaker 6: Satisfactory.
Speaker 1: But you have a total of 10 minutes, however you want to divide that up.
Speaker 6: Oh, okay.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 6: My name is Loretta Holly, and I'm here to express my concerns. I have lived on Ultimo since 1985. Right down the alley. Currently, there's room for the traffic to flow in and out of this site between the buildings with several means of entrance and exit. By demolishing the existing structures and creating one building and removing three entrances and exits other than the one off of seventh and one off of Flint, a residential street, the traffic flow will surely change. It is a certainty that some traffic will find a shortcut through the through the narrow alley or Flint. No, there's been no attempt to prohibit cars from exiting through the alley. City streets allow buffers and structural separations such as sidewalks, curbs and trees between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Houses and garages are set back from the street. A person leaving their house or garage can be seen by an approaching driver well before getting to the street. That person can also see the approaching vehicle during this time, so he and a driver can make eye contact and see who will yield in an alley. The blind spots are everywhere garages, fences, roadways. Anyone who comes out from such a location into the alley roadway and offers absolutely no warning to an approaching driver and that driver very likely will not have time to stop if no one will exit through the neighborhood as is claimed. Why not ensure that cannot happen and reconfigured the site to reduce the traffic impact packed on the neighborhood as much as possible? Any mitigation after the fact will undeniably be limited as the basic footprint cannot be changed. We hope the city will consider the residents who have lived in the area for decades and that the city will view the aspects of the code and general plan that can be used to protect the residents, not as obstacles to overcome, but as tools to create a site plan that does not have such a negative impact on our neighborhood. We are not experts, and every recommendation we have proposed to alleviate the traffic impact has been rejected. I was born at Seaside and I've lived in Long Beach most of my life and have always liked the community feel of such a large city. I was in the playground at Prisk in 1985 when Signal Hill exploded and rained oil down on all of us. It was the day of our school carnival and I remember it very well. And none of the fathers were able to attend because they were all up on the hill shoveling dirt, doing whatever they could to help . Why? Because they needed to help their community and their children. We are doing the same thing, trying to protect our community by asking for your help in mitigating the traffic impact on our neighborhood before and not after the project is constructed. We believe the proposal needs to be examined further and the project conformed to all aspects of the code and what the traffic is required to enter and exit primarily from seven. A more substantial look at the traffic implications on the neighborhood needs to be done to ensure that there is minimal negative impact and that there are not unforeseen consequences that cannot be undone. The residents are the ones who have to live with the traffic generated by this project for the rest of our lives. It is our quality of life that will be affected and we are asking you to help us to help ensure that everything is done to protect the neighborhood before approval and not after. Thank you for your time with you.
Speaker 1: And this is part of the same account presentation. Please.
Speaker 12: Good evening, council members and Vice Mayor Garcia. I'm going to just cut to the chase. I've got some prepared remarks. But, you know, Mr. Rubio, can we play the video I'd like to play? Excuse me, sir, can you identify yourself? American Gary Morrison, 385 Flint Avenue, Alameda Seitz. Thank you, Mr. Mason. While we're waiting for the video to come up, I guess there's two questions that are burning, questions that I really have. Number one is if we could get a councilmember perhaps to have Mr. Mays explain to us the 150 square foot definition as it pertains to ready to eat restaurants. And then the second thing I'd I guess I'd like to talk about is I've seen the third division to the staff report and seen all of the redaction not redaction. I would say the changes which define this project as a ready to eat establishment. And I guess I'd like to know where in the Long Beach Municipal Code, the ready to eat establishment is clearly defined. And I think at the end of this video, it's going to prove to beyond a doubt that the traffic that is anticipated at the project is unable to get back to Seventh Street and will drive traffic into our neighborhood. So how do I start the video, sir? Here we go. Thank you. Sorry. We don't have music. We've laid out the exit of the drive through as and this is a representation of a car coming out of the drive thru with another car entering into the alley and there being not enough room for two cars to come and go. We bought some cars up to Flint Avenue and put up a camera on a telephone pole. Sorry, public works. And this is the data we came up with. This is looking north on Flint. These are cars backing up on Flint Avenue. We circled around and cut through the Vitamin Shoppe parking lot so we could simulate the traffic. Couple of pedestrians crossed the way. And there's a bus. One bus. Black Flint. I think we did irritate some donut customers in the making of this film. They wondered how come it took so long to get it back out onto Seventh Street. So we were able to get 75 cars out onto Flint maximum. We really don't believe there's enough square footage. So I guess, you know, just cutting to the chase on this topic. I had my first donut when I was 12 years old. And I hate to admit that that Dunkin Donuts was when I was 12 years old and that was 50 years ago. So I was kind of excited about this project when it first came on board. And quite frankly, the closer I got to the project, the more I became fearful of the drive through and the implications of the traffic and the safety of my neighborhood. And so that's really where one of my concerns lies very heavily. It's quality of life issue for me, and it's a quality of life issue for many of my my neighbors. I have nothing against Dunkin. I have nothing against the developer. I'm not happy about the drive thru. It's a safety concern. So what I would like, in addition to the couple of questions I asked to be asked, is to have a traffic study, number one. I had retained a traffic engineer, collected a traffic engineer opinion on the project. I have entered into evidence. I a summary of that letter would indicate that court using industry standards to do a trip analysis that a facility similar to the one proposed would average about 100 inbound cars during peak hours and could go as high as 225 vehicles. Now, you've heard the statistics on how many cars come up and down on Seventh Street. So so it's just a simple math problem to think that, you know, that's where they're going to draw the cars from. And then the second point of opinion from the traffic engineer was that there may not be enough storage space or ground space onsite to handle all the cars that are coming in and out of that parking lot during the peak hours. And the recommendation from our traffic engineer was that a traffic study be performed. Now what? What do I want? I think you can kind of guess what I want. I want a full independent traffic study before the project is approved. Second, I would like to see predetermined, planned, required, and specific traffic mitigation details approved before any concrete or any steel goes into the ground. And I respectfully request that you send this project back to the city or to the Planning Commission and have the plan reworked and work with the neighborhood and get the traffic study. Because really, I have a question. If any works are done at second PCH, do you do it without a traffic study? This is the second busiest intersection in our city and we don't have a traffic study. And we have to ask the question, can we reasonably say that the benefits of this project outweigh the benefits to the community without even having a traffic study? I guess if we can pause on the bluff. And expose the city to hundreds of thousand dollars, perhaps of additional expenses to make sure that the organic project gets done properly. Mid Project. Why can't we take the time now to handle this project and make sure it's done properly? It's just a simple, simple quality of life issue. Safety of children. Traffic. Cars. Car accidents. People getting rear ended. I can't even imagine. You know, we did that little cycle on the film. I wasn't all that excited about going up to Flint and turning right. One time, I never go up there and make that turn. I always go to San Diego. I always use the light. I ignored the impact of that seventh street traffic because it's a golden freeway. Do you have any questions for me?
Speaker 1: Now is not the time to ask questions for them. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Okay. Well, that that concludes the the organized appellant comments that will. What we'll do now is we'll have an opportunity for the applicant to make comments if the applicant's interested in making comments.
Speaker 8: City members of city council. Thank you for having us here. You know, from the very outset, we've tried to approach this to be good neighbors. I mean, we've you know, we went to a couple of neighborhood meetings. We worked extensively.
Speaker 12: Who's me? Can you identify yourself for the record?
Speaker 8: Dan M Quest. We worked extensively for a period of six or eight months with the City Planning Department to work out all the kinks. Basically, you know, trying to put the best project forward that we could, you know, and through this process, you know, I guess I'm very sympathetic to, you know, neighbors concerns. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, obviously, but I guess it upsets me when they continually put words in my mouth and question my integrity. A couple of things have been said tonight about counts and statements I made in terms of the number of patrons that are going to be coming through there every hour. That's not true. You know, I've been I've called every single person back that's called our office. I visited with people individually. I talked to the council members, the planning department. We have nothing to hide. I mean, we're trying to do the best project that we can for the city. There's we collected there's close to 500 people in favor of the project through a petition over a two day period of time. We routinely have people calling our office and saying that they're very excited for Dunkin to come, that they can't wait. They're disappointed that we're facing the opposition. You know, at the end of the day, it's we could basically go in there and put Dunkin into the existing donut shop and release what was a closed down liquor store and open for business and, you know, a couple of months. But, you know, the buildings are not attractive. They don't look nice. We want to do a first class project for the city. If you go to the the first slide. Oh. This is a site. Have you talked about this pretty extensively? You can see the the daily grind and the vacant liquor store. You know, to my point right now, there's I've heard people continuously talk about the opposition to the drive thru. There's two drive thrus that are currently on the daily grind. What we've proposed is to take and make it. There are two non-compliant drive thrus and we're going to come in and make one drive thru that not only complies with city code but exceeds it by 30 foot a queuing space. This is a view heading west on seventh. You know, the notorious donut, which, you know, we had originally talked about donating it to the city. The community came out and said they wanted to keep it. So now we're working with the city planning department and a local signage company to restore the donut and keep it on site . This is a view of our building looking west. There's a disclaimer at the bottom. We didn't include the donut sign just because we haven't gotten direction from city staff as to how they want that to look and where they want it on the site. There's not we're not trying to hide anything, but we don't we don't know. We want to represent just what's factual. It's a view of the buildings heading east. You can see on the side of the vacant liquor store, there's been vandalism. You know, we've had to cover up spray paint. It shows you what our building's going to look like. If you go back, you'll see there's no landscaping in the front of the project. The sidewalks on our project, we've we've not only increases the width of the sidewalks, we've also put landscaping in the front of the building. It's a view from the back of the property. This is what actually faces the neighborhoods. You'll see they have their HBC units on the roof. The parking lot isn't even striped right now. That's the front of our building. You know, I've heard, you know, people talk about the problem with traffic off of seventh. On one hand, I hear people saying that, you know, they can't people can't get out on to seventh and that we should have more access points. If you talk to any traffic engineer. You know, they're trying to push traffic as far away from the intersection as possible. You'll see from this exhibit there's four ways that you can come on to seventh right now, none of which are compliant per city code. You know, you need the flow of traffic. You know, a picture is deceiving. The traffic moves, you know, very quickly. We have zero concerns about people being able to get out of our site, back on track and seventh. They continue on to their way.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 8: So we've heard about, you know, it's there now. This is the existing drive through. You can't even queue three cars without the last car going out into the street. And this is one of the drive thrus. There's two on site right now. This is our site plan. So as you can see, we're widening the access point off a seventh to approximately 30 feet. We're pushing it as far away from the intersection as we can. As Amy pointed out, we push the building as close to the street as we can. You know, I've heard somebody say that we located the menu board, so it's facing the residents. That's a lie there. The menu board is actually facing Seventh Street to keep, you know, any noise that it might generate away from the houses. I've also heard about cars and the noise those might generate. The cars are directly adjacent to Seventh Street for a continuous, you know, a busy street. That is the drive thru lane per city code. You need to have 150 feet to cue cars. We have 180 feet. So what we're trying to do and what we've worked extensively with city staff on is to self contain, you know, everything on our site. We're parked per city code. We've done extensive work with our architect. We fully anticipate anticipate that the customers coming out of the drive thru are going to go back on to seventh. Or if they do come out of Flint, they're going to go left and continue on to seventh. I don't know if you watched during the video that was presented. I did not see one car that came out of the daily grind that turned right. Every single car that came out made a left and went up and went right on the seventh. So, you know, there's this argument about the alley and our customers going down the alley. I'll pay down the alley, post it so cars can go through there. I mean, we don't anticipate nor we encourage. In fact, we'll monitor and make sure cars don't go down the alley. We've we've shown that we already have talked to Councilmember DeLong about putting a site sign up that says no outlet to discourage people from going down there. In addition on Flint, we've already said that we'll put put signage up that says no right turn. You know, we've talked about traffic studies. I've already spent $3,000 on a traffic study, you know, monitoring the circulation of traffic, you know, through the site now to have a baseline. So if something were to occur, we could work with the traffic department to change that down the road. We've already agreed to predetermined times when we would come in and monitor and take take other accounts. I've talked to Councilmember DeLong about making a significant contribution to do a traffic study for the entire area, because it seems like , you know, there's a lot of traffic on seventh. You know, we acknowledge that. But it's not it's not our fault, you know, and we want to be going back to the fact that we want to be a good neighbor. We'd like to evaluate the overall problem for the entire community and help to see how we can help resolve that. But this argument that traffic generated from our site is going to, you know, go back into the neighborhood. We just don't see that. You know, this is one of the slides. And, you know, going back, it's when, you know, when I say something and then people come back up here and basically put words in my mouth, it upsets me. You know, integrity is the most important thing to me. You know, we always honor our word and do what we say we're going to do. This is a slide that came up and said that picture more misleading than a thousand words. And it looks like Seventh Street is overflowing with cars.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 8: Well, it's funny. It's funny is this is the actual picture. And all the cars that were put in the seventh were Photoshopped in. And, you know, when this was.
Speaker 7: Here's the.
Speaker 4: Thing.
Speaker 1: Let's let's go ahead let's let's give the gentleman hey, let's go to give the gentleman his his time to give his presentation, please. Without comment, sir.
Speaker 8: You know, to conclude, you know, what we want to do is take down an existing building that's blighted sin decay, and it doesn't make city code. And we want to replace it with a brand new building that, you know, far exceeds city code. Our application is a like for like use. They're selling donuts and coffee there right now. That's what we want to sell, donuts and coffee. 70% of what we sell is coffee. So, you know, like I said, you know, right now with what's existing there, you know, we could, you know, literally reuse the existing building and open a Dunkin Donuts there. But that's not what we want to do. As I said earlier, we are replacing a non code compliant double drive thru with a compliant single drive thru as I showed in the exhibit. Right now you can't even stack three cars in the drive thru with a drive thru that we've shown. It's got 180 feet of stacking because we're reducing the number of curb cups along seventh. We think this is going to actually improve the flow of traffic along seventh because it's pushing cars back farther away from the intersection. As I said earlier, we've agreed to work in partnership with the city to monitor and if necessary, resolve any changes in future traffic conditions that may arise. And we've agreed to a $10,000 contribution towards comprehensive a comprehensive traffic study for the entire area, not just for our our site. So I guess a couple of points that I wanted to address that were brought up in the earlier presentation with regards to delivery. We only take delivery two days a week and we will you know, we would expect and we will monitor that all deliveries are handled in a manner that doesn't cause any any heartache on the neighborhood. You know, I talked about the alley earlier. In no way, shape or form do we expect or we will do everything in our power to make sure that cars are not going down the alley. The drive thru location, as I pointed out earlier, we've been very thoughtful and how we've done that, trying to orient the speaker box away from the residences. So in closing, I want to thank the city staff again. They spent a lot of time and helped to come up with what we feel is a great project. And there's a lot of people that disagree with the people that are here and are excited to see us come to Long Beach. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Now we're going to go ahead. And as part of the hearing, there's an opportunity for the appellant to make a rebuttal to the presentation. And so if the appellants would like to do that, please come forward and we should limit this in the time of this. So please try to be brief and then the applicant will also have the same opportunity if they would like. So please. The appellant and Mr. Clark, if you can limit each of these to 3 minutes. Please.
Speaker 2: The appellant. Talked about putting words in his mouth. I don't think so. He he originally came to us and said he expected 300 cars between a period of six and 9 p.m. starting and hoping to grow after that. That's 100 cars per hour. And ironically, that's exactly what the Institute of Transportation Engineers estimates for that location in that business. He said the existing drive through is non-conforming. That's true. And this is exactly the process to get rid of that non-conforming drive thru by by granting a copy for a new drive thru. It entitles that property forever with that drive thru. If his business fails, that drive thru is there. It carries with title that is really not good for us. The general plan says. That these types of uses should be eliminated from Seventh Street, not continued. This is the time to do it. This is the chance to get rid of the nonconforming drive thru. If he wants to reuse the building for a Dunkin Donuts, I am pretty sure Duncan Brands would not allow that, but I don't know. Maybe so. The existing use is not the kind of high capacity drive thru that he has. It's a you pull up to the window old fashioned style. You order through the window, your coffee, they make it, then they give it to you. It's quite a long process. 25 cars per hour comes out of their peak on the video. He says he didn't see any cars making a right out of out of the donut shop. That's because those cars were ours. We were recirculating our own cars. That's why he didn't see any of those cars turning. Right. We kept we've been talking about paying for a traffic study, but the traffic study should be done first. Before the development, not after. He also said he would put signage so nobody could turn down the alley. Well, what he's saying is make make the alley one way. My garage happens to face Seventh Street, so that means I wouldn't even be able to get to my own garage because I need to come through that direction to get into my garage. You noticed he didn't deny that they use semi-tractor trailers for delivery. That's bad. This is this is a residential neighborhood. There should not be semi-tractor trailers driving through a residential neighborhood delivering sandwiches and donuts. Thank you for the opportunity.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next to Palin, please.
Speaker 9: Once again, this is Jeff Overman. 655 Ultimo.
Speaker 1: 3 minutes. Mr. Kirk.
Speaker 9: She. Oh, I'm sorry. First of all, Dan's first statement, which was I'm work with neighborhood he has a very a very gratuitous kind of attitude. Frontier Group led by Dan Alquist and Robert Jonas. These are Orange County people. Newport Beach are planning 18 units in Orange County in the South Bay region in Los Angeles County. This is a direct quote, source restaurant news 1113. This is a hinge, hinge, hinge, hinge inch issue. If he does not get this first unit in, he cannot build the other 70. It's very, very important to him. I live two blocks away from this. He has never spoken to me. He's never engaged me. He's never done anything like that. Second thing, the pictures that you saw, the ones that he took from me, from my presentation, which I prepared and I am I am a Photoshop artist. That's true. That is more representational than the pictures he showed with no automobiles on Flint, on Seventh Street, in any of his renderings. That is not a possible view for an intersection that handles 90,000 cars per day. No, he can represented anyone he wants, but that is not a possible view. I read I have circulated a book yesterday to each of you. It has sources in it. I have a copy of the Dunkin Donuts non-disclosure document, which is a 500 page document. Basically, Duncan, his commitment to this operation, this initial operation, which at the hinge pins is the drive thru so that he can shovel more people in which he has not done to drive through a queuing study which says that he is under an 80 feet, which he touts as being a lot of footage is under nine cars. It's 180 feet. It's ten cars. If there are midsize cars, people drive trucks, people drive SUV's. These cars are over 18 feet. His monthly not based on all costs, including employee costs, utility costs, insurance costs will be $102,756.16 per month. 18 employees will work at this operation during the 20 hours that it is open. He has to open the store. He has to stock the story. He has to prepare the store. He opens the store. He's in an operation. He has to close the store. He has to clean the store. This is not the operation that he's pretending it to be. His. His views of his driveway are not accurate. They will not allow cars in and out. This is documented in the booklet that you all received. As you can see, when driving patterns in a realistic fashion are represented at scale. Car there is mass confusion because of the two entrances, the two lane drive through which cuts. And he said, I'll stop in 1/2 at a residence at the property line where his property ends. You have to turn the alley into a single lane, which is going to are stopping access of medical fire in.
Speaker 1: The center of the path of all this. So that's the cue.
Speaker 9: I just wanted you to really. Thank you very much, sir. He talks from the way he saw.
Speaker 1: I have to cut you off, sir. Thank you. Okay. Next. Appellant, please. There's a rebuttal.
Speaker 7: My name is Catherine Grace. I live at.
Speaker 6: 435.
Speaker 7: Flynn Avenue. I just want to bring it all back to what's really important, which is our neighborhood and our children. There are 14 kids on the on that first block of Flint between seventh and sixth. When you have a drive through and you have cars coming and turning right on to Flint because they can't get on to Seventh Street, they're putting our children in danger. We have three schools within a very close proximity. We have Lowell, Rogers and Wilson. There are kids in our neighborhood every morning going to school at the same peak hours that we're going to have the cars coming through that drive through. Mr. Roseman and the traffic engineer said there would be about 30% of the cars would not want to turn left and go back on to Flint or into seventh. Excuse me. So they will be turning right on Flint and going right down into our neighborhood. Mr. ALQUIST This is not personal. This has nothing to do with you as a person. This has to do with the quality of life and the safety of our children and funneling that many cars that are just human nature. Some of us don't like to sit and wait at Seventh and Flint. I am one of them. I always go to to Havana and turn onto Seventh Street. Human nature. Some of us, like my husband, always want to be moving. So they are going to cut through the neighborhood. Just even if it's not faster, it makes them feel like they're getting somewhere. So the concern is safety. All of the kids in that neighborhood who are going to the schools in the.
Speaker 6: Fact that.
Speaker 7: You've got your rush hour, people trying to get to work with a sandwich in one hand, a cup of coffee in the other, and they're cutting through the neighborhood when our children are on their way to.
Speaker 6: School.
Speaker 7: That is my concern. I would love to have donuts. I'm very much pro donut. I'm just. Please, no drive thru.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our last rebuttal. Mr. Clark, 3 minutes.
Speaker 12: I'm back. So with regard to returning phone calls, I would like to say, can you identify yourself? Gary Morrison, 385 Flynn Avenue, L Avenue, Alamitos Heights. I was at the first meeting that they in Alameda Heights and to best of my knowledge, the only meeting where Frontier Development rolled out their Dunkin Donuts project. I was there, I asked for some data, was requested to give contact information, would receive a phone call the next day. I waited an appropriate amount of time into the next day and placed a phone call and had a conversation with Mr. Armacost. My best memory of that conversation goes specifically to 100 cars per hour or more. That's it in a nutshell. That conversation. That's how it went. I'd like to go switch gears to the conversation about perhaps they could come in and kind of refurbish the two buildings and open up right away. Well, I. I would kind of like to sort of accept that notion, but maybe we can just go ahead and build a freestanding Dunkin Donut as a drive in restaurant and eliminate the drive thru. And so basically we can upgrade the two substandard buildings and Mr. Angus can build what I agree is a very attractive building and put it in place. You know, when you come and speak in front of you and we kind of work together, I got to tell you, it's like herding cats because we're all kind of all over the place because we need to work and take care of our families. We need to figure out what's what. One of the hardest things about working this process is getting data and getting data in a timely manner. For instance, I've been looking to get data on trucks and deliveries for a couple of weeks now. I was at Planning Department early this morning, asked a similar question and was redirected to Mr. Holmquist. I asked for information regarding menu so he could get a sense of operation. Is this a standard Dunkin Donuts project or isn't it? I once again was directed to Mr. Holmquist, so I guess I'm asking for some consideration on our part because we don't get all the data. We just don't. And I don't know why. And I would like to know why. If I go to city staff and ask about the operations, how come they don't have that data? How come I have to come back and get it? How come they don't know what the menu is? How come they don't know what trucks are coming and going? So I think that should go back to Planning Commission and I think more data needs to be collected and shared openly. I would like to have a successful project and I'd like Mr. Holmquist to have that project there. I do not want the drive thru. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And now if the if the applicant would like a rebuttal at all, you have the legal right to do that. Are interested in a rebuttal to the comments. You don't. You don't have to take it. It's up to you. That's okay. Okay. And then now what we'll do is if there's any additional public comment on the item. And I think, Mr. Cherney, because of the length of the hearing, we can limit these 2 to 2 minutes. Is that appropriate?
Speaker 12: It's within your discretion, yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Mr. Clark, please. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 2: Members of council staff. My name is John Humphrey, and I live at 620 Ultimo Avenue. I am not opposed to the applicants project per se. Both the general plan and the zoning ordinance already allow for such a use on the site. And we as neighbors are interested in seeing that site improved. I am, however, adamantly opposed to the inclusion of the drive thru lane being proposed. Some might argue that since the original grain already located on the site is a drive thru business, there should be no problems created by replacing it with the proposed business. However, the proposed fast food facility is projected to increase by at least 400% approximately 25 cars per hour currently exiting the site, as documented by the receipts from the old grind or the original ground. The traffic is normally backed up during peak rush hours from the light at PCH and seventh down to at least Los Altos and sometimes beyond. I have seen vehicles take at least two light changes to get through the intersection of PCH. The data listed by the previous commentator is correct. Given the extremely heavy volume of traffic on the seventh and the regular congestion there, cars visiting the original ground and attempting to return to seventh Street during peak hours most usually rely on what I would call a Good Samaritan, and they are surprisingly common to allow them to exit from the side onto Seventh Street. This takes a few extra seconds for traffic in that lane. Then this is something that most people seem to find acceptable.
Speaker 9: And it's not.
Speaker 2: Problematic because it involves a single car attempting to enter the site on the seventh. While the current average of just 25 cars per hour presents minimal delays.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 2: I think if we have. Sorry.
Speaker 1: No problem. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: My name is Bill Thomas. I am a resident of Alameda. States Live on 620 Winslow. That's the next street east of Flint. Actually, walking distance from the front of my house is about a little over 200 yards from the property. I've been active in this community for the last 11 years. I'm disappointed that we have so many people for and against that. Our our neighborhood is normally a very quiet, family oriented neighborhood. And this is disappointing to me personally to have this. But I was one of the four gentlemen that the folks came and talked to. I thought it was a great idea where you can get rid of the are transients that spend the night there. I was in favor at the Planning Commission. All this information on the internet got me confused. So I went over and did my own little survey of 3 hours on from 630 to 931 Friday morning. And I noticed over 40 cars per hour coming through between the eight and nine, which surprised me because I never knew there was that good a business over there. On Winslow, we have about five times more traffic than you have on Flint. I believe. We have an excellent engineering department, driving engineering department here. I don't think this is the first coffee shop you've set up, and I think we ought to listen to the traffic engineer and take Hayden's from them as to what is best for the neighborhood. And I have some numbers I could share, but it's better to have the traffic engineer who is professional to make the proper study and make the determination. There's two Starbucks within a few blocks on one on PCH and one on seventh. This is not the only coffee shop in the neighborhood, folks. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Yasmeen Rabbani and I live on Flint Avenue. I am one of those people that drive up Flint and make a right on Seventh Street and rely on the kindness of people to let me out. And yes, usually as a kind person, but they're usually is not more than me. One car trying to get out. I want a good business there. I want a strong, viable business. I have no opposition to that whatsoever. What I do want to make sure is that any mitigations are known ahead of time. When I ask people, well, why not just have the traffic go back out on the seventh, I they tell me, well, that's because it'll cause too much traffic. So if it's going to cause too much traffic out on seventh, how is it going to be less traffic maybe going on to Flint or down the alley? Where else is it going to go? So if we have a and when I ask, well, what would happen if there is no plan for what would happen a year from now when they go back to look and say, well, yeah, there is a little too much traffic, there are too many traffic issues. I'd like to see a study done. I'd like to see a strong business in there. I'd like to see plans in place that say if there is an issue, we know how we're going to address it and not go back in retrospect and say, Well, that didn't work out so well. I think we should have thought that one through a little bit. And I do think that we shouldn't be confusing ourselves with the fact that this is anything other than about traffic and safety and not about a good and strong viable business going in there. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Your next speaker.
Speaker 9: Larry Goodyear Clark, as the address. About six weeks ago or eight weeks ago, I was here commending the staff on really the outstanding job they did on a project on Livingston from the Termino down to the entrance to Belmont Shore. It was clearly the best project I've seen in the city in 30 years. This is the polar opposite. This is the polar opposite of this. These will be the drive thru aspect and it's an impact on the alley. And this is again in my in my view. Concrete evidence of the dangers of the second hand smoke coming from marijuana. This is the second penis head plan we've come seen brought before this chamber in the last month. The first, of course, was will be addressed little later today. Again, the idea of buying a spending 400, $500,000 for a parking for an open de facto public latrine down in Belmont, Belmont Shore. The idea of of increasing the traffic was, as the business model indicates to any honest person, is going to happen. And running that traffic through that neighborhood is just it is just ahead up the rear idea period. And I would challenge that the staff needs to go back and do the job that it needs to get done. And I understand that has been the budget has been cut and you haven't been able to put your best foot forward. And this certainly, certainly is an example of that. The only other suggestion I would make is to examine the possibility of maybe giving to the residents there. Put a gate up at the toll gate, a gate at the alley, and have the residents have a key to that car key, just like they go in and out of gated community.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Michael Hale. I live on Havana Avenue.
Speaker 0: In the Triangle, which is north of the seventh.
Speaker 1: Street. I'm here to express my concerns about the project, especially the conditional use permit for the drive thru.
Speaker 0: Yes, the existing drive thru is deficient, but we shouldn't. As the appellants pointed out with excellent knowledge of both the codes.
Speaker 1: And the numbers.
Speaker 0: Put a put a drive thru opportunity there for future businesses. If especially if Dunkin Donuts does fail.
Speaker 1: I've been a city employee for 30 years, a project manager.
Speaker 0: Who's used to putting.
Speaker 1: Projects round circle projects into the square holes of municipal, state and federal regulations. I find it difficult to understand how we are able to call this fast food restaurant a ready to eat restaurant just to avoid the requirement of not having.
Speaker 0: A drive thru adjacent to.
Speaker 1: Properties. I live again north of seventh.
Speaker 9: The streets.
Speaker 1: Along north of seventh are notorious for people who need.
Speaker 9: To get to work, want to.
Speaker 1: Get to work, and will speed through the residential streets to do so. They will make a right where legal and go from seven to PCH avoiding this intersection. And I want to have that experience stop in my neighborhood and not affect the neighbors south of seventh. Like to address Diane, if you can be a developer, get some thick skin.
Speaker 9: No one called you a liar.
Speaker 1: You called us liars and your people in the back. Sir, if you can address that, the chair. That'd be great. When the people and his team.
Speaker 10: Make comments about the.
Speaker 1: Kids who are participating in our democratic process, saying, Let's confiscate their signs, where in the hell? So you can use people and address the chair? Where in the hell do his people feel that they have the entitlement to confiscate someone else's right to speech? And so let's make sure to make sure that during hearings that you're that we're addressing the chair of the body here. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Certainly. My name is Mary Kate and I live on Fourth and Winslow. And I don't want to beat a dead horse. This is starting to sound like a Charlie Brown episode in the classroom. I want want. What about the traffic issue? But I'm going to talk a little bit about human nature. I work up in the city of Los Angeles. I work 50 plus hours a day. I use a smartphone that has a Sig Alert app. I live in the city of Long Beach. I moved here in 2004 with my partner. When we first drove through that community of Alamitos Heights in 2004, it was too residential for us. It was quiet.
Speaker 7: And we were looking for a little different atmosphere.
Speaker 6: We bought a home in Belmont Heights on a thoroughfare to the beach, and we've lived there for ten years. After the noise of cars going down our street for ten years and lack of sleep. We began to.
Speaker 7: Look for another house.
Speaker 6: And we looked in the area of Alamitos Heights. And the reason why we did.
Speaker 7: Is because of the quiet nature of that particular.
Speaker 6: Residential area. One of the other first things I noticed when I moved to the city of Long Beach in 2004 is on this on Seventh Street. There are no turn signs posted on every residential street, no left turn. And I would imagine that those signs were placed on every Russell Dental Street there for a purpose. And that was because people.
Speaker 7: Were creating.
Speaker 6: A thoroughfare through the area of residential of Alamitos Heights to get someplace out else. Before I leave, I want to talk a little bit about human nature. I mentioned that I work up in the city of Los Angeles. I spend a great deal of time driving myself. I am looking for every quick thoroughfare to get to my destination as I possibly, possibly can. And once I find that thoroughfare, it becomes the thoroughfare that I use repeatedly. So once the people that are going in and out of a drive through a Dunkin Donuts find a thoroughfare that's easier and quicker to get to their destination. They will continue to use that every day.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 9: Good evening.
Speaker 2: The honorable vice mayor and the city council. My name is Running Cohen. I live at 644 Flint Avenue. I've lived there most of my life. It's about 150, maybe 200 feet from the property location. And there's two issues I wanted to address. One is there seems to be some contention between the appellants and the applicant as to the number of cars he would like to have at the property or he intends to have at the property. My solution would simply be that if the applicant really.
Speaker 9: Doesn't expect to have 100 cars at the.
Speaker 2: Location and doesn't need 100 cars, how about we limit him to 100 cars an hour? How about we simply limit this property, put it as part of the CHP that he can't have more than 50.
Speaker 9: Cars an hour.
Speaker 2: And that would just be part of the copy. If that number is exceeded, he would report that back to the city and we wouldn't have to worry about the excess number of cars. He doesn't seem to think it's necessary and we certainly don't want it. The other issue I'd like to raise is, is it a legal issue? I went to law school. I know that several of you went to law school. And I would ask that you take a look at the code, the code that we think this property, clearly this development clearly violates. There is a provision in the municipal code that states that a fast food restaurant cannot abut a residential neighborhood. Somehow the city and the applicant came to the conclusion that this is not a fast food restaurant. Several of the people have spoken before me are a little puzzled had how we came to that, how the city came to that conclusion. I certainly don't understand it, but it was explained to me that the reason it's not a fast food restaurant is because it's not a restaurant at all. And the reason it's not a restaurant is because it's not it doesn't have a full kitchen. And in order to have a full kitchen, it needs to have a range, an oven, an oven vent and a double sink. And if you don't have all of those things and you read the code, it does seem to sort of suggest.
Speaker 9: That it's not a kitchen and therefore not a restaurant and therefore not a fast food restaurant. But that's really an absurd.
Speaker 2: Interpretation of the.
Speaker 1: Code. Thank you, sir. We have to conclude.
Speaker 2: I just want to say, can you really build a a McDonald's there.
Speaker 9: Without a double sink? And it's not a.
Speaker 2: Fast food restaurant. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Paula Cohen.
Speaker 7: I live on Flint Avenue in the block where the proposed site is. I've lived there for over 20 years. I'm raising five children there.
Speaker 6: I sometimes cycle to work.
Speaker 7: Myself and my five children.
Speaker 6: Regularly cycle to school. I simply want to remind you that I'm here not to represent my own children, but the many children who live in the neighborhood who will be cycling and walking to school while all of these cars are driving through our neighborhood. I also want to briefly reference.
Speaker 7: Something that the lady a couple speakers ahead of me mentioned about.
Speaker 6: The way the way people work, the way.
Speaker 7: People function. I recently was reassigned temporarily to the Santa monica courthouse. I had no idea.
Speaker 6: How to get there quickly in order to arrive there 830.
Speaker 7: In the morning. So I used ways. I don't know if any.
Speaker 6: Of you have ever used Waze.
Speaker 7: But it was brilliant.
Speaker 6: Help me to get to work in a reasonable time, and it took me through all.
Speaker 7: Kinds of neighborhoods I would never have discovered.
Speaker 6: Otherwise. I am sure that Waze will quickly figure out the way to get.
Speaker 7: Out of this donut store, and that is going to be to go down Flint Avenue and all the other residential streets in our neighborhood. And it's going to be.
Speaker 6: Directing traffic, a lot of traffic through a quiet.
Speaker 7: Residential neighborhood. And I ask you.
Speaker 6: Please, to reconsider. Don't let that happen in our neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Sally Meyerhoff and I live at 515 Ultimo Avenue. And I was going to bore you with my letter. But I won't do that now because it's everything that everybody else has said. And you all received it in your email. So if you get a chance, I want to get bored and go take a nap, read my letter. But after listening to everybody speak, there's two points that I want to make. One. I moved here two years ago and we heavily renovated a house, and part of the requirements that the city made us do was to cut off our back fence at 45 degrees, coming out of my driveway into the alley in order for it to be a safe way for me to exit. And people can so I can make a turn into the alley and I can go down to either fourth or sixth Street to get out of my neighborhood. And that was purely a safety issue. And I understand that. And that to me, after I was hearing a re talk about the owl, because I'm really kind of removed.
Speaker 9: From.
Speaker 6: Flint Street. But we I have to travel very slowly down my alley. I use my alley probably 80% of the time to go in and out of my driveway. So I think there is a real concern there with the Flint alley there in the traffic and then putting an added burden of cars coming off of Dunkin Donuts and going down there to exit. The second thing is I do have a degree in culinary arts and I have worked in a restaurant. I'm also an ex-employee of Dunkin Donuts when I was 17 years old. So I know how it works and there is no way that they're going to be able to get that number of cars in an hour effectively with the menu. You know, if you take a hundred cars, it takes 60 minutes, takes 36 seconds to get a car through there. We can serve a cup of coffee there. But then you have to factor in the time it's going to take to put together, you know, an Egg McMuffin of some sort. They're going to have that all pre-filled. I'll be ready to go, but it still takes time. You put the egg in the microwave, it's going to take you 30 seconds to cook it. You got to put it together. So the average time is going to be probably closer to 2 to 3 minutes per car. And if you look at a lot of data with all the other fast foods, you know, McDonald's has got it down on Bellflower. They've got a three point system is so you pay, you bought, you bought, you pay, you order, you pay and you pick up. So I would like you to consider not approving this yuppie for the drive thru. I want Dunkin Donuts. I love them.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our our final speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hi. Good evening. My name's Sharon Hagan and I live at 600 Flint Avenue. I have something that I'm concerned about that I have not heard addressed yet, and that is if there's going to be an ATM or any money getting back service at this non fast food restaurant. Because when the Vitamin Shoppe is going in, we successfully, because of the increased traffic on our street battled and won for them not to be given an ATM for that reason for traffic for our safety. So since this is going to have a lot more because fortunately more people buy donuts than vitamins, a lot more traffic, I'm just concerned that if there's an ATM or whatever a 100 cars might be, 125 cars might take longer. All of that is my only point. Good evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. We're going to go ahead and close the hearing portion and have council deliberation and questions. So I'm gonna go ahead and do that and take this back behind the rail. I'm gonna turn this over first to Mr. DeLong.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Appreciate that. And thank you all who came? Not to testify regarding this project. You know, it's an illuminating experience for all of us. I guess we'll staff that one woman, one woman. I can't answer her question. That is, there is no fast way to get to Santa monica at 830 in the morning. But I also have a few questions for staff as well. One of the the speakers made the comment that the drive thru is designed to channel cars down the alley, I guess down the alley, heading south behind residential homes. So perhaps, Ms.. Potok, whoever the appropriate person is to to respond to that. But I'd like to know if that's your belief that you're approving the design. And then also, can you talk a little bit about the alley and the fact that we're removing curb cuts? Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing, the widening of the alley that we saw? Well, yeah, to the first question then I'll continue. Sorry about that. That's part of the design.
Speaker 7: Mr. Rosemond and I were doing rock, paper, scissors here.
Speaker 1: And, you.
Speaker 6: Know, I won.
Speaker 7: So I'm going to talk about the site plan. As you can see, we did. If you turn to your exhibit in your staff report, we did orient the building so that the drive thru does orient along seventh street. There is an existing alley that abuts the site to the west. There are in the existing condition for curb cuts, including the alley. There is an alley curb cut, a nice utility telephone pole, a curb cut for the liquor store and then to curb cuts for the existing coffee shop. So we are as as part of the requirements are requiring that there be a five foot alley dedication and that is in your conditions of approval. And we are also requiring that an entirely new widened curb cut be constructed so that there is entrance and exiting off of Seventh Street. And that alley does narrow down after after the Dunkin Donuts property, and then it would revert to the traditional alley that it is now. Also, as a condition we are requiring that that the entire length of the alley that adjoins the site. So from seventh Street to the to the rear of the property, be completely paved and completely repaved and improved. Does that answer your question on that?
Speaker 3: Almost so. Was the project designed to channel cars down the alley heading southbound behind the residences? Garages?
Speaker 7: No, it is not. I have been down that alley as well. And do you agree? It's a very tight alley? We do not we do not design projects to feed into the alleys. We do design projects for ease onto the streets. So the design of this had nothing to do with with channeling cars down the alley.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And on the video where they had the car coming in off Seventh Street and somebody trying to exit, and it was like, you know, a head on the fact that you're widening the curb cut. Would that make that situation better then there's more space to get in and out on Seventh Street?
Speaker 2: Yes, Councilman, actually, by concentrating the movements at the alley and at Flint, rather than having four options, plus Flint, which would be five total to enter the roadway, there's that creates a lot of conflicts. So by widening the alley, if you think about it, every car that comes in also has to leave, right? So if there's a car that's coming in a wider alley that provides an opportunity for somebody at the alley to exit, so that car comes in, one car exits. It makes it very easy. That's a lot, lot easier to exit at the alley position than it would be at Flint, where somebody has to be a good Samaritan to allow you to get out of that out into the traffic stream. So that's part of the reason of the design. By concentrating and widening the alley, it provides a much better access point for the for the property as well as an exit point on to Seventh Street.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Roseman. And while we're talking about traffic, one of the other comments was about semi-trucks being allowed to drive through the residential neighborhoods. Help me understand that from a traffic engineer perspective, how would you expect delivery trucks to to access and leave that site? What's what's the route?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not sure where they're where they'll be coming from. But if you look at a larger at a larger vehicle that's going to access the site, if you're a driver, probably the best way to access the site would be to go west. I'm sorry, eastbound on Seventh Street, turn onto Flint and then into the driveway of the Dunkin Donuts. Do your delivery of your your stuff there on site and then exit via the alley and make a make a right turn on to Seventh Street. That would be the most logical way for for a delivery vehicle to to. To access the site. Okay.
Speaker 3: Because I do agree with people. I mean, you know, humans are going to look for the easiest ability to get onto an off of of their property. So I saw your perspective the. What else I have here. One of the residents had asked if we could make Flint Avenue a cul de sac. So essentially you just you physically could not turn right to get out, even though we saw the cars turn left, but we'd have some hardscape that prevented that. So from a traffic engineer's perspective, is that a good idea, bad idea? Can we do it? Where does that fit?
Speaker 2: Generally, that wouldn't be an option. In today's urban environment, we don't like to make dead ends. If there is a dead end in a roadway network, you want to create a cul de sac large enough for a vehicle to turn around in. And since Flint is is a relatively narrow street, residential street, in order to create a cul de sac to turn around, you would have to acquire property, most likely from both sides of the street, the Vitamin Shoppe site, as well as as a Dunkin Donuts site, and probably also two of the residential properties to create a a turnaround large enough to to allow that to occur.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, it has to be south of the development, right? Because you want to let people get out of the development to be able to turn left on Flint and turn seven. So. So you wouldn't support a cul de sac.
Speaker 2: It would take a huge amount of real estate to to be compliant with the fire codes as well as our on street urban street design standards. Okay.
Speaker 3: I don't think going to take anything away from the residents. How about as far as maybe making Flint Avenue a one way street, the you know, that limitation.
Speaker 2: That that's a possibility. It does impact everybody that lives there on Flint in that they could only access their properties, go in the same direction as everybody else. There wouldn't be any residential provision. Yeah. Provision for that. When we put something one way, everything is one way. But normally when we do do a one way in order to provide good circulation, we, we try to team that up with a one way go in the opposite direction on another street. And in this environment, I just don't really think that that makes a lot of sense to provide, you know, turn two streets into one way in both impacting the neighborhood. For a project like this, you can essentially create a one way out of the Dunkin Donuts by restricting right turns into the neighborhood. And legally, that would be almost exactly the same as creating a one way on the street itself.
Speaker 3: Is is that something that if the council directs you to do a traffic study in the neighborhood that you could analyze to see what the pros and cons would be, and then also include some community outreach to ensure that those residents on the two streets it would be impact would be supportive of this change.
Speaker 2: Yes. Normally when we do one ways or our process is to contact everyone that's on that block and have and have the residents express their opinion. And we generally don't take anything to counsel converting the street to one way unless we have two thirds support. So if there was a traffic study that was done for the entire neighborhood and and the vast majority of the residents supported a one way street, then that would come back to council here for a final determination.
Speaker 3: And you're I don't know if you have an opinion, but in your opinion, how long would the business need to be in operation in order to understand what the potential traffic impacts are? Because like we did today, we make it back and say, no, there's no purpose to do it. But maybe, I don't know, six months, nine months, a year from now, you might say, well, there is some benefit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we had that debate it at Planning Commission. Is it six months? Is it one year? I tend to believe it's about six months, somewhere between six months and one year. First off, when it opens up, people might not be aware it's there. They're trying to find their way to get there. They're building their customer base. So at about six months is when I think it's staples out.
Speaker 3: All right. We'll probably chat about that a little more for the nights over. There was also a request from a resident about having some kind of traffic bollards to block traffic into the alley between Ultimo and Flint. Do you have an opinion on that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wouldn't recommend that either. That's creating the same dead end condition that we talked about with Flint. Okay.
Speaker 3: Let me see what else I have here. Just a moment. Back to the planning staff, if I may. It seems like there are quite a number of questions regarding restaurant versus ready to eat. Can you try and clarify that issue for us and understand why the staff say this is a ready to eat as opposed to a restaurant?
Speaker 7: Certainly we do have a number of definitions to choose from within the code. One is the definition of a restaurant. One is the definition of ready to eat food restaurant, and the other one is fast food restaurant and then drive in restaurant, which refers you back to fast food. Based on the description and the floor plan that was given to us, the zoning administrator determined that this is a ready to eat restaurant for the purposes of the definitions that we have in the code. It is not a sit down restaurant and it does not qualify as a fast food restaurant. And therefore we determined that it was a ready to eat restaurant.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Is it? Is it possible to restrict hours of delivery and days of delivery? Like, for example, I read somewhere or perhaps I heard tonight that the applicant says deliveries are two days a week and we hold them to that two days a week.
Speaker 7: We currently do not have any conditions of approval related to deliveries, but that is absolutely in the discretion of the City Council to do so. We have worked with businesses in the past and business districts to try to limit deliveries within certain time frames. It is slightly hard to enforce when you get multiple businesses involved because then they they kind of point to each other and say, that's not my delivery truck. But we do have the ability to do that. And that is in the discretion of of the council.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm just getting the residents would probably let us know if there was a problem and then we could do some monitoring if necessary. And how about restricting the hours of deliveries there? Is that reasonable? The staff have a recommendation to that other places, and I don't want to be overly restrictive. But on the other hand, you know, I can certainly understand that weighing a truck to pull in at 530 in the morning. You know, when I live close to that facility.
Speaker 2: Yes, councilman, I don't know what their business model, how they're operating. However, if you look at just the traffic conditions and you look at kids going to school and things of that nature, this business is busiest during the morning. So it would be best that we had something if we restricted deliveries to be something after nine and before three, because after three, traffic picks up again on seventh Street. So between nine and three would probably be the best time for deliveries.
Speaker 3: So basically you're saying keep the delivery away from the peak hours, the busy hours of the restaurant of the establishment?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right.
Speaker 3: Well, I want to go ahead and make a motion motion to approve the recommendation with a few mitigations. One would be to restrict deliveries to two days a week to restrict the hours of delivery away from the busy hours, to request city staff to do a traffic study. An appropriate time of six months as your time. That's certainly good with me, but I want to look at the entire neighborhood issues to see if there's people that are cutting down Santiago and heading over, you know, in that area to try and get out to Bellflower. There may be some issues that exist today, so I do want a more macro study, not just looking at the Dunkin Donuts facility. All of that certainly should be included. The applicant mentioned that they were willing to contribute $10,000 toward that effort, so we should take them up on that. I would also like the city traffic engineer to work with the applicant to design some appropriate signage on that facility that prevents the know right turn onto Flint. And again, we might do maybe something more restrictive after you've done your traffic study, but let's at least begin with that. And then also to come up with some appropriate signage that might say no outlet towards the alley, residents only. You know, hopefully we can be a little creative on the solution there. And that's my motion with those restrictions.
Speaker 12: Excuse me, Councilman DeLong, just so I'm clear on the motion. You said you were following staff recommendations. So I assume that your motion also includes upholding the decision of the Planning Commission approving the categorical exemption site plan review conditional use permit, which would allow the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of the 899 square foot establishment with drive thru.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. There's been a there's been a motion in a second. And we do have some people that are cued up with with a couple of questions. I'm going to allow Constable Robson, who with the second speak and then we'll go to the queue.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I guess this question is for the the Dunkin Donuts folks. And the question is, is there a way to mitigate the audibility concern at the drive thru outside of a speaker? Is there a touch touch screen option to ensure that it that the noise won't impact the residents?
Speaker 8: Yeah, there is a touch screen option and we've I mean, we can go back we've oriented towards seventh Street so it's directly pointing away from the neighborhood. And you know, if the city wants to, you know, to move it further and look at it, we're open to that. I mean, we've tried to be sensitive to any noise coming back into the neighborhood.
Speaker 10: Councilman, would you be open to a friendly amendment to add that option?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Thank you for the suggestion.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. I have I do have since I did have a question also of staff, I heard the discussion about the the classification of the restaurant. And Councilman DeLong brought that up. So I know that we have I think one gentleman mentioned we have one drive thru Starbucks. And I think we have to I think drive thru Starbucks in Long Beach one being over by the airport. Are both of those classified in the same way? Or what's the classification? And obviously, they're not adjacent to to to residential, but what's the classification difference at the same time?
Speaker 7: Yes, sir. They would be the classification would be ready to eat. However, in those situations, they are not adjacent to residential.
Speaker 1: Right. And what and listen, I'm not certainly not a traffic engineer. I'm wondering. However, on Seventh Street, was there ever consideration. About having the entrance and exit to the facility on seventh and not on Flint.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: We were doing rock, paper, scissors here again. But no, actually, that's why we're concentrating the access points there at the alley by widening the alley. If you think about it, if you're at a at a location trying to exit onto a busy street, the car that's in the third lane that's coming towards you and entering provides you the gap to get in. So by contin by getting rid of the four driveways and, and concentrating at the alley and widening it, most people that are heading eastbound, going to this site are not going to go to Flint to pass the Dunkin Donuts to come back to the Dunkin Donuts. They're going to enter at the alley and get in the stream of the drive thru. So it's going to provide the most gaps for people to get out. That's why not having driveways closer to the intersection and moving them back provides that in and out movement at one location.
Speaker 1: Mr. Rosen, can you make a currently right turn onto Flint from seventh?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. And so was it considered at any point for the entrance and the exit to be on seventh and not on Flint? To not include Flint?
Speaker 7: In the current configuration with a drive thru lane, that would not be possible. One of the very earliest iterations that we saw had the entire facility oriented separately so that the parking was in front and that would have provided that ability to have a single entrance off of Seventh Street. However, that puts the drive thru directly adjacent to a residential property within five feet. And one of the biggest issues that we have with drive thrus is in fact creating as much separation as possible and always orienting the drive thru lane towards the busiest street. So we required the drive thru lane to be abutting seventh street specifically to reduce nuisance.
Speaker 1: Okay. But so obviously in this configuration you have in front of us, clearly there's the we have the Flint entrance and exit. But you did look at that as a possibility. So in this configuration are possible, but it certainly is possible in another configuration that certainly would have moved the drive thru, but it would have been possible . Is that correct?
Speaker 7: It would have been possible. It would have been an inferior design and it would have resulted in two curb cuts along Seventh Street because the alley curb cut would still remain in this configuration. We get it down to the one consolidated curb cut, which, as Mr. Husband said, is safer from a traffic standpoint.
Speaker 1: Are there along Seventh Street. I'm trying to remember we all do that drive so often. Are there any other other streets that you're not able to make a right turn on to from seventh adjacent to Flint? Like leading up to Flint? I mean, certainly you can't make a left coming the other way on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there, there, there. Right turn is required if you're exiting on the seventh and right turns are allowed in and you can't make a left in or left out or go straight across.
Speaker 1: So all up and down seventh with within this pathway, you can make a right onto it.
Speaker 2: And then when you get down to Santiago, we also have a no U-turn condition.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then my question was, I, I heard maybe there was a difference to what it seems like there was some type of the traffic analysis that was mentioned during the hearing that was done internally by the city or was that done by the applicant or what was that traffic analysis that was done? Exactly.
Speaker 2: I understand the applicant in his testimony said that he has traffic data. I don't I don't he gathered some. I don't have that. We did. I sent one of my staff members out for the 3 hours from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. to count all the driveways and all the access points where people came in, where they went out. And when we did that kind of as a summary, we found that there was a total of 127 vehicles that entered the site and went to the Dunkin Donuts over that time period. So if you're trying to count apples and apples, that's that's almost 100 trips per hour that are going in and out of this site. So it's on order of the same numbers that that we've been hearing all along here. So the existing donut shop, I think Bill here was was right. You're you're it does a lot more business than people think it does. So our accounts show about 50 cars an hour that are coming in and, you know, people stopping and getting donuts and coffee. So that's what we found on the existing site.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I just had a question for Councilmember DeLong in with the addition of the request for the traffic study, which I think you suggested would be a six month macro study, is and that is to be done prior to any further movement on on the project?
Speaker 3: No. What Mr. Roseman said is you have to have the project in operation for six months in the study, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to measure the traffic on Flynt to see if that one way is better or worse.
Speaker 6: So it's a full impact study on the proposed use.
Speaker 3: After the proposed use has been there for six months. And looking at the macro neighborhood, just not on the Dunkin Donuts impact because there may be other impacts.
Speaker 6: I see. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That's word Johnson.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you, Vice Mayor. And I want to thank everyone who came out here to speak tonight. I actually drove through the property myself today. I drive by several times a week to take a look at it. And it is kind of interesting layout. And it's true that we make a run in Flint. You really are right are in the middle of intersection. One question for staff sounds like one of the primary concerns here is know cut through traffic in the neighborhood. And we talked about that, the potential traffic study. Do you in your professional opinion, do you see or cut through traffic either through the alley or through Flint or or not? I don't suspect that there will be. However, I, I also admitted at the Planning Commission that I don't know everything. So that's why we were proposed to do this study after it was opened. Because if if we are wrong, then we can take action in order to address it. However, if most people that are going to this site are coming westbound on seventh Street, most likely they're continuing westbound on seventh Street onto the freeway, going into the neighborhood to try to get back to seventh Street. I think he meant eastbound. I'm sorry, eastbound. And rather than going and going through the neighborhood to get back to eastbound seventh Street or on this on the PCH, that is one of the slowest ways to get back other than just going right out of the driveway that you came in or off on on Flint or across the way. Actually, some people do it today. I don't know if anybody noticed it, but in the video that was shown, I saw a car do it as well, go through the vitamin shop and go straight on to Pacific Coast Highway and exit. So those are pretty quick ways to get out of the site. Going through the neighborhood down to Sixth Street, all the way down to Manila around the frontage road. Make a left turn on to Bellflower to get back up to PCH, across PCH to to Seventh Street. That's a number of traffic signals, a number of turns. It's much, much slower than just exiting on the seventh Street. Okay. And one concern I had and I heard from the residents was the ability to make this U-turn from the exit. And it is you know, right now the alley is very narrow and we are requiring it to get wider, which I think is a positive improvement. Some cars may be able to make that U-turn. Some cars may not. I'm not an expert on it. But do you feel that our cars will be able to make that U-turn or or not? If they can't, it does it become a multi point turn or what do you expect to happen if a car is trying to make that U-turn there from the exit? Yeah, it's it's sufficiently wide for the vast majority of cars to make that turn. If you think about the width of the alley being about 27 feet and the width of the about 18 feet, is it for the drive through? It's 27 plus 18. I mean, you can do the math and look at your own car and see what's the turning radius of that.
Speaker 1: Hey, guys, we have to we think we got to have this between us. So no comments from the audience, please.
Speaker 2: So I don't suspect that the vast majority of cars would have a have a difficult time making that U-turn. Okay. And if the if the residents are right and we don't know because we haven't seen the empirical data, we don't know what's going to happen until it happens. But if there is neighborhood cut through traffic, what are what would our tools be to prevent that? I think all of us want to see that seventh street traffic stay on Seventh Street. And how do we what would we do if that were to occur? A no right turn out of the driveway on Flint to go into the neighborhood. Would legally prevent that that exiting and then some type of signage on the alley that would prohibit southbound traffic in the alley. But we also heard from one of the residents here earlier that they talked about didn't want to have his right, his alley restricted because of the orientation of his garage in the alley. So, I mean, that would legally do it. However, we know that people do violate signs and that's we're having a traffic study and studying it afterwards. If it continues to be a problem, that's when this one way possibility that that Councilman DeLong has talked about could be discussed with neighbors. But neighbors would have to agree to that. Their self-regulating, their own travel to their homes. Right. And what about in terms of the traffic study? Walk me through the pros and cons of having a traffic study after the establishment opens versus doing it beforehand. So it sounds like some of the folks here want a traffic study first. What are the pros and cons of doing it first versus doing it after the establishment opens? Well, doing it first is really kind of what we've done. We've we've seen from the neighbors a traffic study in which they they believe that there will be impacts in the neighborhood. You've heard from me that I don't believe that there will be impacts in the neighborhood. So, you know, where do you go? You have a very busy street. You have a couple of access points. It really comes down to where people how people are going to access the site and how people are going to leave the site. It's one opinion against another. That's why going forward in constructing the the property and then having the ability to do that study afterwards. There's no discussion as to what's happening because you're studying what is what really did happen. And then have the having the ability to take action afterwards and having the developer on the hook to work with us actually is the best of both worlds, I believe. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm up a couple questions. And I want to thank the neighbors who I met with a couple of weeks ago and also the developer met with them as well and also did some study in between. And this is a difficult decision tonight, there's no doubt about it. And I don't know if there's a simple answer tonight. Let me ask a question here with regard to there was something Vice Mayor Garcia brought up, and it had to.
Speaker 2: Do with options.
Speaker 1: So what I'm hearing.
Speaker 0: From staff tonight and please feel free to try to give me as much information on this.
Speaker 1: As you can, is that you feel that this is.
Speaker 2: The best alternative.
Speaker 1: There are no other superior alternatives.
Speaker 7: Yes, sir, we do. We've been working through these issues for a number of months, and we do believe that we have provided appropriate conditions of approval and appropriate design controls and that this is the best solution.
Speaker 2: And moving.
Speaker 1: Moving to the restaurant, the ready to eat.
Speaker 2: Establishment, whatever you're labeling it.
Speaker 1: To the rear of the facility, does not necessarily solve the problem, because that was my easy answer. And what I'm hearing tonight is maybe it's not.
Speaker 7: No, sir. It actually creates more problems, particularly for those adjacent residents who live right next to the fence. So our first our first order of business is to look at the potential nuisance activities related to the drive thru. And the first thing we always do is orient them as far away as possible from residential uses and towards the noisy street. And so that is why the, the facility is oriented the way it is. Additionally, I think the applicant did mention we did require them to meet code for the queuing and as I understand it, they are exceeding that so that there is additional queuing as well.
Speaker 1: Well, if they did, what if they did not exceed it? Would there be a better option if they simply sat at code and there was some other option?
Speaker 7: No, I don't think that that is is would help. We actually prefer larger queuing lines than shorter queuing lines because you then have, for example, the in and out situation where a queuing is just not enough. So we would actually prefer larger queuing than than less.
Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, we're not anticipating this is going to be an in and out situation.
Speaker 7: And no, sir, we're not. But I am giving you an example of, you know, the queuing and problems with having a shorter queue than what we have in place right now.
Speaker 1: Okay. A couple more questions with regard to the alley and maybe Councilmember DeLong, you can weigh in on this. What does your motion specifically address the alley? Because I see the alley as an easy path out of here from the drive thru in particular. Certainly I might if I could just at the end of that drive thru.
Speaker 2: Shouldn't you shouldn't you 45 it so you send cars.
Speaker 0: Away from the alley.
Speaker 7: So the alley is, as the residents pointed out, ten feet wide. But the site plan shows a five foot dedication, plus a 12 foot drive aisle to have a combined new improved alley of 27 feet wide for that portion of the property. Then there is a six foot median and then a 12 foot drive thru lane. So that constitutes the potential turning radius for a car exiting the drive thru in the back or rear of the site. The alley does go back down to a ten foot alley figure. You know, it is incredibly narrow. So there is a condition already in place that does require signage at the alley that would prevent traffic from going into the alley. It is our expectation that that is where the signage would go, where the throat of the alley narrows down to the to the ten feet towards the rear of the site.
Speaker 1: And again, the residents would have the option of making that a one way with some outreach, etc.. Correct?
Speaker 7: They would. But that I believe the traffic engineer has looked at that and that would create difficulties for the residents that currently access their garages. A number of their garages are oriented, oriented so that they have to come off of Seventh Street. If it were a one way alley northbound. A number of the residents would actually not be able to access their garages.
Speaker 1: It makes sense. I understand that.
Speaker 2: Councilor Councilman, I have one other comment on that. I know numbers are hard for people to understand. A lot of times what is what is 27 feet and 18 feet equal or equals 45 feet wide? And if you look at most residential streets in the city, they're about 36 feet wide, curb to curb. And and if you take the parking off of that, this is nine feet wider. So if you can go to your residential street with your car and start at one curb and make a U-turn and have nine feet past that curb, you can make a U-turn here. And I think looking at your.
Speaker 1: Measurements, your plan, I think you're.
Speaker 2: Correct there. I guess I just.
Speaker 1: Look at that alley as an.
Speaker 0: Invitation for someone to shoot down.
Speaker 1: And as has been described this evening, that, you know, people are in a hurry, especially when they're going to this establishment is probably going to be in the morning and.
Speaker 2: The alley looks like an invitation. So whatever devices we can come up with to address that, I think would be positive.
Speaker 1: And with with regard to the copy, is it prescribed in the copy that the the Director of development would have all tools necessary to address neighborhood impacts in the future.
Speaker 2: Some tools, all tools.
Speaker 9: But what empowers you to do this?
Speaker 7: There is a condition of approval. That allows.
Speaker 6: The the.
Speaker 7: Plans to be modified either through the site plan review committee or minor modifications made at the discretion of the Director of Development Services. So we could require, as a matter of course, that some additional landscaping be created towards the rear where that trash, enclosure and transformer are located. To make it even more obvious that the alley narrows down to ten feet at that throat. And that would be within existing discretion when you set the hours of operation on a up. They cannot be modified without going back to the Planning Commission. I do not have that discretion on a copy. So if, for example, you approve the CFP, which currently has operating hours of 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.. If Dunkin Donuts wanted to come back and change their hours of operation and stay open longer, they would be required to have a brand new hearing on that copy at the Planning Commission. So I do not have that level of discretion under the copy.
Speaker 1: Okay. Understood. With regard to the hours. But when we speak to, you know, we're going to do a traffic study. It's going to be six months into the operation. What if there are things that need to be addressed? Then what discretion would you have? What authority would you have to have them addressed?
Speaker 7: Yes, sir. We actually have the condition of approval that generally speaks to that. And we can revise the condition of approval to match what the counsel is is potentially directing us to do. But there's an existing condition of approval that requires traffic counts and corresponding reports to be submitted by the applicant at six months and one year after the issuance of a C AVO and it would be reviewed by the city traffic engineer and then the traffic engineer would have the ability to require the applicant to develop and implement traffic control changes on the site, potentially including but not limited to pavement markings, generalizations and signage to address the impacts at the applicant's cost. So we do have a built in mechanism that does provide the traffic engineer discretion based on the results of the traffic counts. We would have to modify this condition slightly in order to include a macro study of the entire neighborhood. But in essence, it's it's in the conditions of approval now.
Speaker 1: So what you're telling me is, if there are problems discovered.
Speaker 2: Six months into the operation.
Speaker 1: You have the tools to address them, be it the alley, be it some other impact.
Speaker 7: Yes, sir. We believe we do. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilmember DeLong. 27 feet is not 27 plus 18. In 2017.
Speaker 4: A plan to.
Speaker 3: I'll call for the question.
Speaker 1: Can we have Councilmember Lonzo kick Councilman Johnson?
Speaker 3: I call for the question, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 1: But we have one more question and called duty objection to that.
Speaker 2: I object.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. Johnson and I apologize.
Speaker 2: Staff, if you've already answered this. But one thing that's come up, I think I heard Councilman O'Donnell allude to this is what about the possibility of forcing people to exit directly on the seventh? And could you explain to me why is that a good idea or a bad idea or why that wasn't chosen? I'm sure that was considered in the plan.
Speaker 7: We do not believe that we have the ability to have a direct exit on Seventh Street and still allow the drive thru to be remain in its current configuration. It would effectively be turned either towards Flint or the alley or adjacent to the residential. So we believe that this is the the most satisfactory condition, which does allow the combination of a combined exit on to Seventh Street through the alley and the drive through facing seventh Street.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, you know, I think this is a difficult issue. And I do think we have a good developer who is trying to do the right thing. And I want to you know, I do think Dunkin Donuts is a great product and I do want us to be business friendly, but we have to balance out their neighborhoods . And I hear their concerns. And I you know, what I'm thinking about is we've heard a lot of extremes, perhaps, you know, both ways. But there's got to be a compromise here to respect neighborhood life and have a great development that I think really will be a positive improvement. So I just don't think we're quite there yet. So what I'd like to do is make a most obstinate motion to our staff to go back to the community and discuss traffic mitigation measures before we come back here, whether it's doing a traffic study or having that conversation, I don't think we've fully vetted that and come back here and I don't know if there'll be 30 days or some period of time and we have this hearing. So that would be my subsidy of motion.
Speaker 1: Is there a second? I'll second. Conservative.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You know, I've had numerous meetings about this with staff as well as residents. Mr. Roseman, is there something we missed in regard to traffic mitigation? Because I am open to additional measures if they're there and we've missed something and I don't mind going back to community, but what would we offer them? Do you have other things that we could look at for traffic mitigation that we haven't thought about?
Speaker 2: You know, I, I don't know. I mean, Seventh Street is still going to be seventh Street is still going to be busy. The site is still going to be where the site is. And we've taken four access point or five access points, including Flint, and turn it into two to try to minimize the impacts to traffic flow and improve access in and out. So, you know, I, I don't know what else we would study.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, thank you. Then I'll make a substitute substitute, which is all the original recommendations and mitigations and I put on as well as that friendly amendment. And then also I'd like to add that city staff would work with Caltrans since they control the the Iron Triangle intersection to see if we can't do those keep clear of pavement markings at seventh and Flint because I have seen in Los Alamitos and other places where they're very effective at keeping intersections open, which would allow people to have an easier turn and not necessarily have to rely on a good Samaritan.
Speaker 1: Kate. Is there a second case you're gonna second on the substitute substitute? That's the final motion being the third substitute on the floor. And did we want to before we check it out, Mr. Duncan, repeat the mitigations for that we that were described for the first motion at clear Mr..
Speaker 9: Are.
Speaker 0: The mitigations that are recorded is to approve the requirement. This is in your first motion approved recommendation as amended with additional conditions to one restrict deliveries to do two days per week during non busy hours to require city staff to conduct a macro traffic study in six months. Three Require the applicant to contribute $10,000 towards a traffic study cost for require the applicant to work with staff to develop appropriate signage to potentially prohibit a right turn onto Flint, as well as alley signage indicating that there is no outlet from the alley or signage indicating that the alley that the alley use is intended for residents
Speaker 3: . And now this new and that.
Speaker 0: And then finally, let me see if I can scroll down here. And then finally to require your applicant to install and locate a touchscreen drive thru ordering system that will minimize noise to the adjacent residential properties.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Just words.
Speaker 3: It. Plus the new one. I added it working with Caltrans on making clear that.
Speaker 0: That would be the six.
Speaker 12: And Mr. Vice Mayor, I just one point of clarification. I have the same notes that Mr. Herrera indicated. But in regard to the six months study, it was my understanding that the six months study would be six months after the beginning of operation as opposed to six months from.
Speaker 9: That's correct, because.
Speaker 3: We want to make sure that whatever traffic volume is there so we can study it.
Speaker 1: Okay. There there is a there's a substitute. Substitute on the motion that was just read by Mr. DeLong. Members, please go ahead and cast for your vote on the substitute substitute motion.
Speaker 0: Motion carries five votes. Two votes? No.
Speaker 1: Okay. The hearing is concluded. The motion carries. And we're going to go ahead and go on now to. Public comment.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Greer the first speaker for public comment. Mr. Clarke.
Speaker 4: Story breaks.
Speaker 0: For speakers. Warren Branch.
Speaker 4: Yeah. | Public Hearing | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, consider the appeals from John LaBelle, Carolyn LaBelle, Anita Hrishikesan and Jeff Bovernam, and Mark Nevin with 56 others, and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Categorical Exemption (CE13-095), Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to allow the demolition of two, one-story commercial buildings, and the construction of a 1,899-square-foot Dunkin’ Donuts ready-to-eat establishment with a drive-thru lane, located at 5560 East 7th Street in the CCA zoning district. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04222014_14-0295 | Speaker 2: City manager with the recommendation to authorize the execution of an amendment to agreement at the Grand Prix Association.
Speaker 3: Mr. City Manager, in a quick comment.
Speaker 0: Yes, we have a quick report by my request. Mayor Foster, members of the City Council decided relates to a contract amendment with.
Speaker 2: The Grand Prix Association of Long Beach to effect a three year extension through 2018.
Speaker 0: With two one year extension options.
Speaker 2: At the discretion of the city and to provide other beneficial provisions in the amendment as detailed in the staff report. Separately, City Council has directed staff to prepare and issue an RFP to the Association and to Formula One to determine the best value for the city for an ongoing annual race event. As a result, staff requests that City Council.
Speaker 0: Approve the recommended action.
Speaker 2: At this time, I invite Mr. Jim Micheli and President CEO of the Grand Prix Association of Long Beach, who is here tonight to make a short presentation regarding the results of this year's event. Mr. Mike.
Speaker 3: Mr. MCKAY.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much and good evening, Mayor Foster and the City Council. It's our privilege to come before you and talk about not only what transpired the recent Grand Prix, but more importantly, to talk about our mutual efforts going forward. I think it's fair to say that a good summary of what transpired during the weekend is probably captured by the headline that appeared in the newspaper, The Press Telegram, the next day, which was 40 and fabulous. Indeed, we did have a very fabulous event. It was fabulous for the Grand Prix Association, was fabulous for the city. And equally important, it was fabulous for all of the fans who had a chance to come down and and be entertained during the during the race weekend news, our most comprehensive event we've ever had or we had more activities going on, both on track and off track in the city promotions, free events for people to attend than we've ever had in the history of our company in our 40 years. And we were very delighted to be able to provide that kind of entertainment for so many of the people, not only from the city of Long Beach, from surrounding areas. And as a consequence of that way, we achieved a number of things in a rather spectacular fashion. We had more than 180,000 people in attendance. That's a a new high for us over the last ten years. And it really represented an increase of about 10,000 over what we've been experiencing in the past few years that resulted in a economic impact of more than $35 million, all of which was integrated into the economic backbone of the city. Fortunately, the city had occupancy level of about 96% of the first class rooms were filled in the city. And as a result of all of the events and we literally had seven of them here, we're going to have ten and a half hours of first run television that will emanate not only nationally, but in many cases on an international basis. And those showcase all the assets that are so familiar to those who live here in Long Beach but are new to some of the so many of the people that watch all these various telecasts of these various races that we run. We also this year, as we have the last couple of years, conducted free events. There was one in Belmont Shore on the shore. And as usual, we put on Thursday Thunder on pride. And there was a you might have had a chance to go by that that area down. It was really packed. We had over 5000 people free event. Everybody came down, families, kids, everybody to enjoy freestyle, motocross, pitstop, competition, a pageant. Just a great chance for everybody to come down and get a feel and a taste for what the Grand Prix is all about without having to obviously have to pay anything for it. We also continued a program we've had here for the last 15 years, and that is a visit to many of the council districts with our driver and show car and the school visits, primarily to the elementary schools, but also to some of the junior high schools. And over the years, we've really covered almost virtually all of the various institutions in both the lower elementary level, as well as the junior high schools. And we're very delighted to be able to have that opportunity to come into each one of your districts and be a part of that educational program. And during the event itself, we we were very fortunate. We had great weather. It was a very fan friendly kind of an environment. And there were a lot of people that came with their friends and their families to enjoy the environment that we had there. And this year, as in the past, we're very delighted that the Grand Prix Foundation was an integral part of of our activities, was able to disperse over $100,000 to the community, to needy charities, which is, you know, a very important facet of what we do. But I think one of the real main events that is of significance to those of us who are involved in the Grand Prix is to take a look at the cross-section of people who attend this event. I know I saw a number of you walking through the crowd, and when you really look at it, these are the faces of Long Beach. These are the people that we want to come and be a part of the Grand Prix. And they came young, old parents, children came because it was a very friendly environment. They came because they could come and enjoy themselves. And it was a safe. Environment for them to and to incorporate all of their activities. And we're very delighted that because this really is a civic event and we've often identified it as such, it is something that the citizens of Long Beach have every right to be very proud of where they come to the event or not. It's their event and they have ownership in it and it's very important that we retain the ability to attract. And we have done that primarily by keeping our prices very low. Children and under 12 and under get in for free have from the very beginning 40 years ago. And that's an effort for us to foster an alliance with the young set with regard to what the Grand Prix has to offer. And as a consequence of that, we start to see generations repeatedly come back to the event. Now we're practically in the third generation of people who have come over the last 40 years, and it's important for us as the Grand Prix Association because we're part of the fabric of this community. We have our offices up at at Pacific Spring in, and these are on the corner of this district. We work here, we live here. We're part of the other activities that take place around town. And it's important for us that this event be accepted by everybody here in town and that they'd be proud of the city that's capable of hosting this event. And what I'd like to do is take just a moment to show you a real short video that captures a lot of this sentiment that we're talking about. So if we could roll that video, please.
Speaker 10: 30 miles from Hollywood, California, is coming to Long Beach to leave their. On open wheel racing. I love the sound of the cars. I love that we all get together as a family. It's the perfect event for kids.
Speaker 0: You mean great people. You see celebrities, they call it the Monaco of North America. And you can see why it is absolutely stunning. I think it's the best investigation. We look forward to it all year long. It's just one of the best.
Speaker 3: Weekends of the year. Long Beach. I've only missed one year. I wouldn't be any other place.
Speaker 0: For 40 years, the Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach weekend has rolled into town. Bringing thousands of visitors and race fans to the most successful street race in the United States.
Speaker 3: It is the largest event every year in Long Beach. And more than that, it's a three day event. It's not just an auto race. It's concerts and strip cars, trucks. It's kind of a slice of California. There's something for everybody here.
Speaker 0: With more than 180,000 visitors attending this year's race, the economic impact is calculated to be more than $35 million, with local businesses being the big winners. The economic impact from the Grand Prix last all year and the customers that are here always come back and bring more and more business. It was Long Beach and what it has to offer. We look forward to Grand Prix weekend. What our busiest, ever busiest weeks of the year. We love the energy, the different events. And then Friday, Saturday, Sunday is terrific for us. We love the event. It does amazing amount of business for us. It's a lovely tradition. All the restaurants are filled out. There's all kinds of things being sold here. There's all kinds of employment generated for it. So it's good for. Everybody, while some spectators come for the races, some for the music, entertainment and special events. Some are just coming to see the city at its best. We bring in over 60 clients and their guests every year so they can see what we do as a city, how we work as a city, and the energy of our city . And after every Grand Prix, we always have several conventions at that point. I've been coming for 20 years now. So he's carrying.
Speaker 10: On the tradition. The song says. In the Moscow world. It's renowned for the Toyota robbery of Long Beach.
Speaker 0: In addition to all this local activity, the race generates more than 10 hours of world wide television coverage, bringing attention that goes way beyond motor racing fans.
Speaker 2: The exposure that is generated is just absolutely fantastic. It has all the elements of. Store. It's basically a way. Southern California party leaders. How we feel for the city of outreach. Plus, the fans that turn out every year. The Grand Prix gives us a huge international presence.
Speaker 0: It's great to have this in your backyard. I'm sure it adds tremendously to the tax base and it's just such goodwill. Toyota, who's been a key sponsor of the race since its inception in 1975, was joined by another giant, Neil Wiseman, who are now the title sponsor of the Verizon IndyCar Series. This new sponsorship will allow the race to develop even more. Additional interactive events in the coming years. Verizon 16th Company in the Fortune 500 list. Horizon Wireless 400 million customers who came up with a strategy which was to, frankly, drop the National Hockey League and to focus their sponsorships on the National Football League and on IndyCar racing . The Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach has come a long way in 40 years. But this is just the beginning. As new sponsors, new race fans, new technology and new opportunities will propel this three day Long Beach celebration forward.
Speaker 10: For years to come. Michael. Oh. Oh.
Speaker 8: Hopefully that gives you the feel that. That so many people had a chance to experience during their their visit to the Grand Prix. And, quite frankly, the the beautiful backdrop and the scenic views that you saw in the video there is what was conveyed to so many other people who didn't get a chance to come but realize how dynamic this city is and how much growth has been been involved over the last years and continues as as the event in the city begin to begin to continue on their path. Very important for us is the fact that we have a tremendous amount of momentum coming out of this event. And as a result of that, and with the three year extension that we're talking about, it's going to forward us the opportunity to do a number of very significant things over the next few months and years, I think, which will have a major impact on this event. First of all, it gives us the opportunity to renew a number of those major sponsorships that you saw displayed up there with with companies like Toyota and Takata and Firestone and and others who have played a significant role in our past. And I think I had the opportunity to to get to all of you letters from Toyota and from Takata expressing their interest in terms of having long term agreements signed with with the Grand Prix, big companies signed long term deals after they've explored opportunities. And for them, that's the kind of investment they want to make. And it's really a part of their their whole operating procedures. It also allows us to enter into long term agreements with the sanctioning bodies who bring the events. And we're constantly looking at ways in which we can improve the menu that we have, the type of events we bring. But in order to do that, you have to get on their calendar, on their schedule a number of years in advance, and this affords us the opportunity to do that. We also it's very important that we reserve the dates with all of the various facilities we have in town, mainly the convention center and the hotels. And being able to stipulate what those dates are out into the future affords them the opportunity then to schedule other events into other time frames rather than having to hold out and see what event dates will be applicable to the Grand Prix into the future and from a company standpoint affords us the opportunity to make capital investments because now we're talking about a longer period of time. So when it comes to looking at whether it makes some sense for us to improve temporary facilities or do some things with our safety system, we have the luxury of looking out at a payback period that'll be four years in advance, which gives us some flexibility with regard to our investment decisions. And I think it's not it's not insignificant that, you know, that that kind of a time frame also gives our fans a chance to really invest their time and their capital and their interest in terms of this event and to feel like they are welcome to come down for a continuum of time in order to participate in the in the Grand Prix as it goes forward. I think it's very important that we take a look and see where we are with regard to this event and how it has the potential for growing. Because we really if you've read some of the reviews that have been from the from some of the journalistic efforts that have taken place around this event, it isn't called the number one street race in America for nothing. And we're very delighted that we can share that particular posture with our host city, the city of Long Beach, because it has meant a lot to us in terms of this partnership going forward. And we couldn't have done this and we couldn't have been nearly as successful as we have been without the assistance of a lot of people over these last 40 years. And I'd like to take just a moment, if I could, to recognize those who have really contributed to the success of the events. First of all, our staff, the Grand Prix Association, Long Beach, we have a tremendous group of people. Many of them have been there for many, many years and have contributed to our success committee 300, the Grand Prix Foundation, and most of all, a whole group of volunteers who come every year to 3000 of them and contribute their time and effort to make the success of this event a success. And I like to take this moment, acknowledge all of them. If you would stand up, please. And. Thank you very much for all you've done over all of these years. And we look forward to the opportunity continuing in the into the future. Thank you very much for your support. 40 years, 40 years have gone by that we've been doing this event and we look forward to doing the future into the future, creating an even better event for all of you and for all of us and for all of the citizens of the city of Long Beach. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Jim. We have a motion and a second. Any any questions from council members? Mr..
Speaker 4: DILLON Thank you. Yes. And I was pleased to to second the motion with a public comment coming from I did public comment first.
Speaker 3: Because of desire. Members of the public, please come forward. Identify yourself. You have 3 minutes. The oh, wait means you have 30 seconds left.
Speaker 1: Hi, my name is Michelle Dennis and Memories fan and I'm very excited tonight to tell you about my experience at the Long Beach Grand Prix. I will never forget the first time that I was attended the Long Beach Grand Prix. I only lived in Southern California for a couple of years and my boyfriend actually sailed over and we landed right in this big racing world. It was the biggest thing I'd ever seen. So Long Beach had been transformed and amidst that excitement, we actually got engaged that weekend. So my story of Long Beach is also the story of my family. We have attended the race so many different ways. We've sailed over, we've camped there, we've stayed in hotels. We always stay out three days because we don't want to miss a thing. Our daughter was only seven months old for her first race and it was drizzling that year. So we bundled her up and headed up into Grandstand six and the cameraman caught sight of her and put her up on the big screen and the announcer jokingly called her The Lone Race Baby because she was the only one that had braved the elements. So I asked that lone race baby this morning why she liked the Grand Prix so much all these years. And she said many things. But the one thing that I had to totally agree with is it's a giant block party by the beach and I couldn't agree more. And there 14 years of marriage, I have been there with multi-generational friends and family. I have been there pregnant twice and for the past ten years as a mother with now two children, we have always had a great time and there's definitely always something for everyone. And I have been very thankful for the Family Friends Zone, where you can still watch the race inside. And I've also been very happy for the assortment of vendors at the Lifestyle Expo. But most of all, I love seeing my ecstatic children look forward to meeting and getting high fives from the drivers each year. The IndyCar drivers are phenomenal and my children love them, so my family's Grand Prix story is unique, but it's definitely not alone. Over the years, we have met many other race families with stories like ours. Where it has stuck out to me most is that year after year we've gotten to know them and they've become our race family as well. We love hearing about how long they've been there and the traditions they've had. So my wish is that it becomes a lasting tradition for me and my children that they will always be able to return to that place where our family's story has begun, that it would be affordable to them, that it would be accessible, and that would be fun for their children. And I wish we can continue coming to that magical place that only really exists three days out of the year in that perfect partnership between the Grand Prix IndyCar and the city of Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council members. My name is Kirsty Silvester. I'm here to represent Long Beach Transit. Most likely, you probably don't think of busses when you think of Grand Prix and a car race. But it is a partnership that we have appreciated over the years. As you probably know, Long Beach Transit runs a number of extra busses during the weekend and we have estimated that we provided rides for over 11,000 customers on our bus and aqua bus service during this year's Grand Prix. So we're pretty proud of that. This partnership has helped us move not only residents and visitors, but also the many workers who come and volunteers who support the Grand Prix effort. We have helped alleviate the traffic and parking congestion that can be experienced in the downtown area. And by doing this all with fuel efficient vehicles, we've helped to improve air quality standards in downtown Long Beach during the event. It's a partnership that we see is beneficial for the city of Long Beach, Long Beach Transit and the greater Long Beach area. So we look forward to it continuing into the future and just want to express our appreciation tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Carolyn Bell and I'm the executive director of the Short Stop Juvenile Crime Diversion Program. I'm also a native of Long Beach, California. I have a huge family that's been in the city of Long Beach for a long time. And I'm very proud to talk about the Grand Prix as I talk about the city of Long Beach. But I'm also here tonight to talk or to represent one of the foundations that received support from the Grand Prix Foundation. We run the Short Stop Juvenile Crime Diversion Program, and we serve as last year, well over 700 families, which means we require the first time youth offender in their family to attend our program at the Long Beach courthouse, which I'm supposed to be there shortly. We have attorneys that volunteer their time to teach first time juvenile offenders law related education, hoping to keep them on the right side of the law and giving them a second chance to make amends for their mistakes and to steer them in the right path to going to college and to becoming contributing members of society. So we do a big work in the city of Long Beach and teaching young people how to stay on the right side of the law. And I'm here in support of the Long Beach Bar, the Long Beach Grand Prix Association, and its foundation, because for over seven years or more, they have donated funds to our foundation. And as a nonprofit organization in the city of Long Beach, you must know that we struggle each year to raise funds to support our program, and the Grand Prix has given us funds for over seven years and a victory. The President personally has delivered checks to our raffles and recently presented a check at our recognition reception. So just wanted to represent one of the grateful foundations that actually received funding from the Grand Prix. And we do a great work in the city of Long Beach as well. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council. I'm Phil Tango and the president elect of the committee of 300 Redcoats, which is in the audience right here. And we are just as old as the races we were founded.
Speaker 0: We are. I've been a member for the.
Speaker 2: Last 39 years, and our main goal was to support the Grand Prix, promote the Grand Prix. We do that through promotions and all the auto shows around the area. Co-investment, sure. And we support the Grand Prix by providing ushers for the grandstands that are in race weekend as well as information booths from our own Paddock Club. But more importantly, what we do is we reach out into the community. We are currently a community service organization and we partake in all the community events. We help with the marathon tree planting speech cleanup and also with the Substance Abuse Foundation. We also help with the feeding the homeless on Thanksgiving as well as on Labor Day and partake with all their activities as well. Also, I don't think it's well known, but each year we adopt a charity in Long Beach. This year it's a Long Beach Police Foundation. We were able to raise over $5,000 to give as a foundation. So even though we are a race committee and we help to raise, we're taking the cue from Grand Prix Association in Long Beach. We've also now reached out in the community and we're going to do community work and support the Grand Prix as also support the communities. We urge you to vote yes on this item and keep the Grand Prix here in Long Beach. Thank you very.
Speaker 3: Much. Thank you. He said. Thank thank you all. Appreciate all those comments, Mr. Dillon.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And congratulations to Jim and your team for a job very well done. Another great race here, here in the city of Long Beach. And Councilmember O'Donnell, I know that I seconded your motion, but I'd like to suggest a friendly amendment, which I think would be helpful to kind of quantify the success of this race, is perhaps ask the city auditor to look over the last couple of years and kind of verify some of the visitors ship. How many people come to the race, how many pay, how many you know, how many are complimentary? And just kind of take a look at that. All the wonderful things it brings to our city, if you're amenable to that.
Speaker 0: Yes, I'm amenable. Provided she agrees that she can conduct such a great.
Speaker 3: So the question is, DeLong, that that is there's not an audit. Exactly.
Speaker 4: No, no, I do not think.
Speaker 3: It's not surprising a lot of it. All right. Okay. Any other public comments seen? None. Mr. Conway, I just want to know, is there in the amendment, in the documents, is there still a a foster commitment of lap in the future? I'll take that as a no.
Speaker 0: Only if you wear roller skates.
Speaker 3: I'm grandfathered. Thank you. I'm going to keep you to that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 4: And, Mr. Mayor, since it is a request to stay, order, you know, this usually do it, but. And those are some suggestions. And if you might want to I don't know if you look at room nights or any of those things, but whatever she can to justify or not justify, I'm just going to explain the benefits of this to the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll tell you, I was here this year and I could see the benefits. Even though it's anecdotal, it's great efforts firsthand, I understand, about trying to get to the more professional basis. But I have to say this races was the best I've been to. And you can tell people were having fun all three days. It was it was a great. Now, all of you make that possible. I don't give him much credit, all of you. So I want to thank you for that. All right. With that, we have a motion in the second members. Cast your votes on extending the contract.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 3: Thank you all. Great job. I was going to bring up McCain's driving record. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute the First Amendment to Agreement No. 30691 with the Grand Prix Association of Long Beach, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04222014_14-0296 | Speaker 3: Thank you all. Great job. I was going to bring up McCain's driving record.
Speaker 0: But until Mike can go to sleep now.
Speaker 3: But I know seven political re.
Speaker 0: I'm seven is reporting the police department with recommendation to receive and file the application of the Big Catch Seafood Restaurant for an original ABC license at 150 East Broadway in District two with conditions. Mr. West We recommend approval, but we have commander far from here, if there's any questions.
Speaker 3: All right, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 1: I'd like to move and receive the file and file the application of Big Cat Seafood Restaurant for an ABC license with conditions. And the city clerk has provided the conditions to each member.
Speaker 3: Second, moving seconded any member of the public which just counts. Item seven. Any council discussion between the members cast your vote tonight. Seven.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de la Rochelle Kerry is able to make.
Speaker 3: The agreed.
Speaker 0: To recommendation regime for the application of Gypsy's Mediterranean Grill for an original ABC license sum of 21 1213. | ABC License | Recommendation to receive and file the application of Monterey Enterprise, Incorporated, dba The Big Catch Seafood Restaurant, for an original application of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 150 East Broadway, with conditions. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04222014_14-0299 | Speaker 0: Councilwoman Lipski. I'm sorry, that's seven votes. Yes. Item ten is a recommendation to authorize city manager to executed an amendment to a contract we see as a legacy construction project for your project.
Speaker 3: Mr. Andrews.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor. Second, I knew that was going to be so. I thought I would take time to go through this. You know, I'm speaking for the community. Once I expressed much, much need for all of this, for the city of Long Beach and everybody, you know, whether I am or in the sixth District seven or the third District, I am getting stops on every street by telling people how grateful I am that the city of Long Beach and for the parks it being renovated. I want to thank the supervisor town Navy and the Los Angeles County staff for their works in the project as well as the City of Signal Hill. I want to thank Pat West for making this project a priority for the city. My Conway for caring the bond 50 yard line and Mr. Ayres Mr. Air era for completing the touchdown and George Champion will be in the left wing blocker. Most important is our head coach our fine nearby Foster, who was a joint effort that took years of dedication. I truly appreciate. Every second I'm excited to see all the kids playing and being activated in this field of tomorrow and well in the future. And in that said, I would like to move to approve second and I'm just glad no one fumbled.
Speaker 3: No, actually, I hit me hard enough on the 50 yard line. He fumbled.
Speaker 0: But then again, you guys, everyone, I wish you'd come out tomorrow. 11:00. This would be the grand opening Vucevic field used to be known as Hamilton Bowl.
Speaker 3: It's going to be a great facility and a great addition to the city. We have a motion in the second and remember the public was just council on this item. Any council discussion if not members cast your votes on item ten.
Speaker 0: Councilman Chipping motion carry symbol 60.
Speaker 3: Left.
Speaker 0: Mr. Gordon Thank you.
Speaker 3: Item 11. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or his designee, to execute all necessary to amend Contract No. 32995 with C.S. Legacy Construction, Inc., for the Chittick Field project, to increase the contract by an additional amount of $1,111,934 for a revised not-to-exceed contract total of $8,009,960. (District 6) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04152014_14-0268 | Speaker 8: Item two is a report from the city attorney with the recommendation to authorize the settlement of two lawsuits entitled Amoco Insurance Company versus the City of Long Beach in Battle versus the City of Long Beach.
Speaker 1: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I mean, I had a question for Mr. Parkin. Mr. PARKIN, my understanding is some police officers sued the city. Some did not see the city, and some continue to suit did not settle. And my understanding is this this settlement basically provides that all those people be treated equally and get the same number of vacation hours. Is that generally accurate? That is correct. There was a class action in which these nine individuals opted out of the class action that settled back in 2010, and that the result of this settlement tonight, if approved, would give them the exact same benefits that were the result of the class action. Right. But I mean, it's I think it's also important to note that even those who did not were not part of the class action. They also received the same amount of hours. Is that correct? The yes, that is correct. For all officers that receive that with the exception of command staff. Correct. All right. With that, I'll go ahead and make the motion to approve it.
Speaker 1: Just to clarify, that is.
Speaker 7: Item number two. Yes. Okay. Members, cast your vote tonight. And member to O'Donnell Z. Yes.
Speaker 8: Motion carry six votes. Yes.
Speaker 7: Six votes. Yes, I remember two passes, four under. What was the other item? I heard six. Item four. Item four. I did hear the vice member state six. But as I remember four item number four.
Speaker 8: Report from the secretary with a recommendation to adopt a resolution in support of the equitable and timely resolution of the contract dispute between community hospital and the registered nurses. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Attorney to pay sum of $135,000 in full and final resolution of the lawsuit entitled AMCO Insurance Company v. COLB.; and the sum of $43,405.56 in full settlement of lawsuits entitled Battle et al. v City of Long Beach, Case No. CV12-5055-JEM and authorize City Attorney to increase contract amount with City's outside counsel by $101,983.16. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04152014_14-0288 | Speaker 8: 13 is a report from the office councilmembers, along with Town Councilmember Gary DeLong with the recommendation to request the allocation of $250,000 for capital improvements to the international seat.
Speaker 7: For the.
Speaker 8: International City Theater.
Speaker 7: Entrance. I remember to Councilmember Londo.
Speaker 3: It's item 13.
Speaker 7: It's 13, I think, correctly.
Speaker 3: No, no problem. So I wanted to go ahead and make the motion to adopt this item.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 3: And make a couple of comments. The International City Theater is the official theater of Long Beach and has garnered national attention for its contribution to the arts and community based programs. The theater entrance is located on the second floor. I think many of you've probably been there along the eastern side of the Performing Arts Center and can be a bit inconspicuous to the passer by and even those attending the performance. So it could use some improvements to its entrance and make it more inviting and safer for pedestrians. The suggested improvements are very much in keeping with the wonderful Investment City Council has made to Long Beach Arena and Convention Center lobbies and public areas. I know the Madam Clerk is handing out some drawings. Thank you for that from members of the public without a copy of our item. Improvements include a repaved floor planters marquee donor wall and glass wall along the stairwell and entrance to improve visibility from the plaza and parking areas. Tidelands funds would cover the cost of engineering and permits, among other things. I City has set aside funding to cover the remaining costs of this project. And I know we have a couple of few members in attendance here from A.C.T., and I wish to thank the board for their partnership and stewardship of this theater, for the enjoyment of Long Beach residents and contributions to our small business economy and members. I urge you, I vote on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. A long time. I imagine the city's name will be.
Speaker 7: On that donor board. No doubt. Huh? With that, Councilmember Johnson. Well, thank you, Councilmember O'Donnell. Or is it Congressmember? I think Councilmember, I have a question. I just want all the folks from International City Theater a thank you for all you do. Is a fantastic cultural institution and certainly it sounds like a great project. I guess my concern is just simply about process. And I guess I'd ask our city manager, is this a budget improvement? You know, where where's the money coming from? What are we not doing if we're doing this? Walk me through the process of how we're getting this money and is this appropriate given our current budget process?
Speaker 3: Councilmember This funding comes out of Tidelands and in fact we have this facility as part of the convention center. It's in fact a city owned facility.
Speaker 6: So as you know, we have been making major.
Speaker 3: Investments in the convention center in general, and we believe there is sufficient funding for the convention center to cover this additional cost.
Speaker 7: Okay. I guess, like I said, this seems like a great project and certainly the theater is very worthy of it. My experience is, one, a process that I think in general we should in the budget process, talk about all the products for the upcoming year and have that discussion as opposed to an ad hoc allocation. So with that, I think I'll go and support the item because it is a great project and it does need to be done. But I just like See Magic come back with more of a holistic discussion of our budgeting as opposed to ad hoc expenditures of funds. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson Councilmember DeLong.
Speaker 9: I expected that. Councilmember Johnson There actually was some initial funding that came through a budgetary process. The scope, as Councilwoman Lowenthal talked about, has enlarged to accommodate some excellent additional features. And that's why it wasn't part of the budget process and that the timing is now to move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: And I thought this looks like a great project in itself. The the question is regarding the Tidelands Fund for staff. What is the current? I mean, because I think we do a lot out of the Tidelands funds for for improvements along our shore. But what is the current fund balance on the Talents Fund?
Speaker 3: The current fund balance that is unallocated for projects is about 26 million.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.
Speaker 1: To a motion on the time to was a second it's.
Speaker 7: Moved and seconded any public comment.
Speaker 8: On item number 13.
Speaker 7: Saying maybe we do have some public comment? Yes, we do, sir.
Speaker 5: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Mort Stuhlbarg. I live at 1700 Bluff Place. 90802. I am currently the chair of the International City Theater Project that you're discussing and a past president of International City Theater. I wanted to comment about timing. We have now prepared the drawings that you see there, which are the basic ones. The designs are finished. We have a cost, a basic cost on the project. And these new items that we're going to be asking for funding for, including the new flooring in front of the theater and a new glass wall that will allow people below at the at looking up from the parking facility or looking up to that area that you couldn't see before will be well lighted and the glass wall will allow people to see it from the entrance to to the arena. So it's going to not only improve this the theater, but we hope to improve the number of people in the city who know it were there. And that's always been a big problem here. In addition to that, as far as timing is concerned, we would like to move forward with all haste because we are going to be ripping up that concrete and we want to have it ready in time for the beginning of our new season in February next year. So it's got to go out to bid and there will be construction to do. And so we need that as quickly as we can get it. Other than that, if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them for you. No more questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Any further counsel counsel comment? No. There's one more public comment. Mr. Goodhew.
Speaker 5: Yes. I support the concept in chief and certainly the theater operation, but I have a concern relative to what waste. And it's brought into sharp perspective by a much smaller project, the 1930 style restroom down across in the Bay Shore Library.
Speaker 1: Mr. Goodhue This is about the ACT Theater.
Speaker 7: This is not about Marine Stadium. I don't.
Speaker 5: Topic. Excuse me. I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the time and the money. All right. And we want to make sure and I'm using this as an example of a project that could have been done in six and certainly three months is now taking seven months. And that's a very simple I'm using that as an example. That's a very simple project. And I invite you know, that's down at Bayshore and Bayshore and Second Street. All right. Go down and take a look at that and ask yourself what is taking nearly 6 to 7 months to do that? And if they're going to be doing that, this project will take 2 to 3 years. So I think we need to micro-manage how that's being done. Again, go down to the that new restaurant. The city has done a nice job in maintaining the original the core. And inside. But it's fundamentally very, very simple. But it's taken nearly. I think they started back in November. And now this. We're knocking on the door of May. This means this project, if that follows the same course, won't be done for another two years. You need to get inside of that. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 7: No further council comment. No public members cast your vote on item number 13. O'DONNELL Yes.
Speaker 8: Motion carry some vote. Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Next item on item 14 is a report from the city manager with the recommendation to authorize the remediation and purchase of a portion of the former Public Service York and authorize the allocation of limited space relocation and limited restoration of the former railroad station building to Will Springs Park and increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request the allocation of $250,000 for capital improvements to the International City Theater entrance from the Tidelands Operating Fund. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04152014_14-0271 | Speaker 8: Next item on item 14 is a report from the city manager with the recommendation to authorize the remediation and purchase of a portion of the former Public Service York and authorize the allocation of limited space relocation and limited restoration of the former railroad station building to Will Springs Park and increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund.
Speaker 1: Mr. WEST.
Speaker 7: Mr. Vice Mayor, Council Members will have a quick report by our business services director fresh from his Grand Prix win. Mike Conway.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. West. Vice Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council in 2009 and 2010. City Council authorized the exchange of land between the city and L.C. W Partners, exchanging a portion of the public service yard for a portion of the low street US wetlands as a condition of the exchange. Both parties indemnified the other relative to existing environmental conditions. Additionally, both parties were obligated to work cooperatively to minimize the other parties exposure to remediation costs. At the time of the exchange, environmental remediation costs for the public service yard were estimated at $2,853,300. Since that time, the property was sold to a Leer property group and a leader in the city have worked together to receive environmental closure. To date, nearly two thirds of the property has received a no further action letter from the oversight agency at minimal cost. The remaining property, totaling about 5.2 acres, contains debris from the 1933 earthquake, and it was expected that this debris could be collected and disposed during grading activities at minimal cost. However, during grading, it was discovered that the debris had been systematically burned, resulting in lead based paint being spread laterally throughout the property. Because the lead is immobile and insoluble, it poses no environmental concern while situated in the soil. However, during grading efforts, the LED impacted debris would need to be transported to an appropriate environmental facility at a cost estimated at $7.2 million. In further cooperation, the parties arrived at an alternative solution. Instead of transporting the debris off site, we intend to instead consolidate the debris on the northerly 1.8 acres of the 5.2 acre site, and then reacquire that site in order to control any future environmental issues. The remaining 3.2 acres will have been completely remediated and cost to remediate and reacquire. The 1.8 acres is $2,346,000, with a 10% contingency. Total cost is estimated at $2,581,000. Included in the original exchange agreement was a right of access by the city to the former public service yard property to remove the historic train station. That right of access expires this June. Grading activities will be hampered, but with the train station in its current location. So these activities present an opportunity to address both the grading and relocation. Included within the recommended action is authority to relocate and to the extent possible, renovate the historic train station, the current recipient site for the relocated train station as well as Springs Park. So staff request that council approve the recommended action. And this concludes my staff report and I'm available for questions.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Councilman Johnson?
Speaker 7: Well, thank you, Vice Mayor. And I just want to thank staff for what I think is a very creative re-use of this historic building. And I think many of us one thing we love about Long Beach is our history. And here's an old railroad building, which my hope is will be our new visitor center at Willow Springs. So instead of going out and building new center, the tremendous costs for reusing it. So I want to congratulate you with, I think, a great idea. But Kill Me, May Miss Frick. What what can be done with the funding set aside here? Certainly it's an older building. What can we expect when it's moved to. Well, Springs? What kind of condition the building will be in and what might be its potential uses?
Speaker 3: We are currently undertaking an assessment of the building to determine what kind of improvements and what that potential investment would be in order to upgrade it, to convert it into a visitor center. So I don't have what that number is right now, but I can let you know that we are looking at it and working on that assessment.
Speaker 7: Okay, great. I just you know, given the city's continued financial constraints, we'll continue this conversation. But I would suggest that there may be non staff uses of the area. In other words, maybe some public educational materials or things that may not require an ongoing staff need so that when when it is closed, people can come there and still enjoy the property. But thank you. I think it's a great idea and I look forward to seeing it at Willis Springs.
Speaker 1: Thank you. See no other council comment. Is there a motion to get? Is there a second? Yeah, there's been a motion in the second. I mean, open up to a public comment on the item.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much, Mr. Vice Mayor, for the opportunity to speak to the council and the staff. And if Gary Shelton, the address.
Speaker 9: Is 240.
Speaker 7: Chestnut Avenue, about a block away from here. My thought on this is that right now the item seems to lack clarity and completeness. And I would suggest that you listen carefully to the five points I'm about to make in support of that statement and ask staff to delay this and come back with a more complete report. The timing consideration, by the way, is unsubstantiated. There seems to be no actual reason for today being a deadline of any kind. First of all, in the backup information, there is no map of the site which shows where the north portion is either the five point something acres or the one point something acres. And so you and the public are all left in the dark as to the actual site that you're being asked to pay these millions of dollars for. Number two, it's not exactly clear, except from the staff report that was verbally given right now where Mr. Conway suggested that Lear and the city have been cooperating with this. It's not exactly clear whether a Lear actually purchased the obligation to indemnify when they purchased this property that the originally that Al CW partners had agreed to. That's not clear. Third, the staff mentions that the letters, acquisition costs and temporary holding costs of this property equal the value of the north portion. But there's nothing to substantiate that. There's no fair market valuation of the property or any other evaluation of the property and staff refunds that that portion of Lear's payment to purchase the property be refunded without question as to whether its initial purchase price was reliable or whether and made any sense. Fourth and almost last of the staff changes the original sense of minimizing environmental liability to actually eliminating any environmental liability. And it's an overreach of the original agreement's intent. And finally, will the portion that one point something acre is it's going to be capped at this point be of any use to the city. Is there any access by the city to it or preparations to operate that access? Or will Alere use it in some way or another as any agreement to that effect at all? So I submit that without any information as to the answer to any of those questions, you're not ready to decide on this today. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Very good. You click as the address. I think the prospect of of reclaiming that old building realization is certainly intriguing and should be followed. The one thing that does trouble me, though, is they're the same. There are a number of the same ringtones with this relative to the OP's, we found some more toxic items and so forth . We didn't have to think. We deal with those have the same ringtones as when the city went ahead and raised six s in the Marine Stadium and then came back and said, surprise, surprise, we found toxic material in an abandoned oil field. It's just it smells a little excuse me. And I'm I'm not so sure that this. Deal is straightforward and would pass the smell test. I think you should hold it over, take a look at it, and make sure that there's nothing, quite frankly, nothing crooked about it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Unless you want to address the councilmembers.
Speaker 1: Senor. The public comment. Councilman Alonso.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I wanted to just indicate to staff that I was very happy to see that the historic rail depot will be adaptively reused at Willow Springs. I know this falls in line with the larger, broader effort that we've taken on in the city for adaptive reuse. So I'm very appreciative. Thank you.
Speaker 1: See no other comment from council. From council. There is a motion on the floor to approve the item. Members, please go and cast your votes.
Speaker 8: Motion carries eight votes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next item. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize remediation and purchase of a portion of the former Public Service Yard, including grant of reciprocal access easements;
Authorize the relocation and limited restoration of the former railroad station building to Willow Springs Park; and
Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $3,000,000. (Districts 1,7) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04152014_14-0272 | Speaker 8: Item 15 is a report from the City Manager Development Services and the Parks and Recreation Department with the recommendation to authorize city manager to proceed with the design and bidding phase for the proposed Belmont Plaza Poole Demolition Project.
Speaker 1: So moved here, there's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item?
Speaker 6: Mr. Vice Chair. Before we make a motion, I would like to add one thing for the public record.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Ms..
Speaker 6: BULLOCK Thank you. If I may, I want to make it clear that the the activities that we're conducting under this demolition are required activities that are necessary for all demolitions. They are not mitigation measures in any way, shape or form, and that all necessary actions will be implemented in compliance with local, state and federal regulations. I just want to put that into the record.
Speaker 9: As we expected.
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Seeing no public comment on the item and no council comment. There was a motion on the floor. Please vote.
Speaker 8: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Came next item, please. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to proceed with the design and bidding phase for the proposed Belmont Plaza Pool Demolition Project, and consider Statutory Exemption SE14-01. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04152014_14-0273 | Speaker 8: Item 16 is a report from Development Services with the recommendation to receive and file a status update on the implementation of the language access policy.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm going to have to sort of staff for.
Speaker 4: A report.
Speaker 7: By senior council members. This report will be given to us by Angela Reynolds, our bureau manager Planning.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Vice Mayor and council members today said a number of initiatives have occurred to further the implementation of the Language Access Plan. Our policy at the direction of the City Council, the LEP has been updated to include the TID excuse me. The Tagalog language, as directed by the City Council staff, has also developed a language line pilot program in the Department of Health and Human Services. The pilot program will last six months and staff will document the utilization of language line for limited speaking persons who primarily whose primary language is Spanish, Carmi or Tagalog. The city's Department of Human Resources is currently compiling a report on the current level of bilingual staffing at the city, recruitment efforts for bilingual staffing and translation, training for existing staff, acting as interpreters or translators. The city has also selected a vendor to provide written translations, Spanish and Tagalog for public meetings and hearings. The City Council and Charter Commissions received a memorandum from the City Manager in November 2013 advising them that Spanish Comite and Tagalog notices be placed on minutes and agendas, outlining the availability of oral interpretation and written translation in compliance upon request. The following departments have recorded telephonic messages in English and Spanish. Development Services. Health and Human Services. Fire and police pending available funding in 515. All departments would comply with recorded telephonic messages in all three languages. Yesterday, a city council office for forwarded staff being myself a copy of the Long Beach Language Access Compliance Report authored by Language Access Coalition of Long Beach today. The Coalition has not provided this report to staff. However, I did read it and I have a few comments on that. This report brings several issues. First, the two form four issued by the city manager to the City Council on November 21st, 2014, did not state that the policy was not implemented . Actually, it was a report on the status of staff efforts to meet the council's specific requests made as part of the original motion back on August 13th, 2013. Second, it states that tonight's status report indicates that staff has not implemented the policy as requested by the City Council. I think it's clear from the status report that I just gave you that the city is working on the policy and working towards full implementation as requested by the City Council. In a large city like Long Beach. As you know, there are many moving parts and the implementation of a policy that affects all departments takes some time and analysis to achieve. There has been some confusion also about what constitutes vital documents. The policy states that upon determination of the city manager and to the extent that funding is available, city departments may translate written materials that provide vital information to the public. So currently, because it's unfunded, there is no there's no specific funding allotted to this policy. However, we do consider vital documents to be agendas and minutes. And as I mentioned earlier, and these documents are available currently by request. The final issue is in regards to disallowing children to translate for their parents. The city attorney has determined that there is no law that prohibits children as interpreters. However, we understand the issues with this, and the city will strive to provide translation services in lieu of utilizing interpreters, child interpreters when possible. The continued implementation of the LEP will require additional general fund resources that are currently unbudgeted and unfunded. Prior to the adoption of the policy, the city spent or was spending approximately $900,000 annually on providing some of these language access services to the community. If the policy is fully implemented, the LPI will result in an estimated additional cost of $453,567 to the general fund, which will most likely recur annually. And that concludes my report.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to continue this over first to Councilmember O'Neill.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, and thank you to city staff. I think you have. Come up with a very comprehensive program, as was stated. This is we're treading new, new ground here. And I would first like to commend Councilmember Andrews for originally bringing this forward and also commend this council for taking this on. I think in a state like California, where nearly 45% of the residents are less than English proficient, this is a huge endeavor by a major city. And as was stated, it's going to take some time to adhere to all of the things that the policy has laid out. I do have a few questions. And again, I want to commend city staff for what what they have come up with so far. I think there are some tweaks that we could make that I believe are cost neutral that would benefit it and move the policy along further. But I would like to hear from my colleagues in regards to the vital documents which besides agendas and minutes, are there any other documents that are used currently throughout the city that we could look at translating into other languages that would be beneficial?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Neal, there are a lot of vital documents that the city puts out. And in the policy which I'm trying to flip to now, which is part of your agenda packet, there is a list of what we considered and what counts are considered and adopted as vital documents. Just give me 1/2. So you can see on page two of the actual policy under smarmy are written materials disseminated to public including but not limited to brochures and outreach materials. And it goes on through eight other items.
Speaker 7: Okay. My my question, I think is in regards to these items, are there some documents that don't change? That may be the same for 2 to 3 years that we could possibly translate that would fall within this category?
Speaker 3: We can definitely look at that. But just to understand that there is a cost associated with that through a third party vendor for translation and it's about 3 to $4 a page. So there is a cost associated. The departments would have to absorb it. But I can go ahead and take a look through here and see if there's some things that maybe we can do that don't change.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I had a question in regards to you talked a little bit about the plan for bilingual hiring goals. Can you explain where we are on that? And what is the plan moving forward on how to address this issue?
Speaker 3: We've been staff has been working together with human right excuse me, human resources. Who are the folks that obviously are in charge of staffing and the types of staffing that is required? They are preparing a report for us that hopefully we'll have in the next few days that actually lays out a plan for that.
Speaker 7: Okay. My next question is in regard to the language line and you laid out where we were. Now, the languages that are being used on the language line pilot are what.
Speaker 3: They are, Tagalog, Spanish and Kami.
Speaker 7: Okay. I think originally our goal was was the language line was to be a catch all. And that is. And how long will the pilot last for the pilots?
Speaker 3: Going to last for six months. Yeah, and I did. I must say that I did read your motion and I did ask the table and I. I apologize if I didn't get that correct, although I think I did.
Speaker 7: But I think I think we're on the right track and we can address this and move forward again. I commend you for the work that you've done. This is a very fluid policy. And as you stated, it's going to take some time to get from where we were to, you know, ultimately where we need to be. I commend you on the work that you've already done, though. And I had another question in regard to voice mails. Now, have we gotten to the point where voice mails are the major department? There is an option if Spanish press one, or have we gotten to that point?
Speaker 3: Well, I know that the several city departments, councilman that I mentioned do have that for Spanish press one. The English the message starts in English. And then it's just sort of like when you call 411, get that to it in the Spanish language, press one if that's what you want.
Speaker 7: And then from. So what about the Combi and Tagalog have we have we know.
Speaker 3: As I stated in my report, lacking of funding has not allowed all departments to do that or really any departments. So I think that if we were to fund part or some of this, we would make sure that all departments had all the languages. It's actually more expensive than you think to make those recordings.
Speaker 7: Well, could you explain to me why that is cost prohibitive at this time to to do the recordings in the different departments?
Speaker 3: Why it's cost prohibitive. It's I don't have.
Speaker 7: I guess it's for the is in regard to the follow up.
Speaker 3: Yes. That's that's where I was going. I don't have it right in front of me. The initial putting together of the script and then the reading and the rereading and the checking of the script is all something that is done once. But then the follow up is what actually gets expensive and who follows up and and additional staffing needed for those kinds of things.
Speaker 7: So what are the plans to move forward in that area? Have have we talked about that or is there a roadmap on how we get to that point?
Speaker 6: Councilmember Millett Neal, I think that's one of the more difficult ones that we're grappling with. So we're trying to deal with those issues within the policy that we know we can implement more quickly. And so we have been focusing on those. As you know, we are going to be required to be reporting on a regular basis. We are not able to give you a timeline yet on what it would take for us to do that. We currently do have a couple of departments that have recorded messages in English and Spanish. That is currently in place. Now we would have to identify those departments that do have recorded messages and the value of of converting those into different languages. And then again, the follow up. So that would be on a department by department basis. It would not be something that would be easily rolled out citywide all at once.
Speaker 7: Okay. Well, I would like to hear from my colleagues on the air. I have an idea that possibly and I'm sure the next council will have to deal with this, maybe there would be some one time use to help convert this and move this along. But I would like to hear from some of my colleagues before I come back and address this concern.
Speaker 1: Andrews. Yes, thank you. I'd like to thank you, Councilman Neal, for really going and asking the.
Speaker 5: Questions, which you did, because.
Speaker 1: You know, it was November 2011 that it was first brought this item to the City Council to address the needs of inclusive language, access, policy and honor the true diversity of our city. The process has been a long one indeed. You know, for the last three years, we have had a lot of discussions with the community. We have approached many organizations and explained that the policies involve evolving one. Today we have another great step in front of us to access in this evolution. This includes the reflections of the Language Lion Policy Program on the upcoming city budget. And I would.
Speaker 7: Like to move to receive.
Speaker 1: A move and receive involved with this. I just wish that it came a little earlier because, in fact, it could have been in last year's budget, but it will be in this year's budget. And I think we we're working very hard to make sure that this is done right. And I'd like to thank all the people who are coming out tonight to address this issue. And thank you. Okay. There's a there's been a motion to receive and file. Is there a.
Speaker 3: Second? Actually, I don't believe that's. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. I'm going to have you next year. Okay, so there's a motion on the floor. Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Councilman Andrew's motion was to receive and file. Correct. This is just a status update. There's no action that's requested. Is that right?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. So just a couple of questions I have along the lines of Councilmember Neal, and I appreciate that those questions were raised. One item that I did not hear about and if it was mentioned during previous council meetings, I apologize for the redundancy. Have we looked at Google Translate for our website? Councilmember. Yes, we have. And we've actually piloted that in neighborhood services a year or two ago. And for actually document translation, it's still not quite perfected. So if you say put an English document in and ask it to translate it in Spanish, and then you have somebody who speaks Spanish and writes and read Spanish, read it, it's not always correct. So I, I would like to request that we actually look at it as a very low cost, sort of a stopgap measure. I realize it's not perfect. It does offer 44 languages and I use it at my transit agency in the city of Santa monica. The only caveat is if your website is very graphic based as opposed to text based, that's difficult to translate. And so we'd have to look at our website to be sure that some of those what appears as text is actually text as opposed to graphic. But it is I do think that the community can acknowledge and forgive that in a in a stopgap phase, that it's not perfection, but it's something in 44 languages through such a simple tool is something. And my public agency in Santa monica did it. I made that decision overnight and did it. And it's very useful and I think that would be useful here. We can't forgo the good for the perfect. I'd like us to be at a good place while we're working toward perfection. Councilmember Lowenthal We can definitely try it. We can try it again. And then in our next six month update, we can let you know what we've done with it and and that type of thing. And if, you know, if we stay away from sort of the legal documents, but just public information, I think what people are looking for is to be able to participate in government and have access to basic public information. And so the vital documents are clearly important, and there are advocates in the community that can help individuals with vital documents. But when it comes to just public information, where we don't always want to have to work with translators or advocates through Legal Aid Foundation because their resources are limited, I think, just for that basic information. So. Mr. City Manager I'd like to actually see that as opposed to just neighborhood services, to our master website, our home page, and allow people access to basic information.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. I'm going to turn over to Amy for a second. Was this discussed with the group? To go to Google.
Speaker 6: No, it was not. We would obviously talk to tech services as well because we are in the process of updating the entire city website as well. So we can certainly talk to tech services.
Speaker 7: So we'll get back to you immediately, but that will be our attempt to do that for the entire city.
Speaker 3: Okay. And I know Councilman Andrew. So Councilmember Neil's raised the issue about using children as translators. And just from my years of working in domestic violence, there are issues that are very sensitive that we don't bring our own children into those conversations. And to do so because we have a language barrier is really violating our really our charge to children in general. And so I would want us to be very careful about that and not suggest that it would be okay because of cost limitations.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Johnson Johnson.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Well, first, I want to thank all the advocates who worked so hard to get us where we're at today and also staff. I think we have made some progress. Clearly, we have some more to go, but that's what continuous improvements all about. What they were here taught me so many years ago that in government we seek to continually improve as a great management tool. My thoughts are, it sounds like what we need to do is help management get the job done. And so perhaps this should be part of our upcoming budget. And I guess my question to you, Mr. City Manager, is, are there some low hanging fruit? Maybe not everything here, but a couple key things that might move us a little bit further forward that we may see as part of the budget and obviously haven't done it yet. But is that something you'll be contemplating and presenting as a budget in the coming months? Councilmember Vice Mayor We certainly will be looking at that low hanging fruit. I think that Google applications is a low hanging fruit. I know that's very inexpensive, but we'll also be listening to what the council gives us tonight or with the audience, and we'll bring that forward on a budget and cost it out. Okay. Well, thank you. It's the city manager. I think. I do appreciate your fiscal prudence and I do think mid budget year it's challenging, but I think it's part of the budget process. If there are some core documents that we can have translated, certainly it's not feasible to have every document translated, but there are some key documents. Maybe that community can help us understand what those are. I think we would show some good faith to the community to move the ball forward, even if, as Ms.. Lowenthal said, you know, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So thanks to everyone staff and advocates for the progress we made and look forward to making more progress.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I was just going to comment. This could be this could be built in as a component of the new website potentially. What is that coming? I know that's a couple of years late, but. That's why I don't believe it's a couple of years away. As you know, we had until late. Oh, a couple of years late? No, I believe it's a few months late. Basically, we had some funding issues. We found the funding. We had some software issues. And I believe I don't see Curtis in the audience, but I think maybe you can get the word out to me seven from now. Sure. You know, it's a short, a long time, but.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm going to open up to public comment on the item. There is a motion on the floor. If there's any members of the public that want to speak, please come forward. As you speak, please identify yourself. For the record.
Speaker 7: We witnessed instead of this Miembros Zircon Salesman nominated Gary Shelton BPO in Premiere Distrito. You can see other lists in the Omega Usado. And we are squealer and we trabajo también. Emile God durante los ultimos anos. But I won't do that. What I'd like to say is I only came down because of the mention of Google Translate. And I appreciate what you're saying, Councilmember Lowenthal, but it is insulting the way Google translate translate things. If it were to be used, it would need editing for every utilization. I commend the council member from the seventh District when when he was first in office or sometime shortly after he decided to use Google Translate for his city council website page. And the first time that it was used, it was attempting to make the announcement that there would be a meeting for the seventh District on the city budget. But what it said in Spanish was that it was going to have the seventh meeting on the district budget. Pretty simple information for the public to not even understand what they really mean. They might want to go to that meeting, but it wouldn't be what they were expecting. So with all due respect, I would say leave Google translate out of it unless you have good copy editing to follow up on it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Honorable City Council members, city staff and all the community residents who came out today. My name is Alex, Montano says. I'm with the Filipino Migrant Center and I live in the first district here in Long Beach. Once again, you know, I'm representing the Long Beach Language Access Coalition here, which is a whole bunch of different community organizations, individuals and grassroots groups who are really trying to make sure that there is language accessibility here in the city. We want to congratulate and commend all of you, all of the city council members, the city staffers, everybody, the community residents who have all come together to make sure this thing was passed. It really was a historic thing that the Long Beach language access policy was passed back in August. And really, there aren't that many cities who have something as progressive as this. And also part of that really is the compliance hearing that was part of this policy, not only for accountability, but also to make sure that we can improve upon the policy. Right. I'm not only how far we've gone, but also how much further can we go? Not only can we do it, but how much better can we do it right? And so that's why at least the Language Access Coalition decided to bring in our community residents to help with this process, to give their input. And that's what we did a language access test of the language access services here in the city from January to March of this year. And we did find that there are several things that do need to be improved, which came out in our status report and all of our different community members will be attesting to what those things are. But based upon those findings of the things that we feel need to be improved, we came up with these several recommendations. But number one is to fully implement and fund the policy as directed by the Council last August to include Spanish, Carmine and Tagalog on those main voicemail messages to make sure that there is training for staff on how to speak to limited English proficient speakers and how to work with interpreters to make sure there are translated by vital documents in Spanish, Kumai and Tagalog, and to make sure there is a clear plan for bilingual hiring goals, especially for Kami and Tagalog, to make sure that that language line pilot program can be used for all those languages, not just Spanish, come on in Tagalog. And to make it very explicit, to limit the use of children as interpreters, to just emergency situations, to allocate those necessary funds for the ongoing implementation of the policy and set a clear timeline for the biannual or quarterly compliance hearings. And so for us, we really feel that, you know, I know that we all here really value the diversity here on our city here in Long Beach. And I think that when we can fully implement this policy, that's where all of us, all of our diverse residents can truly say, I am from Long Beach and my voice matters.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 0: Please. I would like.
Speaker 5: To speak in Cambodian language.
Speaker 4: Sure. Do you have a copy of some.
Speaker 0: Of our.
Speaker 5: To get you to call her in particular architectural.
Speaker 6: For most, I would like with deepest respect to say thank you, to give you my gratitude to everybody that was here and and with great honor that we can be a chance to be here.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Would you mind if you also maybe introduce himself for the record?
Speaker 6: I got to qualify, panel, but if I had to more than five time my name.
Speaker 5: Kim Thorn. That's a 15 I translated to B, C and I all of I am represent the P.A., my parent association.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 5: I looked up to look at your pathetic book. My dad wanted to be broke. My, like, ruined beatnik attempt rock my ma. No, my dad who knows how my Pol Pot crackling feel my tongue pick me apart Moriches are all chopped up Got middle school, no school? No, hardly anything.
Speaker 6: I want you to focus on the calm. I have none beat that they came from the killing field. Especially of the killing field. They had no chance for ten years, already have no education, no school, no English or anything.
Speaker 5: How something I need that bitch up.
Speaker 6: By our men nowadays. By how? Now that we have interpretation.
Speaker 5: No longer resume probably here.
Speaker 6: In the Department of Health.
Speaker 5: Concerning electricity and.
Speaker 6: Gas. Utilities, especially electricity and gas.
Speaker 5: Neighborhood.
Speaker 6: Neighborhood Department.
Speaker 5: Housing. The local ongoing housing.
Speaker 6: In the housing.
Speaker 5: Top my man cop more prior how can I come notamment talk matter to got more granularity.
Speaker 6: Even though lonely the language access has been implemented, I have not received the actual interpretation or the translation on the documents.
Speaker 5: We broke my June that mama wrote no raincoat quack of room stand up over not adopt augment education of the.
Speaker 6: Because a Cambodians who have been living here, but especially within the last ten years, are in shortage severely of education.
Speaker 5: Hide your chest also. Ah, look, Joy, my team found the tape wrong.
Speaker 6: Please think about and consider the Cambodian plight.
Speaker 5: How to check. Go to Maui. Met my mom. Sharon, come here. You're going to meet more besides my mom.
Speaker 0: Than what my. But there are.
Speaker 6: Hundreds of them. And I urge you, it's my recommendation not to have children interpret for the parents, but they do not speak to my language.
Speaker 5: I sold my dad, got some crack. Heart knows that someday telephone may not be met. That won't write much my life answer.
Speaker 6: And also with the voicemail please have a you know, a recorded message of Cambodian language or the Khmer language. And thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Next week or two.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Laura Merrifield and I'm a second district resident. I'm also representing Building Healthy Communities and the Language Access Coalition, which I've been part of for about two years now. And first off, I really would like to thank the Council for their hard work, for their leadership in adopting this policy. I mean, and I'm like Council Member Johnson's, you know, commended the progress of us being here tonight. And I myself am happy that we are here at this point where we're talking about a policy that has already been passed. So that's, you know, something I'm very happy about. And I'd also like to thank the staff for the work they've done in implementing it so far. I am here to talk about some of the concerns our coalition had regarding some of the policy items, the things that we feel still could use some improvement as we move forward with this policy and its actualities. For residents like Laquan Kim, who are using this every day, the biggest I mean, one thing for us, again, is the language line pilot program. Our understanding that is in this full language access policy that covers Spanish, come on in Tagalog, that language line is a catchall for those languages, not already included. And I think that as the policy aims to be fully in place, language line will be broader than just those four languages. So we would encourage looking in to having all languages covered by a supplemental program like that, not just the ones that would already be within staffing means again on the translation of vital documents. That was another concern of ours that these documents largely have not been translated. And I think there's most likely ways to look into translating the ones that our community really is using. And besides just meetings in minutes, you know, those those forms, documents, brochures, most access by our community members. We also, you know, think that it's very important to have training for staff and and to have our staff be aware of how to interact with interpreters, but also even staff who are not bilingual, how they can properly work with our limited English proficient community members. So it's great to hear that some training is already going, but we encourage, you know, to keep working with our staff, to really be friendly representatives to our community members. Another concern is, again, that's been echoed several times is the use of children as interpreters. We still think that if the city has this has is saying that it's something they strive not to do. We feel like that can be put into policy. Again, we just want to make sure we have an update on our but we make sure we have all our bilingual staff and we set goals for that and that we have a clear timeline for how this policy will continue into the future. And finally, budget is a large thing that's pressing over us. And, you know, we want to make sure that the funds are in place for the full implementation of the policy. And so those were our overall concerns. But we're here to work to make this actually a real living policy for our residents.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Hello. My name is Steve SIM. I'm a staff attorney at Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. I'm also a member of the Long Beach Language Access Coalition. I'm also a resident of Long Beach and.
Speaker 7: The eighth District.
Speaker 5: And I am a Cambodian American. I you know, I was born in the refugee camps. I came to Long Beach every weekend whether I wanted to or not, from the San Fernando Valley. And I also speak Spanish. So and I deal with work with a lot of low income clients in the city of Long Beach. So I'm well aware of a lot of the issues and the vital documents that need to be translated for many of our community members. I just passed around the compliance report. I just want to highlight a couple of things. So we did have 100 tests, 110 tests conducted by LRP residents, and those were mainly by walk in I'm sorry, by phone calls, because for many of our residents, to walk into a city agency is something that's very hard for them because they're aware of the stories where there's no one there that can they can understand them . And these were in the following departments Health Department, Utilities, Housing and Neighborhood Services. And some of our key findings were that more than half of our residents weren't getting connected to bilingual staffers. That's that's an alarming number for us. If you have a 50% chance of going in there, you have a problem with your utility bills and not getting any service. And that for many of us, we access many when we have a problem, we usually call a number. And it's an automated system. It's very rare that you talk to a live individual and for most of the voicemail services weren't translated. And some of the, the, the, the agencies that were translated that had Spanish. Perhaps those translations predated the language access policy. So I think to this date, I don't think there has been any new translations for any of our city services. And if they were able to access. Well, I want to take your attention to really briefly just one of the charts. Yeah. 56 out of our 109 respondents did not get access to a bilingual staff member. And when they were connected to the voicemail, most of them did not get appropriate or useful information because it wasn't translated in their language. And in terms of remedies that we can take in this fiscal cycle would be the implementation of language line and using whatever discretionary funds are available for training of staff. Definitely working with our LRP residents, it's not just it's about money, but it's also just having the right attitude and the right state of mind that we're not going to turn anyone away. It doesn't matter what language they speak. They're a resident of Long Beach and their voice matters. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. My name is Nicole Cabana and my Long Beach resident here in the fourth District. But I'm also here as the Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community. I think, like my colleagues here have said, that we live in a city that's, you know, full of people with diverse backgrounds. And today, as city leaders, you know, you have a key opportunity to send a message to residents, to let them know that we welcome and encourage monolingual speakers to utilize these public services, be strong civic participants in the community. And I just wanted to let you know why the Coalition is in.
Speaker 6: Support of the.
Speaker 3: Recommendations that have been raised by the Language Access Coalition. We know that 83% of hotel workers here are actual residents here in our city, many of them speaking both Spanish and Tagalog.
Speaker 6: And it's vital for workers.
Speaker 3: To feel welcome and respected and also understood when they're using public services or when they're trying to come to public hearings like this. And we want to.
Speaker 6: Ensure that residents feel that City.
Speaker 3: Hall is accessible to them. I wanted to read a letter on behalf of Derrick Smith, who is the political director of.
Speaker 6: Unite Here Local 11 Dear Mayor Foster and Members of City Council.
Speaker 3: I'm writing on behalf of here Local 11, which represents.
Speaker 6: More than 20,000 workers employed in hotels.
Speaker 3: Restaurants, airports, sports arenas and convention centers throughout Southern California. Unite Here boasts a diverse membership comprising of workers from many immigrant communities, as well as high percentages of African-Americans.
Speaker 6: Latinos and Asian-American workers. We fully support the.
Speaker 3: Recommendations put out by the Long Beach Language Access Coalition regarding language access for all city.
Speaker 6: Residents.
Speaker 3: Language Access is a vital piece to resident engagement, to safety and integration into our community.
Speaker 6: We thank you for.
Speaker 3: Your time and consideration.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name's Alison with the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition as well with the Language Access Coalition. And there are just some concerns we would like to address. One of them is concerning the cost of this policy. In August, staff was directed that funding should be in place for this policy for last year's budget. And although we are trying to look for pragmatic ways in order to address some of the issues, we do want to make sure that there will be many funding for this policy. Another concern is concerning the human capital and the cost of it, not funding this policy. As Councilwoman Lowenthal mentioned, we do want people to have access to basic government needs and information, and without them being civically engaged, there's just no way to tap into that, those people. And so we believe that this policy and making sure that that funding is there for them, as well as these pragmatic ways of helping them address their issue. Right. And another thing, we do not agree with staff that there would be this cost of 450,000 a year. And we do believe that there would be some onetime costs for some of these issues. And as this program becomes up and running, those costs will decline as well. And finally, one of our last concerns is agendas are important, but we believe the reality is that a lot of residents don't read agendas. Re One of their primary concerns is rather brochures, applications and complete forms when addressing city services. So we would like to thank you for your efforts and everything that you've done to make sure this policy fully this policy is fully implemented. But these are some of our concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Good evening, City Council. My name is Georgette Rivera. Are you a second district resident? I am here with the Language Access Coalition and also representing housing in Long Beach. A lot of my my fellow fellow workers, colleagues and residents already said everything that I possibly could say. So I'm just going to try to wrap things up. You know, we are I am totally grateful for a city council and city staff for all of their work in passing this progressive policy. And it's also one that's not just progressive. But I think, as Councilman de Andrews had mentioned, is representative of our diversity. And that says something truly to be to be applauded. You know, and I also want to I want to echo what Councilwoman Lowenthal said about child interpreters. I think that we can still be a little bit stronger on our language. Yes. Granted, there might not be a law that forbids it, but we have to think about sort of the the pressure and the responsibility that is placed on a child to be able to adequately, adequately and responsibly translate something that they're that their parent needs to know. That's a lot of pressure, and that's something that we shouldn't be placing on our children and our residents. So we should be a little bit stronger. And I think I urge city staff and council, too, to be a little bit stronger on on that policy. Vital Documents is also something that has been brought up. And I think that this is something that we would like to open the door to city staff to work with the community to try to identify what some of those documents might be. And we're constantly knocking on the door to try to work with city staff to to to talk about these things. I think that if documents are vital to the community, they should be heard from the community. What those things are, you know, so, you know, we're we're an open door policy here. Let's talk with sit down and hash this out. Also funding, we've already talked about that. And I want to I want to highlight that the success of a of a policy such as this is is going to be dependent upon education and outreach if we're already based in a community that has the sentiment that we don't have access to these type of services because there's no interpretation or translation. I urge the city staff to incorporate into its plan what kind of outreach, what kind of education are we doing to be able to educate our residents that these services are now available? And that's something that we to as the community and this coalition can also help with. Again, another item that we can bring to the table and help city staff to to try to implement. This is about, I think Councilwoman Lowenthal mentioned again, is this about our residents participating and being civically engaged and having a voice? Our slogan is Our voice matters. And because half of our population here in Long Beach are lep, you know, the language, language in limited English, proficient, we should make sure that their voice matters. And these services are integral in ensuring that that happens. Let's get them involved. Let's get them engaged and let's get them participating in our great city. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Goodhue.
Speaker 5: Let me give you a as the address a little different tact, if the budget can. Before me to do it. I think the city should offer English language classes in English only. That is the best way to ensure that the residents of this city covering the full spectrum of countries they may come from, what language they speak will have one language spoken here, and that's English. Now work with the school, the educational systems, whether it be at the college level or at the elementary level. But I think it is a waste of money and it's an imprudent use of money to try to cover the entire spectrum. Of the various different English language if you really want to help the people. It's like teaching somebody how to swim. You throw them in the water and let them swim. Have somebody there to help him teach them the English language, period. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Please. Hello. My name is Warren Brandt.
Speaker 5: I'm from Los Angeles, California. This is a different matter. I come to the city of Long Beach like I was a couple of weeks ago. I guess a lot of trees. Richardson, this is right here.
Speaker 1: Oh, sir. We only take and comment on this item right now, so I can I can. We can take that at the end of the meeting. Oh, okay. Thank you.
Speaker 5: I got some great information for you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Any other comments on the item before us, Councilmember Neal?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And I'd like to thank everyone that has participated in this process up to this point. And again, I'd like to thank city staff for, you know, creating a policy that is a good start. And as they stated, you know, this is a very fluid process. So this is something that we're going to be evaluating for years to come. Also thanking my colleagues for moving this forward. But I would like to offer a substitute motion, and it reads as follows. I would like to identify vital documents such as complaint forms and applications, things that do not change, that could be easily converted into the major languages that we've talked about. And also, look at the viability of voice mail on main line departments. Have the have staff report back to us at a compliance hearing in July of 2014.
Speaker 1: There's been a motion and a second on that item. So this is a substitute motion that adds the items that Mr. Neal talked about. See no other council comments?
Speaker 3: May I ask a question to the original maker of the motion? Mr. Neal, did you just want the original maker to incorporate that into the original motion?
Speaker 7: That would be fine if the original maker would adhere.
Speaker 1: When we asked Councilman Andrews.
Speaker 3: I only bring that up, Councilmember Andrews, because this is your item. You brought this up. I want to honor that.
Speaker 5: And yes, I thought they were really trying to overlook that. But I'm going.
Speaker 3: Oh, no, it's thank you.
Speaker 0: Yes. No.
Speaker 3: I think everyone wants the same thing for our constituents. But I do I do want to acknowledge that that point.
Speaker 1: No, fine. I can accept that.
Speaker 0: Thank you so.
Speaker 1: Much, Amber Andrews, except said as a as a friendly amendment. So there is one motion on the floor, which is the motion by Councilmember Andrews. Please go and cast your votes on the item. So.
Speaker 3: Mr. Vice Mayor, it wouldn't be a friendly amendment, correct? Because the original motion was to receive and file. So with this would just be the motion that was stated.
Speaker 1: In addition to it.
Speaker 3: Okay, fabulous.
Speaker 0: That. Yes.
Speaker 7: So, Mr. Vice Mayor, if just so we understand, so we'll come back and schedule something in July and we'll come back and give you the costs associated with the things that you're talking about that Councilmember Neal's commenting on and with potential facilitation to put that in the budget.
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. There is a motion on the floor, so no other comments or questions. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 8: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Next item.
Speaker 8: Item 17 is a report from Development Services and Financial Management with a recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement with Howard CBM for the provision of building rehab services. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file a status update on implementation of the Language Access Policy. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04152014_14-0281 | Speaker 8: Report from Parks Recreation Marine with the recommendation to authorize an amendment to a contract with Bellingham Marine for phase four of the excuse me some of our Alamitos the marina rebuild.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 1: There is a motion and a second any public comment on the item? Seeing none. Sir, is that it? Please come forward.
Speaker 5: I'm Tom Mace, live at 4300 Theresa Street. I'm the president of the Long Beach Marina Boat Owners Association. And we represent the interests of the boaters in Long Beach. I want to encourage you to approve the contract for the Bellingham folks. They are in place, waiting to work. The longer we delay their work, the more expensive it gets for boat owners.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Jill Casey, no other public comment? No council comment. We have a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes.
Speaker 8: Motion carries the vote. Yes.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Next item.
Speaker 8: Its recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an amended and restated lease with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the use of Hamilton of the Hamilton Bowl Detention Basin. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute the Eighth Amendment to Contract No. 31687 with Bellingham Marine Industries, Inc., for an additional $1,760,678, plus a $88,034 contingency, for a total increase of $1,848,712, for Phase 4 of the Alamitos Bay Marina rebuild project, and an additional $72,000 for as needed standby, for a revised contract amount not to exceed $41,431,007; execute all documents necessary to complete Phase 4 of the project; and increase appropriations in the Marina Fund (TF 403) in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department (PR) by $1,594,359. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04012014_14-0227 | Speaker 6: So 10/1 item ten is communication with the councilwoman. Jerry Lipski, chair of the Civil Service Committee with the recommendation received charter commission appointments approved by the committee membership.
Speaker 8: Hey, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 7: You.
Speaker 8: You Mic. Thank you, sir. You made several recommendations to the Personnel and Civil Service Committee, and we took those up on March 18th and are recommending for full City Council approval the following Charter Commission appointments first as the Citizen Police Complaint Commission, and the new appointment will be Raul and Rivera, and he is to serve as an interim left by Susan Gluck of Arc, who as the second District Representative, and David Clement to fill the vacancy left by Rick Magilton Michael Emery as the third District Representative. You also made a recommendation to the committee, which approved was the new appointment to the Civil Service Commission for Robin Perry, eighth District resident, to fill the vacancy left by Jean Carrot two. And last but not least, and we were kind of debating this actively, whether or not to approve Mr. Shannon's appointment to the Water Commission. It was close. Was very close, but. Well, you recommended him. So we we did approve the recommendation for both Arthur Levine, third district resident, to fill the vacancy left by Susan Dolman and Robert Shannon, a third district resident to replace Paul Blanco. With that, I would make a motion to approve these recommendations.
Speaker 5: Moving, seconded. I just all I know a couple of you ear could you just please stand up. I just want to recognize people who are willing to serve. It's I want to thank you all for that. It takes a lot of time. These people spend a lot of time on public business for just for fun most of the time. So I want to thank you. It's you're really acting in true public spirit. So thank you very much. We have a motion. And second, any public comment? Members, please cast your votes.
Speaker 6: Bush motion carries some votes.
Speaker 5: Well, now that they are officially in office, I can say this Shannon wasn't a real problem, but Art Levine was truly a mercy appointment. I just I just wanted everybody to know that I couldn't let the evening go without without getting on you. Thanks again. I really appreciate it. I'm surprised they made it through the committee. Yeah, I. I don't know why I thought Shannon was even closer, but that's all right. Thank you, gentlemen. Really appreciate the willingness to serve. And good luck. We'll go to 19 category. | Appointment | Recommendation to receive Charter Commission appointments approved by the Personnel and Civil Service Committee pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04012014_14-0254 | Speaker 5: We'll go to 19 category.
Speaker 6: I'm 19 is communication from the office of Patrick. Council member Patrick O'Donnell. Councilwoman Geri Chavkin. Council Member Stephen Neal with the recommendation to respectfully request the city attorney to draft a resolution in support of the Fair Collective bargaining contract at Long Beach Community Hospital.
Speaker 5: Scroll down.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I just want to say how much I appreciate nurses. I spent a great deal of time recently. Memorial Hospital, not too far away, as you're aware. And I could never do the job that you do. I mean, honestly, I'm a teacher and people say, I have patients for you. You guys are remarkable how much care you put into your profession and your patients. I see it truly. So the only before us this evening was brought forward out of concern and support for our nurses at community hospital. We want community hospital to continue to be a happy and successful place to work and be cared for. Thus, we urge a quick resolution on this matter. The City Council. This City Council cares for those.
Speaker 10: Who care for us. And I know councilmember ships. He had some comments as well.
Speaker 5: Mr. NEIL.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this forward stand in support and would urge the community hospital to bargain in good faith.
Speaker 5: EU Council memberships.
Speaker 8: Everything my colleague said about registered nurses is correct because I'm a registered nurse and I've been trying to tell him for years. So we really this council has had a consistent policy of standing up for working people in our community, and we could do no less for the nurses that are struggling at community hospital to get a fair, equitable and timely contract. So I appreciate my colleagues bringing this forward. And for the purpose of the public so that they know one of the particular interests this council should have in this issue is the city of Long Beach owns the land of community hospital. It was funded by city dollars and for a very small fund was given over to Memorial for operation. We are grateful for the operations that memorial is doing because there's a number of improvements that have been made, but more need to be made. But knowing that and knowing our connection with community hospital, it is imperative that this council stand up for the rights of the the nurses who are again trying to get a fair, equitable and timely contract. So I salute your bravery for being out here tonight and urging a vote to approve this.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. We do have a motion, correct? Who seconded any. Any member of the public with suggested counts on item 11 maps item 19. Major. Okay. You're all going to be on the clock. If there's a lot of people. I will have the limited, but try to stay within your time, please.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mayor. Again, my name is Sonny Zia.
Speaker 7: I am a resident of Long Beach Second Council District. And I'm here to urge you to support a fair contract for nurses that includes patient safety ratios at all times, benefits and retirement, which has been taken off the table. Respect, including as it pertains to nurses rights to advocate for their patients without fear of retribution, fair wages and other contractual language that limited memorial care are ends have and community hospital. Hospital has refused to honor their sticking with their take away of 6% in wage reduction, which exacerbates current problem of recruitment and retention of experienced staff . As a daughter of a nurse and an active member of this community, I respectfully ask you to please take action in support of a fair contract for nurses at our community hospital. They are the selfless individuals who take care of our patients and need to be treated in an equitable and fair manner and be given the opportunity to provide for the same standard of care as Long Beach Memorial Hospital. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: I'd like to thank all of you for allowing me this time to express my concerns to you. I know I'm not a very eloquent speaker, but I ask that all of you will not let that take away from the importance of the message I'm here to convey to you guys. My name is Nathan Holtzman. I am a registered nurse in the Behavioral Health Department at Community Hospital of Long Beach. And recently there was an occurrence there due to a decision made by the hospital which resulted in, you know, a severe injury. And because of that injury, you know, some of my colleagues, other staff members have had some serious emotional distress. And as you know, being on our own, there's a duty that we have to these patients. And, you know, when something happens, we feel it's. I know I presented a very vague description of their occurrence, and I did. And I did that deliberately. I did that because the problem is beyond this incident. The problem is hospital wide. We are currently fighting for a contract, a fair contract that will let us do what we as nurses have a duty to do, which is advocate for the safety of our patients. I'm here because your community, which receive care from the hospital, which you guys are lending to them. They need your assistance. The community here. And thank you for this opportunity.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: My name is Mary Keenan, and I've worked at Long Beach Memorial for 40 years. So to say that I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly is an understatement. What is happening now at Long Beach community is a disgrace and an insult to the nurses and the community they serve. These dedicated professionals should be respected for their skill in caring. Instead, they are being treated like they are not worthy of the same standards that other Long Beach area nurses receive. I can't help but think this is more about union busting than it is about money or finance. This system always has money to support their latest strategy and project. They have shown by their current actions that the nurses and the community they serve are not a priority for memorial care. And I believe you and all of us have a vested interest and responsibility in seeing that our community hospital survives and thrives with a stable , professional nursing staff.
Speaker 8: So we ask for your support and.
Speaker 7: Anything you can do to pressure this corporation that.
Speaker 8: Doesn't really seem to.
Speaker 7: Value the people that work for it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That makes people. Please.
Speaker 9: Hi. My name is Sharon Cooper. I've been a nurse for five years, all of which at Community Hospital of Long Beach. I'm also a member of the excuse me, chl b bargaining team. Across the table we have been told by memorial the following that our ICU or intensive care unit is not a real ICU. Safe staffing and ratios slow down production and that saving lives has a monetary value based on what people are willing to pay for it. I would like to address these comments by saying that our ICU is indeed a very real ICU, that safe staffing and ratios do slow down production, but they also allow us to provide the best, safest and quality care to you and your family. Keep in mind that since the implementation of ratios in California, outcomes have been better for nurses and patients. Patients are more satisfied in hospitals that meet California nursing nurse staffing mandates whether or not those hospitals are in California. If hospitals are staffed with California ratios, fewer patients would die due to failure to rescue. We've already seen the negative outcomes of the hospital not following the ratios by having nurses cover each other during meals and breaks, leaving them twice the legal, leaving them over twice the legal limit. The very least being the patients and families complaining that during those times there was a delay in care and the most being that being declining patient conditions with a nurse less able to assess and intervene. Despite what memorial care has expressed to us about the value they place on human life. In my humble opinion, even just one life saved is more valuable than any corporate profit. We're fighting for a fair contract that allows us to advocate for our patients, ensure their safety and be respected in the workplace. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next week, a place like speaker.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Jackie McCabe. I'm Aunt CHB for 29 years. And like you then to on the marketing team for the last year, our hopes with memorial care was to develop one standard for community. If the patients in Long Beach, the language for memorial care that they're proposing violates our basic rights. One of their proposals is to eliminate our freedom of speech. They don't want us to say disparaging things out loud by coming in. If we accepted that proposal coming here tonight, I could lose my job, which, you know, we find sort of unacceptable. They have proposed that layoff language that allows them to select individuals for layoffs and not do it by seniority, but a more penalizing way. They propose wage reductions and we're already below standard. They initiated a benefit package without bargaining with us to do that. So because of that, today we filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board. I just wanted to share that with you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Premiere Reyes. I'm staff are in at Community Hospital Long Beach and it's been over a year and a half since I last before you. Talking to you about our plight. A community hospital of Long Beach. And today, I would like to talk to you a little bit about the recruitment and retention community hospital. The one thing I do have to say is that memorial is actually getting better in their recruitment because as I sit there and talk to our unit managers, they tell us that there might be five new staff members coming on to staff and unfortunately, only two of them actually end up actually coming to orientation and actually starting in the emergency department. And a lot of the newer staff that's coming there that some of their comments that are that there's no real room for growth. There's no there's no real education department. And so, in turn, some of the employees leave to go go somewhere else, leaving us short staffed. And when we're in short when we're short staffed, it throws off our skills mix. And in turn, they expect to still to take care of the same amount of patients, even though we're don't have enough staff for it. And that contributes to unsafe environment, which in turn doesn't really allow us to deliver the high quality care that our patients deserve in the emergency department when they come for help. So I just want to let you know what's going on. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mike Speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, council members. My name is Roberta Ranga. I'm a member of the Board of Trustees at Lobby City College. But I'm also the son in law of a patient who has benefited very highly from her, from the nursing and quality industry that is receiving at home. For the last 13 years, I've seen graduating classes of nurses along with City College, and I know that the quality of care that they provide is top notch. I'm sure that when they graduate and are ready to go into the workforce, that they want to be respected with good salary, wages and benefits. I'm looking forward to your unanimous endorsement of this resolution. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Rex Pritchard, president of Long.
Speaker 6: Beach Firefighters Association. I ask that you support this motion before you. The nurses are vital partners with firefighters in the city in delivering 911 services. We could not do our jobs without them. When we arrive at the hospitals with patient and community hospitals, a vital, vital resource that we use every day and there are definitely needs to stay open and is a much needed resource on the east side of town. Thank you.
Speaker 1: You're seeing. See, there's no other public speakers. I'm going to go out and turn this back over to the city council. Starting over with Councilmember DeLong.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I'm curious that the makers of the motion, do you know how much money from WellCare makes at this hospital every year? Do they generate a profit or loss or do we know what their performances?
Speaker 8: Do you?
Speaker 1: I think there was a question that comes with the long made to any of the jury.
Speaker 8: Do you, Mr. DeLong?
Speaker 10: Yeah. Well, at least in the research that I did, it showed that they lost $9 million last year, and they're on track to lose $8 million this year. So I just think, you know, I do want people to feel that the hospital is is rolling in cash. I think that, you know, they do have some challenges, but they're having a great level of service level and which community what I would offer as a substitute motion, because I think it's important rather than pick one side or the other to encourage both. So what I'd like to offer is to mutually encourage both parties to bargain in good faith for an agreement that will be good for the patients, the employees, the hospitals and the community.
Speaker 1: Okay. I don't I don't hear a second on that. Okay. There's no second. Can you comment on the motion from many council members? There's a motion on the floor. Kate, there's a message on offer. Please cast your votes. Yeah. I mean. Yes, but I can't think you're going to.
Speaker 6: Motion carry seven votes. Yes. One vote no.
Speaker 1: Okay. Moving on now to the rest of the agenda. We're going to go back to the regular agenda. So we're back to Mr. Clark, I believe, to number 11. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to respectfully request City Attorney to draft a resolution in support of a fair collective bargaining contract at Long Beach Community Hospital. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04012014_14-0241 | Speaker 1: Okay. Moving on now to the rest of the agenda. We're going to go back to the regular agenda. So we're back to Mr. Clark, I believe, to number 11.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Number 11 was the financial management department. It was the recommendation to award a contract to United Rotary Brush Corporation for an amount not to exceed $200,000.
Speaker 1: Some moved the motion in a second. Any public comment on the item kept help.
Speaker 2: Larry Goodhew quirk as the address from may seem in on its face to be a mundane item and it probably is, it needs to keep our streets clean or are self evident, particularly with the various different climate changes we've had. But as I was reading this, after I read read this, I happened to pick up another article by Bill Pearl that struck me. And it moves me to suggest that we might amend this contract or put it on hold, come back and take a look at it to see if this company, which I checked out, it is one of the premier companies in the country that makes high quality brushes hit the streets clean and other brushes. And I'm wondering whether or not we should. In fact, I think we really should explore the possibility of seeing if they can design a brush, that we can clean out sectors of the 14th floor and certain areas behind this dais that seem to have a proclivity for trying to conduct public business on their private e-mail accounts, be it computer or cell phone, Twitter or whatever they're using, which, as Bill Perrow pointed out in his article today, and if you haven't read it, you should read it is really directly repugnant. To the public process. And it really gives the middle finger to the people when those people on the 14th floor and it's clearly not all of them and those people behind the dais are so arrogant that they want to withhold from the public the private e-mails that they are sending back and forth. Whether the cyber footsie or whatever when conducting public business, if you're conducting public business with somebody, particularly when you're talking money, but even not that you should make those available to the general public. To her credit, Jerry ships, he does that to the best of my knowledge. He's the only person that does that. But if you're using in hiding behind emails or hiding behind private emails to conducts city business, that is directly repugnant to public that process. And therefore, I think this counsel should go on record as asking this brush company where at this broom company, if they can design a broom that will help us sweep and eliminate the soiled areas on the 14th floor and behind the rail where this practice has been embedded. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Those was great. Moving on to the next item, please, Mr. Kirk. Actually, we have we have the motion is going to take the vote. Any of the public comment? Please cast your vote. I mean, yes again.
Speaker 6: Motion carries eight votes. Adam 1212 is a report from financial management with the recommendation to approve a contract with West Coast sand and gravel for an amount not to exceed $500,000. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. ITB FS-14-017 and award a contract to United Rotary Brush Corporation, of Chicago, Illinois (not an MBE, WBE, SBE or Local), to furnish and deliver street sweeper brooms on an as-needed basis in an annual amount not to exceed $200,000 for a one-year period, with the option to renew for one additional one-year period. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04012014_14-0244 | Speaker 6: Motion carries eight votes. Next item to report that involves financial management with a recommendation to amend a contract with fast Internet company for custodial products in an amount not to exceed $3.5 million.
Speaker 1: Can I get a motion to move the motion in a second? Council member along long.
Speaker 10: Customer of staff. Are there any unit price increases or is it just more volume?
Speaker 1: I'm going to turn that over to our new purchasing officer, Jason MacDonald. Remember, it is my understanding.
Speaker 2: Sorry. It is my understanding that this increase is due to additional locations and needs that weren't originally identified. So to my understand, there's no increase in individual item cost.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Last May, the maker of the motion was council member Donald.
Speaker 1: Second was thrilled with the long kept. I'll second it. Thank you. It's no. No public comment on the item. See? None. Cast your votes. Yes.
Speaker 6: Motion carries a vote. Yes. Next item to report from financial management with a recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the issuance of revenue, refunding bonds and harbor sharp short term notes. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 32604 with Fastenal Company, a Long Beach-based business (Local; not an MBE, WBE or SBE), for furnishing and delivering custodial paper products and janitorial cleaning supplies, to increase the contract amount by $400,000, to $1,120,000 for the period ending May 29, 2014, for a total three-year contract amount not to exceed $3,560,000. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_04012014_14-0246 | Speaker 6: Motion carries eight votes. 1616 is a recommendation of Parks, Recreation and the Financial Management Department, with a recommendation toward a contract with to award a contract to West Coast Arborist for an amount not to exceed $189,000.
Speaker 5: So moved to.
Speaker 1: Close the motion and a second I'm going to first get a public comment saying none. I'm as I get back behind the rail to customer ships keep it also Mr. Clarke, can you restart the podium? Keeps blinking off over there, Councilor Reshevsky.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chaplin, before you came here, Mr. Heston, we started. We initiated this tree inventory using the AI tree software, and we utilized Boy Scouts and a number of youth. Is there any way that we can reach back out to those groups and involve them? They actually somewhere in the city is the data from the initial inventory that they started. So is there a way we can reach back out to scouting troops? And I know this is a private contractor, but there's a lot of interest out there in youth about getting involved.
Speaker 1: Councilman, we certainly can try. I think part of the issue is the the contract calls for certified arborist to do this work. And, you know, it's the overall tree counts, the location of species. They also they're also going to look at the conditions of the trees and the maintenance needs.
Speaker 6: So really, we're really going to need people who can actually make that call.
Speaker 1: Out in the field. In addition to that, they're using technology that interfaces with the citizen system and our work order system. So I think we can probably find other projects for them, but this one is really important for us to utilize. The Certified Arborist.
Speaker 8: Well, I understand that I'm not asking for a replacement, but I would hope that we could reach out with these groups because they could maybe perhaps tag along because they the arborist did go with them last time and identified trees and so that they were able to do measurements and things. It would just be helpful that we could kind of grow our own team of community environmental arborist because there's an interest out there.
Speaker 1: We'll certainly look at it. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. See no other comment. Please cast your votes or the motion. I mean. Yes.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Johnson. Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 1: Item 17.
Speaker 6: The report from the police department with the recommendation to receive and receive the application of state side crafts for an original ABC license at 42428 Atlantic Avenue and determined that the application serves the public convenience and necessity. And submit a public notice of protest to ABC. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc., of Anaheim, CA (not an MBE, WBE, SBE or Local), for a park tree inventory, on the same terms and conditions afforded to the City of Agoura Hills, for a total amount not to exceed $199,000, for a period of one-year, with the option to renew for one additional one-year period, at the discretion of the City Manager or his designee. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_03182014_14-0228 | Speaker 3: 18 1808.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, 18. This is a report from the Office of Councilmember Gary DeLong and Councilman Residual, although with a recommendation to request the auditor to perform an independent review of the Marina Fund.
Speaker 3: Mr. DOANE.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm bring this item forward because boat owners for quite some time had been concerned about inappropriate charges, the marina fund. It become particularly concerning with the potential shortage of funding to commit to complete the rebuild and staff in 2013. Took a look at this and there was a memo in January of 2013 where they felt that perhaps there's $895,000 in charges that might not have been applied appropriately. But then subsequently, they came back after some additional analysis and either the numbers 195 or it could be 488, depending on how you read the memos. There's also some concerned I know Councilmember O'Donnell and others brought up recently. We had talked about the Army Osprey. Marina, was what was the historical should there have there been in the past an ongoing issue where expenses were charged, the Marina Fund, and that probably should have been a Tidelands or another fund. And then finally, I guess it's not clear from this what was correct in 2013, what was corrected this year, what needs to be corrected to make sure that it's certainly proper in for 15 and any trips that might be necessary would occur. So the purpose of this is to ask the city auditor to not recreate the will, but to take a look at the work product and get an understanding of how these determinations were made and then, you know, produce a report back to the council of what it ought to be. So my motion is to approve the recommendation.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 3: No one seconded. Any public comment on this issue? Please come forward. Identify yourself. You see the yellow light? You have 30 seconds left. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. I'm Tom Mays. I live at 4300 Theresa Street in Long Beach, and I am the president of the Long Beach Marina Boat Owners Association. We support this audit for a number of reasons. I think Councilman DeLong highlighted most of them. We want to make sure that marina funds that are supported through our slip fees are used for marina purposes and not other purposes in the city. We do not like the idea of possibly being a cash cow for uses other than the marina. Our concern in the near term and longer term is that the Alamitos Bay rebuild continues on schedule. It's already fallen behind. You know that additional costs have been incurred because of that. And we know that it's the slip fees that pay for that rebuild. We want to make sure that we pay enough, but not too much. We want a first class, world class marina. And for that reason, we are asking that you support this audit to identify sources and uses of funds to perhaps see what is available for that marina rebuild. And the boat owners will happily make up the difference. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Appreciate that. Mr. West, we can count on your full cooperation here.
Speaker 8: Yes, Mayor. Councilmembers. We do audit the Marina Fund and the Titles Fund annually for the capital through KPMG. I had a chat with Mostow today will participate fully. As you might recall, two weeks ago, the city council directors come back in 30 days with a review of what we're doing with Alameda Space Marina. We're right in the middle of that, and we certainly expect to come back on April 15th with a full report on Marina funds, title and funds that Councilmember O'Donnell talked about that might have switched over to the marina funds that kind of titles back in the eighties. And we'll answer all those questions on the 15th. But in the meantime, I think what Mr. DeLong is looking for is more of a smaller audit regarding the operation of these memos. These memos, contents. And we'd certainly work with Laura Dowd to do that.
Speaker 3: You know, I share his concern on this. So, I mean, is going to be something I'm going to be paying attention to as well, Mr. West. I want to make sure that the funds that were used in the Marina Fund were and charged off on here were appropriate. And I don't think that should take that long. But I'm going to count on your office's full cooperation here. Mr. DELONG.
Speaker 9: Mr. West answered the question, and I agree. We're looking for kind of a small just take a review. But, you know, not to recreate the wheel here. And I and at your request, I did talk to the city auditor. I see that she's here. And it's my understanding that she feels that she could complete this with a minimal of amount of involvement from Parks Rec staff as well as financial management.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 8: Well, thanks, Mayor. And I just wanted to kind of concur and say that, you know, I hope that the city doesn't have to recreate the wheel. So the extent she can look at documents and something else is already being done. I know you already have a lot of work on your plate, Laura, and a lot of other priorities. So certainly we want to get this right as an important project. But I hopefully you can do this within your resources and not re-inventing too much of what's already been done. So thanks for looking at this down. Great. Thank you all. Mr. Ross, you you already broached. And that's that we have somewhat of a historical autopsy to look at how the money's been transferred and take a look in.
Speaker 6: You know, even even when you come back to us, you can open as to whether using the General Tidelands Fund would be appropriate and would it be beneficial to get this project moving. So thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. We have a motion in the second and I'd of 18 members cast your votes. Mr. good you.
Speaker 8: Very good you courtesy address. I support this, but I do not support any attempt whatsoever of putting any sideboards on this audit. Let the city auditor do her job. She's a professional. Let her get inside of all aspects of the Tidelands funds as well as the Marina funds, and see if there's been any Bernie Madoff linking of moneys from one place to another. One figure that comes out of mind to mind that needs to be investigated and it could possibly be used with is if on loan that was the two is the 203 nearly $300,000 that Councilman Garcia concealed from the boat the coastal commission relative to the rouge and the guys to take $300,000 of tidelands money and and give it make it a public gift. So one or two people could see an increase in their investment by the raising of Marine Stadium structure to s, which was a prime a epicenter of nocturnal crime, when, in fact, the Long Beach Police Department shows their records show as produced through the public housing . And this is on the subject. Well, this is a 3000 $300,000 subject. We're talking about moneys from the marina area and tidelands area that could be used to this money that has been purloined off or attempted to purloined under a criminal guise, should be investigated and you should not attempt to silence it, and you should not attempt to put sideboards on it. The city auditor needs to know where that $300,000 is. And whether or not those $300,000 could be used as partially to jump start and refinish this and to complete this project and really rebuild project, even if it has to be. And I'm suggesting what they do is revert back to having the city construct the docks out of wood on a gangway by gangway approach instead of duplicating the very terrible mistake it made.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you, Mr. Goodyear. We're off the subject now. Thank you. Appreciate we got your point. I appreciate it.
Speaker 8: Thank you. What's the.
Speaker 3: Point? Well, your point is you want the auditor to have free hand or she will. Thank you.
Speaker 8: And we'll report back where that $300,000 is.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. We're going to move. Members, cast your vote tonight. A meeting.
Speaker 4: Motion carries April Chess.
Speaker 3: Item nine Cookery. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Auditor to perform an independent review of the Marina Fund (TF403), Tidelands Operating Fund (TF401) and Rainbow Harbor Fund (TF411) expenses within the next 30 days to determine whether or not the Marina Fund is subsidizing the non-marina Tidelands areas, and report findings to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager. Additionally, request City Manager to direct city staff to provide City Auditor with the information needed to complete the analysis in a thorough and timely manner. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_03112014_14-0184 | Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Hiring one involves the Financial Management Department with the recommendation received supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant appointment with conditions on the application of Long Beach.
Speaker 0: There is an oath required with all those who intend to give testimony in the matter of hearing. Item number one please stand. Have the clerk administer the oath.
Speaker 2: To you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in this course now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Frick.
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. Members of the Council, Dennis Dakota, will provide the staff report on this item.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Assistant City Manager, Mayor and members of the Council. As the clerk indicated, this is a application for entertainment with dancing by patrons for Hamburger Mary's, located at 330 Pine Avenue. They have previously operated with the same permit at their Broadway location since 2008. All of the city investigative departments have reviewed the application or in are recommending approval. We would, however, asked for an amendment to one of the conditions in oversight by staff missed that hamburger Mary's was operating under a slightly different worded condition, condition number three under other conditions, and the clerk has distributed that full packet with the amendment . And we would ask that that change be made. City departments approve that condition.
Speaker 0: That concludes your testimony.
Speaker 1: It does. Mr. McKay.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor Garcia.
Speaker 1: I'm going to make the motion to approve the staff recommendation with the amended condition as presented within second.
Speaker 0: Any member of the public would testify on hearing item number one. If so, please come forward. Identify yourself. Be mindful of the time.
Speaker 1: My name is Ben Rockwell. I live at 475 West Street here.
Speaker 0: In Long Beach.
Speaker 1: I would like to say of all the nightclubs in the downtown. Hamburger Mary's is one of the most. Quiet or one of the least egregious of.
Speaker 0: All of the nightclubs.
Speaker 1: As far as noise coming to the outside on the street and going by on the street late night, I have yet to hear any noise coming out from that nightclub like I do from other nightclubs and the first and 1 to 100 blocks of Pine Avenue. There is no noise emerging that goes out across the street. You cannot hear out across the street. And I would say that Queen Mary, I mean, Hamburger Mary's as one of the quietest best establishments in our city as far as noise goes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Rockwell. Appreciate it. Any further comments? Okay. We have a motion in a second.
Speaker 1: Mr.. Mr.. Mayor, I want to say one thing before we vote. Just real briefly, I know that Dale is here, and I just wanted to not let the moment pass without saying. Dale, thank you for opening up a great establishment and for for all of us here on the council as well, it's important to know that this is actually the first business that has occupied this space on Pine Avenue since it was developed probably over a decade ago. Now, when when that department in that city place developed their on that site. And so the fact to have it actually activated on the 300 block of pine, where it's never been used before and sat vacant , is a great service to Pine Avenue, to downtown and to the revitalization that's happening in the Northern Pine Area. So I want to thank you for taking the the leap and making the investment in an area that is still developing. And I think it's that kind of of risk taking by small business owners to believe in the in the future of an area that's, you know, really getting our city and and pine in particular and downtown to the next step. So just wanted to thank you, Dale, for making that investment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All the best. Appreciate it. Members have motion at no cost for million dollars.
Speaker 4: Hold on 1/2. I also wanted to share Dale. If this weren't one city, I'd be pretty bitter that you left the second district. So. But thank you. You are running a great, great establishment. And I concur with the speaker that the noise is really not audible outside and it's really something that demonstrates it can be done this way. So thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thanks again. We have a motion in the second one. Members, cast your votes.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Andrews, please. Thank you. Motion carries some votes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All the best. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right. Now, if it's okay with Mr. DeLong, we'll go to public comment again. You have 3 minutes. Green light means you have a full. Yeah. When you see the yellow light, you have 30 seconds left. | Public Hearing | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant a Permit with conditions on the application of Mary's Long Beach, Inc., dba Hamburger Mary's, at 330 Pine Avenue, for Entertainment With Dancing by Patrons. (District 1) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_03042014_14-0160 | Speaker 0: All right. Thanks, Larry. Appreciate it. Okay. We're going to hearing item number one, Mr. Herrera. We'll read.
Speaker 1: Hearing. One involves the Financial and Development Services Department with the recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and consider the categorical exemption and declare the adaptive reuse ordinance. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. And then secondly, to adopt a resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance to the California Coastal Commission for Review and Certification.
Speaker 0: Okay. No, I think that's correct. Mr. Clarke read.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mayor. Members of the Council, Amy Burdick will provide the staff report. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, thank you for the opportunity to present to you tonight our adaptive reuse ordinance. We have previously made changes to Title 18, which is our local building code back in November. To get us halfway there in the process of having a proactive, adaptive reuse ordinance. We also needed to amend Title 21, which is the zoning code, to make some certain changes to our adaptive reuse ordinance, to provide much more flexibility in the reuse of buildings for either live work, residential or for a different use than what the building was intended. We do believe that this has been a process that has been desired by the development community, the neighborhoods and as well as political leaders like yourself who have been pushing us to be much more flexible in how we zone buildings and what those uses can be. So as I said, we asked you and you did approve changes to the building code back in November, which were effective January 1st. What is before you today is changes to the zoning code or Title 21, which will provide us certain incentives that we can provide adaptive reuse projects and much more clarity in the process that we would use in order to help plan check those processes. A perfect example of this is a project that we worked through the reuse of a historic church at Third and Obispo. It will be converted into a senior residential project. It was a very, very difficult process for us and for the applicant. And if we had this adaptive reuse ordinance in place, it would have eliminated a number of steps on behalf of that applicant and would have allowed us to reuse that resource much more quickly. So with that, that concludes my staff report, and I'm available to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Mason. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make the motion to approve.
Speaker 0: Second, moving seconded. Any member of the public was just a councilman. Hearing item number one, any council discussion. So you then members cast your votes. Well, I'm sorry. I didn't see you there, John.
Speaker 3: That's okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is John Thomas, and I am here to represent Long Beach Heritage, asking for your concurrence and approval for this first read for the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance. This is an incredible opportunity for the city of Long Beach, long overdue to do in terms of our historic resources that are up for CU over the next probably 5 to 10 years for a relook and a redo. Breathe new life into some of our great historic buildings. It's a great tool and incentive, as staff indicated, for the private sector and for the public sector. On the private sector side, people that own these resources or people that are buying these resources can now come to an environment with with a cultural awareness where they're solution oriented opportunities and seeking mitigation measures on behalf of the city, using the state historic building code and other opportunities where we mitigate the concerns raised in the development review process to allow the buildings to actually reach a new alternative reuse. On the city side, it's a great opportunity for development services, our health department, police and fire as they mitigate issues concerning the building in fire codes and planning codes to allow the building to actually be adaptively reuse low impact on the adjacent communities in terms of parking. But our great architectural resources in that great vocabulary of the city of Long Beach continues in a new life. Finally, this is a great green ordinance. The best green grass green approach to building is to keep the building as it is and not tear it down and put it into a landfill. But on the other side, it's also a great green economic tool. It allows our building to stand, create jobs and really become a better product for the city of Long Beach, whether it's our downtown or our historic neighborhoods. So I thank you and urge you on behalf of Long Beach Heritage to consider the ordinance and accept it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, John. Appreciate it. Any further public comment? Gang members cast your vote for Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 7: We need a few comments and one to make them queued up.
Speaker 8: We need two votes to mayor, one on the resolution, one on the ordinance.
Speaker 0: All right. First on the resolution, members, cast your votes on the resolution. You.
Speaker 1: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you, members. Now on the ordinance, the same motion. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 21.25.502; and by adding
Sections 21.15.064.5 and 21.45.500, all related to adaptive reuse, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_03042014_14-0178 | Speaker 0: Good item 1212.
Speaker 1: Is a report from the Office of Vice Mayor Robert Garcia and Councilmember Susan Lowenthal with a recommendation to direct the city manager to examine case studies from similarly sized municipalities that presently guarantee free preschool for their residents and report back to the City Council at 120 days with various request.
Speaker 0: For help. Mr. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is just an extension of, I think, a a conversation that's happening right now across the country, certainly in the state. And it's happened here with a lot of educators in Long Beach for for many years. There's certainly been a discussion for and it's intensified, particularly the last few years, about the quality and about the importance of a pre-K education for children and what that really does for for cities and for communities. And I think as an educator, I think most educators would agree that there is there are very few things that you can get a better return for your investment than ensuring that every child has access to a pre-K education. pre-K pre-K education and report and study after study has been shown to do incredible and provide incredible support for children. It prepares them for that K-12 education. It certainly provides support for parents. It provides support for particularly single parents who are able then to to work and provide income for the family and and find other support. So pre-K and the idea of universal pre-K is certainly something that's been supported for for many years. What's happened the recently over particularly the last five years is that municipalities have entered into new partnerships and agreements, and in some cases, they have established their own pre-K systems and others have worked more directly with the state, and others have been funded through a variety of different grants and with some federal support. So now what we have today across the country is we have a variety of different pre-K models that are working. And you can look to, for example, San Antonio or other cities across the country, whether it's Chicago or Tulsa. And New York is now discussing it as well in how pre-K and universal pre-K could work when it's driven particularly by by a city or municipality. So this item is really just informational and is asking for three things in particular. And I'm going to to change part of the motion just a little bit. The first is to ask the city manager to come back to the council some time in the over the course of the next few months with information about what best practices are happening with pre-K across the country from a municipal point of view. So what are these other municipalities doing that perhaps is working? What other models are available to to cities? The second thing is we want to ensure that we're working with the school district directly. There was a suggestion, which I like to forward this as well, to our Joint Use Committee to have some in-depth discussion about what Lambert Unified is doing and how that could how we could support, you know, elbow stitch effort in pre-K. And then the last part of the motion will be, if we could please reach out to our early childhood education committee, which has been working on this issue, obviously, for for very long, and kind of coming together with that group as a city partner and getting their input and ideas so that when we come back to the council, we have a really healthy discussion of what's happening currently in Long Beach, and there's a lot of good things happening currently. And then what are the possibilities for us moving forward? So with that, I'd like to make the motion.
Speaker 0: Moving, seconded Mr. Dole.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for this item. It raises heightens awareness of the need for pre-K education. As a teacher and a parent of two young ones, I know the importance of this. And I don't you know, I don't know what the vision is here and maybe the vision isn't even complete. Certainly there has to be revenue to pay for this. I know. What did San Antonio do? They did a sales tax. Correct. And I don't know that the city would be the best provider of this service either. I would hope we would look to the school district, our superintendents, school board and teachers over on the Long Beach Unified side to provide this services. Is that kind of your vision or do you even know yet?
Speaker 9: We're certainly not laying out any sort of vision right now. I think that there are there are different models in different cities that are being used. So San Antonio is one model, but there are certainly others. And I think at the end of the day we would want this process driven by bi by educators. And so the idea is to get the information to meet with constituencies and then come back for a fruitful discussion report.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. Well, I think even, you know, bringing it out, throwing out in the post so people can be just aware that we, too, know the importance of pre-K education. And the fact of the matter is, we are the tale of two cities, and we need to build that bridge between the two sides. And pre-K education is certainly a way to help that. So I'm certainly supportive of that. But again, I my my thinking would be this would probably best be best fit within the the purview of the school district. But again, it doesn't mean that we can't help move this down the road and get something like this going in our city. We do have some other efforts. I know the school district already engaged in a number of efforts across our city as well with their limited resources. Remember, their their funding is still below the 0708 level. So they right now don't have the resources to provide this service, but it is necessary. The fact of the matter is that if a child doesn't read it, though, at the fourth grade level, there's a 75% chance that never that child never will read at grade level. So we need to get literacy kids introduced to literacy at a young age. That's very important. And pre-K education does that. So again, I appreciate the the raising of awareness of that tonight and your open mindedness as to how we would get this moving and provided and language for that.
Speaker 9: Can I just respond and part of I think Councilmember O'Donnell's your comments is is right. I think part of the reason to go to the Joint Use Committee is to have a discussion with the superintendent and the school board as well, so that we're all on the same page.
Speaker 4: You know, and Pat West can probably finger paint, but I don't know how well he tells a story. And inspires kids to love reading.
Speaker 0: So I have no idea what the heck is going on.
Speaker 4: Kind of saying is I don't know that this necessarily belongs within the purview of the city. I think I got a.
Speaker 11: Story from the city manager a week in the briefing.
Speaker 0: And the fiction or nonfiction. Yeah.
Speaker 10: It's like preschool here. Mr. West I would hope that in this report, if you could add L.A. Universal Preschool, they're actually a nonprofit organization that has come to the city many times. They have they are privately funding universal preschool in Long Beach. And our own Jean Bigsby Smith is on their board of directors. So it would be helpful to see what they're doing because they're not relying on government funds. They right now have funded about 60,000 children in L.A. County and have quite a extensive list for the mom beach preschools they're funding. So hopefully we can include that information as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That's very long ago.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank the vice mayor for raising this issue. We have our youngest supporter, I think, Miss Jubilee, in the audience, who's come to speak on on validating why it's important to have this accessible to everyone after she's finished with her snack. Of course, we know that early learning is one of the best economic investments a society can make, and regardless of who pays for it, it's an investment that's worthwhile. And for every dollar that's invested, there's an exponential return on that investment in the form of earning potential. And how how we actually place value on that is not clear to me. But I do know that that value is there. There's also savings to society in decreased costs for special education, grade repetition and, worst of all, criminal justice. I think most people would prefer to build more preschools than prisons. But politics and life's complexities have a way of making that choice more difficult than it needs to be. However, as a former school board member and as a mother of a young child at Long Beach Unified, I can attest to the value of pre-K programs. When my son started in kindergarten, he was probably only in the third of the class that actually had any pre-K education. And that's difficult. That's difficult for the teacher in kindergarten where you have 19 students and only about eight or nine have had any preschool education. So these fee based programs aren't ones that most families can afford. They're very expensive. They can be very expensive. And I'm aware of existing programs that limit unified offers. And I'm quite sure the superintendent and the school board would welcome the opportunity and funding to expand worthwhile early learning programs. And they do a good job. Let me be unified as one of the first that actually pursued making kindergarten mandatory. And we all know that that's very critical. So I'm interested in finding out how other cities went about funding their pre-K programs. Were sales tax ballot measures the only source, the sole source? And then let's determine whether Long Beach is able to partner with our school district to offer residents this choice. I'm appreciative that the Vice Mayor added that component to the motion, working with the Joint Use Committee. I think together we can find opportunities to ensure that these.
Speaker 6: Early.
Speaker 7: Early education programs are available to our young residents. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank the vice mayor and Councilmember Lowenthal for bringing this forward. I think all of us understand and agree that preschool is critically important. I think that I appreciate, vice mayor.
Speaker 11: Your addition.
Speaker 3: To the motion to send it to the Joint Use Committee. And this is exactly the kind of item where the city and school district have joint interest that we should move forward together. I think the school district's already doing a great job. What they have. There may be some opportunities, too, for the city to assist them.
Speaker 11: In getting more grants or perhaps making their grant.
Speaker 3: Applications, you know, more successful. And that would be my interest. You know, how can we go out and get outside funds, whether from private nonprofits or from the federal government, etc., to expand and build upon what we're already doing. So I look forward to having that conversation as the chair of the Joint Use Committee, and thank you for coming out with this item. Strangers.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you, ma'am. I also would like to welcome my sentiments for the individual part, this item forward and I also thank the educators here tonight were supporting this item. But you know that, like I say, we can't talk about money when we talk about education because, you know, without education, you know, we would have any money . So you guys please take this into consideration, understand that this is one of our prime was our kids, our future. We want to thank you guys for even bringing this item forward. Thank you again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And remember, the public was just a council on side. And please come forward, identify yourself. Be mindful of time.
Speaker 10: Good evening. I am Francis Emily Dyson. Harris and I reside in District one and Mayor Foster City Council members, particularly Council Vice Mayor Garcia and council member Dr. Lowenthal, thank you for bringing these findings forward and thank the city. I'm looking at the writing of this and it's just absolutely phenomenal. And I heard Mayor Foster speaks many times about what about the children? So I look at this now, what about the children, our youth and our future, which is a very good thing. And the segment that says allow for universal access. Universal access in terms of early learning. And I'm thinking in regards to children with disabilities, there's children with disabilities that have physical disabilities that are quite capable of going to regular schools. And I would like you to look into the feasibility of this also for children with disabilities and preschool, having this opportunity to be able to go to school with children that are not disabled because we've got to move forward in a world that all persons are equal, that you have, you know, sensitivity, understanding. And I really think starting at the beginning would be a very good thing. So if you could possibly look into this fact that there's applications to include children with disabilities, physical that do have that the mental and the educational capacities to be able to go to a preschool and please give them that opportunity.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further public comment? Okay. We have motion second members. Cast your votes and I'm pleased I'm so.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Christine Integrally and I live in the fifth District. I'm here on behalf of the Long Beach Early Care and Education Committee, and we're extremely excited about this particular item and this discussion here in our city. Given the President's Federal Early Learning proposal, as well as all of the initiatives that are taking place here in the state of California with regards to transitional kindergarten or kindergarten for all four year olds, we think it's really important that the city continue to engage in these conversations and help the public to be aware of these opportunities . And also, as these opportunities come forward, we want to ensure that all of these programs for the four year olds are of the highest quality, with the most well-prepared teachers for the children. Hi, I'm Judy. Carrie Fisher. I'm a consultant with the Long Beach Early Childhood Education Committee. The committee is comprised of more than 40 organizations the school district, private childcare providers, home based providers, etc.. We do want to extend a special thanks again to Vice Mayor Garcia and Councilmember Lowenthal for pushing this initiative forward. Hearing the connections to the school district, I think is really imperative right now because the early learning community is very concerned about the educational shifts that are going on through Common Core State standards. And one of the things that we're doing to ensure that those standards trickle down to the early learning community and can also be very integral in preschool for all to ensure that our children are ready to enter kindergarten at a brand new standard, ready to go. It's not the same kindergarten that it used to be in order to show that movement week of the young child is coming up, that it will be the week of April the sixth. And our push is to engage all of the early learning environments, whether it's home based, center based, whether it's the school district. And you will see banners outside that say children are educated here. There is the misnomer that our child care providers are baby sitters. And our message is that our children are educated here. And the way that will be further reinforced is through a universal pre-K approach that the city takes.
Speaker 10: For.
Speaker 6: Our youngest children. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor Foster, council members and staff. My name is Cindy Young and I'm the director of the Child Development Centers for Long Beach Unified. And I'm here just to support your conversations. And we're very grateful that you're entertaining the conversation about universal preschool and wanted to share some interesting statistics. Research shows that if three and four year old children participate in a quality preschool program, they will require less intervention in the K-12 system and will be more likely to continue to go on and graduate for college and career readiness. What we do know is that students that don't have access to a quality program are more likely to commit a violent crime and end up in prison. What we do know is that 60% of our four year olds across the state of California do not participate in a preschool program. What we do know is that low income children, which represents a large portion of the community we serve on average, are exposed to 30,000 fewer words a year than their same age counterparts, and when they enter kindergarten, are more likely to be two years below grade level than the peers that they go in at the same time . What we also know is that children that represent six years and younger represent the poorest and largest population. So we really appreciate your continued conversations. We we want to be a part of those conversations. I believe that it's going to take local level legislators, as well as the state level joining forces with the district in order to make this happen. And look at fleshing out what additional funding sources are available to ensure that we have universal preschool for all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Very good. Hugh Clark is the address. Let me suggest something that might be a little novel. Why don't instead we focus on educating the kids at this point? Why don't we focus in on educating the adults? Training them and educating them on the merit and holding off excuse me, holding off having a family until such time as they can financially support that family. Right now, as I've often said, the DNC policy is worry not. If you want to bring money into your household, pop out a kit. Don't worry about it. We'll send you the money. For every kid you get, you get more money. Why don't you focus in on educating them to be about educating people to be responsible? Try that. I know it's a novel idea. It's a novel. It. There's no question that the education is necessary. But all one has to do is take a trip up on the blue line and you see where the problem is. One in three people in the county of Los Angeles is on some type of public assistance. From the county or from the state, and the majority of the people referenced are in the lower income. That's where you need to focus. Is focus on the adults, on how to be responsible. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any further public comment? Our members cast your votes on item 12.
Speaker 1: Motion carries nine votes. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to direct City Manager to examine case studies from similarly sized municipalities that presently guarantee free preschool for their residents and report back to the City Council in 120 days with his findings about ways to fund such a venture in Long Beach, along with concrete policy goals and eligibility requirements that would allow for universal access without a major impact on the city budget; coordinate with Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) to ensure that any proposed program would not interfere with existing teaching contracts or place an undue burden on their resources; and reach out to existing community groups that provide this service for children to hear their ideas and input. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_03042014_14-0180 | Speaker 1: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Item 13 Clark three.
Speaker 1: I am 13 is a report from the Office of the Council Member Gary DeLong and Council member Susan Lowenthal with the recommendation to request a status from the city manager regarding the next 12 steps towards moving forward with the rebuild of basins two and three within the next 30 days.
Speaker 0: Mr. DELONG.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. City managers, you know, I'm very concerned with the current status of the rebuilding. And looking at some of the comments that have come into tonight's council for me, I just thought I'd share a couple for the audience. And I think it reflects my concern is that here's what it says slip renters have paid fees while being told a portion of the money will go to the rebuild. They've done their part. Older voters are having trouble negotiating wobbly and broken docks in Basin two and three employees are exposed to injury. Here's another one that says I've been a slip lessee for 27 of the last 36 years. These stocks are unsafe. I'm 72 and just this last summer I fell after tripping on a protruding nail. Many have been injured on my gangway. A red cone has been placed in a spot where the dock is particularly damaged. Another one that says the current state of the Alameda Space Marina Basins two and three is a disgrace to the city. It calls itself the aquatic chapter. The world actually just of America, not the world. Yet this marina should be the pride of the city. It serves all kind of boaters, from elite yacht racers to the occasional weekend cruisers. And there's numerous they basically all say the very similar things, which is the docks there are falling apart. And I guess I'm very concerned that for months now I've been hearing that the staff is looking at it. We've been running some financial analysis, but I know that I haven't seen a plan yet. I know that the current contractor, Bellingham Marinas, is close to finishing where they are. And it's my understanding we do not have a plan to keep them engaged. And there will be significant financial penalties through demobilization and remobilization, as well as if we don't dredge under the existing permit, it could cost millions of dollars or perhaps as much as $14 million extra. So I don't know if you have any comments now on how you can keep this project moving, but the formal request is to have a plan within the next 30 days. The city manager.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember DeLong, just to point out that this is an extremely important project to the city. As everyone knows, we completed the Shoreline Marina recently and also the Rainbow Harbor Marina recently with the Marina Funds and also the Department of Boating and Waterway Loans. Right now, we're in the process of completing the Alamitos Bay Marina after three of the seven basins. We are running into financial issues, there's no question about that. And we're working right now with our finance department and our Marine bureau and Parks and Recreation Department to see about coming up with the solutions for these things. This basically comes to us with the termination of the Department of Boating and Waterway Loans. That program no longer exists. So while we're looking at the finances, we definitely want to make it clear to the boat owners and also the city council that we are coming up with a plan to take care of the dredging. I think that's critical to take care of the dredging before we lose our permit and deal with that. We're also looking at doing the utility work that's necessary with Southern California Edison and other things that we can do with the funds that we have while we put together a plan to take care of some of the issues that you brought up in some of your comments.
Speaker 11: Well, if we can be just a little more specific, so what can we do? I mean, today, immediately, what are we prepared to do to continue the project moving forward? And I understand you can't commit to the entire project being done tonight, but what can you commit to to keep this moving forward that we don't come to a standstill in the next few weeks?
Speaker 8: Our hope is not to come to a standstill, but we certainly are plan to come back as the council's requesting with a report in 30 days.
Speaker 11: And do you anticipate that report will have a plan of action that will continue moving forward? Because I don't want to do is come back in 30 days and say, well, you know, I guess we just can't move forward and there's really nothing we can do at this point. And we'll just have to let the contractor go.
Speaker 8: We will have a plan of action. I can't guarantee that it's going to look to the outcome that you're looking at, but we will have a plan of action to continue this and get this project done.
Speaker 11: Well, I know that is my understanding that two of the next areas are there's about $900,000 and some city work, as well as some landside utility work. I mean, is there any any reason why we would not continue to move forward with that portion?
Speaker 8: Probably not. Those are things we're looking at right now. But I don't want to make a commitment until we look with our finance department and also with the Parks and Recreation Department. As you know, there was a very serious audit done by the City Auditors Department about two years ago to guarantee that this project goes forward without touching the general fund. And those are things that we want to make sure that we maintain. True to the city council on.
Speaker 11: And and how quickly do you think you can come back with a recommendation within.
Speaker 8: 30 days.
Speaker 11: Any any sooner than that on anything for.
Speaker 8: You. We certainly will try. We definitely are close to coming up with solutions on dredging and things like the utilities that you're talking about. But some of these are really high ticket items to come in and take care of. An entire basin. And those are things we need to look at and work with our finance department and how that can get funded.
Speaker 11: Well, since I know you've been working on this for for a number of months, do you think it's likely within a couple of weeks, perhaps, you can address some of those things that you just mentioned and it might take you 30 days to come back with the whole plan.
Speaker 8: 30 days with the whole plan will address what we can. But I don't want to come back to you in two weeks and disappoint you that we don't have a plan yet. I'm saying 30 days and we'll respond to what you're requesting. Okay.
Speaker 11: And I guess what I'm saying is, if if you can identify it as a couple of the smaller things that could be done in the next couple of weeks and make a decision on I mean, I'd certainly be interested in moving forward as we've waited for a full plan.
Speaker 8: We'll work on that. Yes.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. O'DONNELL.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I.
Speaker 3: As a regular user.
Speaker 4: Of the marina, I can attest that those basins are in serious need of a reconstruction. There's nails everywhere. There's boards popping up, there's cones and places that you have to walk around. So, again, they are in need of repair and I think that's been made pretty clear. Can you check on this historically? My understanding is that maybe even 20 years ago, this is back when I was at the Marine Patrol, but about 20 years ago, there's a transfer from the Marina Fund to the Tidelands Fund. I think it's from Fund 39 to fund 36. Those are the numbers used back then. I don't know if those are the same numbers used now. I thought there was a transfer over to the title inside the beachfront site because oil had dropped so low and it was a loan and I don't know if it was paid back, but it was a loan of some significance. Could you check into this?
Speaker 8: Certainly will. I'm looking at our finance director.
Speaker 4: Multiple many million dollars.
Speaker 8: Certainly. We'll get back on that. Absolutely.
Speaker 4: And I know where I'm going with this is there's a potential for that that beachfront fund to pay back the marina if that situation does, in fact, exist.
Speaker 0: But with interest.
Speaker 4: With interest, according to the mayor. Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you, Mayor. And I think everyone on this council and I'm sure everyone in the audience, you.
Speaker 11: Know, wants to get the work done.
Speaker 3: But we all know how serious it is to have hazards and so forth. But can you educate me real quickly? You said there were some cost problems. Has this project been going over budget? Is that the issue and maybe some unexpected challenges? Or what are the challenges that we that we're facing so far?
Speaker 8: We'll put that in the report. There certainly are some cost overages that we're taking a look at before we respond.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, I think it's important for the public to know that we all want to get this done. It's critical we get it done. But it's sound like there's some.
Speaker 11: Facts are getting you know, getting in the way.
Speaker 3: And, you know, the facts are important in the conversation.
Speaker 8: I want to make it clear there's no facts getting in the way. There is lack of funding getting in the way. So that's what we're looking at.
Speaker 3: Right. But I mean, I think the fact is we've gone over budget, whatever it is. I mean, I don't know what the answer is, but I mean, I think those are facts as is a measure. Thank you.
Speaker 0: The fact that we have a lack of funds. Mr. Long, have you made a motion?
Speaker 11: Yes, I move the recommendation.
Speaker 0: Second, Burton seconded. Any member of the Public Trust Council on this item, please come forward. I know a lot of you are here for this. I would ask you to do the best you can to summarize your comments. Good.
Speaker 5: Very good. You succeed? Yes. Longtime supporter of voting dynamics. But to die for this debacle was cast seven years ago when this was started. It was a nonstarter. It was unbundled from day one. It was a smoke and mirrors. You're on the hook. You made a very. Dumb decision when you went with the most expensive contractor and the only one on the West Coast. It's like buying a car. From a dealership. Who's going to be the only one that services it, that 16, 2000 miles away. Who do you think is going to pay for that? This is unwinnable. One of the things that you've got to work out and get done fast. Mr. Mayor. Is those Cal 37 boats of your buddies in the Long Beach Yacht Club have to haul ass out of there and they should be factored into bass in three. And the clock is ticking. If you were watching the Olympic Games that you at the IOC, the USOC, will announce when they're going to pull that trigger in terms of bidding. If that's the case, they will be here sometime within the next six or seven months. I can guarantee you with almost absolute certainty. Unless those slips are vacated, taken out of their. It can save time, but not to burn out unless that happens. The chances of Long Beach and Los Angeles getting the Olympic bid. Our next anil anastasiou discuss four because Macy's doesn't eligibles. I don't want to repeat what I outlined before, but absolutely central to the US getting that bid when I say our Southern California. They have unfettered areas for training. It's not ten years from now or 2024 when we're going to have the games. It's the run up to that to create the buzz to get the people here. Period. And that window is closing very fast. And if not, the legacy of the people sitting up there in the blue jackets who own those boats. We'll go down in history as ones along with Bob Foster, who crossed Southern California, the next Olympic bid. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All by myself? Yes.
Speaker 3: Next large party. I knew you were a powerful guy.
Speaker 0: Next to me for everything. It's fine. Don't worry about it.
Speaker 8: Mr. Mayor and council members.
Speaker 5: Thank you for hearing us. I represent the Boat.
Speaker 3: Owners Association.
Speaker 8: The Long Beach Marina. Boat Owners.
Speaker 5: Association. I'm the president.
Speaker 3: This is our.
Speaker 5: Message. Rebuild the docks. Now we have a.
Speaker 8: Second message.
Speaker 5: To follow up after I mention a few reasons for that. The rebuild of these.
Speaker 8: Marinas has been delayed over.
Speaker 5: And over and over again. There's always seems to be some problem cropping up that prevents the acquisition.
Speaker 8: Of financing for.
Speaker 5: Getting the work done. Right now, we understand that if this project is delayed.
Speaker 8: Much longer, it'll incur an additional $17 million.
Speaker 3: Cost.
Speaker 4: For the city.
Speaker 5: And in our opinion, that seems to be pretty poor management of.
Speaker 3: Sydney City resources. The second thing, as.
Speaker 5: Has been pointed out, the old docks are unsafe and the city is going to see some lawsuits.
Speaker 8: Arise from that, if not.
Speaker 5: Already. The third point is our slip fees have already.
Speaker 8: Been increased with the understanding that that increase was needed to facilitate the acquisition of financing.
Speaker 5: For the completion of the marina. We've done our part.
Speaker 3: Now it's time for you guys to do your part.
Speaker 5: Keep in mind, voters are voters. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening again, Mr. Mayor. I rise as Commodore of the Association of State, so I need every name again. I'm erratic. I rise as Commodore of the Association of San Pedro Bay Clubs. My organization represents the racing interests of the clubs from San Pedro down through Huntington Harbor. In our marina, there are five yard clubs that are part of our association Long Beach Alamitos Bay SEAL Beach Yacht Club. Even though we're SEAL Beach Yacht Club, we are in Long Beach Navy Yacht Club of Long Beach and Little Ships Fleet Yacht Club. Together, we hold over 100 races per year. Some world class events, such as the A Congressional Cup, some are weekend beer or weekly beer can races on Thursday, Wednesday night and Thursday nights. And I want to impress upon you how important it is that this rebuild take go forward. Again, we build ourselves the aquatic capital of America. If we can't continue to attract world class racers, we can't continue continue to attract additional boaters. If our basins two and three are basically second class citizens to the docks that have already been completed. Thank you. Have a great evening. Thank you, Mr. President. Next, please.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council people. My name is Carl Cunningham, past president of the Long Beach Marina Boat Owners Association. I'd like to point out that we are really not complaining about the management of the Marine bureau. We're not complaining about the maintenance of the you know, the maintenance people. They do a yeoman's job. They're working all the time, literally. And just to give you a little flavor of what it's like on the gangways. By the way, gangways are the wide ones. Fingers are the little narrow ones. The boats are in between. I was walking down the gangway one time and I was one of them that got a nail, the nails sticking up about that big. I was at night and I didn't see it. Bam, just absolutely flat. And the problem with that is it wasn't just so much falling. Of course I didn't. So it wasn't so much falling. But when you hit those gangways, they're full of splinters and sort of splinters. That's what really got me more than anything else, which was a real problem. But tonight, as I was coming over here, I'm a little bored. I noticed on the I'm on Gangway 29 over on Gangway 28 there was a finger where the at the end of the finger there were no boats attached to it was completely in the water. It had the float had gone. And I just had a horrible sort of a child on a tricycle, you know.
Speaker 3: Got away from mommy.
Speaker 5: Going down that finger and into the 60 degree water. And I don't even want to go there. You can imagine what that lawsuit would have cost the city of Long Beach. I mean, there's you know, there's no gates to stop anybody from going on to the gangway. So I urge you to really consider the fact that as it was already brought out, we're looking at 17,000, 17 million penalty, if I'm not mistaken, if we delay this project we've already.
Speaker 3: Paid, we've.
Speaker 5: Had our slip fees increased again with the promise that this was going to take care of the marina.
Speaker 3: Rebuild. And we've only got to double, you know, number three.
Speaker 5: And number two. And so we would certainly like to see that move forward. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Mr. Mayor. Council people. My name is Robert Vet. I'm a Long Beach resident and a member of the Long Beach Marina Boat Owners Association. I rent a slip here and I'm giving you a message from one of our members who is in Peru. He's saying the remaining wood would gangways and a beam continue to deteriorate at a pace that the maintenance department cannot possibly keep up with. Case in point two hardworking men from the maintenance department worked on the gangway of my slip for four days, attempting to raise the dock. That had sunk to the point that the bottom of the wood supports were below the waterline as they would reinforce and install the new wood boards. In one area, the wood immediately next to it would collapse, its dry rotted as it could not support the new strain that the new boards were adding to it. What started as a small repair kept extending to a larger area, and they also had an additional flow to assist what was somewhat in floating the dock. After the work was done, the gangway is better than it was, but it's still by no means a permanent repair that will last a long time. The same area has been repaired before. Also, this repair causes strain on the finger directly across the way, to a point that the old finger could not be repaired and a new one had to be installed. Three weeks later, the float on the finger on the other side of the new one sunk and the maintenance crew pumped it to refloat it. Time will tell how long this will last. This scenario goes on daily at Basins two and three, as you can clearly see. The base support structure has totally deteriorated that it can no longer support the attempts to refloat the docks. I have great respect for this maintenance crew working on the docks for their perseverance and creativity in attempting to keep these old docks afloat. Alfredo Fernandez. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we.
Speaker 5: Mr. Mayor and Honorable Councilman. Councilwoman. My name is Roger Gripe. Unfortunately, I don't live in the city of Long Beach, but my second home and my boat is here in District three in Alamitos Bay. I've been a boat owner and had a boat in the marina for 17 years, and I've seen the docks just completely deteriorate in Alamitos Bay while downtown was rebuilt. And and we do have, I believe, based on one base and four have been completed. I, I don't have a vote in this city, but I am on the advisory board for the Long Beach Rental Boat Owners Association, as well as a Vice Commodore, one of the local yacht clubs here. And I don't have a vote here. I'd surely be there at the polls. But if the need comes, I would hope that I could probably enforce more, more votes that I could provide if I did live here. But nevertheless, you've heard the reason for the rebuild, and I'm not going to repeat those. It takes too much time and we don't need to do that. But I would urge you to give serious consideration about rebuilding these docks they needed. My wife stepped on a nail about three weeks ago, and thank God it didn't go all the way through the shoe, but it went almost three quarters of the way through, and I'm glad it didn't puncture her foot. We've also had deaths due to individuals falling off the docks and drowning and not being able to come back up out of the water. These are issues that could definitely cause the city some liability, and the city would be very wise to take that tidelands money and use it as backing to acquire loans to to get the money that's needed to rebuild this marina as soon as possible. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you very much for.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Dr. Phyllis Roe. My husband and I have a boat in the Alamitos Bay Marina Basin to dock 15. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. DeLong for his strong support of the Marina Rebuild. And we'll be looking to you for leadership on the council. My husband and I have had a boat in the Long Beach Marina system for over 20 years, and as the others have said, we have seen the continuous increase in our slip fees and decrease in the in the services that are provided and the and the the docks. On January 23rd, I sent an email to each of you inviting you to take a walk on our gangway so that you could see firsthand the condition, the unsafe condition of our gangway. And I'm just wondering if anybody did that. If not, I invite you again to do so, so that you can see what we're up against here on this dock. However, when you do so, please go in the daylight so that you don't trip over nails and and protruding boards and wear some sturdy shoes. In the email, I referred to a nail that I had removed because I almost tripped on it this summer. It was in the middle of the gangway. I went to our boat to get a hammer and I tried to hammer it back in. It would not go back in, so I took it out. This is what it was protruding at least half way. This is what the people have been talking about. I've been thinking about what we could do to influence Long Beach, to be responsible in this regard. Some of the ideas that I came up with as a dock walker, I can inform everybody about our efforts. The problems that you've identified. I can suggest that we all come together and withhold our slip fees until something is done and the quality of our docks are improved. I could I can recommend and we are looking into this that we move our boats so to a more safe marina. And I certainly am going to look into other strategies and see what other people have to say. We don't want to start a Boston Tea Party in Long Beach. We would like you to recognize your responsibility to your constituents and use your power to eliminate this nautical slum. One other point. I've heard that funding is the problem. We all know that the marina is a cash cow. I would like at each of the meeting's monthly meetings of the Marine Bureau that a report be given by the interim or acting director of the amount of funds that are brought in monthly. The disposition of those funds and the progress on the marina rebuild. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 11: Mr. Mayor, can I ask you a question? You may. Excuse me. What is the monthly meeting that you're referring to?
Speaker 6: The Marine advisory or the commission?
Speaker 11: Okay. I guess I'm going to ask course for staff. Is there any reason why you couldn't provide that information to the Mac and the public?
Speaker 3: I think they provide it regularly.
Speaker 6: I excuse me, I was at a recent meeting and someone asked for that information and it was not forthcoming.
Speaker 0: All right. Whatever.
Speaker 11: Follow with my office and we'll figure it out. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next, please.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor Foster Councilmembers.
Speaker 3: My name is Jerry Garcia, and I am here to.
Speaker 4: Ask you to please make.
Speaker 3: Sure that the remaining basins are completed. My friends and I work very hard to maintain a boat in one of the basins that has been completed. But we think it's fair and only fair that the remaining basins are also completed. Boat owners, big and small, all deserve safe docks. If these were city sidewalks, those would be repaired. And the fact is that those docks are the city sidewalks.
Speaker 6: For.
Speaker 3: The visitors and guests that come to our boats. So in their current condition, we've already heard that they are a dangerous liability for our city. And as you've heard, the cost for our city, it's something that we just can't afford. If we put this off. When the slip fees were raised, we were promised that these fees would go towards the improvement of the basins. And so with that said, when I please ask you to make sure that this goes through. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Hi. Good evening, everyone. My name is Mike Nichols on it. And I lived in the once thick corona. And I work at a nonprofit. And my friend and I saved the money for 15 years to get a little boat. It was a dream. And although we are lucky that our boat in one of our basins that have been repaired, we hope that we hope and pray that the other basins will be finished and expect it. Also, the docks are very, very dangerous and they will be so unfair to cut the other basins out. Please finish the repairing. Our marina, please. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor Foster. Ladies and gentlemen of the council, my name is Rectory. I'm the chairman of the Marine Advisory Commission for the City of Long Beach. You've heard all the impassioned pleas and the details about the deterioration of the Alamitos Bay Marina. That's well documented, and we don't need to go into more detail here. But what I would like to do is go on record before this body is saying that your Marine Advisory Commission has been a proponent of the rebuild since day one. We've been involved in every stage of the project, every phase of it, looking at the finances, looking at the physical work that's being done down there. And we continue to be a proponent of the rebuild. We we absolutely would hate to see any form of delay or certainly no stoppage in the process as it goes forward. So we just want to go on record as saying that we are in favor of the rebuild and we'd like to continue to see it go forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 11: Can I ask Mr. Drake a couple of questions? Thank you. So tell me, on the Marine Advisory Commission, have you always been under the impression that this, up until recently at this project was moving forward? Well, yes. I mean, it was approved three or four years ago.
Speaker 5: I mean, the project has been moving forward in a steady pace, beginning with Basin four and then moving to Basin one. There were funding available for the first phases of the project. We knew from the get go that there would come a point where additional funding would have to be acquired for the next or subsequent phases to be instituted. That was never a secret. It was always out there on the horizon. I think now the funding mechanisms are going to have to be discussed, and that goes back to the city managers statement about coming back with a program to move it forward.
Speaker 11: And what was the Mack's understanding of what those funding mechanisms are going to be, and was that ever discussed at those meetings?
Speaker 5: It was discussed in generalities, but never any specifics. I believe that there has been some consulting work done on how the different issues might come to pass. Nothing has been released yet, as far as we know, as far as the different alternatives or alternatives available to the council or the city, as far as how to fund the project. So.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you. Sure.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Mr. King, please.
Speaker 10: Mayor Foster City Council members in the city. I am Francis, Emily Tyson Harris and I reside in District one and I kept hearing the language of me say when I served on Cape Cod, there was a concern regarding this sensibility of Alameda to spay dock. And I'm just want to find out if the docks are remaining. Do you now can you you may not be able to ask me directly, but there was a concern about it not being accessible, making the the sensible so that persons with disabilities have the opportunity of riding on these chances. Water, taxi. And so I was looking in the book and I can't determine whether or not has it been completed and not completed. Are these two docks one of them, one of the docks that needs to be made accessible? Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. West, would you please give Ms.. Harris that answer?
Speaker 8: Yes. All of the new docks are accessible. Will be accessible. I have we'll have to get back to you on what the existing ones are.
Speaker 10: Would you also like Cape Cod now as well?
Speaker 8: Certainly.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Harris. Any other public comment? We've got some customers have a question. But before we do, Mr. Watson, I would know. I would like to I'd like to have a thorough sort of chronology or history of, you know, exactly what happened. Do we embark on this knowing that we were going to have to have other funding sources? And what was the likelihood of that and what was the wisdom of that? I'm really if people have been charged in anticipation of having capital improvements and now we are unable to do so, I want to know exactly what happened. Thank you. Mississippi governor. Mississippi.
Speaker 10: The mayor. Well, and Pat, is this possible that tidelands funds can be used perhaps as the guarantee if we bonded against on the slip, these.
Speaker 8: Tidelands funds can certainly be there. The city finance director would recommend not bonding against Highland Funds, but title and funds can be.
Speaker 10: On those funds. I know that.
Speaker 8: But you can bond against slip fees. But the I think we could raise less than $10 million bonding on the existing slippage moratorium.
Speaker 10: So we could proceed on this if we utilized the timelines funds.
Speaker 8: Tidelands is an eligible eligible expenditure. Yes.
Speaker 10: Okay. Well, I would hope that we look at that. The other thing is, I would hope that we would get some kind of accounting of the slip fees. I've heard this from numerous boat owners who live in the fifth and have slips down there that they've never really seen a public accounting of all the fees that have been collected. So I'm hopeful that we could get that.
Speaker 8: I think that certainly has been provided will provide that again. I do want to highlight that regarding the Tidelands funds, again, any expenditure over $100,000 needs permission from the State Lands Commission.
Speaker 10: Well, I understand, but my understanding is that cities that have timelines have used it for marinas as long as they're publicly accessible. And then the question for city attorney, both in Mr. de Long's council agenda item and in numerous emails that I've received, is the issue of potential liability. Is it possible through your office that we get a risk assessment that because I think obviously, if I'm hearing this repeatedly, that people feel that they can be injured, something desperate in a battle is going to happen. I think it would be helpful if we have some kind of risk assessment that might help us move, you know , in a faster direction and pinpoint exactly what needs to be fixed immediately.
Speaker 8: We can get you an assessment. Yes.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. DeLong.
Speaker 11: Thank you. How much? And surplus the right word. But how much extra cash flow to the marinas generate today? I guess I've heard numbers to $3 million a year.
Speaker 8: I could provide that information in the report that you're asking for, but I don't have it at the top of my head. No.
Speaker 11: Mr. Chapman here.
Speaker 8: Georgia John.
Speaker 3: Mayor, council member, council members long it generates about $3.2 million annually.
Speaker 11: So 3.2 million extra after you cover your cost of running them. Well, that's about it. Yeah. Okay. And then since it's been doing that for some time, is there a reserve or is there a fund? Balancers. Every penny been used for the existing basins or what do we have set a set aside of that $3.2 million annual surplus towards the future construction?
Speaker 3: I believe most of it is being used to pay back DBA loans. And recently we used some of the reserves.
Speaker 4: To actually do base and five.
Speaker 3: With cash reserves.
Speaker 11: Okay. So what is our cash reserve now in the Marina Fund? You know, approximately, I think about.
Speaker 4: 2 million right now. Okay.
Speaker 11: And what's the loan balance of the DBA loans that we have?
Speaker 3: I think it's about 46 million at this point. I have to double check.
Speaker 9: Because the city has devolved loans for both.
Speaker 3: Shoreline and Base four and Basin one.
Speaker 11: Great. Thank you. Okay. Well, I appreciate the information. I look forward to getting the report back. I tell you, I think that, you know, certainly, you know, I apologize to the boat owners in the situation we're in. It's it's certainly been a surprise to me. I always thought that we were, you know, on schedule. We were moving forward. It was going to happen. It's like I said, it's been a surprise to find out that we haven't got the funding completely locked down. I know that. And a recent tour I took of the docks, it's just shocking to me that the dilapidated condition they're in and hopefully in the next 30 days, we'll get a solution to this very thorny problem. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah, we have we have a we have a motion in the second members. Cast your votes on item 13.
Speaker 1: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank thank you all for coming out, by the way. I appreciate it. Thank you. Just as a courtesy, we'll move to item 17 before 14 because some young people waiting here. So item 17, GREGORY. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request status from City Manager regarding the next steps in moving forward with the rebuild of Basins 2 and 3 within the next 30 days. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_03042014_14-0179 | Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank thank you all for coming out, by the way. I appreciate it. Thank you. Just as a courtesy, we'll move to item 17 before 14 because some young people waiting here. So item 17, GREGORY.
Speaker 1: Item 17 is a report from Development Services with the recommendation of receiving filed a presentation by members of the Unit University of Southern California Law Center for their winning entry in the 2013 National Association for Industrial and Office Parks.
Speaker 0: As for the council membership scheme.
Speaker 10: Yes, I would like to introduce or have these gentlemen introduce themselves and I believe one of you is actually a resident of Long Beach. Which one? Yes. Yes. And let the audience know that these were the winners of the University of Southern California Law Center. It's the 2013 National Association for Industrial and Office Parks and AOP, Southern California Real Estate Challenge. And they were given the challenge of looking at the property as second and PCH, and they came back with an exciting design that they are now going to be given the opportunity to present to the council. If you could, introduce yourselves, gentlemen. Thank you.
Speaker 11: My name is Steven Anderson, and I'm with the U.S. team.
Speaker 3: My name is Christian Santos. My name is Daniel Bertel. Nick Terje NGO. Good evening, Matt Kiper.
Speaker 11: And I think one of your staff is getting us to the keyboard for the clicker. But I just while she's getting it, I'll give a quick overview. So every year there's a competition between USC and UCLA on a real estate site somewhere in Southern California. That's a challenge and has had a challenging history. And this year the site is second and PCH was chosen as the site. And it's had many attempts to be developed. And with our challenge to kind of create a project that would work for all the stakeholders, including the city, as a partner of ours. And one of the unique attributes of our program is, rather than just real estate development, we're in the School of Policy Planning and development. So we have a lot of focus on urban planning and policy and the impacts of development and how it relates to the context more than just does it actually make money? So I introduced our team. My name is Steven Anderson. I'll just give you a quick overview and Kristian will take us through entitlements. Daniel the design, Nick the market analysis and finally, Matt, the numbers about the project. So as I mentioned, the sites at Second and PCH, kind of at the confluence of Belmont Shore, Naples SEAL Beach in the border of L.A. and Orange County, 11 acres. And we consider this the most exciting coastal real estate opportunity in Southern California. You just don't find many sites of this size near the water surrounded by so many good amenities. So one of our challenges was why hasn't anything been developed here? And we were tasked with being the developer, putting on our developer hat and how to minimize risk and get something done here. So this is kind of an overview of the plan we came up. We'll go through detail further in the presentation, but we really wanted to connect the site to the water and connect the wetlands to the water. And rather than these islands of shopping centers, try to connect everything as a regional district. So in the upper left, you'll see a retail project, a boutique hotel on the right, an apartment community, and then a groundlings community amenity on the water that would be a permanent home to the farmers market. Here are some views of some of the renderings. We were just really trying to bring the water into the project as much as possible and make it coastal. So and then just a.
Speaker 3: Kind of a summary that we're.
Speaker 11: Proposing, this project had 164,000 feet of retail, 80 hotel rooms and 300 apartment units. And then we would do a proposed in two phases, which will outline further and the presentation as the step revision is going through right now. And then we really knew to get a project done here, especially with its history, we needed to create community and political will. So our goals were to stitch the area together, make a new gateway, create a new gateway for the city to the water. And really, this could serve as a catalyst for redeveloping the entire district into a more walkable, connected place. And then we approached this with three objectives. We wanted to identify the highest and best use for the community, the investors and the city, create a new waterfront experience and then maximize those benefits for everyone involved. And now Christian will present the entitlements.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Stephen, and thank you again to the city council for having us. So I'm going to go a little more into the site now. The site is located at Second and PCH. And as Steven said, we believe it is a rare and significant site and that it deserves a special project. 80,000 cars per day pass the site along PCH and Second Street. It is 500 feet from the water and has a quarter mile of PCH frontage. Naples is just sort of up to the top there. And then further along as Belmont Shore down PCH, we see SEAL Beach, all great communities. Three significant retail sites flank the area we're looking at, including high performing Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and Gelson's. And what you see immediately here is an opportunity to connect all three of these centers. And like Steven said, try and create a walkable destination, a place, something that Long Beach can be proud of. This is a view a little closer of the site. Currently, the Seaport Marina Hotel is located on the site, and one of the things you'll notice from just sort of a design architectural standpoint is that it kind of blocks off the water. So one of the things we were looking at was how to bring PCH towards the marina. This is a view of our project here. And you could see we tried to make a very direct link. We're going to go into little more detail about this later, but this is where we're going. So one of the main questions is why is nothing built here? This is a significant site and it's just something that you think everybody who passes by wonders why nothing has really been developed here. So in 1980, Long Beach adopted its zoning code for the area, the local coastal plan. And what it led to were projects such as this across the street on PCH and here across Second Street and here adjacent to our site. Now, I guess what I'm trying to get at here is the zoning code suggests a certain type of development and a kind of car oriented single story retail center. Now, all of these are very successful and great projects themselves, but one of the things that was indicated to us from the city, from people in the neighborhood, from past people who look at the site, is that everybody thinks our project, our site is capable of a little bit more of kind of this pedestrian friendly civic space , something that that people will come to. And that is very representative at the gateway of Long Beach. Of Long Beach. So taking all this into account. One thing I should also mention, too, is that the city is currently in a revision process of the zoning code for this area. I think that over the years people have noticed that or everyone's kind of noticed that what we want to do here is something a little more so that the zoning codes in a three year revision process right now, which kind of adds a complication to the design, to the development in general, our strategy for this, and we believe it's fairly innovative is to phase the project. Phase one is a retail area. It's on the left side there. It is consistent with the current zoning code. So we believe something like this could get started immediately. We could at least start the talks of it, start getting the process through phase two of our project as a projected development. And by that I mean we're going to wait. We're going to we're going to wait till see that the local zoning code is amended. We're going to adjust our project to that. In our project, just kind of as an experiment, as a speculation, we put a hotel and multifamily on this site anticipating that maybe multifamily would be allowed at this point. Thank you. And Daniel Patel, we'll go a little more to the design. Thank you, Christian, and thank you council members. I want to reiterate what Christian and Stephen said. This is a very once in a lifetime site and it deserves a worthy vision to be a true destination and landmark for Long Beach. When we set out to design and program the site, we had the benefits of learning from the failures of the past. Our goal was to create a place, a destination experience that would connect to the water and be the next step towards creating a marina district. Picture a community where neighbors walk to the bakery, where friends hang out at the local cafe where families can bike to the farmers market. Pair these cores with an architecture that is rooted in the creation of great public spaces. We study the architecture of Long Beach, including the existing Googie architecture of the Seaport Marina Hotel, as well as the mid-century modern Portofino nearby. Additionally, we study the scale and massing of other great public spaces in other cities, and we also research strong urban design moves that could inform us on how we could connect the corner of Second and PCH to the water. Learning from the failures of the past. We push forward with a multi-use site of decreased density and height of previous proposals that included a destination retail center on the north side of the site at the corner of PCH and second. Phase two would include a boutique hotel and multifamily component anchored to the water with views of the Pacific on the marina. We created a community civic space filled with restaurants, eclectic vendors and a permanent farmer's market. Being mindful of the many issues raised by the community, establishing connectivity and being thoughtful about traffic was extremely important in our vision. In addition to safely connecting bike paths with dedicated off street bike lanes and restoring pedestrian access around the site with much needed sidewalk improvements. We create a strong statement of connecting PCH and the wetlands, both physically and visually, to the marina with a pedestrian retail street focused solely around creating intimate and unique public spaces. Our retail street creates a vibrant shopping and culinary driven experience filled with excitement. Picture Tartlets for parents and children. A new local cycling shop for the community program Open Space Safe for Family Movie Night at the end of a retail street as box park, a community civic space and a permanent home for the neighborhood farmer's market. It pays homage to Long Beach's strong shipping import history, as it's creatively composed of recycled shipping containers and complements the local restaurants and regional microbreweries that will surround it. Lastly, Belmont Yards will be a sustainable leader in the community, designed and constructed to the lead for neighborhood development standards. Belmont Yards is the next step towards creating a new place for Long Beach. A new marina district and ultimately Southern California's next great coastal community. Now to talk about the local market, I'm going to hand it off to Nick. Thank you, Daniel, and good evening and thank you for your time. Council Members. Belmont Yard sits within a population base that is underserved by and has a strong demand for retail and multifamily uses. In general, because of a limited supply of retail space and strong sale levels. There is a men's competition among among new retailers to be here pushing rents to levels that are approximately double the greater market average and vacancy to approximately zero. It's worth noting that retail space in this immediate area is approximately 60% per capita of the greater Los Angeles region. Because of a large regional void and shopping center and regional shopping centers. Many of the local residents are leaving that area to shop. They're looking for soft goods, apparel and other goods and other items. Many of these local residents shop are shopping and traveling to South Coast Plaza, 30 to 45 minutes south of here. There's also clearly a strong and growing demand for restaurant space with a fixed and tapped out supply. Restaurant rents have grown by approximately 15% this year alone in the Second Street area. There's a waiting list for space and tenants are buying out existing tenants to be in this area. As a result of assessing retailer voids and demand and speaking with tenants and brokers directly, we've confirmed that many great retailers want to be here. These include. Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, Apple. Crate and Barrel. Porto's Bakery and Stone Brewery's Beer Garden, Equinox Fitness and many of the Long Beach's local best restaurants. After doing our initial study, we recently walked into Michael's Pizzeria and talked to him about the site and he quoted, I've wanted to be at that site for 30 years. Additionally, because of a lack of available land, housing supply has before been far outpaced by population growth in the immediate area within the last ten years. East East Long Beach has accommodated approximately 700 new households, while there has been only 55 new rental units added to the market. As a result, the market consists of predominantly dated rental units and apartment buildings. 95% of the existing stock built over 30 years ago. People continue to move into this area based on the desirable location and irreplaceable nature of the area being located directly in between Los Angeles and Orange County's. And now for an overview. Matt Kuyper. Thank you, Nick. Good evening. Thank you for your time. Taking into account the entitlement landscape. Site forces are design intention as well as the pent up demand for retail, hotel and multifamily users. We've designed a project that is both feasible for the developer and beneficial for the city of Long Beach. Our proposal anticipates a total project cost of approximately $200 million, which will include 164,000 square feet of retail, 80 acres of hotel rooms and 300 unit apartment development broken up into phase one and phase two. Importantly, we view the city as a partner in this project. The key financial takeaway is the significant positive fiscal impact our project will create for the city of Long Beach. The current project, the Seaport Marina Hotel, is estimated to produce annual revenues for the city of Long Beach of approximately $154,000. Our proposal anticipates a 16 fold increase in that figure. Two and a half million dollars per year to the city of Long Beach, made up primarily of sales tax and hotel tot revenue. To recap, our objectives for this project were threefold. Identify the highest and best use. Shape a waterfront experience and maximize benefits to all the stakeholders involved. We've accomplished this by filling the market void for retail, hotel and multifamily. We've created an outdoor pedestrian and marina focused design. And finally, we've created a feasible project that is both financially beneficial for the developer and for the city of Long Beach. While slightly outside the scope of our project, we spoke to many of the adjacent landowners and we envisioned a larger marina district where Belmont Yards could be the catalyst for a greater district of connected properties, which will promote walkability and a pedestrian oriented environment. Beyer, Vice Mayor, City Council, we thank you again for your time, and we're happy to address any questions at this time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Very creative. This should go on.
Speaker 11: Thank you. First of all, congratulations. You guys did a great job putting that together. Very interesting. There have a couple of questions. What's the height in phase two of those of those structures? The heightened phase two would be six storeys, so roughly 60 feet. It's a residential building. The entire project would be below that. One of our objectives, if we really wanted to create a project that was less dense and from the water, you had many more views through PCH. Great. And do you have any do you recall about what was the percentage open space in the project? You know.
Speaker 3: I believe our percentage open space was close to 30%.
Speaker 11: Great. Thank you. And of course, former city staff Amy. I see over there. You know, I think it's a very intriguing idea that they went across into the parking lot. What's your perspective on that?
Speaker 6: Certainly, there are some complications with that from a zoning perspective in the Coastal Commission's perspective, but it does provide for additional activation of the waterfront. So in many regards it's a very positive feature.
Speaker 11: So as the City of update process gets underway, do you think that that's something that the committee and the consultant should look at is whether or not there's some viability to link those areas together.
Speaker 6: That part of the waterfront is not in the ceded boundaries. So the committee would really need to determine whether or not they wanted to expand the boundaries of seating to include the actual waterfront.
Speaker 11: Okay. Well, I could tell you I find it very intriguing. I know that we've had developers in the past, Mr. Mayor, you might recall they've looked at trying to combine those. And I guess I would encourage the the group to at least take a look at what the potential feasibility and benefits to the city would be. Very creative idea. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Cioffi.
Speaker 10: First of all, I want to thank city staff for arranging the presentation and also again to congratulate you. This is an extremely creative, bold, exciting plan. And I do think everyone here agrees that that particular parcel of land is probably is probably the most exciting waterfront waterfront adjacent parcel probably in Southern California that has has not been looked at in the way that you have done it. I guess I would ask, have you talked to the owner of the property about his interest in your plan? Has he seen your your award winning? Planning design.
Speaker 11: Yes. The owner was at the presentation when when we won that night and was part of the submittal to Knapp for the site to be considered. So he he has seen the plan.
Speaker 10: Okay. Well and I thought was very thoughtful on your part was to recognize the current planning situation with the need to update CDEP and what the city is going through so that there's a possibility to do things incrementally. If if a developer wanted to do that. So I'm going to thank you and hopefully everybody will keep this in mind as as the city moves forward. And it's probably one of the most exciting plans that I've seen since I've been on the city council about the use of that property. I don't know. The question would be, did you address anything about traffic mitigation? Because as we know, that has been the biggest concern right now. Traffic in that particular corner of Long Beach is already troublesome. So that was the concern about adding additional retail and other amenities in that area.
Speaker 3: We looked at mitigating traffic in two different ways. First of all, expanding capacity, doing that through dedicated right lanes, looking at potentially working with adjacent land over to create a future street shopkeeper road that would alleviate the traffic burden in terms of what we did on our site to alleviate traffic. We created more of a destination retail center where people would come in. You would actually enter the site off of a new street that we've created so that you wouldn't have cars coming off of Second or PCH or Marina. And then in addition to that, we took a second approach because every time you increase capacity, traffic is going to grow to meet that capacity. And so one of the things that we did was really educate the people and try and get the people out of their vehicles, do whatever we can to encourage people to bike to the site, encourage ride sharing programs, increase pedestrian activity. And so really, I think the two different ways that you can tackle traffic, there are two different ways that you can tackle traffic expanding capacity, but that's only going to take you so far. And so it's really finding ways to creatively bring people to the site and get them out of their vehicles.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Mr. Neil.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Gentlemen, I think your.
Speaker 3: Design is very creative, very visionary. Mr. Bodak, in regards to the height restrictions now, how does their projection fit in, in what is currently existing?
Speaker 6: Well, a project of this magnitude with the design that they've approached suggested does require some amendments to current CDP regulations, not only to allow the residential use, but to deal with the height restrictions. The height currently right now is limited to 30 feet. And so their proposal is 60 feet. That is much more in keeping their 60 foot height that they're proposing, as much more in keeping with what staff was expecting that that site should be able to accommodate. The previous proposal by the developer had much higher heights than that which were not well received by the community.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate that. I agree with Mr. DeLong. We've both long thought that this project needs to go to the water to increase its viability and its usefulness. Did a great job, and we appreciate it.
Speaker 10: You want to make a motion, please?
Speaker 0: You haven't seconded any member. The public would address the council on this item. Move aside. Gentlemen. Mr. Good. You, sir.
Speaker 5: Very good. You clearly as the address as a Buckeye. I want to commend the guys. This is, I think, the best rendering and most creative that I've seen since I've been here that's been presented to this council, notwithstanding the fact that I think this the obviously the six feet, the six storeys isn't going to fly, but everything from like this portion here is outstanding. And bringing the water in, connecting it to the water is just right in concert with what everybody is trying to do. One of the things I've looked at to try to look at is actually where Marina Drive is now is we had that like a graded and what we want is water, the actual water coming down underneath there, connecting there and connect back to Marina Pacifica. That provides another way of getting out into the water. The six stories, in fact, I was just looking at this morning. This concept here that you have. In fact, the entire concept with this certainly would be great at PCH. And second, where now the old power plants are on the other side of Studebaker. This thing would fit like a champ in there. There's some environmental issues that obviously we have to take care of, but I think this is a step in the right direction , although in terms of I question the the marketing, the attractiveness. The fact is. We're at a handicap here. Fish tastes very good, but they're for customers they don't buy. So the reason we don't have these retailers here is the just simple lack of numbers. Yes, we do have to go out to Fashion Island or to other places to get that. But we don't have the volume to justify the investment that the major retailers want to invest in here. And that will never happen. Also, we have if we have a permanent place, in my view, for a flea market right now, we're this is sort of the epicenter of flea markets in Long Beach and in California and major retailers. I don't want their name associated with the flea market. Thanks.
Speaker 0: That's good.
Speaker 5: I don't mean to put a damper on creativity, but I have five points to make and maybe it was above my head, but I didn't see them totally addressed. The first one being What is the concern for esthetics? I mean, there's no waterfalls, no baroque sculpture, no meditation, lots raging, just buildings. The second point being that allowances are not made for parking as much as they should be. And another point being that hotel rooms, hotels are going to be should be built when the hotels we have now are are underused and are really enough. There are quite a few hotels we have presently. And another point being this, that the creativity you're creating, buildings on spots that don't presently have one, have them. And it doesn't strike me as all that creative, really. Last point I would like to make is the worst traffic problem is going to be exasperated. The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Second Street that that traffic is horrendous and you would be augmenting that. So maybe you can address those points. If not.
Speaker 10: Let us stand.
Speaker 0: Actually.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I am Patricia ETIM and I live in District three. We have for over two decades and I would really like to voice my appreciation for your brilliant idea. It was just amazing. So I am sure that many in our district and many around Long Beach would be delighted at this presentation and your absolute thoroughness. So thank you all very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr..
Speaker 10: I am Francis Henley Dyson Harris and I reside in District one. And I just want to say I'm incomplete on what a gift you have, and it's just absolutely phenomenal and it's exciting. And I and I encourage of course, I build it now the city's going to receive and for this to look at this in the future and it just looks so positive. And I believe it's going to draw people down into that area and people that are leaving, going to other places will come back into that area. But I couldn't sit back there and not tell you that we have to give you half. And thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Next was.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Donna Coates, Mayor City Council. I admire your intent to get bike riders there, but unless you can lower the hill from Naples over to PCH or make huge wide bike riding lanes down Pacific Coast Highway, I doubt anyone's going to ride bikes there.
Speaker 0: I ride my bike there. Don't worry about it.
Speaker 7: He's to me.
Speaker 4: Hi. I'm Kurt Schneider. You did a great presentation. I like the project a lot. The future st. That's definitely something that you should consider. But instead of just going to Shopkeeper Road, keep going through the wetlands. And by doing so, you'll get rid of some of the congestion and also take care of a big problem our city has. We don't use our wetlands like other communities do as an asset, not a liability. If you go to Huntington Beach, their wetlands are beautiful. You want to go out there with the children and walk through them. And bike ride. Run here. You smell oil. It's nasty. If you bring a street through there and also have a, you know, walking paths along the side, you'll find that money will follow. You'll clean it up. It'll look great. Great way to take care of congestion. I love the idea of activating that area. I can't see the coastal not being in favor of it. And when Mr. Goodhue says that the retailers won't have enough bodies coming in, he doesn't know the math. We are severely under retailed. The only problem we have in Beaumont, Shaw right now is with we have more restaurants and retail because we don't have daytime traffic. We don't have office buildings. We don't have those generators to bring in all the, you know, the normal working hours for people coming in and shopping. But if you did something of this magnitude, you would be able to attract the quality, the Urban Outfitters, the know gap like we have on Second Street and the new concepts. Keep thinking. Keep imagining. Look forward to this project. I hope that everybody's listening in. The city will work well with them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other comments? Thank you. Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to add my congratulations to the team as well. It's the Ralph and Goldie Lewis Hall is where I spent many years. So I want to congratulate you for being a part of their planning school. And this is a great product. As you can see just from this council meeting, you've inspired a lot of imagination and a lot of discussion. And I hope that down the road that something like this is our potential at Second and PCH. So thank you for reviving that for us and reminding us that we don't have to tolerate the mediocre. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Neal.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just one more question, gentlemen.
Speaker 4: In regards to your concept, did you consider mobility in.
Speaker 3: In in the event of public transportation, did you reach out to any public transportation agencies? I love the walkability idea, but as far as getting more public transit there. Was that ever considered? As a resident of Belmont Shore, we did some research and talked to several people who are familiar with several agencies, such as the Water Taxi and adding additional bus stops to near the site.
Speaker 0: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you, Mayor. And I enjoyed the presentation. I just want to note that, well, it's good to have a robust conversation in the public. You know, I know anyone here watching to think this is only a public project and it is private land. And ultimately private property owners do have rights. And so I think our role will be to see whatever is proposed and to weigh in with the public. But I just want to note that for the record.
Speaker 0: Okay, gentlemen, I really appreciate it. Very creative idea. I'm glad you're talking to the owner. And I know that sometimes you may hear comments in here that sound like you're in a parallel universe, but don't let that discourage you. There's a lot of potential of what you have here, and it's something Mr. and Mr. Long and I have talked about. It's it's the right idea. Hopefully you can make it commercially viable. And the owner who's talking to you. That's great. Thanks again. Congratulations on your win. We have a motion and a second one was already done. It's its best motion. And second, cast your votes members.
Speaker 1: Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Will return to item 14 Global Read.
Speaker 1: Item 14 is communication with the Office Council very soon, along with the recommendation to request city attorney to draft amendment language to the Downtown Dining Entertainment District Ordinance enabling entertainment and activity on rooftop patios.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Lowenthal Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember, as you may recall, my commitment a few months ago to return to you with a change to our downtown dining and entertainment district ordinance once we had the opportunity to discuss rooftop entertainment with stakeholders. This request reflects conversations between my office and police, city staff, residents and owners at 144 Pine Avenue, the Corner Restaurant Group, which happens to own the only rooftop patio in the dining and entertainment district. In addition, staff's requested more explicitness with respect to the sunset clause of these conditions once the Dining and Entertainment District Task Force returns with their own set of recommendations. So I'd like to amend the motion, if I might, to include the following language. This amendment to the ordinance shall sunset upon action by the City Council, either on its own or in response to recommendations made by the Downtown Dining and Entertainment District Task Force. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file a presentation by members of the University of Southern California Lusk Center for the winning entry in the 2013 National Association for Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) Southern California Real Estate Challenge for the Seaport Marina Hotel site at 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_03042014_14-0170 | Speaker 0: Yes, 15 has been been withdrawn. Item 16, luxury item 16.
Speaker 1: This communication with the Office of the City Manager and the Parks and Recreation Marine Department with a recommendation to adopt specifications for architectural and engineering services for the Belmont Plaza Pool Facility.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mayor. Members of the Council tonight we are here to award the contract for architectural services to design the new Belmont Pool. As you recall, in January 13, we had to close the Belmont Pool due to seismic conditions. In February, the council reviewed the options and alternatives and approved the conceptual design for the new pool and asking that we further evaluate the potential for a separate diving well within the indoor pool, and also the feasibility of a movable floor for the indoor pool, which this contract will in fact, in, in fact, look at those two particular issues. In December, we did open the temporary pool, which is up and running and a big success. And now our efforts are directed towards the permanent pool and the design of that permanent pool. So in December, we issued an RFQ and 21 firms submitted proposals. A team consisting of the director of Parks Rec and Marine Public Works, Development Services, City Manager's Office, and our project manager, Dino D'amelio from Anderson PENNER all reviewed the proposals and narrowed it down to five firms that we then interviewed, and the decision was unanimous to select Harlee Ellis Devereaux corporations with Hastings and Cervera. They are an excellent team, extensive experience and we believe will design a facility that we all can be proud of. Given the significance of this particular project and also the award of this contract. We'd like the the firm to give the council a brief presentation on their experience and background. And so I'm going to hand it over. The team would tonight would consist of Peter Devereaux, Brant Miller, Eric Katcher, Paul Graves and Michael Rotondi. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to our team to do a brief presentation and then we'll hand it back to staff.
Speaker 3: Mr. Mayor and City Council, thank you very much for having us here today to talk about our qualifications.
Speaker 0: For the Belmont Pool Project. With me next to me is Eric Kolker with Hastings and Cervera. Paul Graves with.
Speaker 3: Councilman Hunsaker.
Speaker 0: And Michael Rotondi with Photo Architects. I do apologize. Peter Devereaux was stuck.
Speaker 3: In traffic and couldn't make it this evening. Once again, my name is Brant Miller.
Speaker 0: I'm with the architecture firm Harley Ellis Devereaux. We're very excited about this project. A little bit about our firm. We just recently celebrated a 100 year anniversary, which we're very proud of. We are a national firm with over 300 individuals of architects and engineers in offices in.
Speaker 3: Los Angeles, San.
Speaker 0: Francisco, San Diego, Detroit and Chicago. Really focused on a variety of projects.
Speaker 3: And particularly.
Speaker 0: With this team put together with expertize.
Speaker 3: And in aquatic centers.
Speaker 0: We're going to take the next 5 minutes or so and talk about our qualifications, partly because we're running late and want to run after that U.S. group and get my business card to them. That was a fantastic presentation that they did. They provided everybody real quickly. The team organization, I.
Speaker 3: Won't go into the detail.
Speaker 0: The expertize that was put together on this project really was put together based on the requirements of the project itself, with the idea of a competition pool, with the idea of a recreation pool.
Speaker 3: With the iconic.
Speaker 0: Nature of the project. We put together a group of consultants and partners on this team to really meet those requirements for the city.
Speaker 3: The expertize that this team has together in planning and constructed pool and aquatic facilities ranging from recreational and.
Speaker 0: Competition and Olympic venues over the past 25 years has been over a thousand facilities. And so, once.
Speaker 3: Again, the qualifications of this team.
Speaker 0: Were short with the thousand, apparently more than that, but really bringing together a team with what we think is the right qualifications for for the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 5: So we've got about 12 slides to talk about.
Speaker 11: Some of our experiences.
Speaker 3: And then we'll we'll end with.
Speaker 0: Michael Rotunda.
Speaker 3: And some thoughts about the site and some of.
Speaker 0: Opportunities for the project to roll quickly. This is Occidental.
Speaker 3: College. This is in a planning phase right now in fundraising. A 36 meter pool. Really focus on.
Speaker 0: Competition for the university itself. Oaks Christian High School. We developed Olympic sized pool.
Speaker 3: It's 50 meter by 25 meter.
Speaker 0: Really focused more on competition for that particular venue. This particular project on it, would it actually in Michigan, this was a combination of within a single facility, both.
Speaker 3: Recreational and.
Speaker 0: Competition facility and accommodations.
Speaker 8: This is our project at Georgia Tech.
Speaker 5: This was built.
Speaker 8: For the 1996 Olympics, if you recall, in Atlanta. And it is a one of the fastest pools in the nation, the holder of many a world record and American records. From the competition standpoint. It's also referred to as a dotted ice. So it is a 50 meter by 25 yard pool with a separate diving well. One of our other competitions sites is a facility that's hosted National Conference Grand Prix swimming event since its opening. It's Michael Phelps most favorite pool. He swam and is leading into his record Olympic gold medal run in the 2008 Olympics. It's also adopted a configuration. And in the case of the University of Missouri, from the standpoint of recreation use, it gets tremendous community, regional and then of course, student use.
Speaker 5: City of St.
Speaker 8: Peter's. This is a municipal facility that was built for the Olympic Festival and has hosted Olympic trials for swimming and diving. This is a 50 meter pool with a moveable bottom so that it has a full depth for competition but provides great opportunities for recreation because and that's shallow in that that moveable bottom can go from zero down to seven feet. That's also an example of a diving tower that's part of the main pool, and it has some recreation. You can see at the very end of this, it has some slides and some other fun recreation components in the building as well. We also wanted to share with you some of our outdoor facilities. This is a municipal facility, outdoor ranging from zero entry to of course, you can see the slides, vortexes, lazy rivers, a whole component of opportunities for recreation use, including also lap swimming and some competition events as well. The University of Nevada. This is in the this is one of their lap leisure component facilities. And then in the adjacent building, there's actually a 50 meter Olympic sized pool as well. You can see the spa next to the windows really does provide some of that indoor outdoor experience. Denison University is an interesting project because it does have the Olympic 50 meter pool. You can see in the far of the photo and then in the near, as opposed to placing the separate diving. Well, at the end of the 50 meter pool, it's located towards the towards the middle and actually creates like a tier an L-shaped facility. So it's just a different configuration. This Integra Fitness Center is really just an example of the combination of both leisure components and recreation. With lap swimming in the outdoor environment. Southeast Missouri University is really trying to illustrate some of the recreation components that we've worked on on some facilities. Not to say this is what will be here, but it's definitely something that we wanted to share as vast experience, everything from the Olympic venues to university climbing walls in a pool. Again, with Arnold Community Recreation Center, just again, help bringing aquatics into a community is vital for the success of an overall project. Blue Water YMCA. Again, just another example of the indoor aquatic facilities.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Michael Rotondi. I'm an architect and an educator. So I come at projects in a in a in a with a broad overview of how it can serve the community in many, many ways, as well as with a precision of working with my friends here to make a facility that's quite extraordinary, which in the brief it talks about iconic architecture. In my experience, both direct and indirect, through my studies of architecture for many years, an iconic architecture comes from an iconic site.
Speaker 5: This is an extraordinary site. It's a there are sites.
Speaker 3: That have ocean meeting city, but there aren't too many sites that are on an exceptional bay in a wonderful city like Long Beach that has the pool mediating where land meets water and where city meets land and water.
Speaker 5: The the fact that it's a it's an in-between location for a pool makes it a.
Speaker 3: Very exceptional creative challenge, which is makes the project all the more fun.
Speaker 5: The way we're beginning to talk about it beyond preceding function is how to configure the light, how.
Speaker 3: To configure the space and the water in order to configure the communal life. And most of all, the charge that we have is to is to take the vision of the city as expressed through the council, to make a place that is going to attract people from all over the world. Thank you. So we'd like to thank the mayor and the city council for their time.
Speaker 6: So Mayor councilmembers, that concludes our report of this. We're asking that you approve the staff recommendation to award the contract for this team.
Speaker 0: Mr. O'DONNELL.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the presentation. You seem well-qualified to move this project forward, and I am happy tonight that we are moving this project forward. Quick question for city staff. You've heard me say several times throughout this process that we should do everything we can to incentivize the early construction, the expedited construction of this project. Are those concepts or is that concept built into this contract rewarding tonight?
Speaker 6: Yes, we have actually a very aggressive design, a time frame for this. And then what we will be doing when we go out to bid is for the contractor. We're going to do a new methodology for selecting that contractor, something we've never done before to ensure a we have a quality contractor and B, that they're going to deliver this project in a more expeditious way.
Speaker 4: Great. Are there financial incentives?
Speaker 6: We're exploring that possibility at this time.
Speaker 4: But there aren't in tonight the contract or awarding tonight. There is not no what.
Speaker 6: Instead, in essence, what we did was establish a very aggressive timeframe. And in order to accomplish that, we are paying the price, you might say, in order to ensure that we get the plans and all the permitting and everything in place within our timeframe.
Speaker 4: So what's the timeline are we looking at? Why don't you break it down? There's the timeline for the design.
Speaker 6: Yes, there's actually, as you know, we're we've got to prepare conceptual plans and we're going to likely have those done in May, June. Then we will meet with stakeholders to discuss some of the outstanding issues, will come to the city council to make sure we're going in the right direction. And then, of course, we need to prepare the entitlement applications, complete our environmental review, go to the Coastal Commission, go to the Planning Commission, and then ultimately return back to the council so that we anticipate, in essence, doing all of that. I've got the schedule here so that we would likely be going to the Planning Commission in September to get the reviews and approvals. And then shortly after that, we're moving into a design and construction drawings. As you know, our timeframe for getting a pool completed is within about two and a half years. So that's the timeframe that we're looking at to get this project done and approved.
Speaker 4: Great. Well, I would have liked to have seen some financial incentives built into this, because to me, that's the hammer on getting this done. And it can be done. You know, it's it's not unique necessarily. It is probably in the public sector. But again, it's happened in the public sector before. Is there anything we can do to tighten tighten down the timeline between now and September? We've talked about it's going to take four months to drop conceptual write in conceptual. So just that they're just there and they're not any design necessarily any structural design.
Speaker 6: They're just you know, they we need to explore the conditions of the site. There's a lot of background information that needs to be conducted in order for us to determine the kind of building that we can design and the configurations that that site can support. So there's a lot of information that needs to be done as background before we can actually start designing it. So we I can assure you that we have a very aggressive design schedule, that the construction component is where we're going to need to explore the possibilities of incentives, because that's where the area and projects typically bogged down is in that construction phase.
Speaker 4: Correct. Okay. Listen, if there's something we need to do to move this forward a little quicker, the design component, please come back to council and ask us to do it. And I hope that the firm will communicate with you. If there's something we need to do to move this along, they too will share it. And when we get to the construction phase, maybe they have some ideas. Maybe we can look at some things some other entities have done to expedite the construction. But I think we need to do all we can to move this forward and move it forward rapidly and again end up with the best possible product. I know there's a balance there, so thank you.
Speaker 9: They keep concern for over Dylan.
Speaker 11: I have a couple of questions for the design team. Well, I think, as you already know, the council is looking for a world class, iconic facility. So I'm glad you comment on that in your presentation. We're looking for a facility that supports competitive swimming, it supports water polo, it supports community recreational swimming, and it supports an indoor diving component as well. Yeah, the assistant city manager talked about perhaps some conceptual and meeting with these stakeholders in May, June. And I can tell you, as I mentioned, those different things that we have some very eager, interested and active stakeholders. And I guess what I'd like to know is why, from a conceptual perspective, you wouldn't meet with those stakeholders early on in March. Right. Let's get going. Listen to at least what they have to say, what their aspirations and hopes and goals are for the project. And then, you know, a month later, you know, 30 days in April, we to come back and say, hey, based on what you've heard and we've heard from city staff, we've listened to the council, this is kind of where we're headed and make sure that we have a process that's very engaging as we go through this. Because when I hear that it's going to be, you know, May or June before me with stakeholders to talk about a conceptual design. And, you know, I share Councilman O'Donnell's concern about it dragging on. So could you speak to how quickly you could have some of those meetings?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that we.
Speaker 0: Can work with the city schedule.
Speaker 3: And obviously work with staff on developing any type of.
Speaker 0: Expedited schedule in that process and.
Speaker 3: Including.
Speaker 0: The community.
Speaker 3: In that process along the way. And we can work with staff to develop that schedule.
Speaker 11: Okay. So but I mean, specifically, do you see, you know, within the next month meeting with the four or five or six stakeholders representing some of those different groups and, you know, hearing at least what their aspirations are for the pool.
Speaker 0: I think that is absolutely an opportunity for that.
Speaker 11: Okay. And then how much time do you need from the time you hear input from from staff, from council, from stakeholders to say, okay, I've listened to you. Now here's kind of our first draft of what we think this facility is going to look like potentially.
Speaker 0: I think the current schedule has us in a 4 to 6 weeks period where we're.
Speaker 3: Evaluating the multiple options.
Speaker 0: That are on the table. And as you know, it isn't just.
Speaker 3: The single option.
Speaker 0: There's multiple configurations that the current design or the current concept has provided and what the City Council has approved for us to evaluate.
Speaker 11: So when you're talking about the multiple options, you're referring to the ten meter indoor dove. Well, as well as the moveable floor. That is correct. Okay. And I notice that in a couple of the pictures you had, you talked about some diving components and where those indoor ten meter dove facilities. Okay. And you're so your experience is at least in these other facilities, you were able to accommodate that.
Speaker 8: Yes. I mean, and that would be typical of one of the resources that are provided.
Speaker 5: In this type of facility.
Speaker 11: Great. And I think you also mentioned there was at least one facility you designed that did have the moveable floor. Is that correct?
Speaker 8: I mentioned one, actually. There were a couple examples you can't tell.
Speaker 5: From the photographs.
Speaker 11: And how is your experience with that? Fairly positive. I mean, we seen the council. We think that would be a great feature of the Pools app. In your experience as well?
Speaker 5: Yes, it takes.
Speaker 8: A body of water that can be between seven and nine feet deep all the way across and makes it usable for any age group. Because of the depth you can change literally. The platforms can come out of the water, so it goes from zero inches down to all the way down to the bottom. So it gives you tremendous flexibility, which you normally don't get in just.
Speaker 5: A square body of deep.
Speaker 11: Water. And that was our impression as well as as we listened to the needs of a different group and trying to determine how to accommodate as many as possible, if not all the mobile field floor seem to be an ideal capability to try and meet that variety of needs. Okay. And one of the other things is we've, as you know, we've selected Murtha and has done the temporary outdoor pool. So we've kind of picked that technology. How has your experience as a design team working with Murtha? Are you knowledgeable of used in the past? Do you see it continuing to play a role?
Speaker 8: So we've worked on many projects with Murtha, actually on similar renovations where we've taken existing purchased facilities or existing purchased pools and put them in new facilities. We're working on the Omaha facility right now, which utilized the 2008 and two and then 2012 Olympic swimming trial facilities. And that was a Murtha pool that we're now repurposing and utilizing. So as a firm, we've done that quite a few times.
Speaker 11: So I'm unclear. So are you experienced with acquiring the current technology design and using it in new facilities? And is that a vendor that you typically or commonly or occasionally work with?
Speaker 8: We've worked on numerous facilities and projects with Murtha. We're very familiar with the technology. And then utilizing and repurposing is something that we've done in the past and are currently working on now.
Speaker 11: But I guess when you talk about repurpose repurpose purposes, and that's different than your design as you do a designer of facilities. So, you know, I think Murtha's the best technology. I mean, you use it some. Times have not always on occasion. I'm just trying to. Sure. I understand.
Speaker 8: Your. We use Martha in certain applications where it. Murtha is a movable and portable pre-engineered pool. The other alternative is a concrete structure. We've done an approach both the same way. They both have particular benefits, pros and cons with the current Murtha pool that's sitting in the parking lot now, that is a temporary pool put up utilizing the pre-engineered structure. Putting that back in the ground is something that we've done in the past and for this application would work quite well.
Speaker 11: So because that's our expectation, right? And this is not to do we expect that to be disassembled, protect some of material cost and then put it in front of the facility.
Speaker 8: Absolutely. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 11: Great. Well, thank you very much and look forward to work with you. And thanks for joining us.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilman Neal.
Speaker 3: Don't leave, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Appreciate the rendering. Your work looks very impressive, but I do have a question in regards to do you plan over the life of the contract to utilize any.
Speaker 11: Local contractors and.
Speaker 3: Even possibly any minority businesses? Currently we have submitted.
Speaker 0: Our consultants for the team, which I believe does have a certain level of local presence.
Speaker 3: On that.
Speaker 0: Obviously, when this goes to bid, I think that on the construction side, we have great opportunity to look for integrating those type of services into a general contractor.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. We were also with you there. Thank you very much. Not seeing no other comment here. Any public comment?
Speaker 11: Just before we made the motion.
Speaker 9: Do you want to do it now?
Speaker 11: Move the staff recommendation.
Speaker 9: So we have a motion to move the staff recommendation. And there's a second. I will take public comment.
Speaker 10: I am Francis MLA from Harrison. I reside in District one. Vice Mayor Garcia and sitting council member said in the city, what a phenomenal presentation. I was looking at the variety of the polls. It is quite impressive. What's so awesome about the city of Long Beach is they do have an ADA compliance officer and I was looking at this because soon there will be the Paralympics and I don't know if Long Beach has a vision or in the future. I have an opportunity of maybe having the Paralympics at the Belmont pull. So I wanted to bring it to you. You may not be able to address this, but there are persons that use the pool for recreational purposes that are adults and children. They also use of therapy. But amazingly, those persons that train, you know, for the Paralympics. So I don't know if there's different types of things that will be needed for the pool or its built in universal design. But I just wanted to give it to you so that that door is open looked at, and so that opportunity will be there for all people. Thank you very.
Speaker 9: Much. Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 10: Mr. Vice Mayor. Members of the Council. Mayor Foster. My name is Lucy Johnson. I live in the fifth district. And this week you were correct. I am pleased with the. The choice. Thank you very much. I am pleased with the the selection of the architectural and engineering design team, particularly after I did learn that Councilman Hunsicker was part of that and once again involved as they were five years ago. And what we were trying to do this. Back then. Oh, excuse me. I come from the city staff and project manager Dino Amelia for completing their evaluation of these 21 separate proposals in a short period of time. It was encouraging to see that the original timeline is stated in the request for Call of Qualifications was met. Also very much appreciated was the timely posting of the list of proposers and the posting last week of the staff evaluation report on those 21 proposals. I do, however, have a couple of remaining concerns that were reinforced when reading the item before you tonight for approval. I think Dr. Councilmember Geelong has addressed this to some extent or to a great extent, but specifically that language says as required in the February 12th, 2013, council approval. The scope includes comprehensive design services for state of the art, recreational and competitive indoor and outdoor pool and an natatorium facility and provides for the study and feasibility determination of a separate indoor diving well and adjustable pool for system. Debbie McCormick addressed the diving mill issue in just a moment, but we all know that both are feasible, and I think your design team has already talked about that in terms of especially the some of the slides they had that showed a separate diving well, numerous slides and also the removable fourth floor. So the question for the council tonight is whether or not you will actually direct staff and the project managers and design team to incorporate those both into the final design. I thank you all for your support of this important project. The entire aquatics community in the United States is anxiously awaiting the completion of this new world class Belmont facility. As a side note.
Speaker 5: We have a Facebook page Rebuild Belmont.
Speaker 10: Plaza Olympic Pool. As of today, we have 1113 likes on that page. And the latest post, which was regarding an article on Swimswam Wwe.com, which is based out of Austin, Texas, about the selection of Harley Ellis Devereaux that you're looking at tonight, have been asked to approve tonight that post, one post alone had 809 people looking at it as of today. So I hope you can appreciate that this is much looked at not just here locally in Long Beach, but around the country and around the world as well. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Patrick Kelly. I'm with Teamsters Local 952 and Teamsters Joint Council 42. I want to thank all of you for your public service and thank the public for being here on Mardi Gras. It shows a lot of dedication and I hope you all have a good Mardi Gras as you go forward. My question on this project is, and I think that it is, but I want to make sure that it's going to be done under prevailing wages. And if somebody could answer that and also we would ask that you consider a project labor agreement with local hire that will help the building trades people that are out of work . Some of the crafts have 40 or 50% unemployment. And as you know, there's a tremendous amount of unemployment with young people and other people in the neighborhoods here in Long Beach. So thank you again for all of your work and happy Mardi Gras.
Speaker 9: I got some pushback because requested a quick comment from staff on that.
Speaker 6: Yes. Again, this is just the design phase that we're talking about. But for the construction phase, yes, it would be prevailing wage. And we will present to the council the option of using apply for this project also.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hi, I'm Debbie McCormick. I think you met me last year and one other time during the year. I wanted to thank you because the last time I was here, it was a wonderful day. You all made a wonderful decision in voting for this new pool. We really fight for it. I think we helped educate the city about what the needs are in the aquatic community. You heard from the greatest divers in the world, the greatest coaches in the world. And I got a letter from our high performance director of U.S. Diving emphasizing why it's important to have a separate indoor diving. Well, with the platforms, of course. A lot of that has to do with the temperature of the water. A lot of that has to do with having simultaneous events going on at the same time and not being in anybody's way. So that really is really important. The depth of the pool is already there on. I know you're going to have the support of UC Davis. I'm very excited to work with this new team and and express some of my ideas. I think I have a lot of good ideas for the city and the diving world is cheering. Everybody is really paying attention to what's happening. They're all going to be here. I can't wait to help put on a really big show for you for the grand opening. I was at the grand opening of the outdoor pool. It was so exciting to see so many happy people smiling faces. And I can't wait until it's our turn for diving. And I just think it's just all wonderful. I want to thank Gary DeLong and Patrick O'Donnell for doing so much on our behalf. And I just wanted to remind you that you're all invited to a little diving show at the Martin Luther King Pool April 9th. I've invited the city council and the aquatic capital of America, which I now on the board of, and they support a lot of my ideas. We want to show you kind of how the little kids start. And I also want to thank you for supporting us in changing electricity from 122 to 20 so that we could put in a bubble machine. We want to invite you to all put on your Speedos, jump in the bubble. And I just think I really appreciate your support and I'm so excited about this and I want to help as much as I can. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker. We especially want to see Gary in those videos.
Speaker 4: I think you can see him on a screen on Anaheim. Right. Good evening, counsel. My name is Michael Kirkpatrick. I'm a member of the third district and a swimmer at Belmont Plaza. I'm thrilled to see this project moving forward. The one thing I'd like to make sure I get across is that this project should not be rushed, as was evident. This is going to be an icon for Long Beach and I'm thrilled that it's going to go fast. I want to be in that water as soon as I can. And you've got a lot of people in the community who are really interested, as Judy mentioned. The Facebook group has a lot of people who are interested in. I also run a website that talks more about it. But ultimately, we don't want this thing to run over or get too many people, too many competing interests. Please listen to us. Take our input, but take the thoughts of what seems like an incredible architecture team to heart as you move forward the project and don't rush it . Thank you very much. Happy to see the ball coming.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 4: I am Kurt Schneider. And Mr. DeLong had mentioned having the stakeholders meetings with the architects. I think it's a fantastic idea. I'm recently gone through the purchase of the adjoining property with Yankee Doodles, and we're working on the rest of the block. And in doing so, I think it's very important because there's a lot of effect from this project on the adjoining properties. There's going to be a removal, I hear, of the the street in between the pool and the property that I'm involved in. My hope is that when you say stakeholders, it's not just the water polo diving and swimming, but you also have all the other beach activities that we want to activate the speech to its fullest. You don't want to spend $63 million and you have a wonderful pool, but it's only used during swimming season and you want to have everything like bringing in the diving. It would be you'd be very remiss if you had built this without diving. Also, the removal of the street. Again, make sure you have all the stakeholders at the table and take some time to make sure that you make this the greatest swimming center in America. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 5: Well, sounds very good. But Long Beach has a problem of over developing swimming pools available at Jordan High School, Lakewood Park, Jordan High School King Pool. The university could even scheduled in, then a pool was available. And of course the pool that they claim to be a problem with an earthquake, the Belmont the Belmont Pool, all those were available. You chose to build one because of the Belmont pool being a possibility of an earthquake. Well, there are all sorts of risks in life, and that was very minimal. But that was the incentive of moving this pool forward. This new one now. Much has been said about being movable for. Oh, it's very good. But really, is it I mean, the expense involved of that, they mentioned it. It concentrated on that because it was so expensive and an item that should be looked forward to. But what the Olympics doesn't have, the Olympic pools don't have movable floors. Why do we need one? All you have to do is start at the end of the pool, the the shallow end, and proceed to the deeper and one and the end. You don't need a oh, you don't need a livable floor for multiple activities. They don't have all they don't have are having all different activities at the same time. So I think there's a problems here. I applaud the fact that language wants to improve, but millions and millions of dollars is going be spent on the needy and and education and a lot of other things other than over developing that which doesn't need to be developed.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Jessica Payne. I'm the president of the McCormack Divers Booster Club, Council Members, Mayor Design Team. I just want to thank you all so much for what you're doing for the Long Beach Aquatics community. I've been involved with diving since my son started in the year 2000 with McCormick divers. We lived for five years in Australia, where every all the major cities have a major aquatics facility that looks a lot like some of the facilities these gentlemen have designed that have fabulous competitive facilities.
Speaker 10: Sydney has the moveable floor.
Speaker 6: It was thrilling to be there when they were moving the floor for a big event at the same time that they had the water slide going and all of the recreational along with the competitive, it can be done. It can make Long Beach such a destination. The diving and aquatic community around the world are watching this project and waiting with bated breath to see how fabulous it can be. And thank you for supporting us in this.
Speaker 9: Thank you. See no other public comment on it? We do have a motion on the floor and a code call. Please go ahead and vote.
Speaker 1: Motion carries nine votes. Yes.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you. And next item, please. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFQ CM14-020 for architectural and engineering services for the Belmont Plaza Pool Facility Rebuild / Revitalization Project; award the contract to Harley Ellis Devereaux Corporation, of Los Angeles, California (not a MBE, WBE, SBE or Local), in the amount of $7,144,301, plus a 10% contingency of $714,430, for a total amount not to exceed amount of $7,858,731; authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any amendments thereto; and
Increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operation Fund (TF401) in the City Manager Department (CM) by $7,858,731. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_03042014_14-0123 | Speaker 1: Declare an ordinance, and many of them is municipal code relating to electronic cigarets and similar devices read and adopted as read.
Speaker 9: I'm going to turn this over to Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. You know, we've had two council meetings where we have deliberated on this issue. The facts have been entered into the records. Dr. Cushing is here with questions by the council. And I would like to make the motion to move forward to approve the ordinance as written. Thank you very much.
Speaker 9: Okay. There's been a motion any second. Go ahead. See, there's some people from public comment. So, Gordon, if you have a comment, please come forward and identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 5: My name is Dr. Fred.
Speaker 0: Grandy, and I'm a.
Speaker 3: Surgeon at City of Hope who's been treating disease caused by tobacco products.
Speaker 0: For.
Speaker 5: 45 years. I would urge the Council to follow the rule that electronic cigarets have to be treated as tobacco products. They're advertised as a harm reduction device, but it's very dangerous to accept that without proof. One of the previous harm direction harm alleviation devices was the light cigaret. That light cigaret started in the city of Long Beach with with Billie Jean King and the Virginia Slims campaign and resulted in the death of a couple of hundred thousand American women. So that's an example of how that is not a good idea. The second problem with with electronic cigarets is that they're not intended to help people quit smoking. Otherwise, why would they be selling gooey butter cake flavor, snickerdoodle flavor, licorice flavor, juicy butterscotch flavor, candy cane and gummy bear flavors.
Speaker 3: The answer is that they're intended for sale to children.
Speaker 5: They have the potential to undo the good work that's been done in the state of California for the past 30, 30 years, including by the excellent tobacco control people in the city of Long Beach, and create a whole new generation of.
Speaker 3: People at risk for tobacco.
Speaker 5: Products. So please, in your deliberations, please make sure that all regulations treat this product as a tobacco product rather than.
Speaker 3: As a medical device. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Vice Mayor Garcia, city council members in this city. What a controversial issue you have before you. I've been doing some research and I find all kinds of different information. And what I find of interest in an article dated February six, 2014, making me and those she wrote. Tom Bryant, executive director and legal counsel at the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc., stated, quote, We see electronic cigarets as a new product segment for the industry, and if there are regulations, they should be reasonable, workable and acknowledge that e-cigarettes are a very different kind of product than traditional tobacco products like Cigarets. And then Mitchell Zeller, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products on November 19, 2013, stated, quote, Until now, the agency has been sorting out jurisdictional questions Should it be regulated as a tobacco product, drug or a device that this decision remains pending? Now, it's my understanding you don't have to wait for the FDA. Its decision, the state and the cities have the jurisdiction to come forward to write an ordinance. I feel that's an issue that, you know, has to be addressed. And I am not going to say that I don't support the ordinance. I'm not going to say that I do support the ordinance. What I want to say, if you go forward on the ordinance, please keep in mind that if the FDA does come back with their ruling and it's different than what you have in your ordinance that please consider amending what may be in the ordinance. And I know people that have quit smoking. I'm not going to get into all the flavors, but the nicotine level, that's a separate vapor. And you buy it if you want to have a nicotine level. And it comes in different levels. Now, Councilmember Andrews made mention about the youth, and I wholeheartedly believe that we need to look out for the youth. And the e-cigarettes are getting in the hands of the youth. I believe that e-cigarette retail business should be allowed to have vaping within their walls. And I believe that that you have to be responsible and you need to consider the public the effect on the public. And if you want to go forward and say you have to use it in a certain fashion, and so that the rights of the public being espoused, you know, that's in consideration, I approve wholeheartedly on that . But, you know, I feel that if there's too many restrictions for at least the companies, the businesses that sell it can't have the vaping lounges and be able to let people tested products in their walls that people are going to go to online buying. And that's going to be catastrophic for the use. People are going to no longer be going in the stores. They're going to go online. Then they can just get all this and online products. You don't know what sent them. It can be very catastrophic. Their contents. Thank you very much.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: My name's Ken. Attorney. Long Beach. Born and raised. I like to keep this discussion relevant. We're not here to ban e-cigarettes, okay? We're here to discuss regulation of e-cigarettes as a tobacco product and throwing them in the same category. Anyone speaking about children smoking e-cigarettes or drug use or any any other fact or flavor or this. It's all irrelevant because we're not fighting or banning e-cigarettes.
Speaker 5: We.
Speaker 0: The baby company, are not against regulation of e-cigarettes, okay? We are against regulating e-cigarettes as cigarets and wrongfully applying laws that should be definitely treated as two separate entities. Appearance is the only thing that links cigarets to e-cigarettes, just to parents. It is wrong to judge by appearance alone in any situation. Cigaret smoke releases 4800 plus chemicals into the air. These chemicals have been scientifically proven to harm smokers and secondhand smokers justifying their regulations. E-cigarettes release water vapor into the air. There are no scientifically proven studies proving electronic cigarets emit any harmful chemicals to vapors or second hand vapors or into the environment. So science can't prove anything yet. It all comes down to discrimination by appearance alone. And that is wrong. Public is public health is a concern. And thank you all for questioning e-cigarettes. But let's not base our decision on discrimination, false facts. Please don't jump the gun and jump to conclusions and make decisions on lies or misinformation. One point that I'd like to bring up is Long Beach is a beach city. Cigaret butts pollute our streets and get washed into the ocean. And it's a huge problem. And the city spends a lot of money cleaning up beaches and stuff like that. And it is a health risk. E-cigarettes help eliminate that. There are so many things that e-cigarettes help alleviate public health. But the general public, I think, is prematurely jumping judgment of electronic cigaret cigarets without really realizing all the benefits. We are not smokers, we are ex-smokers. We started vaping to better our health and to be less and less insulting to nonsmokers. If this regulation is passed, we ex-smokers will be forced to vape alongside with smokers endangering our health, which defeats the whole purpose of vaping. We smokers are suspect susceptible to relapse, just like recovering addicts being forced to smoke in designated areas with smokers puts us at a vulnerable situation and endangering.
Speaker 9: And thank you for relapse. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Next, be complete.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Vice Mayor and Honorable City Council. My name is Teresa moreno. I'm retired from the city of Long Beach. I have resided in Long Beach for almost 40 years and I reside in the second district. Next month marks the 20th anniversary of the passage of Proposition K by 68% of the voters. Proposition K became Ordinance 8.68 of the municipal code, the no smoking ordinance. We were the strongest smoking ordinance in public places, workplaces and restaurants and bars in the whole United States and for that matter, the world. I was the tobacco education coordinator for the city from 1994 to 2000.
Speaker 10: We were called.
Speaker 6: By cities and counties all over the nation and from countries like Canada, England, Australia and other countries to ask us, how did we do this? We are not number one anymore. And we just received a C from the American Lung Association for some of our our tobacco and our are smoking no smoking ordinance. I'm here in support of the e-cig ordinance. L.A. City just passed theirs today, their e-cig ordinance with a vote of 14 to 0. L.A. has over 8 million persons. We are surrounded by other cities that have passed similar e-cigarette ordinances. This ordinance is not bad for business. We are not saying don't sell e-cigarettes. We just don't want to allow the vaping of them indoors. It's about alignment. Aligning it with our ordinance. Aligning it with what other cities are doing. These e-cigarettes are called.
Speaker 10: Nicotine delivery.
Speaker 6: Devices. If you look up the word nicotine in the dictionary, the first definition is a noun and it is an insecticide. I don't know about you, but I don't want to breathe secondhand vaporized insecticide. Nicotine is a known addictive, highly addictive substance. In fact, former heroin addicts have said that it was harder to quit nicotine than it was to quit heroin. Also, it's been determined that at least ten chemicals identified in e-cigarette aerosol are listed among the 65 carcinogens as carcinogens. The tobacco industry and the opposition will say that it hurts business. If this don't if this doesn't pass. You're going to have a lot of people like myself and others don't want to go into businesses where there will be people vaping. And so we need to we need to understand that while our opponents or the businesses that sell e-cigarettes are saying that they'll lose business.
Speaker 5: Other businesses will lose it.
Speaker 6: For people who don't want to go in. So I say please support it. And thank you so much.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Next speaker.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Mayor and Council. I am Patricia ETIM and I'm a resident of the third district. I have a background in public health and have been involved in many public health initiatives. Currently, I am the governor's appointee to the state tobacco. It's called Track Tobacco, Education and Research Oversight Committee. It's legislatively mandated, and our charge is to create the master plan for tobacco control for California every other year. And the three agencies that report to the body are the State Department of Public Health Tobacco Control Section, the State Department of Education, Office of Statewide School Safety and the University of California, which administers the research in tobacco control. I come actually as a as a resident of Long Beach today, but as a component of the master plan, we are certainly focusing on e-cigarettes and making sure that they are regulated as nicotine delivery devices. You know, the I'll just focus my comments since other people have spoken.
Speaker 3: Just about.
Speaker 6: Many different issues related to e-cigarettes. But the CDC has put out an advisory in a report on the use of e-cigarettes among middle school and high school students. And it is shocking. So this really it is an issue because they are the gateway age for tobacco use. So it is really the office of Statewide School Safety has really requested that all.
Speaker 3: Districts.
Speaker 6: Utilize the letter that they have issued to really have policies in place at their school level and to work with cities and counties to really make sure that e-cigarettes are regulated. The youth are not just using the e-cigarettes for nicotine as well. There are all manner.
Speaker 3: Of.
Speaker 6: Things that are put in the e-cigarettes. So it's really a huge concern. There's a lot of dual use. You can read the CDC report, but there's a lot of dual use among youth so that they aren't just smoking e-cigarettes. They also are smoking.
Speaker 3: Regular.
Speaker 6: Cigarets. And so I will I will leave it there. But UC Irvine, also here, quite close to us, has done quite a bit of research into what is what are the chemicals and other components in e-cigarettes, among them tin and nickel. And, you know, it's not regulated by the FDA. So it's really a hazard and I hope and encourage that you to support the ordinance as written. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name's Melinda Cotton. I live on Park Avenue in Belmont. Sure. And I thank the council for bringing this ordinance this far. And we hope that tonight you will, in fact, pass it. You've heard testimony that I can't match about the problems of e-cigarettes. The doctor spoken to Patti Theresa marino with long experience. So we ask that you pass this ordinance that will both allow people who want to vape to vape in their own homes or in a place where it's safe for them to do so and safe for other people to do so. And then the rest of us can be protected from the second hand vapors and from we know not totally what is in these devices beyond nicotine, a lot of chemicals and everything as well. And also to bring them under our city permit regulations so that we have a better knowledge of what's going on. So thank you. And we encourage you to please support this in tonight. Thank you so much.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Nick Speaker.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Ron Johnson, resident of Third District. And I just want to say, as humans, we tend to ban things that we don't quite understand are even when it's probably beneficial. I believe that the ban on e-cigs is the primary example of banning something that we don't understand. I have a friend named Darren that surely would disagree with the ban. Darren came up in a house with a smoking mom, a smoking dad, and contracted a smoking addiction by the time he was 15 years old. So bad that he would have cigarets behind both ears and one in his mouth. Darren came across electronic cigarets or vaporizers and immediately quit smoking and has in turn backed for over 18 months. The fundamental the fundamental reason that cigarets are banned do not apply to vaporizers. You have two different technologies. You have combustion, you have burning, and then you have battery powered heating. Would you send a Tesla do a smoke test? Probably not. The technology is different. What I just wanted to say was. We shouldn't ignore the study that was done by Drexel University that actually accounted for 9000 people who use vaporizers and concluded that the effects were so un harmful that there was no there was no evidence for it. There is nothing they could even attach it to. So I just want to say not to ban e-cigarettes. To think it through. I feel that we're doing something without even understanding the full benefit.
Speaker 0: I think.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, actually, conservatorships typically want to make a quick clarification.
Speaker 10: Yes. Mr. Perkins, can you clarify that this ordinance does not ban the sale or possession of e-cigarettes?
Speaker 3: That is correct.
Speaker 10: When you make that clear, nobody is banning banning these as devices. You're free to buy them in stores. And and I understand that they would be covered under the lounge act. This if they if they have a lounge like we do with Cigarets and I mean Cigarets. But with.
Speaker 6: Cigars.
Speaker 3: With cigars, it would be that is the same limitations or the same restrictions would.
Speaker 5: Apply.
Speaker 10: But they could do it with inside the store. Correct?
Speaker 3: They cannot do it inside the store. That is.
Speaker 5: Not correct.
Speaker 10: Well, I thought they were going to have the same provisions as the cigar places.
Speaker 3: That is not correct. These are regulated similar to Cigarets. And so we were not asked or we did not carve out an exception for consumption of the product within the store.
Speaker 10: I wasn't aware of that.
Speaker 9: Okay. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Okay. Well, having heard that, I hope you rethink this ordinance so that you do allow. I am. My name is Donna Coats, and I am against the ordinance as it is currently written. First of all, I wanted to address the issue of selling to children. Kids will have the same difficulty buying vape devices as they do now buying cigarets. And the argument that the flavors are meant to appeal to kids is about as ridiculous as saying Wine's called Star Trek. Layer Cake and cherry pie are made to get young kids drinking. I have a basically a thesis here in three pages, and I'm not going to bore you with all statistics. But just briefly, a 2011 study on addiction delivered in Amsterdam showed that 96% of e-cigarette smokers said it helped them to quit smoking. Dr. Joel Natkin, who has testified on tobacco harm reduction strategies across America and has previously worked as a local health director, a state health director and leader of two national public health groups called the E-cigs a tool in tobacco harm reduction. While he was co-chair of the Tobacco Control Taskforce of the American Association of Public Health Physicians, he studied options for reducing tobacco related illness. He concludes that e-cigarettes are currently the most prominent and promising tobacco harm reduction option. In addition, in the Oxford journals Nicotine and Tobacco Research study of second hand exposure to vapors from electronic cigaret. The results show that nicotine resulting from smoking tobacco cigarets was ten times higher than from e-cigarettes. In fact, intoxicant levels, toxic levels from e-cigarettes were 450 times lower than in cigaret smoke. Electronic cigarets contain no tobacco and leave behind no tar. So the main carcinogenic components are not even present to create a problem like research, like cigaret smoke. But mostly I'd like to stress Dr. Michael Segal, a hard charging public health researcher at Boston University, argues that e-cigarettes could be the beginning of the end of smoking in America . He sees them as a disruptive innovation that could make Cigarets obsolete, like the computer did to the typewriter. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Vice mayor and councilman. My name is Pete Flores. I am a co-chair for the Smoke Free Coalition in Long Beach. And I go.
Speaker 4: To every other.
Speaker 3: Coalition meeting L.A., Orange County, San Diego. And I'm a project coordinator for Project Greater Southern Cal. So what I do is that I educate youth. I know that this is an ongoing battle between cigarets and e-cigarettes, vapors and all that. I am not going to bore.
Speaker 4: You with all the formalities about it, but I would just like to say that.
Speaker 3: We we would like the council.
Speaker 4: To think.
Speaker 3: Think thoroughly through it and hopefully make a decision tonight. Hopefully for the best. And I'll be going on a trip to Sacramento in April to go meet the legislators. So I hope that I can bring good news to them. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is James Patterson from the fifth District. I operate a store and I live in that area. First of all, I wanted to thank the mayor's office, the city council, for opening discussion on this topic. Let me preface this by saying We are not against regulation. We are against regulating the electronic cigaret device the same as other tobacco products. I think we're part of the downfall as people keep relating e-cigarette to tobacco. It's a nicotine extract. It's not tobacco. It's not like light cigarets. It's not a perforated filter. You're still going into combustion with light cigarets. That's where the flavors, you know, they're flavored because for the same reason they still eat Lucky Charms. But like, you know, we like the flavors, too. Just to kind of clarify. Like somebody mentioned earlier, there's like 4600 ingredients in the cigaret 4000 when burned. There's four in an e-cigarette and one of them is propylene glycol. It's been approved by the FDA since the 1940s and it's vaporize form for use inside hospitals, restaurants and schools. As a germicidal agent, some safe for human consumption. The next ingredient is vegetable glycerin. They use it in large public events or smoke machines also. So the flavoring typically comes from perfumers. So a lot of it's some of the favorites from flavor houses, some are from perfumery. So it's a lot of it is designed to actually be inhaled. And the nicotine, all the juices start off at zero. Every shop that I know around here carries zero nicotine available. The nicotine that we sell is upon customer request. The effects of nicotine itself is comparable to caffeine. In a study of 20 different juices, they found only one to have any sort of cytotoxicity. And that was a coffee flavor. It was only found in the highest concentration and they actually presumed it was to be linked to the process of processing coffee beans themselves. So and to compare even at that level, they found that the concentrate pulled from cigaret smoke was 795% higher at the cytotoxic levels. So as you can see, the e-cig is comprised of completely different ingredients than the traditional cigaret and that's that should be regulated separately. We believe regulation should grow with the industry and welcome open discussion with how they should move forward. Thank you again for your time.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Good evening, vice mayor and council members. I'm Jeff Miller. I live in Long Beach. I wanted to say a little bit about the comparison here that people have been making. Proponents of these devices are saying they're not cigarets, so we shouldn't treat them like that. Well, please remember, cigarets have been regulated for a long time because of the fact that they are dangerous. They contain nicotine and other harmful substances. So they've been regulated. These devices, they want you to say vaporizers, but it's there. E-cigarettes is the other term. They also contain nicotine and other dangerous substances. Now, some of the people have made the comparison that the cigarets contain ten times more dangerous substances or 400 times more. But they they aren't saying because they can't say that these other devices have zero danger. They still contain nicotine. If the customer asks for it, they still contain other harmful substances. And I don't want to be exposed to that in aerosol form or in a burned form. Either way, we don't need to do that. So these regulations make a lot of sense and I urge you to support this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, this is. Is there anybody else going to chew up the speaker macchiatos speaking off here? If you're going to speak, please queue up and then we're going to end this and the speaker's list. Okay. Please.
Speaker 5: Hello.
Speaker 4: How you doing?
Speaker 3: My name is Richard Gardenhire, and recently I was eaten outside of a restaurant and a car drove past, and I smelled the exhaust. So I know for a fact the exhaust is way more than the vaporize that you can. I'm actually a testimony as far as smoking cigarets. I smoked for about 5 to 7 years and I went to a e-cig not to quit, but more of a more a better alternative way to do it as healthy. Because I do play basketball and cigarets are not good. So when I went.
Speaker 4: I actually got a e-cig was it actually.
Speaker 3: Looked like this. Now this right here is 0% basically meaning I went and I got 6% milligrams and end up with 0%. So I am a testimony as far as smoking to not smoking. So with this deal is by me being around my parents, even though they did smoke, I had an alternative to do something other than grab the cigaret and puff because I have something else. So as far as the e-cig. It is helping in actually how I got turned on as I was walking into a Starbucks and I seen an older lady. So I asked, I was like, What is that? And before that I said.
Speaker 10: Actually, how old are you? And she was like, Oh, I'm 85.
Speaker 3: And she had it easy. So that's how I realized that it's a good thing.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Hi. Good evening. My name is Gina Celso. I am here representing Philippine USA. I do work at a local e-cigarette shop. So if the Long Beach Tobacco Ordinance is amended to include e-cigarettes and vaping, it would be devastating to our business for several reasons. One, folks who smoke tobacco cigarets and who are trying to quit or convert to vaping are most times unfamiliar with e-cigarettes and vaping. Our store and the vast majority of other vape shops allow customers to sample e-liquids and different devices that are used to vape. The proposed ordinance would prohibit this and therefore would be detrimental to our business. Secondly, a vape shop is a place where people who vape can congregate to use their own devices with other enthusiasts, as well as sample the variety of new flavors that are being continually introduced. Again, if the ordinance passes with the current language, this practice would not be allowed. In one fell swoop, the current vaping culture in Long Beach would be seriously jeopardized by the passage of this ordinance. Criminalizing e-cigarettes and vaping in light of empirical scientific evidence that it is a far safer alternative to tobacco is exactly what is not needed in Long Beach. Some would even be glad to argue that the vaping industry was not founded by Big Tobacco. It even threatens tobacco sales and future tobacco business. Finally, this is a trending technology which allows people to wean off the habit of smoking tobacco. Meanwhile, Long Beach has incorrectly categorized vaping and e-cigarettes into the same unhealthy category as smoking tobacco.
Speaker 6: This forces e-cigarette users who.
Speaker 10: Are trying to quit into the same unhealthy spaces as traditional cigaret smokers. It is a shame many other states are taking the necessary time to consider a more enlightened approach and creating ordinances in a positive and objective manner by looking for intelligent solutions. One example recently the state of Wisconsin has excluded e-cigs and vaping from their clean air and anti-tobacco legislation. I have here 692 signatures on a petition created by people in Long Beach who are really hoping that we won't classify e-cigarettes as a tobacco product.
Speaker 9: Thank you. If you want to give me the petition, you're able you're welcome to to the city clerk. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: I am Rodney Johnson, owner of Beat City Vapers, which is in District four, actually live in Signal Hill. I'm actually actually two thoughts right out of my mouth, but I would like to say that we as vape store owners, we all work together. We understand that ordinances, ordinances are important. Just like the gentleman back here said, we're not completely against them. But as she said, you know, not allowing them in the stores would be really bad for business. I can't even begin to go into detail on how how much better I feel after smoking cigarets for 25 years and I'm only 43. And the amount of praise that we seem to get from customers that come in, you know, every single day happy that they stop cigarets we have a little area on the wall where we have packs of cigarets empty packs. Minder Where we pinned them to the wall. People sign their names and the date that they quit. I'm extremely happy about it. So I'm completely against the ordinance being put through as is. If it is, you know, put through. I would ask that you guys at least exempt the vape stores just like Los Angeles did, so that we can at least continue business as usual and then we can all work together to fix this later. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: My name is Nels Hansen. I live in Long Beach. I also own a e-cig store lounge here in Long Beach. I'd like to say out of the hundreds and hundreds of people that come into my store every month that are struggling to quit smoking and struggling for a better lifestyle and to be healthier, to to think that we are going to make it harder for those people that want to quit smoking. Cigarets Which is the goal here, is to quit smoking. Cigarets. I don't want to fight for the rest of my life. I'm trying to cut down on cigaret smoking. The levels of difference of different the juices. We teach people every day when they walk in how to cut themselves down, how to work down to that 0% nicotine to be able to quit. You know, I just heard just now that the banning of the regulation was going to stop us from letting people experience in trying.
Speaker 3: These these.
Speaker 4: Flavors in the store, which, mind you, in my store, it's 0% nicotine. So all the flavor trials, everything that's going on in my store has zero nicotine, unless they brought that in themselves. It's it's outrageous. It's it's unbelievable to think that. We are going to put all these people that are trying to get away from the cigarets right next to him outside smoking. That is crazy talk. I mean, everybody's going to quit. They're going to go right back to smoking. And I guarantee you, I promise you, in the outrun and out in the in the long run here, we are going to see that e-cigarettes.
Speaker 5: Might save all of us.
Speaker 4: Who are potentially in risk of being around the secondhand smoke and smoking cigarets. And that's really all I have to say. I really hope you guys could just take a little more time.
Speaker 3: On this and really do a little bit more research.
Speaker 4: I hear a lot of people talking about all the dangerous.
Speaker 3: Chemicals they've named nothing but nicotine and that nothing.
Speaker 4: Not one has ever been caused has ever been brought up. Vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol and the food flavoring extracts. That's all that's in these things. Not one person has brought up any dangerous chemical besides nicotine. Which I. It's just wrong. There's none of the facts here for you guys to ban this or regulate it like this. It's not fair. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: All right. My name is Matt Jo-Jo in the second district. I just think the way that the thing this ordinance is written as is is not right. Taking vaping away from being able to do it inside shops not only hurts the shops, but it hurts all the vendors that sell there, all the juice companies, the you know , the people that actually manufacture these e-cigarettes, all these people are going to be hurting because they won't be able to try the products. They won't be able to try the flavors that are being offered. Why not leave it to the discretion of the owners? You know, I know Carson has there been they let that go and they're letting it still be. You're able to still vape inside their vape shops to be able to try all the flavors and products that they have. I mean, I see a lot of people when they're complaining, they're talking about, you know, I don't want this smoke or vapor in my face. And a lot of it is it's such a new product that it it needs etiquette still. I mean, like when you're going bowling, you know, and you're getting ready to bowl and this guy just throws the ball next to you, you know, you get all mad because you can't you know, you can't set yourself up. But it's such a new thing that it just needs etiquette, you know, like it shouldn't be in in movie theaters or restaurants. But at that point, you know, leave it to the discretion of the owner. I mean, that's pretty much all I had to say.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, sir. Good evening. My name is Michael Schacht, image owner, operator of E-Cig City. And I live in too and operate my business out of a district. And everybody has said everything I've already said here at city council and what we want to get across. I opened my doors on November 16th and I now have six people working for me who are unemployed. Before they came to my shop and found a job. The electronic cigaret industry is set to employ another 100,000 people. Something to consider. Something else it considers. Have you guys been to any of these shops? They took vacant shops and made them look beautiful. And I will say that my shop, it looks pretty good. Do we have any statistics about what kind of business was was done in the city of Long Beach when Victoria Toll happened? People came from all over the place to be together with other enthusiasts, other people that enjoy e-cigarettes vaporizers. And if anything else that we are small business owners trying to make it and that being able to vape in our shops, it's the blood of our business, being able for the consumers to taste what they're going to get . You don't trade on a T-shirt after you leave Ross or Nordstrom's. You try them in the store. And one more thing. If you're going to do anything, follow suit like L.A. City Council did and make an amendment to this current legislation and allow us to sample our product endorse. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. What kind of unclosed public testimony are going to take it behind the rail? There is a motion on the floor as well. Councilmember Lipski.
Speaker 10: I'd like to ask Mr. Parkin, is there a possibility that there could be a carve out, just as you do for cigar? I know you said you're treating him like a cigaret, but we allow cigar bars. I voted against it. We allow cigar bars in this town. And I know the concern is about the age so that if they did check I.D. and that that would be a requirement, they check I.D., but that they in the shop could allow what they're asking for, which is a sampling.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor members of the council I think you're referring to we do allow or have.
Speaker 8: Smoking lounges which are defined as cigar.
Speaker 3: Lounges, hookah lounges or tobacco clubs. Those currently exist and are allowed under the ordinance. The ordinance that, as it is before you tonight, does not allow for sampling of the product within the store. The your question is, could the ordinance be amended to carve that out or to allow that? The answer is yes. We could not do that tonight. What we would have to do is take the ordinance back, redraft the ordinance, and bring it back to the council for first reading and have then a second reading after that, because this would be a material change to the ordinance as presented to council tonight. And in order to give the public an opportunity to weigh.
Speaker 8: In on this material.
Speaker 3: Change, you have to go back to first reading.
Speaker 10: With and but also could be and there are very strict provisions that it would have to be checked before they allow the sampling of the product.
Speaker 3: Well, we haven't drafted or we haven't written the exemption, but certainly that could be included in an exemption if there was a carve out asked for by the council.
Speaker 10: Well, because of the rest of the ordinance, Mr. Perkin assumes that these are similar to Cigarets. Then my understanding would be they would have to follow the law in terms of you can't sell that.
Speaker 3: That's correct. It's prohibited sales to under the age of 18. That's correct. Okay. Currently. Okay.
Speaker 9: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And I do have a couple of questions for the city attorney as well. I noticed in this ordinance that in the terminology used by the industry folks, vaping is not necessarily defined here. Is there a specific reason as to why that is the case?
Speaker 5: Most members of the Council we defined.
Speaker 3: Electronic cigarets to mean an electronic and or battery operated device, the use of which may resemble smoking, which can be used to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances. It includes such devices and manufactured distributed. It goes on and on. So it would include the vaping, but it's a very broad definition.
Speaker 4: I think it is a very broad definition. And I think the the what I'm hearing is the real, I guess, rub here is the fact that, number one, these these things are being marketed as electronic cigarets, which I think is counter to the the the industry argument because, you know, they shouldn't be called cigaret electronic cigarets if they don't want to be treated or viewed as cigarets. But at the same time, they are also vapor and not smoke. And I think there needs to be a distinction or some sort of definition to to distinguish the difference between vapor and smoke. You know, and I'm not seeing.
Speaker 3: The councilman or I believe that our current definition was drafted broad enough to cover all electronic smoking and vaping devices, regardless of whether or not they're used to deliver nicotine or other substances. That was the direction that we were asked to prepare on the ordinance. So I believe as written, it is a very broad definition that we believe and we've looked at other cities on how they find it. It captures the vaping activity and and then regulates it as it would as a tobacco product. And that's what we've been asked to craft. And that's what's before you this evening. Well, we could if you'd like. I mean, if there's a direction, we could further define it to to make it clear that vaping is included in the regulation. If that was your desire.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm not an attorney, but it just seems to me that to follow up on Councilmember Schiff's key question, and I think the I know the question was raised for me as well, if if we were to allow or somehow move forward with allowing this these vaping devices to be smoked inside of lounges, we're going to have to somehow distinguish the difference to be able to do that and not have them fall under a cigar lounge ordinance or a or as is. So to me, it just seems that would be in our best interests to have that more defined. And and I like to just command out Councilmember Andrews for bringing this issue forward. I think it is it's it's something that needs to be regulated that we don't know enough about this this product. The fact that, you know, he works on a on a school campus and has seen these devices in the possession of young people who don't know exactly what they're doing. And we don't know what they're doing with these things. So to to to set an ordinance that that prohibits these from from these devices, from being in the possession of kids or being sold to kids. And then preventing the secondhand exposure is, is what I'd like to see done here. But at the same time, I don't want to see us being harmful to a business. And I do think that there is some some merit to the fact that people are getting off of cigarets. And and there's probably more this is more probably more healthy for them and the smoking and the nicotine involved in that. I'm going to reserve my comments and hear from the rest of my colleagues.
Speaker 9: A Council membership scheme.
Speaker 10: Mr. Parkin is correct that the L.A. City Council put in place the regulations we're talking about classifying cigarets. However, they did allow the the sampling of product in what they called labeling lounges, provided the.
Speaker 3: Vice mayor.
Speaker 8: Remembers the council. I'm aware that the city of Los Angeles, I.
Speaker 3: Believe, today adopted an ordinance, but I have not read that order.
Speaker 10: That's what the L.A. Times said. It said that they.
Speaker 5: I believe that's accurate, but I haven't read the ordinance.
Speaker 10: So I would like to if I can make a motion that, well, how can we do this? Because there's a second reading of the ordinance. I know that we can direct him to go back to the first.
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 3: You can make a motion to amend this ordinance at this time, and we would it's a material change to the ordinance. So we would go back.
Speaker 8: And if the motion was.
Speaker 3: Successful, we would recraft the ordinance for consideration by the council at a future date.
Speaker 10: Well, I'd like to make the motion that we do similar to what the city of Los Angeles.
Speaker 3: This would be a substitute motion. There is a motion on the floor.
Speaker 10: I don't know if he wants it.
Speaker 9: Do you want to first ask if Mr. Andrews wants to accept that before we do a substitute as a as a friendly amendment?
Speaker 2: You know, really only thing that really kind of bothers me about this whole situation is because, you know, we've taken two weeks on this. You know, we can have an up or down vote either way. You guys want to do it. But I just think now is the time for us to either make a decision or not make a decision. And my decision is to continue to go along with the ordinance it's already written.
Speaker 10: Well, I'll make a substitute. I'm making a substitute motion.
Speaker 9: Okay. So there's a there's a substitute motion and one of we council worships you if you want to go ahead and read the substitute.
Speaker 10: The substitute would be that we would direct the city attorney to come back, keeping all the ordinance in place, with the exception, as in the city of Los Angeles, to allow the use in vaping lounges provided that it is checked and that the users are of sufficient age to do that.
Speaker 9: I mean, we've got pressure on the city attorney who wants to cue and they're going to go back to the Q and get Mr. Andrews and Mr. Adams, Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 3: On the substitute motion is the exception. And I'll obviously we'll look at the Los Angeles ordinance, but does that allow the sampling of products within the store that contain nicotine?
Speaker 10: I'm I'm not going to craft it on the floor. I would leave it to you.
Speaker 3: To is it your desire to have it allow for nicotine or not? I'm not sure what it is that you're asking us to craft.
Speaker 10: I don't believe that they are allowing nicotine, but I may be incorrect.
Speaker 9: Jerry.
Speaker 4: Hold on here.
Speaker 9: We're. Give us. Give us just that. 10 seconds to an audience.
Speaker 4: We don't even know what it says.
Speaker 9: Okay, so let me actually. You don't know if this is done for 1/2. Actually, the jury actually still has the floor. What just happened now is Councilmember Andrews is going to accept that as a friendly amendment. Okay. So that is the with only councilman shift gears pulled her substitute from the floor and we now have a motion on the floor, from what I understand, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a motion on the floor to essentially adopt the ordinance we have in front of us with with the carve out that you would be you would be able to have within the stores have vaping with a 18 and over provision that I get that correct. Mr. CITY.
Speaker 5: That's.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 8: But I guess my my question still is, are you allowing the testing of vaping with nicotine.
Speaker 3: Or without nicotine or both?
Speaker 10: I would I would say without nicotine.
Speaker 8: I'm just asking so I can come back.
Speaker 3: And get you what you'd like.
Speaker 10: Because obviously, if you utilize nicotine that they get, then it goes back to the classification of a cigaret. Okay. And that's that's I'm just just saying that. So I would say without nicotine.
Speaker 9: Okay. So that's the motion that would have been accepted by Councilmember Andrews. I do have a speaker's list, so why don't we get through some of these? Did you have a comment first, Mr. Andrews?
Speaker 2: This should be. I want everybody back next week.
Speaker 9: Okay. And Mr.. Mr. Andrews would want that want this brought back next week. Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 3: We can do that. We can bring it back for first reading next week.
Speaker 9: So I think he wants it to be on the.
Speaker 8: Agenda for coming out on Friday.
Speaker 9: So he would want it on consecutive week. So there's no one week after the other. Is that correct, Liz? Okay.
Speaker 3: It'd be based on the council schedule. Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. Councilman O'Donnell?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Why don't we go over the motion and let's not reference Los Angeles? That's all we've been told is they did something today and we don't have any evidence of what they did. So let's let's decide what we want to do here tonight. Could I have a reiteration of the motion, please?
Speaker 9: Mr. City? Attorney.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor, members of the Council, my understanding is that tonight it's recommended that the city attorney amend the previously considered ordinance to create an exception of sampling of the product and those only those products without nicotine within the stores, and that the remainder of the motion would remain as written.
Speaker 4: Okay. And Mr. Andrews, you're okay with that? Yes.
Speaker 3: You are.
Speaker 2: Okay. Definitely.
Speaker 9: Okay. JOHNSON Bravo.
Speaker 7: Anthony Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I am wondering if staff can let me know how many of these establishments do we have currently in the city? Do we know?
Speaker 9: Do we have a report from staff on this?
Speaker 8: We'll see if Dr. Kirshner knows. As Mayor and council, to my understanding. And of course, these businesses are opening up regularly. But the last count there were at least.
Speaker 3: 18.
Speaker 11: Vape shops within the city of Long Beach. At the last reading.
Speaker 9: It was okay. Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I'm wondering from the city attorney, in terms of enforcement of this newly amended motion, how would we enforce that other than other than incurring additional costs from our health department staff? And I see them. Mr. Kushner and Dr. Kushner can attest to that.
Speaker 3: Vice Premier Members of the Council. Councilmember Lowenthal. You're correct. This will create.
Speaker 8: An enforcement issue.
Speaker 3: Because in just observing a product being sampled, we will not know whether there's nicotine in that product or not. So from a practical standpoint, it's going to create, I believe, an enforcement issue for the council. We would have to rely on the operators to for their compliance and I guess, testing of that product at some point.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. I just want to caution all of us. I it's while well-intentioned, I do think it sets up a challenge when it comes to enforcement and projecting that we aim to do something, but not really being able to do it, I think is problematic and not really the best direction for us to take if we're acknowledging that we're not able to really enforce it without throwing resources at it. And I don't know that we've committed here to throw resources at it.
Speaker 9: Thank you. To go back to Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 2: You know, I.
Speaker 5: Can't.
Speaker 2: I hear you totally on that because of the fact that we I don't see us having that form of resources at this point, because if it's 18, it could be way more. It could be much more than that. And trying to have the resources to be able to enforce those. You know, I think it's going to be very, very hard to do. And I just.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: You know, I think this is going to be something that we're really going to have to take some more time on this because I just don't see us getting through this. I but I want to do it. And I think we want to do it right. I just want to come back. What I don't want to have to hear here are these individuals, you know, the people who got up and gave their you know, but I think that we have a doctor over here. We're not doctors. We're just giving our opinions. And when a doctor tells you certain things and I hate to come back and at the end says, Well, look, I told you so, you guys, this is a very important issue. And we talk about vaping. What do we know? Okay, what is vaping? We know what smoking is. We wouldn't know what nicotine as we know tobacco is. But this is a situation I don't think we should get ourselves caught in saying, oh, okay, because the public says, oh, this is that and about business, we're going to have to do it. I think we have to do it right and only way to do it right. I think we're going to have to listen to what the professional people are talking about and the doctors at attorneys based things. I just think we have to kind of take more time, look at what we're going to do here. And and if we do, we just have to do it and do it right. And that's the only way I think we're going to do it is get more information from this. So I don't know what we are at this point.
Speaker 9: So I think I think where we are right now is we do have we do have a motion on the floor. I have two other speakers. So let me get to these speakers and then count and then we'll go back. Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 4: So the the vape shops would be the number of vape shops along which would be uncapped. Right. Yet we've capped cigar lounges.
Speaker 9: Mr.. Mr.. West.
Speaker 4: You're, you were adamant that we cap the number of those. Right. So I'm wondering why tonight we're now going to see these uncapped.
Speaker 3: There's nothing in the world this evening, right? I get it.
Speaker 9: I got some Boston.
Speaker 4: Your first time. I'd like to. I think we've had a good, good discussion here. This is this issue has been before us for at least a couple of weeks now. I think we are all a little bit more informed about the issue than when we first started. This is one of those evolving issues that we don't necessarily know all the answers to. And I think that's pretty clear. I think Mr. Andrews or Councilmember Andrews was right on point in his assessment, but I think the meat of the ordinance is still intact. I mean, this this provision prevents vaping in public places. It keeps it keeps vaporizing devices and it prohibits the sale of vaporizing devices to to children and underage. I mean, we I think we're accomplishing most of what we're setting out to do by allowing these vaporizing devices to be used inside of the places where they're sold. I don't think that we are doing anything to harm public health because the individuals that are in there are have made the individual choice to use vapor in vaping devices. And so there's no there's no secondhand exposure. There's no anybody that that is going to go inside of one of these these establishments knows exactly what they're going in there for. And so, like I said, I think the meat of your ordinance is is is intact. I think you're right. We do need to take some time. And it looks like we're going to do that, hopefully, if we support this amendment this evening to take a little bit more time to get it right. And so I commend you for for bringing this forth. And I think a lot of it is going to be better for it.
Speaker 9: You have a couple more speakers. Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 7: Actually, I can wait until Councilmember Andrew speaks.
Speaker 9: To Councilor Lipski.
Speaker 10: You know, I understand we're all concerned about enforcement, but, you know, it is illegal to sell cigarets to minors. It happens all the time in Long Beach. It's not right. We don't enforce that to the fullest. In fact, the report just came out that we're a little bit short of how we go out and enforce on that . So recognizing there's difficulties in enforcement for everything. My concern is that we do actually. Mr. Ralston, I think you just are taking it very well. I just think that this gives an opportunity to regulate where we need to, but to acknowledge that this is a different type of product and that we don't want to take adults from being able to have their business and do it in a responsive, wise, responsible way, particularly if they do it for anyone over 18.
Speaker 9: Councilmember Andrews You.
Speaker 2: Know, I think actually kind of going through this tonight and listening to the, you know, the doctor on this, I'm going to reject the friendly motion. I'm going to go back to the original motion and and just leave it at that because it's the way I came in with and this is the way I'm going to deal with it. And we can vote either up or down on it and let it be like that. And that's the way I'm going to deal with it.
Speaker 9: Okay. So there the friendly was not accepted. So we're back to the original motion and your substitute was withdrawn. So what it was. So that's where we are right now. So, Councilman Lowenthal.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And I wanted to thank Councilmember Andrews for reverting back to the original motion. I certainly support that. I think the difference initially we had this conversation about cigar lounges. The difference is there is a limit to the number of these lounges, and that could change at any time with the new council, certainly . But for now there is a limit, whereas with these establishments there is not. And I appreciate if anyone is able to quit smoking as a result of it. I think that does happen. But if the intent is to quit smoking, I don't know that sampling is necessary. That's a conviction that someone has is to quit smoking. And I don't know that they require a sample to do that. That's a personal conviction. It's a health oriented conviction. Therefore, it's I'm not convinced that samples are necessary to promote that. And so I all in support of anyone attempting to quit smoking through whatever methodology. But certainly I am in support of this item. And I thank Mr. Andrews, Councilmember Anders, for bringing this forward.
Speaker 9: Okay. There no other motion on the floor. So we have the main motion. And the main motion just to repeat it is to approve on a second reading the the approval on the second reading the ordinance that's in front of us was presented. Correct. Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 3: That's the motion on the floor at this.
Speaker 9: Time. Okay. I have one more counts in Boston.
Speaker 4: Well, I like to offer a substitute motion, and that will go back to the original. The amendment. I'd like to have that at least voted on. And that would be to allow for. Can you read me what that original. The original.
Speaker 8: Substitute motion as made.
Speaker 3: By council memberships key was to adopt the to direct the city attorney to amend the ordinance before you this evening and bring it back for first reading next week with the ordinance in a to create an exception for the testing of product within the stores with testing within stores of the products, without nicotine with an ID check
Speaker 9: . Wound care. There's been a motion and a second. Councilman Lowenthal.
Speaker 7: That's okay. I'd just like to urge my colleagues to vote no on that substitute. Substitute?
Speaker 9: Cancel Boston.
Speaker 4: And then I just want to just go back to the the inconsistency of this council, because we talk about this enforcement issue, and it was the same same argument was made regarding another issue, fireworks just a few weeks ago in terms of the lack of enforcement over something that we can't deal with. And so this is the same same issue. When we deal with the nicotine issue, we're creating an enforcement issue. And you guys articulated that very well. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Speaker 9: Okay. We're about to get to a very last comment that will go to a vote, just as a reminder to everyone that like every ordinance that we pass, there's always information that's coming in and all ordinances can be changed or adapted as we move forward. And so on. Any given Tuesday ordinances can be can be moved forward. So we have the substitute motion on the floor, which is by Councilmember Austin, and then then we'll take a vote on that item first.
Speaker 1: Motion fails. Four votes to no. Five votes no.
Speaker 9: Main motion, please.
Speaker 1: It's the second. Just a minute, please. Sorry about that. Okay.
Speaker 9: Main motion in motion, please.
Speaker 1: Please cast your vote.
Speaker 3: Larry, could you check that vote again, please?
Speaker 1: These were councilman chips key.
Speaker 9: I think you're looking at the wrong screen.
Speaker 4: Steve.
Speaker 7: That Garcia's on the bottom.
Speaker 9: Councilmember asked that they change that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Mayor and Councilmember Neal.
Speaker 9: Oh, no, no, no. You're fine.
Speaker 1: Yes. He voted yes.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 9: Okay. We're on the main motion right now.
Speaker 1: Please cast your vote. It's easier. Passage nine vote.
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 9: Motion carries. Next item, please.
Speaker 1: We are done and we're not. I'm sorry. New business. Sorry about that. Sorry about.
Speaker 0: That. Not your new.
Speaker 1: Business. That's right. Item 23 is a report from the Office of Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell, Councilwoman Geri Sheepskin Councilmember Stephen Neil with a recommendation to request city manager to prepare a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1839, also known as the California Film and Television Job Retention and Promotion Act. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapters 5.81 and 8.68, relating to electronic cigarettes and similar devices, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_03042014_14-0194 | Speaker 1: Business. That's right. Item 23 is a report from the Office of Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell, Councilwoman Geri Sheepskin Councilmember Stephen Neil with a recommendation to request city manager to prepare a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1839, also known as the California Film and Television Job Retention and Promotion Act.
Speaker 11: It's on the calendar.
Speaker 9: Joining us over to Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I take council I ask you to weigh in in support of AB 1839. That's the California Film and Television Job Retention and Promotion Act. Since the late 1990s, film production has been lured from California to other states. Louisiana being a key state that has been stealing our our jobs, our film production. In 2009, the state legislature passed the California Film and Television Tax Credit Program to promote film production and create and retain jobs in California. Tonight, we ask that you support a rebooting and revamping of that effort by supporting AB 1839. California's current incentive program is one of the smaller programs nationally, and expanding it will allow for more jobs and tax revenue to be created in California and actually in Long Beach, because we are a very film friendly city and consider it our job to act as a partner with our region to keep the film industry in California, tax revenue generated from filming helps to pay for teachers, police officers and infrastructure throughout the state. So Council, I'll make a motion that we weigh in in support of AB 1839 to keep quality jobs in California.
Speaker 10: So second.
Speaker 9: There's been a motion and a second, any public comment on the item, please?
Speaker 5: Patrick Kelly, Teamsters Local 952 Joint Council 42. We strongly urge support of this. I think most of you saw the article in the L.A. Times the other day that 16,000 jobs have been lost in California alone over the last several years. New York State is providing between 400 and $500 million in film credits to basically raid California. So whatever you can do to encourage and keep film production here is great. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Councilmember Neill, did you have a comment? Okay. There's a motion on the floor and the other public comment. Who made the second councilman. Okay, great. All right, so let's go and take a vote.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Andrews, please. Councilor Dylan. Motion carry symbol? Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. I think those are last item. So we're going to go ahead and move on to new business. Kathryn Brosnan No. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to prepare a letter in support of Assembly Bill 1839 (Gatto/Bocanegra) also known as the California Film and Television Job Retention and Promotion Act. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02182014_14-0145 | Speaker 1: Item 22 is a report from the police department with the recommendation of receiving for the application of Tiano for a person to person and premise to premise transfer of an original I'm sorry of an ABC license at 5716 East Second Street with conditions in District three.
Speaker 6: Similar with conditions.
Speaker 0: I need a second, second, second and Ms.. Frick, any comment? All right. A any public comment on item 22, please convoke.
Speaker 4: Name is Larry Goodhue. Clark as the address I believe this item and there's another one like it on the agenda should be held over should it be held over until the issue that will be coming before the council next week, within the next couple of weeks, and that will be dealt with by the parking of the armature of parking commission on this week relative to whether or not to raise yet another house to make room for liquor patrons is what it boils down to. So I would suggest that the wise thing to do is to hold this off. Since the possession of the Belmont Shore Parking Association is they don't have enough parking and they're going to have to now tear down this house that you approved doing in a private session without letting the public know all the details.
Speaker 6: This restaurant in Naples.
Speaker 4: Still the same concept, still the same time. Okay. All right. In the area. All right. Two, hop, skip and a jump from it until the parking is impacted. It makes no sense to do that. So let's instead of doing it, that's how we got in the position we are now. You don't take a larger picture to hold it off. The barn's not on fire. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other comment? I am 22. Senior members. We have motion to second guess the votes. And I'm 22.
Speaker 1: Motion carries nine votes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. God, I am 15. | ABC License | Recommendation to receive and file the application of Chianina Steakhouse LLC, dba Chianina, for a person-to-person and premise-to-premise transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 5716 East 2nd Street, with conditions. (District 3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02182014_14-0138 | Speaker 1: I am 15. Excommunication from the Office of the City Manager Parks at Parks and the Parks Recreation Department with the recommendation to authorize city manager to proceed with the design and building phase of the proposed pedestrian bike path proposal and consider categorical exemption 12 dash zero four for this is in districts two and three.
Speaker 0: Ms..
Speaker 4: Frick Mr. Mayor, Council Members. Before I turn it over.
Speaker 8: To our assistant city.
Speaker 4: Manager, I just want to highlight that.
Speaker 8: The city has been working for years to address conflicts on our beach bike path. Those conflicts exist between runners and joggers versus cyclists and rollerblades. We've been reaching out for the past couple of years to the high school track. Coaches are running clubs are walking clubs, the Long Beach Marathon Group, cycling clubs and Beach Neighborhood Associations.
Speaker 4: Tonight, we're pleased to present a plan that was vetted and approved.
Speaker 8: By both the California Coastal Commission members and their staff. This will ultimately allow us to provide more access and availability to our city beaches. The Long Beach City Council has adopted the moniker of healthy and living a healthy and livable community for our city. We promote healthy choices in both nutrition and exercises, exercise and mobility. We have a huge aquatics community. We're billed as the aquatics capital of America. As you know, we've just completed one brand new 50 meter pool and we have two more 50 meter pools scheduled for our aquatics community. We also have a huge cycling community. Our nickname is the most bicycle friendly city in America. We've added hundreds of new bicycle.
Speaker 4: Lanes in our city.
Speaker 9: We've added SROs.
Speaker 8: Protected lanes, bike boulevards.
Speaker 4: We have school education programs and bike.
Speaker 8: Roundabouts in addition to aquatics and cycling. We also have a huge running jockey jogging and walking community.
Speaker 4: Tonight, we have the opportunity to eliminate the conflict between.
Speaker 8: Cyclists and runners on a new bike bike path. We have the ability to add a new 3.1 mile path. This is not a concrete path.
Speaker 4: It'll be a knee friendly path. Safer for the.
Speaker 8: It'll have a safer membrane for runners and walkers alike. This also will allow us to add three acres of new sandy beach to our city beaches. It'll also add one third of an acre of grassy parkland area.
Speaker 4: It's in the budget. It's fully funded through Tidelands. And with this, I'm going to turn it over to our assistant city.
Speaker 8: Manager, Suzanne Frick, to walk us through the item. Suzanne.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Mayor, members of the council and the public, we're here tonight to present the redesigned pedestrian path. And really the purpose is to get direction from the city council as to whether or not you want to move forward with the project. So the the project purpose initially was. As City Manager West said, to increase the beach access and coastal recreation by creating really a separate walking path that will be exclusively for pedestrians. It will improve the safety by relieving congestion and separating the two user groups that currently share the path. We believe it will encourage greater use of our beach. We have an absolutely wonderful beach, but admittedly it is underutilized and we are hoping to bring more people down into the beach area so that they can access the beach and use the path. It will promote a more active and healthy lifestyle, improve the mobility for all users, and also the supporting of the pedestrian activity by installing a more flexible, resilient surface. Let me talk a little bit about the background in history. The idea of a separate pedestrian path was first floated in the local coastal plan in 1980, and that was to ensure that there was a separation between the two user groups. Again, it was considered in the 23 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan in the 2008 Beach Master Plan. And then as we started moving forward with the concepts, it was included as part of the capital improvement budget and funded through City Council adoption. Let's talk about the existing conditions. The existing bike path was designed in 1986. It's primarily a bike path with about a five foot pedestrian designation that's on the seaward side. It is again in our local coastal plan and it isn't the most conducive environment for the public. You can see here that the existing path is extremely popular recreational amenity for a variety of vehicles that may use the path. It is also used by pedestrians, but our statistics show that in fact it is highly utilized by bicycles. In fact, when you look at our bike counts it this path consistently shows that it is highly used and it gets the highest use among the surveyed areas of the city. However, that's not the case for the pedestrian count. The pedestrian counts are taken at the same time, we take the bicycle counts. And in fact, our pedestrian path ranks right now around eight for utilization in the city. So there's a significant area for improvement in what we've heard from the user groups is that there are conflicts between the bicyclists and the pedestrians and not everybody feels that it is a conducive area to walk. The next slide, we also show that the path traverses or crosses over a number of outfalls, and one of the benefits in the new path that we're going to create is improving those outfalls and using best practices so that in fact , we're catching the trash before it goes out and also using our sponges so that we're really cleaning up the outfalls. So to improve that water quality there. There has been I think we have local outreach efforts. We have the city manager indicated we've gone out to the residents associations, the Parks and Rec Commission. We've talked with the Surfrider Foundation, the Long Beach Marathon Expo. We've intended to have a significant amount of outreach to get public comments and review of the proposed path. So now let's talk about that path. It really will extend from Shoreline Drive to 54 place it goes really the entire length of the shoreline from where the existing path is. The proposed configuration will consist primarily of a 11 foot wide pedestrian pathway that will be on the land side of the existing bike path. And it would be separated. The two paths would be separated by a six foot sand break. And the reason for that is so that we clearly would have that separation between the pedestrians and the bicyclists. We are proposing that six feet separation so that we can get equipment in there to actually comb the sand of debris and trash anything narrower than that distance. We would be unable to have mechanical equipment to be able to clean the sand. We've also initially we proposed that the path be on the water side and at the request of a number of people who spoke before the Coastal Commission, Surfrider, members of the public, the Coastal Commission determined that in fact the path should be on the land side and not on the water side. So we have redesigned that path so that it is now on the land side to the point where it is in some areas almost immediately adjacent to the Bluff area. And it has also resulted in us moving, in fact, the existing path, the bike path closer to the bluff area, so that we can in fact restore some of the the beach area where we are right now. The path that we're proposing will be used exclusively for pedestrians, and we will be proposing to the city council that the restrictions about dog walking be lifted so that in fact, somebody could walk their dog along the new path. This is a rendering of what the new path would look like in some areas because of us moving the path closer to the land side or to the bluff and moving then the bike path closer. We will have a contiguous path. In other words, we won't be able to have that separation in those cases. As you see here, we will likely have a race curb that would be separating the two paths so that the bicyclists do not enter or go on that new path. The new material is going to be a resin based material, which is much easier to walk on and a better running surface as opposed to concrete. And it's more sustainable than asphalt or other oil based materials. One of the areas that is under consideration and of concern to the Coastal Commission and also members of the public is the area around the Belmont Pier. Currently, the existing path at the pier area is significantly closer to the water. And there is a 90 degree angle that occurs where the path meets the pier. That 90 degree angle has created a number of safety issues for us because of the inability of that bicyclist to actually see the pedestrian in the pier area. So we are proposing that, in fact, we improve that visibility and in fact relocate both the bicycle path and the pedestrian path closer to the landside so that we improve the visibility and also restore some of the sand area and move the paths away from the water. Because currently we have during the the major high tides, we have water intrusion. And so in order to eliminate that, we have proposed to move it closer to the landside. The result of that is we lose some parking spaces in that parking lot. Initially, we were estimating that we'd lose about 32 parking places. That was not acceptable to the Coastal Commission. They, in fact, ask us to go back and take a look and redesign and see if we could reduce the number of spaces that were going to be eliminated. And we have done that to the point where now there's approximately 20 spaces that will be eliminated. That number is acceptable to the Coastal Commission and they have in fact approved that reconfiguration. So we will again take all best efforts to try to minimize that. But at this point in time, in order to ensure that there's a there safety and good visibility and to minimize the water intrusion, we do need to move the path more inland. So this path, one of the questions that has been raised is, well, we're paving over the beach and that what is the net loss of sandy area? And the reality is there's actually a gain of usable beach area because we are moving the path more, both the bike, the existing path and the new path more towards the land side. We in fact, gain about three acres of usable beach area that can now be used for other recreation activities. So when you look at how much we're paving versus how much we're restoring, there's a net gain of about three acres. So our next steps, as we've indicated, that this project has received all of the approvals through the Coastal Commission and now we're at the point where the City Council should decide whether or not you want to proceed with the detailed drawings to go out to bid and construct the project. So that's the place where we are today and we're seeking city council direction as to how you would like to proceed with that. That concludes the staff report. And we're open to any questions.
Speaker 0: Questions from councilmembers. Mr. Don.
Speaker 5: Then with regard to the parking. There's a number of businesses over there. There's Belmont Brewing Company. There's a few other along that line of individuals who go out to the pier to fish or I think they still catch boats out there and then also use the pool facilities there. There's no other way but to eliminate those two parking spaces. Those are pretty precious parking spaces. I have trouble supporting that concept.
Speaker 7: Yeah, there actually there is no other way. If we want to eliminate the the water intrusion and improve the site visibility for that 90 degree angle, we've looked at the different configurations and we've reduced the loss of parking from the 32 through the 20. But at this point, that's the proposed design.
Speaker 5: Could you put the picture back up?
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 7: You can see that the blue line towards the water is where the existing path is today and the proposed path, that is the checkered line.
Speaker 5: Okay. I know Councilmember DeLong has a question about that. That concerns me. You know, when I was you know, we weren't brought in on this in the start. This was something that was in a large budget document and buried in a large budget document. The council really never had input on this project as it went forward. You may have had public meetings, but I think in the future we need to have a little bit more oversight of how our tidelands funds are spent and the projects are developed and brought forward. And again, it's oversight. But we probably need a master plan. I know some other council members may have an opinion on that as well, but I think we need to kind of put all the parts together in a bigger piece of paper so we see what's going on on our beaches and we can be briefed on it occasionally because the beach is everybody's. And I know Gary wouldn't say this, but it's not one councilmembers like the airport. Everybody needs to have a say. Everybody's a user of the beach. Certainly I am. And I was always a fan of widening the existing bike path first building a second bike path. So there's a six foot six foot buffer between the two bike paths.
Speaker 7: There is a pedestrian path and then there's the bike path. So the existing bike path in fact will remain. And in some areas we're moving it closer towards the landside. The new pedestrian path that is being constructed is actually on the land side of the bike path.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm.
Speaker 5: Okay. And as one who spent a few years down there working for the Marina Trump familiar with the brakes and so forth, that could go back and forth on the beach. How wide is a surf break? Because that's what they would do to clean the sand between the two paths, which is what they do. Right. They go up and just about every morning they're out there cleaning the beach with a surf rig. That's something they tell behind a large caterpillar, typically. And they go up and down the beach and in areas where it's it's you know, there's there's debris.
Speaker 7: Right. We are going to have to purchase special equipment to groom the sand in between those two paths. So, in essence, we will be able to have that equipment. It won't be the same as the the rake that you see grooming all of the other sand. That's a much larger rake. But we're going to find a smaller one and we've actually identified it that can, in fact, groom the sand in between the two paths.
Speaker 5: So so you're still not supportive of combining the two or just widening the existing bike path? That's where I struggle with this whole project. I don't know how we got into two bike paths.
Speaker 7: There are a number of areas where in fact the paths will be joined together and separated by a curb. That's not the ideal situation from a safety standpoint. There are there's that condition up and down the coast there. A good prominent example is in Santa monica, where the bike path and the pedestrian path are adjacent to one another and they're separated by a curb. What happens in that situation is a lot of the pedestrians will just kind of step over that curb and be walking on the bike path. And so it doesn't provide you the level of separation that we would like to ensure that their safety for both user groups.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I don't know if I'm there with you on that one, but either way, let's move forward. So with regard to the oversight and a master plan, how would something like that come forward? Do you have any feedback on that?
Speaker 7: I think it depends.
Speaker 4: On the.
Speaker 5: Oversight speaks to the funding. Right. Right. And what you're planning now, because I don't know. I hear drones. I hear a lot of things that have never been discussed up here. So give me your feedback. Well.
Speaker 7: Any project that we're proposing in the Tidelands actually gets approved by the city council as part of the budget adoption, either through the capital improvement. But for example, in the first quarter adjustment, there were about $13 million worth of projects that the City Council reviewed and approved. All of those projects are presented to the Council, probably not at this level of detail, but they're presented. Now, what we can certainly do is, as part of the budgetary process, provide a more detailed presentation on projects that are being proposed in the Tidelands area.
Speaker 5: Mm hmm. I mean, this is going to be a this is going to cost several million dollars, I suspect you. Do you have a general ballpark figure what this will cost?
Speaker 7: Initially, we budgeted about $5 million. But with the revisions that are requested by the Coastal Commission, it is likely we're estimating it to be about a seven and a half to $8 million project.
Speaker 5: It's a lot of money. Again, I just still fall back to why wouldn't you just wait and maybe even replace the existing bike path and just make it a bit wider? That to me seems like common sense, but that's just my perception. So with that, I turn it back to you, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. O'Neill.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of questions. Fruit. In regard to the survey that you mentioned, where it was stated that the usage of the other pedestrian path at the beach was eight. Did we drill down on any of those questions to find out why it it ranked so low?
Speaker 7: No, we did not. Anecdotally, from people who have used it, it is only about a five foot walking area and it is not the most conducive area for people to walk, particularly when it is a busy bike path. So that's the issue. Another reason why a lot of people do like to walk their dogs, and this is an area where presently dogs are not allowed to be walked on the path. And so that's another factor that we would like the council to reconsider with a separate bike path, a separate pedestrian path.
Speaker 8: And then I want to make sure I understand you right. The recommendation to to put the new proposed bike path closer to the bluff came from the Coastal Commission.
Speaker 7: Yes. Initially, we proposed that the new pedestrian path be on the waterside. That would give us more flexibility for it to meander and to for configuration purposes. But the Coastal Commission, at the request of a number of people who testified, said, no, it shouldn't be on the waterside, in fact it should be on the landside because we shouldn't be taking up any more beach area and paving that beach area. So instead we moved it so that it will now be totally on the landside.
Speaker 8: Thank you. It's very.
Speaker 0: Mr. Dillon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I also have concerns about the loss of the parking spaces. I, I recognize the benefit by taking out the 90 degree turn. However, for me, I would keep the 90, 90 degree turn if I could maintain the additional 20 parking spaces or most of them. And I think I'm going to come back to this maybe after public comment when we get into making motions and and there's more dialog and we hear what people have to say. So I guess I would just kind of give you a little notice that we may come back at that point and ask you, you know, perhaps to amend it. Because if I look at the map, it seems to me we could keep the 90 degree turn and then come across the bottom of the parking lot. We can still recapture that sand area, which I do agree is a worthy goal. But let's see if we can't protect more, if not all of those parking spaces. I think we might come back with that specific recommendation in the form of a motion. So if you could give that some thought. And then the second question I have now is what consideration? And I'm sure you have it, but you could just educate the Council. What consideration have you given to sea level rise in the bike path?
Speaker 7: Any project that is approved by the Coastal Commission, in fact has to address the issue of sea level rise. That is a major component that the Coastal Commission asks us to review. You will see and in fact this is a great location that in fact the current tides in fact impact the the path. So what we look at is where the mean high tide line is, where the king tide typically occurs, and then do some rough calculations about what the potential could be for increased sea level rise. And you will see that, in fact, we have pulled the path back closer to the landside to address those inundation events and occurrences . So we believe I mean, there's no failsafe solution for a beach bike path that we've taken into account sea level rise by, in fact putting this path on the landside as opposed to on the water side. And so we believe that we've addressed it to the best of our ability at this point in time.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to first say, I know that you've been working with council staff often on this issue, and I do think that the changes that we were able to make at Coastal Commission with regards to moving the path over to the landside was ultimately the right thing to do. I know there's obviously a cost issue there. I have a question about I know we've heard on a few occasions that that isn't the joining the two paths or I know that in parts of the path there joins other adjacent to each other. And I know it's been said that that's not ideal for for safety reasons. Is it the obvious ones that are that are are you saying because of possible accidents or. I'm just wondering a little bit more on that. And and I only ask because to me, it would seem that the more that we can have them adjacent to each other, the better. That's without maybe knowing the science or the data behind accidents. But that that's what would appear to me to be the best solution. In addition to that, that's the case. And I think in much of Europe, if you go around and look at bike paths, which are certainly more prevalent throughout most European cities are almost always just adjacent to the pedestrian path or the sidewalk.
Speaker 7: We we took a look at a number of paths that, in fact, were adjacent to one another and basically separated, sometimes by a curb, sometimes not. And one of the key things that we're trying to address is safety and preventing those pedestrians from moving over onto the bike path and the bicyclist moving on to the pedestrian path , having a curb. Yes, it prevents those pedestrians or certainly the bicyclists from going onto the pedestrian path, but it is not a good solution for pedestrians. When you look at the path up and down the Southern California area, there is a significant amount of pedestrians that just step right over that curb and are walking on the bike path. And that we have found that, in fact, if there is a clear separation between the two, you have improved safety dramatically. And that is one of our key purposes is to improve and enhance that safety.
Speaker 4: And one last question.
Speaker 7: And the the other issue is one of the key things we want to be able to allow here are the dogs to be able to walk on this path, because that is a activity that we've heard resoundingly. Our our residents would like to have the ability to walk their dogs. Again, having a separated path between the two is critical for that function so that the dogs just aren't walking over that path. And we believe it is a much safer environment to have that separation.
Speaker 4: Even so, you're saying essentially, even with a curb, you don't find that to be the most. You find it to be very safe, because we.
Speaker 7: Know in the case in point is the city of Santa monica, if you've ever walk that path, they're immediately adjacent with a curb. And in talking to the staff there, they said there's incredible what they call migration between the two user groups where you'll get pedestrians walking on the bike path because there isn't that separation.
Speaker 4: Okay. My last question was, and I know we haven't revisited this since this was back at council in our last discussion, and I'm wondering what where we left off. There was a discussion, and I think at the commission, what we did was we reduced the the the amount of space between the paths, correct. Yes. And so we reduced it for remind me. We reduced it from what to what.
Speaker 7: It was approximately ten feet before and we've reduced it to about six feet. And the six feet is the minimum in order to get equipment to groom the sand.
Speaker 4: And so six feet is the minimum.
Speaker 7: The minimum. And in talking with coastal staff, that was acceptable to the coastal staff.
Speaker 4: And it's the minimum because of the type of equipment we have.
Speaker 7: Exactly.
Speaker 4: Is there equipment that that could do it in three. I'm just curious. In a smaller amount of of width.
Speaker 7: We. Yeah. I'm looking at our, our consultant and know there isn't equipment that in fact is off the shelf equipment. What we haven't looked at is whether or not we would be able to get customized equipment. But I don't think we wanted to go down that that path, so to speak, because having custom designed equipment is much more costly for the city.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I only ask because obviously I think it's everyone's goal to obviously preserve as much as much beach as possible. And so, you know, the more we can limit that space, that the more access there is to to the to the public beach.
Speaker 0: Council membership scheme.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the items in the the staff memo that and I guess we've had a response given to all of us is the public garden and beach master planning efforts. Can staff briefly go over what you're presenting to us and then give the the people in the audience an opportunity to respond to it because it seems like they're not the same planet here. When we look at what it's being told to us and what the response has been from those that were engaged by the city of Long Beach to come up with the the art plan that they did.
Speaker 7: It is our understanding back in 2002 that the the Public Corporation for Arts PCH, which is is kind of now the Arts Council, engaged some artists to prepare a plan. A significant amount of time has passed since that period. And what is occurred to date is that we are now moving ahead with some of the projects that, in fact were in that original Parks master plan. And that original Parks master plan indicated that, yep, there there should be an art component. But the attorney's office was pretty clear to us that in fact we would need to go for a bid so no single artist would have a lock on that particular art piece, that if we are going to incorporate art into projects that would need to go out for a competitive bid. We are incorporating art in some of the major projects, for example, the Belmont Pool. When that project went out for a proposal, we asked that the team, in fact include an artist as part of the project development team. So there are strategically we are including artists in the projects that have a a major financial commitment and smaller projects such as the pedestrian path. Initially, we had some art component that we wanted to include, but there was opposition both from the Coastal Commission in the community about paving additional area so that we withdrew that particular component so that we would really minimize the amount of beach area that we were paving over. So I guess the answer to your question is, is that we are still incorporating art. It is on a project by project basis and it will depend really upon the scope and the scale of the project.
Speaker 2: I think my concern is that apparently the city spent $200,000 on this and that the according to the response that we got, that the Department of Parks and Recreation contracted with the artist to develop an art master plan for the beach, which was reviewed and approved by the Marine Advisory Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Once approved, the artist collaborated with landscape architects, designers, planners and engineers as subcontractors to Tetra Tech, which I know the city was using for quite a bit, which are architects and engineering firm. And again, it cost the city in excess of 200,000. So I'm a little puzzled why the city would have gone through this extensive process, put a a bid out for a competitive bidding, which was, by the way, done. And then the responses now and I think the reason quite claims for the reason that nothing's been done with it since is because there's been no focused attention up until now about the path and this is how this got revisited. So I'm just why would why did the city go through the process and spend $200,000 if it really didn't want to art master plan for the beach?
Speaker 7: I think there's some confusion about the plans. The $200,000 was, in fact, for the the beach parks master plan that was prepared. And that master plan, in fact, it had. That's our industry. There may be a difference of opinion about this, but we've gone back into the records and talked to the Parks and Recreation staff, and their recollection is there was never a separate arts master plan. There, in fact was a beach master plan that was done that included some amphitheaters and skate parks and a significant amount of development along the coastal area. It was about $100 million capital improvement project that included some ideas about how the art could be incorporated as part of that overall master plan. That was never pursued because of the cost associated with it. The artists, I believe, were part of the overall design team that were. Working on all of the concepts related to that particular project. So that is our understanding of the information as gleaned from the staff reports and also from the Parks and Rec staff.
Speaker 2: Well, hopefully they get an opportunity, Mr. Mayor, if they can respond, since they there's some information in the memo, the public memo that I think questions their. They're working with the appropriate professionals on this. So what happened with this? So we spent all this money or we're not using any of the. Plan that they brought back?
Speaker 7: Yes. What was determined is that this was a extensive plan that was done with new handball courts and volleyball courts and things like that, paving over the sand and creating major recreation areas. Twofold, the community started to object to it because it was such a extensive and comprehensive revision to the coastline. Number one. Number two, there was not the funding to actually support that level of development in the coastal area. So instead, what we've been doing is picking and choosing some of those projects. For example, the pedestrian path that was one of the projects that was identified, a connection from the parking lot to the top of the bluff . That was another project that was identified. We're moving forward with that. So we're taking a number of the projects that, in fact, are feasible, don't have significant impacts to the residential community or to the environment. We're moving forward with those projects.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, when I brought this to your office's attention, because the two artists that participated in this process brought their plan and said, this is what we produced. I know that your office indicated never heard that this had happened. So perhaps maybe we can dig a little bit deeper and find out why these people and they're going to talk about it tonight, I'm sure. But, you know, to go through the process and, you know, to the design and things like that and to spend that kind of money and then for us really as a city, not to know that they did it as we are approaching this particular area, that that's what they were asked to design on. I would I'd hope we can somehow use some of their their work and effort otherwise we've spent a lot of money for not so.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. In the comments. I'll entertain a motion. You have motion on the floor before you hear anything goes, even if it's for discussion purposes. So I'm not one. I need a second, second movement. Second. Although public comment, please, if you're going to come forward now, listen carefully. I want to see how many people here will try to get everybody. 3 minutes. When you see, you'll have a green light. When you see the yellow light, that means you have 30 seconds left. Please try to be as efficient with your time as possible and give us your name and be mindful of the time. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Good evening.
Speaker 5: My name is Jim Corbett.
Speaker 10: I live in Belmont Shore and I originally came here after talking to Eric Lopez against this proposal of the pedestrian path. And I have now heard tonight from Ms.. Frick that it's going to be dog friendly and I own three dogs. And I now come and say, I would.
Speaker 8: Like to have.
Speaker 10: This path on the beach and I support it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That was very efficient. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next week.
Speaker 4: Larry gives you clear as the address. First of all, I'd like to thank Eric Lopez for all the time that he's put him with on this project. Let me deal, first of all, with the one aspect that is intelligent and that is the aspect of eliminating the at the blind angle around Belmont Pier. Beyond that, the majority of this project is thoroughly divorced from intelligence and a lack of understanding of human use, patterns and human nature. There is no power on earth that is going to stop the people from merging into where they want to go, period. It's unenforceable. You'd have to put police on the bike path or on the sidewalk up above. Period. It almost is. It is almost on par with the rear with the head up their rear bike path that goes down on third street or where the concrete separation. It just doesn't work. It defies human nature. There is a case if there is if around where the outflows are going, if that needs to be corrected. Yes, but just leave the existing path there. People ask questions. The question was raised, well, not enough people are going there. The fact is, there's nothing to go to over the vast expanse, a vast expanse of the area. You've got three and a half miles of something that's essentially as exciting as coming to a council meeting. There's nothing there. Up around Belmont Pier. Yes. At the other end shoreline. Yes. But there's no draw. You've got up on the bay, up on the bluff. You've got some green, you've got a nice vista. If somebody is going to come and want to go to the water, they're going to come down to where the parking is. They're not going to travel for two and a half miles on a concrete, concrete walkway or the new the new type of surface you're going to create, which is really not all that exciting and all that practical. I've seen it. We've got it down around the Marine Stadium at the closed end and in the Dunster path and some other period. And that's not a panacea that all this is is a boondoggle to funnel out money to contractors and to consultants who hopefully it'll kick it back into people's campaign coffers. Keep what you've got now. Fix it or fix that right angle there and do what needs to be done to save the parking. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know. I mean, the fish. But I like to make it about six points as to how the bike path and pedestrian walk on the beach could be improved. First, I would suggest you have pyramids. My small pyramids marking the miles that the bike pedestrian goes three miles. One, two, three have a marked out. So they have a sense of progress. The second thing I would take note of is that the view is the seen as a first seems to be. You really can't see the ocean when you see the ocean and not the waves, which is really the majestic part of the ocean. You can see the waves from the pedestrian bike walk. So I would suggest you put up at least three, three billboards along the way that very artfully that are health oriented suggesting suggestions which shot would you should watch out for in the sun and and possibly the daytime swimming facility to advertise that maybe about three billboards health oriented I think would be very distracting really, and will communicate revenue. The third thing I like to say is that maybe it would be a good idea because you're sweating under the hot sun, exerting yourself that they have at least two or one water station along the way. A machine not necessarily out. That would be expense not needed, but a water machine for the people that don't have that facility on their bikes or for the walkers, for that matter. I would also like to point out an emergency phone might treat me along the way because you're you're straining and your heart has got to be conditions for this kind of exercise frequently that you have an emergency phone along the way so they can call in if somebody is in fear of getting hurt. Now, the other thing is, and this is no suggestion, so much as a critical comment, I don't see why you have to worry about bicycle and pedestrian dangers. Since when is a bike really being a danger to a pedestrian? They go slow and they can stop very easily and they have a clear view to be no big landmarks blocking it. So this bit about this is overdoing it, and I may sound like I'm overdoing it, but I think you're overdoing it a bit much. Probably a million bucks more wasted again frequently. Yeah, but it's just that it's not necessary to go to the expense of having a bike. And. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Dunne. Your time. Time is up. And Second Street. They drive a bicycle to drive right into traffic. Thank you. Thank you so much. You're either.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Before I take the next speaker, I just want to note, if I if everyone uses up to 3 minutes, we're going to we've got about an hour and 6 minutes of public comment. So the more efficient we can, the better. Please, sir.
Speaker 8: My name is Chris Ruggles, resident of Long Beach. I want to say that this idea of having a separate walking path and a bike path is excellent. I use the bike path a lot. I love it. It's a great part of Long Beach. It makes living here nice. And if you've ever been on the bike path, you know that. People saunter around in the bike lane. If you ring your little bell to go around them, that give you a look of a lot of attitude. And to Councilman O'Donnell, suggestion, councilman, I truly believe you can make it as wide as the four or five freeway and people would still criss cross. So I think widening the path is not a good suggestion. Having to pass will at least orient the people that, hey, everybody's walking on that path or riding on this path. Maybe I should walk over here. It will make riding a bike safer, more pleasurable. It'll make walking on the beach safer and more pleasurable. I support it. Absolutely. And if we want to save some money, let's take any art out of it, because I don't think anybody in the past looking at art. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You just we've got about 20 some odd people in line. So if you could try to reduce your time, it'd be efficient because otherwise we'll be here for an hour and a half. Thank you. Good.
Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah. Mayor Foster, members of the council. My name is Bob Seeger, and I'm also a resident of Long Beach, and I'm the CEO of a company called Run Racing. And we are the ones that organized the annual marathon in October. I am here to speak on behalf of the the widening of the bike path. In 13 years, we have taken the marathon from 4500 people to almost 25,000 participants this past year. This is our 30th anniversary, 2014. And one of the bestselling parts that we have for selling the marathon to people all across the country is this 3.1 miles of run along the beach. It's a great selling point for us. And I think the running path with a a runner friendly surface would be a great asset. We want to continue to grow the marathon, and this is an important fact for us, too, to be able to continue to grow the event as years go by, the economic impact. And to that, in 2009, we did an economic impact report. The marathon was had about $27 million direct impact for Long Beach in the surrounding area. This is our 30th anniversary. We plan to do another economic impact. And and I think it's going to surprise everybody that it's growth. So we're definitely in support of it. And I know a lot of people would like to see it and it is a safety issue.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Seagram. Yes.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name is Kelly Edwards. I've been a resident of Long Beach for nine years, four in Belmont Shores and now five in downtown area. I must say that I am a competitive athlete, so I like to train a lot and run down on the path. I really don't. I have, you know, I am good at following the law. I don't run into bikes, so I'm very good on keeping clear of those. There are people that don't follow the law. For instance, the bike paths that we have now, I still see people that actually will bike on the sidewalk next to the path . So, you know, for me, I just think that I agree with Councilman O'Donnell with widening it and maybe not just a little curb. Make it make it a little bit higher because with that, if we're doing that six feet in between, we're taking away from the volleyball, we're taking away from the soccer, the football that happens. The only thing that I do agree with is I would like to run with my chocolate lab on the bike path. And I don't have that option right now, but I understand that safety's an issue. But we also have to be responsible people and ourselves and, you know, know not to run into into traffic. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Appreciate that. Next.
Speaker 10: Hi. My name is Evan Kelly. I'm a been a resident of downtown for six years and I'm an avid cyclist. I ride the the path weekly, if not daily. I'm going to cut to the point here. There's a five foot walking path, and I hear that people can follow the rules. But the big issue is people with children and that child takes one step over into the bike lane and the vehicle hit them. A six foot path will keep running children out of the bike lane. Currently you have enough space for one bike going one way, one bike going another way, and maybe one pedestrian. But the best chance usually don't walk one on one. They're usually holding hands, and now everybody's looking at the beach. The cyclists are looking at the water, the walkers are looking at the water. And that meandering happens no matter how much you want to stay within the rules. So I believe that the separated paths, the two paths, is the safest way to go. And I believe that the city has gone back several times and made revisions and taken community input. And of course the commission recommendations have made the best possible plan. So I support it and I hope you do, too.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next week. My name is Mike Culligan.
Speaker 3: And I live in the fourth District Los Altos area.
Speaker 8: Recently retired from Tidelands Oil Production Company for 30 years service middle management. And I'm here in support of the the widening of the bike path, the separation. It all really all comes down to public safety when it comes to the marathon. Over the past several years, I've been involved in the SAG Wagons support vehicle where I work, picking up the tired runners that are disabled or whatever, as well as working with the Long Beach Police Department to reopen the streets.
Speaker 4: In a safe and timely manner. And it really comes down to public safety in this issue and that.
Speaker 3: Plus the inherent liability of the accidents that I've witnessed out.
Speaker 8: There by just riding my bike.
Speaker 4: Out there from time to time.
Speaker 3: It's the you've got to have this separation between between the the pedestrians and these bikes.
Speaker 8: That are going really too fast. You should be getting tickets out there sometimes. Otherwise, you know, you're going to just keep having a safety issue out there. And it really comes down to safety and.
Speaker 3: Liability for the runners. So I would I would urge you to, without further delay.
Speaker 8: To proceed with this fully funded project.
Speaker 4: And I thank.
Speaker 3: You, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You guys are doing great. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Good evening, everyone. My name is Terri Bronstein, and I'm an artist. I live at 262 Belmont Avenue, Long Beach. I'm here to strongly recommend that you vote against the proposed pedestrian path that has been referred to by the press as a two lane highway. Is this the image that we want to present for our city? We are against approving this path because it does nothing to make the beach more attractive and is based upon the uninspired 25 year old bike path. When we talk about a new pedestrian path, we should be talking about added adding value, making our beach as attractive and enjoyable as possible. We should be talking about a design process that resulted in the outstanding beaches of Santa monica and Huntington Beach. We should be talking about approaching all development on the beach so that the planning includes input from the community from the beginning. The Arts Council, the Sierra Club, Surfrider and all other critical stakeholders. The Parks and Recreation Plan path was designed to add value, the opposite of being seen as a simplistic highway. And I want to mention here that we are really not talking about art here at all. This has been something that's been confused from the beginning. We're not proposing our plan with all of the art elements in it. We're talking about the shape of a pedestrian path and where it goes. That's what the issue is tonight. And all of these other issues about that seem to have clouded the eye. What we're what we're really concerned about, the design of the Parks and Recreation Plan path creates a poetic connection between the real beach walkway and the imagined coast of Southern California. We recognize, however, that the Parks and Recreation Plan is only one example of what could be done on our beach over the past three months. We have had discussions with many neighborhood groups and important stakeholders, including the Belmont Shore, Belmont Heights Bluff Park and North Alamitos Residents Association, the Sierra Club, the Surf Riders, the Arts Council of Long Beach. The Historical Society of Long Beach. Long Beach Heritage. The Long Beach Museum of Art and the Belmont Brewing Company. They all indicated that they liked this design approach better than the highway on the beach path shown to them by city staff. What we took away from all of these meetings was a loud plea for the city to show a vision that truly recognizes the beach as its major asset. All groups felt that any pedestrian path that is built should be based upon an integrated plan that includes artistic values along with landscaping, engineering and design. And this is another thing to then say We're planning to put art on the beach as we get to each section. We were talking about the restrooms and these other amenities that would go in later. What we're saying is that we need a plan. That's an overall plan. That's not one where you call in artists to do each section. That will come later. But you have to start with some kind of vision, some kind of idea, some kind of over riding idea. Okay, I'd just like a few more minutes.
Speaker 0: That you do not have a few more minutes you need to conclude.
Speaker 7: Okay. Frankly, everyone.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, ma'am. You've had over 3 minutes. Everybody gets 3 minutes. You know it's done. Thank you. Next, please.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Craig.
Speaker 3: Stone and I have been a resident, the city of Long Beach since 1976. I live at three four, four nine Lees Avenue. I have taught at Cal State Long Beach for the last 34 years. I'm a tenured professor and what I teach is public art and public space development, and about the value of having artist design engaged in the design of a project from the onset. So I applaud that you're starting to do that on these next projects. And I also really there's been a lot of thought that's gone into this process. But what I want to talk to you about is just maybe a little better process. I've known about the subject of this public art simply because I designed the very first course on it in public art for artists in the United States. It was many years ago. I'm also a public artist, so I've also produced public art that you might be familiar with The Shadows and Bill or the type of Signal Hill And the last one was with the prominent. So. So this is. Background. I'm here to speak about a way of designing public spaces that can provide value, often for less money than these conventional design processes. During the recession of 1990, there was an article in the National Journal for Public Art, which is called Public Art Review, about the design of a lobby where rather than purchasing an artwork from an artist to put in the lobby, the artist was hired to collaborate with the architect developer and to design an entire lobby as a work of art. The cost to create the lobby as a work of art was exactly the same as the building of a conventional lobby and putting a piece of artwork in there. But the value is much, much, much greater. There were no additional cost to maintain the artwork because the floor, the ceiling, the walls, the lobby that comprised the artwork was the very surfaces that the artworks made out of the contractors thought they were building a lobby so they didn't understand they were building an artwork until they were done. They were completely surprised and would probably have charged more. They thought it was art. When the owner went to rent the offices in the building, all the tenants indicated that the lobby design that convinced them to lease convinced them to rent their offices, to lease their offices. The project was the first conceptual collaboration between an artist and an architect and the developer in this particular city. And it demonstrated a way to create value with very little extra cost because the artist was brought in at the beginning of the design stage and not after the lobby had been designed and built. What city did this take place in? Know this was the city of Long Beach. The lobby as an artwork is located. It's the Krinsky building on Third and Pine Street Avenue. There's an idea that's called artist added value that grows out of this. And basically when you have an artist come in on the initial aspect of the project, then it changes the context in which things are done, right? Just what we have now is a line, and the line is.
Speaker 0: You need to conclude, I'm sorry, I can't do this. I people behind you. I appreciate that. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. I think we got the point. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is David Lott, one of the owners of Belmont Brewing Company. We've been down there over 23 years, and I'd like to address the issue of the 90 degree turn. We have a confluence of walkers, pedestrians and bikers, people going down the path from 39th place to the parking lot. They're going north. South bikers are going east west. In my humble opinion, the last thing you want to do is eliminate that 90 degree turn to allow those bikers to go faster, which is what will happen. What you need to do, in my humble opinion, is put a solar powered, flashing sign to say, slow down or walk your bike. This will improve safety. It will eliminate cost and hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and retain those parking spaces. And if I could quote the certified postal plan that I'd revised in 2006 that no, there would be no reduction in parking spaces. Councilor Long has that letter that we sent to him. So. And it will also reducing parking spaces from 32 to 20 is, from what I understand, just a matter of re striping, which is, is what it is, is still reducing access. Eliminating that that 92 return is going to make it much more dangerous. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Appreciate that. Next, please.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Evan Baroudi. I am wife. My wedding dress is on file, I'm sure. Former Councilperson and currently the president of the Historical Society of Long Beach. Just some history because I was here in 86 briefly and I was the one who spoke in front of the Coastal Conservancy to get the matching funds for our bicycle, for our path. Now, it was not very inspired. We wanted to have basically we just wanted to have some way to get people down the path, enjoy our beach as best they could. And that was one way to do it. And we did it with both the bicycles as well as with pedestrian. It's clear to me over the years that I've been living here that there's a better way to do that. And I think that the concept of having two different paths is the right way to go. I do, however, and I believe Mr. Bernstein brought it up and others that we should be more inspired with the path that we put in for the pedestrians, the bicycles. They go by really quick, but the walkers they want, they walk. And if we want them to come down and enjoy it and be more than more than just a place to walk and look at the ocean, which is a beautiful place to be, is maybe, you know, give us some whether it's art or history lessons or whatever along the path. And that's what was designed in the early designs that they came back for. They came to us at the Historical Society. We all thought this was a very interesting concept. And to rush, rush it too. And I realize you may not say it's been rushed because it started back in 2003, but it was dead for many, many years. And the reality is we need to try to find a way to make it more interesting, invigorating for people who are walking and something that would we would be proud of as the city of Long Beach to present to the rest of the country, the community and the area. I think it's a it's something we should be doing and we shouldn't be just. Quickly having a path that's exactly next to it, and it should have a lot more to it than this. Anyway, I don't want to go anything further. I'll be short and thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Brown. Appreciate it. Next week.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Marcus Schindler, and I'm president of the Arts Council for the City of Long Beach. I live on Ocean Boulevard. I had a three minute speech prepared. It was timed, but a lot has been said. So it's sitting on my seat still, so I'm going to keep it real short. Esthetic considerations.
Speaker 8: Are super.
Speaker 4: Important in our society when all intrinsic values are the same. Whether we're choosing shoes, a car, a home or a city to visit or live in, it's the esthetic consideration that tips the ballot, tips the balance. We choose the more attractive pair of shoes, the more attractive city, the more attractive house. So this is something very important to keep in mind when we're designing something for the community to enjoy because we want something that attracts the community as well as people from other communities because that helps drive the economy as well. And also another thing to consider is the integrity of the process itself.
Speaker 3: This was a process.
Speaker 4: That was started. It was vetted to a certain extent. And the idea, the aim of this process was to make sure there weren't any rushed expenditures, so the aims were foresighted. So I think that's something to keep in mind because, you know, we're coming out of a period of crisis where there was a lot of fast tracking and that was due to a lopsided sense of values. And I think one thing that's important is that our.
Speaker 3: Teachers values and that a city that cherishes art.
Speaker 4: Cherishes its citizens as well. And if we don't, we become victim to lopsided values.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Segal. Appreciate it.
Speaker 7: Good evening. City Council Mayor Foster, my name is Gordon and Cager. I live at 235 Loma Avenue and I first want to start with a huge thank you to those of you who were willing to speak with me in the last few weeks regarding the process for the speech path and the consideration of the use of Tidelands funds for a project when this is definitely has been demonstrated this evening, a piecemeal project, there are elements of what is an over ten year old plan, maybe closer to 15 year old plan, now being brought forward in a piecemeal process, which I have tried to demonstrate to. Those of you willing to listen is not the process that these people here want to hear from you. We have an obligation to involve the community. We have an obligation to involve the public in these kinds of projects. That has not been demonstrated. Is anyone here proud of the process that's coming forward on this beach path? These are the people who should have been listened to three years ago, five years ago. These are the people who now, now today have an opportunity to speak. Mayor Foster. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of time for them. They only get 3 minutes. This is a process that we know how to do. We know how to involve the public. We know how to do it with CDP. We know how to do it with a breakwater reconfiguration. We know how to do it in lots of other elements of our community, and this has not been demonstrated. I'd also like to say that there is a trouble with Tidelands here in Long Beach. We have a lot of money coming forward. This project may not be the priority that we need right now. Tidelands money should be addressed and the use of that money and a masterplan be developed with community input, with public participation that allows people to give their opinion and help guide the city as we move forward. I'd ask that you stop this project this evening, reconsider the process, reconsider the folks that want to participate and haven't been given an opportunity. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Gauger. Next, please.
Speaker 3: My name is Vernon Wright. I live at 513 West Ward log out in the vaguely area of Long Beach and I and I'm the fitness coach for yes we serve who we train second and 3/5 grade children traveling. I'm a training coach for the big league river runners who prepare the minors for the Wrigley River event. Five and ten k run. I am also the coach for a coach for Back on my Feet, which has two running groups here in Long Beach. And needless to say, I'm an avid long distance runner. Some of the benefits of running, it's a top calorie burner. It's inexpensive, great for your social life, great for a long time, lifts your mood, increases the self esteem. A great reason to get outside and appreciate nature, reduces stress, lengthens your life span, gives you goals to work towards, boosts created creativity. And the only thing that it doesn't do is enhance one's public speaking skills. The the widening of the current bike path is a make sense proposal for more reasons than one. One is the economic impact this unique running path will give to the city of Long Beach. We have four major running clubs, clubs here in Long Beach, and they all train on this here bike path. We we use the bike path to train for various races, including the Long Beach Marathon, the Long Beach, Turkey Trot, the vaguely river run. And as major races get closer, like the L.A. Marathon or the Surf City Marathon, the bike path fills up. A wider path will allow for more room for cyclists plus some of them and this is the public speaking part the a wider path will allow more room for cyclists and thus pull some of them off of the road and will bring more people to our beaches to enjoy the outdoors, to eat and to take advantage of our blue skies. What stands out most for me is the family structure. I use this pathway to push my grandson in a jogging stroller and there is not much more that warms my heart than watching parents do the same with their children. A wider pathway is safer and will create a family friendly environment. Currently, the path can be dangerous when cyclists, runners, walkers and children share the same space. So I respectfully ask that this project be moved forward for the health and the well-being of the users of this pathway. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Pretty good words. Next.
Speaker 3: My name's Joe Gaber.
Speaker 4: I live in Belmont Heights. I want to make a couple of observations. One, I think that this. Exercise of designing the path from.
Speaker 3: The podium tonight really kind of illustrates the total inadequacy of public notice and comment prior to getting this point in the process. You know, we should have had this long before staff got this far down the road. Chacon I want to clarify that the Coastal Commission special condition was pretty clear and unambiguous.
Speaker 4: That the path needs to be inland from the existing path. There are segments.
Speaker 3: Of the design that don't meet that condition.
Speaker 8: But more importantly than all that.
Speaker 3: I agree with this notion of getting a master plan for our beach. It has multiple benefits. You know what the vision is? You know what you're going to end up with at the end of the process.
Speaker 4: It gives you it gives.
Speaker 3: You an opportunity to make sure that multiple.
Speaker 8: Projects that are going.
Speaker 4: On at that beach don't conflict with each other.
Speaker 3: And it gives you an opportunity to prioritize which of those projects come first. Can't build things that are unimportant, but at the exclusion of those that are important. Just for a couple. I mean, there's a I can come up with a laundry list of examples, but a couple of examples of the potential conflicts. We're talking about improving the Belmont Pier and improving this bike path, pedestrian path. At the same time, it's my understanding that most of the accidents happen at that intersection on the pier. Is it really going to be safer if you if you encourage that cross traffic, you got more people coming on the pier and more people on the bike path. Are you improving safety or are you exacerbating the hazard? I also hear plans for dunes construction on the beach. Look, that's an admirable thing. But if you're doing dunes creation on the beach for habitat values and you're putting a, you know, heavily traveled path right next to those dunes, they're not consistent. You need a master plan to put all these pieces of the puzzle together before you go spending any money on any one piece.
Speaker 4: Anyway, I encourage you to fall back.
Speaker 3: Save your money. Make sure you got a plan in place before you start putting these pieces together. Thanks very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Mayor Bill Davis, president of Belmont Heights. I used a bike path frequently. Three days a week, three days a week on a bike, one day a week on a long walk, including a bike trip to the aquarium for my volunteer duties commuting. I strongly suggested the bike path be improved. It does need to be improved and safety needs to be enhanced. However, I'm probably one of the few people who's actually seen the conceptual drawings and renderings that Terri and David produced as part of the masterplan. And quite frankly, those renderings and drawings were stunning, absolutely stunning. And to me, it just is a tragedy that they were kind of lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and does not speak well, I think, to the way that the city is doing this business. I strongly urge the Council to move this item back to staff with instructions to include all stakeholders, to include esthetic and cultural elements into the plan, and perhaps even to include the larger master plan. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Mr. Davis. Next.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Seamus Innes. I'm a live in Long Beach, 3951 door in the fourth District. I'm a licensed civil engineer and a practicing coastal engineer in California for 20 years. And the vice chairman of Long Beach chapter of the Surf Foundation. We've been working on the plan with the city for a couple of years, and at the beginning it was a very bad plan and it's much better than it was, but it still has a long ways to go. And the surf right at position on it the whole time has been we're not sure if a whole new path is necessary, but if one is, it should be on the language side and the amount of new pavement should be minimized. The key reasons for this, for these conditions were are that sea level rise is coming and we're going to lose our beach to sea level rise. Whether we believe it or not, it's going to happen. And if there's one thing we learned from Superstorm Sandy is that wide stable sandy beaches protect structures, bluffs, homes, neighborhoods a lot better than beaches that are paved over with ferris wheels or pedestrian paths or bathrooms or other stuff like that. So in order to incorporate these coastal engineering features like sea level rise and sandy stable beaches, the city should make an effort to have those things into a master plan. The master plan. The same one that could incorporate. Static features and we need to really improve the process because you know, us, like a lot of other people, feel that we've been not really taken seriously and we shouldn't have 20 people, all those people here talking to you guys, this should all be taken care of ahead of time. Please find a way to get the process improved. Also, this is a good practice session because when the breakwater comes, that line is going to be four times as long. So please find a way to improve the process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Bill Shin. I'm a 32 year resident of Belmont. Sure, some people flat out don't want a pedestrian path. Others want to create one with cluttered up with extra elements. I think the current plan strikes the balance between those opposing sides and the City Council would be wise to approve it. I have attended three of the 14 presentations by Tidelands manager Eric Lopez and have watched the process play out over the past two years. The best thing about Mr. Lopez, his plan is that it minimizes the loss of open space by having the two paths parallel in close proximity. It never ceases to amaze me that people will see an open space and come up with schemes to pave over it. There is no reason to add anything other than a pedestrian path. It's a beach created by Mother Nature. Why mess with it? And the talk of having a meandering pedestrian path is impractical. The only room for it would be on the ocean side of the current path. And we've learned from the Coastal Commission and interest groups that they don't want any permanent structure on that side. On the inland side, at least, for example, from the Belmont Pool down to Granada, there are like 12 volleyball courts. And then if you go farther east, you've got people playing ultimate Frisbee. You've got youth soccer leagues, adult soccer leagues, adult football leagues. It's it's gets very wide. It's used a lot. And it needs to remain an open space. The last thing I'd like to say is regarding the dogs. I frequently see people illegally walking their dogs on the current path, and a lot of times the dogs can't make it in time to get to the dog beach. So they'll just put their dog out on the beach and either pick a pick up after it or they'll just cover sand over it. I don't think beachgoers should be subjected to have to walk through that. So if you do.
Speaker 3: Allow dogs.
Speaker 8: On the bike, on the pedestrian path, they should curb it on the path itself and not despoil the beach. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Next.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name's Jason Dunham.
Speaker 8: Back and here, representing.
Speaker 3: Volunteers for an.
Speaker 4: Adventure club we organize of the beach football, beach soccer, beach volleyball, beach tennis, the adult sports crowd. And we're going into youth league soon, primarily near the corner.
Speaker 3: Of Granada Avenue and Ocean. Um, we have over 350 plus participants a Saturday and Sunday weekend basis.
Speaker 8: Have a growing footprint. Every year we bring the community out there to have.
Speaker 4: A good time, get involved with sports, meet new.
Speaker 3: People, make new friends, and it's a great experience. So we like to see the path kept closer to the inland area. So that way we have more space available to.
Speaker 8: Expand.
Speaker 10: Our area and our setup and our events on the beach.
Speaker 8: And to get more people out there playing.
Speaker 4: Um, so we're not against any, any design.
Speaker 3: Or artwork that's not going to take away.
Speaker 8: Beach space, but we want to keep that area open for the.
Speaker 3: Community to use. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mike Filippo, born and raised in Long Beach all my life. I am currently at Poly High School. I've been there 25 years.
Speaker 9: I teach science and I am the cross-country coach and the distance track coach.
Speaker 4: So we need this path on the beach. I run 150 kids in the area and we're surrounded by a concrete jungle. In this day of childhood obesity and kids getting carpal tunnel syndrome from texting too much. We need to keep our kids active and we need.
Speaker 9: Areas where they can be.
Speaker 4: Active. A bike path, a pedestrian path on the beach would be a huge, huge bonus for our youth runners as we're down there once or twice a week already, but very limited on our options. What we can do. The idea of running surfaces has been documented would be beneficial to all of our youth runners. Every year, when we come back to school from a summer.
Speaker 9: Of training by three weeks and.
Speaker 4: Kids have shin splints because sidewalks around the area. This would give another opportunity.
Speaker 9: Of the proper running service surface for.
Speaker 4: Our youth athletes. I highly recommend that you approve this project.
Speaker 9: Which has been in the planning stages for a long.
Speaker 4: Time, to help our kids in the city continue to be active. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Hey, I'm Wesley Park. I'm a runner over Polly, so our whole team is pretty much in on the support of this. We're down there once a week, and we run on that. That concrete, pat and concrete really sucks for your knees.
Speaker 9: And just like for runners.
Speaker 8: So, like, that path would be, like, awesome to have to run on and stuff. And when we're on that path, when you've like 90 guys on that path.
Speaker 9: That really narrow bike path, and then there's like a caravan of like cyclists, it's, it gets like it's chaos. So it'd be nice to have like a separate lane and. Yeah. That's it. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Mr. Clark.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And Council. My name's Andy Kerr, and I live in the eighth District and have been a lifetime resident of the city. I just want to reiterate what the young man said. I've been running on that path since 1986 when I was in high school, and I have the joints and the ligaments now to prove it. And so is a lifelong runner. I just want to reemphasize all the points that have already been made by the previous runners and especially Coach Mike Filipov, who's a wonderful asset to the Long Beach Poly and the high school community here in Long Beach. And just as an amazing job with our young runners and and I had that type of coach in high school here in Long Beach that gave me a lifelong love of running. And we are surrounded in a concrete jungle. Just a couple other quick points I think is an amazing environmentalist. And I think as an environmentalist, this strikes a good balance. I think the National Park Service presents a good model when they have an opportunity with a natural resource to create it more, to be more accessible to the community and to provide better access to the community. They do that. They move forward with that. So I think that's a good point. As far as the 20 parking spaces and creating a more you losing those spaces and creating a more safe running a bicycle path. I grew up in Long Beach. I get cars. King were a car culture, but I think we need to get beyond that and realize that we do have this health issue in our community. We need to get kids more active. We need to get us older people more active. And 20 parking spaces is not a really big cost. And I think the improvement to the beaches as a result of doing this plan, I think the businesses in the community are going to benefit far more than 20 parking spaces. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 11: My name is Alan Crawford, a Long Beach resident executive director for Bikeable Communities and former bike person for the city of Long Beach. I'd just like to address Patrick O'Donnell's culture on O'Donnell's issues, on safety. And I'd like to make two points. One, that the separated facility really is much more important to illustrate that in just a moment. And to the curb doesn't solve your problem. As a matter of fact, if you go to the FAA air manual, you will see that they expressly say, no, don't do that for a very simple reason. Cyclists coming along. Think of a small child. They hit the curb. They go over, they hit their head. They're in trouble.
Speaker 4: So that's you that's.
Speaker 11: That's not a solution. Santa monica has done it for very short distances and they've accepted the liability for doing that. I don't think we want to accept that liability. Under the second point on the separated path, as illustrated by a story from Washington, D.C., area gentleman, 66 years old, riding a bike, $88 huffy, not exactly a lycra clad individual comes up behind an older woman, rings his bell. She does not hear him. She steps in front of the bike. She is hit. She falls, she cracks her head and dies. That's the problem. It's very, very simple. Bikes and pads don't mix very well. There's a very strong reason. We have a strong ordinance in Long Beach that says bikes are not permitted on sidewalks in residential and commercial areas. The same should apply for our beaches.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: They gave their council members first two items to do with their proposal. I don't think that they need to take away the parking spaces at the pier. I agree with the gentleman from the Belmont Brewing Company. It's much safer the way it is because I'm a 30 year resident. I cycle and I walk on the beach regularly and the only thing that slows down the bike riders is the fact that they have a turn to make. They're not shooting straight over the pier and there's nothing to stop them. So I think it's safer if they know that that's there, which they do now, and if they need to make the turn, I believe you can widen that ramp that goes down to the beach and you'd have room for both pedestrians and bicyclists and would be safer. On the issue of dogs on the beach, I can understand people love to take their dogs to the beach, but they don't keep them on a three foot leash and they don't keep them by their side. They like to turn them loose or they have these long cords and they let them loose and then people follow them . I live in the shore. I walk Second Street all the time and constantly am having to stop almost being tripped by a dog people. And there's the issue of the what do they do when they go to the bathroom? So I hope you'll consider that there's a very danger there. And thirdly, the problem that you have with all of these people here is there was not a proper public process. This should have gone to something like the Planning Commission. I'm not sure why Tidelands funds tens of millions of dollars are spent without going through a proper planning process. A master plan would be good and then open public hearings where people can know precisely what's happening. Mr. Lopez came to the BSR three times. He didn't tell us where the path was going to be. It was only when I ask that I learned it was going to be on the ocean side. And after that, we repeatedly asked it to be put in Lent. It was not. It was sent to Coastal Commission after they had spent half a million dollars on elaborate demolition, construction plant landscape plants. We only found about it by seeing a little tiny notice like this on the beach. The Sierra Club had never been notified, so if riders did not know it had been sent to Coastal. We had to get everybody together to understand what was happening and then make a major effort at Coastal Commission. It should not have happened that way. It should have gone through a planning commission and a proper process. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. An expert.
Speaker 8: Good evening, mayor and members of the council. I'm Jeff Miller, a 30 year resident of Long Beach and secretary of the Belmont Shore Residents Association. The bar. Sorry. I want to remind you that sorry. After hearing the presentation by Mr. Lopez about this path and after lengthy discussion, we endorsed a new path for pedestrians, a separation of the bicycles and the pedestrians, and supported that for many of the reasons that have already been discussed. And I won't repeat all of that. We did say, though, that it should be on the inland side only and with numerous discussion and reasons for that as well. And as you know, the Coastal Commission agreed with us. So it's too bad we couldn't have done all of that upfront rather than backwards like this. But I do want to speak to one point, and that is the parking lot and the loss of parking spaces at the pier. It doesn't have to be. There is another way which no one has mentioned this evening. If you take a look at that parking lot and the adjacent pier, what an engineering term is called ground truth. Get out there and take a look. I speak with some knowledge of this because I'm a user of the path, both walking and on bicycle. And I've taken a look at this over and over. Every time I go by the existing path, which goes along the south side of the parking lot and then along the west side up the ramp to the pier is fine and that can serve as is for the bicycle segment of the path inland where the pedestrian path needs to be. There is already a very wide sidewalk and path on the north side of that parking lot and on the west excuse me, the east side of that parking lot. There's no reason that that can't be marked as the pedestrian segment of that path. And there's your solution. And you don't have to pour any new concrete. The unless remember. Please, this is. Referred to as a bicycle path. It's not a raceway. It shouldn't be. So having a 90 degree turn at the pier is just fine. In fact, it's a good thing. Bicyclists need to slow down, maybe even stop, because there is a constant stream of pedestrians going to and from the pier. And in straightening that path so that the bicycles can go faster is a bad idea. So consider that and save those parking spaces. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we.
Speaker 7: Hello. I'm asking that hill and I ever live down in the shire forever. And I remember when there were surf down in Belmont Shore. And of course, that would be the most terrific thing to bring back to Long Beach is to bring back some surf. I also have walked run the bike. The path of everyone has said many things about it. I don't need to add anything more other than to confirm what they've said. And I think with Long Beach growing forever and they have the the marathon, which also is a great, great thing to do. We need more space. We need it for the bikers. And also on Sundays when young children are down there in strollers with dogs and everything. It's too dangerous, particularly if the bikers are going really fast. I don't really have anything more to add, but thank you for listening to my little speech. Long Beach is great and let's get that surf back.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: I'm Nancy Buchanan. And I did send an email to all of you, but I know it was this morning. I support the new pedestrian path because it will increase the safety and enjoyment to cyclists, runners, walkers and families with kids in strollers, internet. And I walk weekly on the path and five feet definitely is not enough. I also bike weekly on the path. The 3.1 mile beach path brings together East Long Beach, which is Belmont Shore, Naples and the Bay to Within connects it with downtown, which has the hotels and convention center. Now what an excellent connection to showcase our city. The beach path provides an opportunity for groups such as 5013 C's and other groups to raise money for charities. And it brings in thousands and thousands of visitors for people to learn about our city. I am a resident. I am proud to be a volunteer with a Long Beach marathon and also with the Community Action Group with the bike event that's on on the 4th of July, and then also with the turkey trot. Both those events, all those events need more room. Okay. So I'm requesting that you do approved tonight, the pedestrian path. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mrs. Buchanan. Next to me.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Sasha Witty. I live at 3 to 140 second Street, and I'm the president of the Bluff Park Neighborhood Association. Our neighborhood association got a presentation a while back about the second bike path, and overall the support was for a separation of pedestrians and bicyclists. And then more recently, it was brought to our attention of the plan that had been created with Parks and Rec, Terry and David sometime back. The more meandering path, it just seemed like a more comprehensively well-thought out concept. So the neighborhood was very much in support of that. So I'm here on behalf of the Bluff Park Neighborhood Association to say, we'd love you guys, to take a look at it, come up with a more comprehensive plan, go back to some of the things that were already created and take a second look. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Speaker 7: Next for Wendy Hahn Bluff Park. And I'm speaking on behalf of Long Beach Heritage Advocacy.
Speaker 9: I, too, first of all, I really would like to thank Ms.. Braunstein. She has made a.
Speaker 7: Significant outreach effort to.
Speaker 4: Inform and.
Speaker 7: Educate various stakeholders and community groups in the area about this wonderful plan that was developed in 2004. It's absolutely phenomenal. If you had an opportunity to see it, great.
Speaker 2: If you haven't, I urge you to perhaps have a.
Speaker 7: Special session where.
Speaker 9: Planning could present this work. It's really, really delightful to.
Speaker 7: See, and we would very much support the second path with adherence to or consideration of conformance or incorporating some of those wonderful design elements.
Speaker 9: Because then I.
Speaker 7: Think you're going to put Long Beach truly on the map of having a unique resource, an attribute that would be attractive.
Speaker 9: For many, many.
Speaker 7: Years to come. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Raven Adder, and I'm a resident of First Street in Long Beach. I'm also a member of the Bluff Park Neighborhood Association, and I sit on that board. As such, I support what our president just said, the position that we have for the board to put it off at this point. But as a private citizen, I would also like to reiterate that point. I think we have the opportunity to make something great at the beach, make it more of a Destin. Nation. And I think today we should just pause to step back and look at the plans that are out there, what's available, and see where we can come up with something a little bit better for all. I thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Spinner. Appreciate.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Mike Ilitch. I'm a five year resident of Long Beach, also one of the owners of Ball to Sport Adventure Club. I've also lived in Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Redondo Beach, and I think there's possibly another feasible approach to this in what I would propose as merely widening the path in consideration of implementing signage that would support the safety of our pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition to that, some responsibility of the city to help police that environment and provide that safer, secure environment for the people who are active at the beach. With that being said, we're at the beach every weekend. We see everything out there. We understand why there's a concern. I see just as much of a problem with people crossing across the bike path to get to the water as people walking down the path itself. So I think there's a lot of things being addressed here and outside of what our club does. It worked with Susan Smith for a few years trying to grow activity here at the beach and now taking it over with our club on behalf of people that aren't here, that play volleyball closer down by this other parking lot, it looks like this proposed plan would actually be removing four courts from that location that are used at least five times a week. So let's just just have that in consideration when you're making your decision. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 6: And Mr. Mayor Kristof, just quickly comment on that. I wasn't aware of any courts being removed.
Speaker 3: Or maybe maybe.
Speaker 6: Because that proposal.
Speaker 3: Was before the courts right there. He'll be there and they will say yes.
Speaker 7: All of the existing courts will remain. We're not removing or affecting any of the existing courts.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 7: So that's correct. Those are those will stay.
Speaker 2: For the.
Speaker 3: Volleyball. Volleyball do cross next week.
Speaker 9: I am Casey Hunt and don't need to know my whole life story, but I run for poly track and cross-country and we always run down to the beach. And it's kind of fun to run down there, but it kind of sucks running on the bike path because it's like we had to, like, alert each other for bikes because the bikes fly by and you need to like really get over and get onto the sand. So I go around the bikes and so they don't hit you. So I'm thinking that the bet that the. I suck at this that the new pedestrian path would be a good idea because now I know we can all run on the on our own side and the bikers can go on their own side and it be like separate. And also that people will cross over and they're going to say passing on like a highway, a one lane highway. You're going to go around some people, but you'll get back over. And, you know, but I think that the the strip of sand will be a good idea because then you'll want to run through the sand and go, oh, well, too much work and go across it. So I think it's a good idea to separate it and that keeping the 90 degree turn, I mean, I don't I'm just going to say this, that I think it was kind of a good idea because like, it slows people down and like, you know, so people bikes have to go slow because bikers, are they legal fast and they like they they try to hit you so and that seems like a game to them. So I think that's a good 90 degree turns good. The bike path is good and that sounds good. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Oh, good.
Speaker 4: All good.
Speaker 8: I'm good.
Speaker 9: So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Well said. Hi, my name is David Bronstein. And as you can imagine, I've been an active listener of this.
Speaker 3: And frankly, you know, I'm bothered by the process.
Speaker 0: Like many of the other people.
Speaker 3: And I think in the end.
Speaker 0: I'm going to make this short.
Speaker 3: But in the end, there are two.
Speaker 0: Basic questions I.
Speaker 3: Think you should all consider.
Speaker 0: First is the community engagement process that reviewed the proposed staff plan complete and satisfactory?
Speaker 3: And I think you've heard from a lot of people that it isn't.
Speaker 0: And you have a broken.
Speaker 3: Process.
Speaker 0: I sat through several of the association meetings and the participants were quite vocal in their preference for a more interesting path, the one proposed by Terry Braunstein. And and they, they were really wowed by the plan that was put together by Park and Rec.
Speaker 3: They were and frankly, they were incredibly annoyed. They were not given this option when asked to vote.
Speaker 0: So all the participation you heard about, I think, has been quite.
Speaker 3: Biased because they had no option.
Speaker 0: People favor.
Speaker 3: Two paths. That's a given. But what they wanted was something more inspired and something more artful. Second, the proposal presented.
Speaker 0: By staff.
Speaker 3: Is not consistent with the 210 Long Beach Strategic Plan. On page four, the fourth go states support neighborhood efforts to.
Speaker 0: Create beauty and pride. I think that what has been described as a two lane highway fare falls very short of that goal. Whereas the Park and Recreation Plan is aimed squarely at meeting that goal.
Speaker 3: And I think you should think about that.
Speaker 0: We're talking about creating pride. We're talking about creating beauty.
Speaker 3: As everyone points out, that makes the beach very attractive.
Speaker 0: And that's one of the goals you want to have. By the way.
Speaker 3: When the local council commission was asked how long it might take to review a new plan, they said 8 to 10 weeks. So it's not a long time. And I think we.
Speaker 0: Should take that time to consider a new path. It seems to me to me the bottom line is that the decisions concerning the beach need to be made with the goal of making it a truly a big asset. This is a significant opportunity to make our beach more desirable. So while we're all.
Speaker 3: Four to a pedestrian path, no one's arguing about that because there's a lot of evidence for it.
Speaker 0: It should be thought through.
Speaker 3: Should be part of a master plan, and frankly, it should be one that's a lot.
Speaker 0: More interesting than a.
Speaker 3: Two lane highway.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grassley. Next.
Speaker 9: Hi, my name is Kristen Kerr. I also run for I also run for coach Phillip Hill, Long Beach Poly. And I just want to offer my support for this path. As someone who goes to a high school like this where it's landlocked, we don't have a lot of places to run. One of the few places that we have that's within a reasonable distance from our school is the beach. So someone who's going to be running on this path tomorrow and many more times for the foreseeable future, I'd really like to offer my support for this path. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: The game is curved.
Speaker 7: Hello. Hello. My name is Derek Matos. I also run for Long Beach Poly and I'd like to point out that every single day when we run, we like to go to the beach because it's better than running like 30 something laps on a track. So when we go there, we get told like almost every other day to run the right pace with the right people. So technically, when we're on the bike path, we're not going to be running by ourselves. We're going to be running next to people who are about our same speed. And generally, we take up more space than the like five foot area allowed to us on the bike path. And when we're running, like people said before, the bikes come whizzing past. So we, like, yell at each other when everyone shows up. And so but when that happens, we still almost get hit. My friend got hit by a bike during the summer and it knocked both of them off, both of them onto the ground. And the biker got hurt. And then so, yeah, so I support this new bike path, and it would help a lot. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank.
Speaker 7: Hi. I'm Cassidy, and I also ran for a Long Beach poly. I we run there at least once a week and we're always on the path. And I know when we're running there's a lot of us group together and we always have each other. Bike, bike, watch out, you know, on your left. And it's the we actually had a couple accidents with the bikes, like you said, and it's just not safe for us all to be running there with on the same in the same areas, the bikes. So I support the bike path. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name is Cadillac Reed. I live on 809 Miramar. And I wanted to thank everyone for considering separating the bike path, for separating them for cyclists and pedestrians. I am part of the pedestrian community and the current design is not sufficient. We generally don't work walk alone. We do generally walk side by side to enjoy a chat and that often puts us in the way of the bikers. So I am very pleased that a separation is being considered. I just wanted to emphasize some of the things that Councilwoman Gypsy said earlier this evening about taking the original plans that I believe were from 2002 into consideration. And these plans are on Long Beach, California, Facebook page. And they really are very delightful. And they include spots where that were called mini parks, where there's indigenous landscaping and lots of places to put your eyes and are much more esthetically pleasing than a two lane highway. And I just wanted to I just wanted to express my concern that they were not taken into consideration and appeared to be lost. And I hope that the council will take them into consideration and that they're not lost in the Office of Circumlocution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Melinda Roney and I live in Bluff Park.
Speaker 9: I'm also the president of Long Beach Heritage.
Speaker 4: I very much support two paths, one for bikes.
Speaker 9: And one for pedestrians.
Speaker 4: But I do not support what they're calling a highway.
Speaker 9: I would call.
Speaker 4: It a ribbon of cement.
Speaker 9: I believe there are alternatives to this, and I.
Speaker 4: Don't think that we've had time to look at them. I very much support the plan from Jerry Bernstein.
Speaker 9: And Mike Craig excuse me.
Speaker 4: Craig Stone called Coastal Illusions. It makes something very nice.
Speaker 9: Of our pathway. It also.
Speaker 4: Since it's extending from downtown, I believe it gives Long Beach.
Speaker 9: More of an esthetic appeal.
Speaker 4: People will be able to walk from the convention center and be able to see things that are attractive. Long Beach is very big on bikes and this has been good, but we've got to be bigger on the esthetics and I think that we're selling ourselves short. If we go ahead and approve, approve this as is, I think more time has to be taken to look at this plan. And also, I.
Speaker 9: Would like to see the Bernstein and Stone plan incorporated into it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thanks for.
Speaker 7: Hi, my name is Olivia Gleason and I also run with pie crust country. And I just wanted to mention that I don't think a lot of people realize how many injuries people get from running on hard surfaces like cement. I myself received an injury as stress fracture with some reason of it being from running on the hard surfaces. And also I live on the peninsula and we have two dogs and when we try to walk to the dog beach, we can't walk on the bike path and we have to go on the cement around the bike path and it's kind of a hassle to get back on there. So I think the alternative path would be really good. And with the six foot margin between where the bikers would go and where the walkers and runners would go, and it would make a lot of sense because when the dogs walk, the have plenty of room and even if they did have a long leash or a long line, they wouldn't run into the bikers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: My name is Jeff Jones, 3850 East Ocean Boulevard. And I'm a regular user of the bike path, have been since it's been built both on bicycle and on inline skates and definitely agree it does need expansion to accommodate the increased usage. My concerns. The reason for me to be here today is the.
Speaker 8: Interchange planned over.
Speaker 4: The parking lot at the Belmont Pier. It's it's way over the top. The parking spaces are extremely valuable there, and there are all the other alternatives. One, keep it the same as it is. Put a stop at the top and the bottom and slow down the bikes, as many have suggested. But what I haven't heard suggested as simply line up the bike paths and have the bicycle section of the path crossed the pier where the Deadman's Curve is now. That would be a spot on the pier where there's very light traffic. Only the people going in and out of the pier, they're coming in one direction instead of the six directions they're coming from at the current level. That's a real heavy, pedestrian intensive spot. Now, where the bike path crosses appear, because some people are going to the restaurants and the businesses, some are going to the pier, some are going to the path, some are going to the condos. So you have no one knows who is going what direction. But by removing the bike traffic and making it cross there, you eliminate the Deadman's Curve. It would be a straight approach over an unused section of the beach because that's where.
Speaker 8: The wastewater from the street.
Speaker 4: Runoff all settles. So nobody goes on the beach there. And it would allow the existing ramp that the city built a few years ago that has Deadman's Curve to be the existing walking path. It would save a lot of money and the construction cost would be simpler and it would save the parking places. The local coastal plan says the number of parking spaces on the beach parking shall be retained. This plan doesn't follow that. In the packet there with this with this item on the agenda, there was a questionnaire from the Coastal.
Speaker 8: Commission about the parking and instructed the city to retain the.
Speaker 4: Parking unless it's not.
Speaker 8: Feasible.
Speaker 4: Well, I think it is feasible and there are other ways that that can be addressed without building a that major construction and losing that parking, because that parking is used for access to the beach, the local businesses at the nighttime for the residents in a parking impacted area. So those cars are going to be displaced and pushed onto already impacted street parking. So I think we need to take another look at that part. And I support most of the positive suggestions I've heard here tonight from the other speakers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next week.
Speaker 4: I believe I'm the man you've been waiting for.
Speaker 8: I'm Charlie Gandy. I'm a resident at 38 Orange. And I will take less than a minute to share with you that I support this plan. But we can do better. The synthetic surface that we're planning to put down on this is actually harder than asphalt. And so while now it flunks as concrete, it's an F rating.
Speaker 4: This new surface.
Speaker 9: Will be about a D rating.
Speaker 8: Asphalt would be a C. If you really want to create an inspired project, let's go with what other great cities do and that is take it.
Speaker 9: Not using that plastic since.
Speaker 4: Synthetic surface. Let's put down a surface of.
Speaker 8: Dirt of.
Speaker 9: Dig.
Speaker 8: Hard pack between those curves that we're going to put down. It'll work very well. I've applied that surface in other cities and as a runner, as a guy that's down there three days a week running my four miles. I want to be able to brag about that facility. If we put the plastic down, we won't.
Speaker 4: Be able to do that. It'll be okay. It'll be better than what it is now.
Speaker 9: But it won't be inspired.
Speaker 4: And I'll help with the staff to make that happen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Hey. We'll take it back to the council. Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 8: Well, thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank everyone who came out and from all perspectives. Certainly, we take that very seriously, all the input here. Ms.. Fricke One thing that came up here was a discussion of the old Parks and Rec plan, and it said that there are a lot of elements to that. And one question came to my mind is even if we had the money and even if there were community consensus and I'm not saying there is, wouldn't Coastal Commission have significant concerns about new facilities and new elements or or would that not be a problem?
Speaker 7: Council Member I think this is an issue of kind of the clash between conceptual and practical. Initially when we were designing this plan, in fact we had more creative elements as part of it. The the path was on the water side, had a little more creativity to it. We had some nodes that we were proposing that would kind of connect the two paths in locations and have some elements, creative artist elements between those two nodes as we were moving through the approval process. It became painfully apparent that those elements were not going to be supported by the Coastal Commission, that they were pretty adamant that we needed to significantly minimize the amount of paving that was going to occur on the beach and that we needed to flip the path from the water side to the landside, which admittedly made it a much more straight and narrow type of path than we initially were proposing. So conceptually, we can always talk about these great ideas and working it through and having these new elements. But from the practical standpoint, it is ultimately the Coastal Commission who must approve these projects. And they sent us a clear message that we needed to minimize the impact on the beach area. So what is being discussed is likely never going to receive the approval of the Coastal Commission.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. And one other thing that came up from some of the input here tonight was the discussion of the loss of parking and whether or not changing that night of return actually would make it more safer or less safe. So I guess I'm quite interested in your professional opinion of the public works folks. What about this opinion that perhaps by making it straighter, the bikes may go faster and actually create more hazard, particularly for the crossing at the pier? Is that is that accurate or is that inaccurate?
Speaker 7: We believe that the safety component that we're trying to improve is the visibility, the visibility between the bicyclist and the pedestrian. Right now, as they come around that 90 degree angle, neither the pedestrian nor the bicyclist really has sufficient time to react when they see one another. So by changing the design, you can see that there is a greater visibility so that in fact a bicyclist can see that a pedestrian is trying to cross that that path. So we believe that the configuration that's being proposed, in fact, is better from a safety perspective because it gives both the pedestrian and the bicyclist adequate time to react when they see one another.
Speaker 8: Okay. And if if for some reason, if the council wanted to change the configuration or keeps the parking, some might that I assume they would have to go back to coastal and have we do we have any feedback and I guess without you know knowing I mean is that something they have a concern about or were the chances of approval if we made a design change like that.
Speaker 7: We would have to to look at what the design would be. Again, we've got to ensure that we're providing kind of adequate safety to to some degree, because we are making improvements to the path. So both to the to the bicycle and the pedestrian paths. So we need to account for safety. We would take whatever direction the council gives us and then of course we would go back and talk to the Coastal Commission staff and determine what would be the approval process.
Speaker 8: Okay, thank you. Bye bye. I wanna hear from my colleagues, but I do think that the loss of parking, you know, is a concern. But there are tradeoffs. I do think we made as safe as possible. So thank you for your input.
Speaker 0: Mr. Del.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just quickly, what I think I heard tonight was the process wasn't perfect. So we need to look at a master plan and how that is developed or comes forward. I don't know. I don't know if the council would have to put an item on the agenda or not. Maybe your staff can weigh in on that and a majority want to split path so O'Donnell loses on his lighter single path. I listen. I listen, but also the parking spaces. I think Mr. DeLong has some thoughts he's going to bring forward on the parking spaces, but I think that's a very important component. I actually side with those who say maybe keeping it a little bit the way it is and slowing down the bike traffic might be a net positive in the end as well. So at that, I turn it back to you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Long.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I think what I'd like to see us through is amend the motion and direct staff to pursue making those changes to maintain the parking spaces. I want to say, if feasible, so the direction would be for you to go back to council commission staff and go for a diplomat. Now, for some reason they reject it. Then we can go forward with the plan as outlined. But. But I would like you to go back to Coastal and gain their support as quickly as you could. Additionally, not as part of this project, but certainly we've heard a lot that people would like to see some kind of art plan out there on the beach. I guess what I'd like you to do is come back with a recommendation of the council of what that might look like. And again, I don't think you necessarily have to tie it to the bike path project, but come back in a reasonable amount of time and tell us why this is a recommended path that we could take and get some more public comment and some councilmember comment and see what the appropriate steps are to move forward with that. And I'd also like you to, if you could comment a little bit on the material and the issues that Mr. Gandy brought forward.
Speaker 7: So, yes, we have a little bit of a difference of opinion with Mr. Gandy that we believe the material is equivalent to running on asphalt. So we believe it is an acceptable surface. We did look at doing a decomposed granite or a dig path, but you have to remember we are in a beach environment where the wind blows, the sand blows and it would be next to impossible to maintain a decomposed granite path. It would be immediately covered by sand in the first windstorm. And so in order to maintain a surface that people in fact can walk and run on, it is important to have some level of hardness. And the surface that we're proposing has been used throughout the country. We've observed it and we believe in talking with the runner community that in effect it is an acceptable surface.
Speaker 6: So and I'm sure it is acceptable, but to follow question one is why is sand problematic on DG? But sand isn't problematic on the surface that we're planning on using.
Speaker 7: Because we can easily sweep the hard surface. You cannot sweep granite. So that's the distinction.
Speaker 6: Okay. And are there any other services that are more compatible with running and walking materials that we could look at?
Speaker 7: We looked at a variety of surfaces and talked kind of with the running community about those surfaces. And the surface that we're proposing is really the compromise surface that we feel, in fact, is the best surface for this environment.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. So I guess, Mr. Andrews, you made the original motion or there's a modifications acceptable to you. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Longo.
Speaker 7: Mr. DeLong, did you did your modifications for Councilmember Andrews include an incorporation or a discussion of what sort of art components can come back?
Speaker 6: Well, I think what it is, it directed staff to come back with some recommendations, but I wasn't more specific.
Speaker 7: Recommendations based on, well, what we've.
Speaker 6: I think certainly what we've heard and the plans that have in place. But then, you know, any any additions or changes or modifications and maybe give us a little bit of what would be a good public process to take that on.
Speaker 7: And that includes the outreach process as well. Haywood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other comment? We have a motion in a second.
Speaker 5: I just want to clarify.
Speaker 0: Certain.
Speaker 5: With Mr. DeLong with regard to going back to the Coastal Commission. You're okay with this, going back to the Coastal Commission level, or are you just talking at the staff level?
Speaker 4: No, just to.
Speaker 5: But to save those 20 spaces, would you be open to it going back to the commission level if that had to be done? It had to go back to the commission for an amendment of some sort. Would you be open to that.
Speaker 6: If coastal staff response to the city was that they fully support what we're trying to do, but they didn't have the authority and they would need to run it through the commission? Yes, I would support that. But there's no reason to take it to the commission if he the staff says absolutely not. And here's all the reasons why we wouldn't be if they.
Speaker 5: Object to it. Yeah. They're supposed to can't accommodate it, even at the commission level.
Speaker 6: Exactly. Okay.
Speaker 0: All right, members, we have a motion. The original motion as amended. It's seconded. Cast your votes.
Speaker 1: Motion carries seven votes. One vote. No.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I want to thank everybody who testified there was a long, bitter testimony, but you did a great job. Thank you. Now move to item 18. Read. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to proceed with the design and bidding phase for the proposed Pedestrian Path Project Proposal, and consider Categorical Exemption 12-044. (Districts 2,3) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02182014_14-0141 | Speaker 0: Thank you. I want to thank everybody who testified there was a long, bitter testimony, but you did a great job. Thank you. Now move to item 18. Read.
Speaker 1: Item 18 is a report from the fire department with the recommendation to receive and file a report on the plan presentation regarding the impacts of allowing the sale of safe the sale of safe and use of state approved fireworks care.
Speaker 0: Can I ask people just be try to be as quiet as you can as you leave before have Chief Terry or whoever was going to get the report. I just want to I'm going to have to leave early tonight. But I wanted to make a couple of comments on this issue. I know we're not going to vote to put it on the ballot. I know it's to receive and file and hear the report from the fire department. But I did want to signal to the proposer of this that I've got some real problems with this. First of all, I think that we're elected to either the city council or mayor or whatever to solve these problems. If we if you see it as a problem that should be dealt with, we should put an ordinance up here and craft the kind of conditions under which this should be done, merely putting something out to the public. Do you want fireworks or not? Doesn't it only be it doesn't even hardly begin the discussion. For example, you'll hear from Mr. Terry. I'm sure that other cities who have brought these back have a substantial cost for clean up and for public safety. At a minimum, I would want a fee imposed here that would compensate the city for those costs. And that just begins the problem here. You know, you'll hear you'll hear from, you know, from Mr. James, from the PSA, who I have great respect for, that he's concerned that because it's hard to enforce this are impossible to enforce it. People think that they're negligent, that the the force is being negligent. I understand that point of view. But the fact is, we rely every day on people obeying the law and observing the law without having the law enforcement there. If you wanted to fully enforce every traffic law, you'd have to have an officer every quarter mile on every street. But we depend on people. So to say that because it's not enforced, somehow we should just take it off the books, I don't think that makes any sense. And to me, if you really want to do this either because your son's football team wants to sell fireworks or create stuff for other charities, I understand that. I think there are other ways of doing it, but I think we need to put the conditions under which that the city is not expend any money, that people are safe, that the neighborhoods are protected. Those are the conditions under which should be done. I think that should be in an ordinance putting this before the voters in this form. To me there's really nothing. So I want you have an opportunity to answer that. I just wanted to let you know that's kind of where I am right now. And, you know, this this this idea. It gives me great trouble, Mr. Terry.
Speaker 8: Mayor Foster council members on January 7th, the council directed staff, fire staff to come back to them tonight to give a report on the impacts of allowing for possibly for sale, use and possession state approved fireworks. We have a little presentation we'll go through right now for you in the next slide. State approved fireworks known by the hour, which are known by the fireworks industry as safe and sane are those that do not go up into the air, explode or move about the ground in an uncontrolled way. They have been approved by the state fire marshal for private use by consumers, and some examples include cones or sparklers under ten inches in length, smoke balls and spinners. The fireworks are approved for sale for a few days leading up to the 4th of July. State approved fireworks do provide some several benefits for our community, one of which families can spend the 4th of July holiday at home and avoid the crowds and traffic associated with going elsewhere to watch a planned show. The fireworks have been deemed safe for sale use in possession by the state fire marshal. The city of Long Beach could receive income from permit fees and sales tax, and the greatest benefit is perhaps to local nonprofit organizations. Nearly all state approved fireworks are sold by volunteers raising money for volunteer groups, as reported to us by phantom fireworks and TNT fireworks. The average gross retail sales for a stand location is between 22,030 $5,000, of which the nonprofit groups keep 30 to 35%, which equates to about 7000 to $15000 per stand. A survey of cities that have stands indicated to us that gross sales are near the lower end of that range, typically between 23,020 $4,000, meaning groups keep about $7,000 per stand. The potential profit, however, depends greatly on the number of stands and the proximity of the stands to one another, as well as a stands location. Some of these benefits have been outlined by information provided by the fireworks industry. Think slide 295 cities in the state. Permit the sale and use of fireworks or about 61%. 39 cities in Los Angeles County permit fireworks. That's about 44%. It means that a slim majority of cities in Los Angeles County, or about 56%, do not permit the sale or discharge of state approved fireworks. The cities in Los Angeles County that do permit fireworks are much smaller than Long Beach, and these cities typically average about 56,000 residents. Together, these 39 cities account for one fifth of the county's population. A majority of these cities, or 77%, contract with Los Angeles County Fire for Fire Services and 49% contract with L.A. County Sheriff's Department for their police services. Thus, most of these cities do not bear the costs associated with increased public safety demands. I want to point out here that we did reach out to Los Angeles County Fire and Orange County Fire Authority, and they did confirm that the costs associated with staffing up during that holiday period are borne by the county themselves. The assumption being, of course, that the contracts included those costs. The existing ban that we have in Long Beach is consistent with most large cities in California, examining the top ten largest cities. In California, of which Long Beach is one, we find that 70% of these cities currently ban consumer use of state approved fireworks. No city in Los Angeles or Orange County with a coastline permits the sale or use of state approved fireworks. Coastal cities attract large numbers of visitors to their shores each Independence Day. And even if the fireworks were prohibited on the beachfront, it's nearly impossible with existing staff to prevent their discharge on our shores. This creates potentially dangerous conditions on the beaches at night, contributes to litter on the beaches, and exposes ocean waters to toxic substances found in fireworks. Hold on a sec. So the following video shows the situation on the honor beach. You'll see a crowded beach filled not with only state approved fireworks, but also dangerous fireworks. And you'll see residents, including youth, engaging in unsafe activity with state approved fireworks, such as throwing them into the air. Over the video, you're going to hear 911 calls that are a sampling of what our dispatch office receives on the 4th of July holiday, with reports of trashcan fires and residents who believe that fireworks are actually gunshots or mortars. This is merely a fraction of all activity we would see if the fireworks were to become legal. Keep in mind that this video was created with the band, in effect, Dancing on the beach. This is a longer fire. We like to remind. The fireworks are illegal. Please note our 600 are at the intersections of what? Atlantic and Ocean. You've got a building here. It's like a.
Speaker 0: Four story.
Speaker 3: Building. And I just like to go on the roof, the penthouse, open area. They've got some type of pyros. I don't know. They're like open flames, and they're also launching rockets and all kinds of stuff.
Speaker 7: Sounds great upon the paramedics. What's the address of your emergency? 3900 Dispo Avenue. They're all standing in front loading fireworks, and the embers are going up on our roof. It sounds like mortar fire. Gunshots. Okay, hold on a moment. Okay. 103. It's just.
Speaker 9: Blown up. Car stands between Santa Ana. I'm the vision and camera in my shorts and so.
Speaker 7: It's about five people are setting off fireworks yeah interest and.
Speaker 10: You alley rear of 1929 Payne fireworks it went bad There's a fire.
Speaker 3: My first friend. Waiter Engine four. Looks like someone threw a homemade.
Speaker 0: Bomb over the wall here.
Speaker 7: It's at 645 Atlantic Avenue in the parking garage area. They have a huge fire going on inside of their dumpster. There's a bunch of teenagers throwing fire in and out of it. Are they fighting fire or firework fire or they were doing fireworks from the dumpster and now it's fire like a huge fire. One kid, my dad just burned his arms.
Speaker 8: Next slide. I discussed. Go to the next slide, please. If we could get our PowerPoint back up. I just saw the slides. Yeah, I discussed their personal injuries and property damage caused by fireworks at a previous council meeting. Therefore, I will not recount the numerous statistics that I relayed to you on this topic before. I would just simply offer here a few pieces of information that illustrate the harm that fireworks can cause. Next slide. The contents of fireworks include toxic substances that can accumulate in soil and water permitting. The sale, use and use of state approved fireworks will reverse progress. Long Beach is made in improving our air and water quality as far as water pollution, fireworks contain a number of toxic chemicals and metals these substances can accumulate in the soil and water. Perchlorate, a substance common in fireworks, has been known to cause groundwater contamination. As far as air pollution, fireworks are known to expel toxic chemicals into the air, and these elements are finally responsible, increasing agitation to those with asthma, heart conditions or other respiratory conditions. The particulate matter can also be problematic for seemingly healthy individuals, as some of these particulates are healthy and can remain in the lungs. Many Long Beach residents consider the noise produced by fireworks to also be a nuisance. Calls for service due to noise will undoubtedly increase. The police will not be able to address the complaints as it will be for illegal activity. The noise pollution disturbs animals. Domestic and wild like dogs have been reported to have run away, even jumped through screens or fences in order to escape from sounds that they hear on the 4th of July. This can lead to animals being injured by cars that may run into the street, and we could see an increase in calls to animal care and an increase in missing pets. Animal Care confirms that the days leading up to and following the 4th of July are among the busiest of the year for them in pounds nearly double . Beginning on the 4th of July, they must schedule extra staff on the 4th of July through the sixth. And fireworks have also been known to disturb and disorient birds, causing them to leave their nests and sometimes collide with buildings. Next. The city of Huntington Beach, which is a coastal city located to the south of Long Beach in Orange County, decided to permit the sale, use and possession of state approved fireworks for two years, 2012 and 2013. The city experienced a number of negative impacts. Thus, at the conclusion of the two year pilot, the council voted to reinstate the ban. The city of Long Beach can learn a lot from the experience in Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach documented an increase in illegal fireworks or improper use of state approved fireworks. Progress had been made in 2010 and 2011 and decreasing fireworks as illustrated by the downward trend in confiscations in 2010 and 2011. This trend reversed in 2012 and 2013 when fireworks were allowed in the city. Confiscation of legal fireworks increased as a result of individuals discharging those improperly or discharging them in prohibited areas. The increase of dangerous fireworks is important. These fireworks have a great potential to harm individuals and damaged property by allowing state approved fireworks. Long Beach will almost certainly experience an increase in dangerous fireworks. Police and fire will have a difficult time distinguishing between the approved or dangerous fireworks complicating enforcements. The complicating factors put citizens and property at risk. Huntington Beach documented an increase in calls for service citywide as well. The first year, 2012, the police noted a 182% increase in call volumes when compared to the same day of the prior week. The fire department noted an 87% increase in emergency calls. Huntington Beach collected 680 cubic yards of trash on the beach alone after the 4th of July. That's equivalent to 170 of these dumpsters you see on the slide. Even though the beaches and parks were considered off limits, residents and especially visitors did not know this or chose to disregard the prohibition. This demonstrates that it's very difficult to place certain areas in the city off limits to fireworks. Enforcing geographic prohibitions would not only require that staff be dedicated to the area, but that there be enough staff to adequately patrol the area to ensure compliance. In staff reports, Huntington Beach noted that the city was unable to fully recover the costs of the police department, fire department overtime as well as cleanup by their public works and parks departments. Fiscal impact in Long Beach, a fee of 1500 dollars per fireworks stand, which staff tentatively proposes at this time, could result in a new annual revenue of $60,000, which would cover staff costs associated with permitting and inspection. The 1% sales tax on the sale of fireworks could result in additional revenue of about 14000 to $15000 if industry estimates are accurate. More likely, the resulting sales tax will be $8000 to $9000. However, it is believed that the city's cost for increased fire and police response, as well as public works and parks and Recreation and marine staffing for cleanup activities, would exceed the tax revenue generated from the sales. In. In. In the even in the event of a June 3rd, 2014, citywide runoff, the estimated cost of placing an advisory measure on the ballot and in the sample ballot booklet is $150,000. If there is no citywide runoff election, the estimated cost is $1.4 million. Excellent. So that said, the fire department recommends that the city council maintain the existing fireworks policy that has been in place for decades due to the risk of injury and property damage and adverse impacts to the quality of life for our residents. The environment and city services. Mr. Mayor. With that, I stand ready to answer any questions.
Speaker 5: Any Council comment. I believe this item is just a is this just a receiving file? Because this is simply a report from the fire department on on the last requested action. So I don't know if there's any councilmembers there as a councilmember, Councilmember Austin wishes to come.
Speaker 12: Thank you. And thank you, Chief Tory, for the very comprehensive staff report. I will commend you that it was very illuminating. It was dramatic and somewhat balanced. I do have a few questions because I don't. Despite what we've seen here, I am not convinced fully that that that we are number one. I'm convinced fully that we're not enforcing the ban that we have, particularly with those images that was put that that showed that fireworks were rampant at our on our beach. And I assure I'm one of the motivations for bringing this item forward for consideration. And in conversation by this council, in conversation for the city, is the fact that the the alarming number of calls service for service says that there actually take place during the 4th of July. And the the the the expectation of residents that that we are going to actually enforce the ban, saying that is not enforced and has not been enforced. I thought, why not bring this item forward for discussion, for consideration, for debate by the city and its residents to consider legalizing safe and sane fireworks with the simply because of the fact that they're everywhere throughout our city. Your own staff report identifies or defines safe and sane fireworks, which I think you you you backtrack from your original definition as a marketing ploy, but you define them as fireworks, which are approved by the state fire marshal that do not go up in the air, explode or move about the ground in an uncontrolled way. Your your graphic about showing the city of Huntington Beach clearly had a table where you said safe and sane fireworks and dangerous fireworks. So I'm I'm assuming that you don't believe the safe and safe fireworks are dangerous or you may be coming back off of your original position on that. And the fact if we could go back to that graphic, it would be very helpful because I think it actually the data shows us something else. It shows that when we actually do have safe and sane fireworks in the city of Huntington Beach in 2012 and 2013, the confiscation confiscation rate for the, quote, dangerous fireworks were far greater, which tells me that public safety police services were probably focused on confiscating and dealing with illegal fireworks. Those that are going to be more of a harm do more harm to structure and be more dangerous to children and to the public. And so I think that graphic was very telling in some respects. Further in your staff report, quote said It's not possible to respond to all request for service. Was that specifically for police or fire or both? I guess that's a question. That's a question.
Speaker 8: Councilmember. I can tell you that I can speak for the fire department. I'll let Deputy Chief Luna speak for the police department. But we have a team of four arson individuals that go out and patrol over the 4th of July holiday that look for fireworks to eradicate the use of fireworks that are not permitted in the city , which is all of them. On July 3rd and fourth this year, our arson unit responded to 41 calls for service, cited nine persons for illegal fireworks and a check of their fireworks been revealed about 75 to £100 confiscated that they then turned into the state fire marshal's office. So we respond to all of the calls that we can. I would be willing to bet based on our arson captain this year. He can answer this as well, that we do not get to every single call that comes in related to fireworks.
Speaker 12: So your calls your response to calls for service? Actually, as a fire fire department, you actually confiscate fireworks as well.
Speaker 8: Our arson detail does. They're sworn peace officers. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 12: Thank you. Also, you were quoted in your staff report that said that it will, quote, will lead to a sharp increase in calls. And I have some challenges with that assumption because it may may I think it may lead to a sharp increase or an increase in calls, particularly in fire service. But when we look at police calls, if we are legalizing same and same fireworks that are probably more prevalent throughout our neighborhoods, throughout the city, calls will can be be decreased significantly, particularly if we educate the 911 operators and the dispatchers to ask the right questions. Are these fireworks on the ground or are they in the air? Are they going bang or are they whistling? I think it's it's very clear here that that there's an opportunity to to actually possibly reduce calls for service and refocus our resources on the dangerous fireworks here. And that is really the genesis and the motivation behind doing this this just this discussion here. I want to ask you two more questions for now. I love to hear from the public and my colleagues.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Anderson.
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you very space folks. Here are what we have in a year. Really, I think, you know, allowance, you know, the sale of state approved fireworks is very ill advised by that. You know, by their opportunities to raise funds through the sale of state approved fireworks is not worth the nuisance they did pose to residents in my district and in the city of Long Beach. Fireworks are dangerous. They are flammable, combustible and very appealing to those waiting to have the source of entertainment for a party. Unfortunately, many people get caught up in the excitement of the fireworks and forget about the danger that they pose by allowing people to buy these more frequently leaves room for more accidents and injuries. And making these and I think you guys can see that in the Boston Marathon that they had those fireworks, that they took all these things on and caused a bit dangerous where most people were killed and other incidents that came about. So I think it's something that we really seriously have to look at, not just in my district, think all over the city of Long Beach. It is a dangerous situation. And I think this is why we haven't, you know, made these things legal at this point. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Andrews. The members of the public wish to comment. Good lineup. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 6: Figures.
Speaker 3: Woman No. Fireworks are fun. Yeah. You know, I find it's a celebration of life. And above all, in celebration of our great revolution. It's our most patriotic holiday. I will get just sit by and watch fireworks off the shoreline that indulge their beauty. That in itself. When you go to buy them, you're actually helping people. Why do you why restrict something that helps people? The donations go to good causes. More heart, more. Hyman would be done in decimating fireworks than it would it allowing them. We have restrictions against smoking. That's always dangerous. But why don't. Why do you want to have a restriction on fireworks, too? That's. That's our holiday for enjoyment. It offers a little danger, I tell you. Maybe we should. Maybe we should outlaw football because a lot of people get injured in that.
Speaker 7: Near here.
Speaker 3: And that goes, you know, good car that fills the pockets of the athletes. No, I think fireworks are just wonderful. I think kids love them. Maybe we should follow the paradigm of L.A. City, which is advanced in many, many ways, more than even we are. Their paradigm restrict some, but not all. And there are there are some points that they make in regards to that. They. The point that Mitch Austin makes that they're everywhere should. Yes, there's something right about it. If they're everywhere in Iran, why are they so popular? We should not restrict fireworks. It's unpatriotic. It makes. A holiday less participatory. And celebrates America. Power. Love. And of country. And above all, freedom.
Speaker 9: Council members.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 7: Mayor. Sit in. My name is Angela and I have lived in.
Speaker 9: Long Beach for a very long time and.
Speaker 7: I have always enjoyed the fireworks.
Speaker 9: From afar. Safe distance. However, I cannot say that our dogs enjoyed it. In fact, we had to buy a tranquilizer. It was named as one of the detriments of fireworks. And as a lifelong animal lover, I can say that it's not just the dogs. It's not just the cats, it's horses. And yes, it also affects me when a cherry bomb goes off in my alley or on the beach. And it doesn't stop when everybody wants to go to bed.
Speaker 7: It continues and it continues for days. I find it very stressful.
Speaker 9: And I would like to encourage you to vote against the having Long Beach, allowing that people can buy and fire off dangerous fireworks by themselves. And you know, the statistics in hospitals, how many people do get injured and yes, animals get injured by getting out of the yard, running away in fear. And so please keep language safe. It is not as safe as it could be. As long as Lakewood sells it legally and Long Beach residents go and get the stuff and bring it to Long Beach, it's already out of control to a large degree, so let's not increase that. Thank you. Hi. My name's is Carbon. I've lived in Long Beach for about 1520 years and I've been a technician at an animal hospital for about the same amount of time. And I can vouch that hundreds of thousands of animals are killed every year from fireworks and. Personally, I can't really enjoy em because I know how much it's bothering every creature on the planet. When. When these things are going off. And there's. Statistics are all over the place proving how many shelters get filled up every 4th of July with with dogs and cats that break through glass and run across the street. Get hit, get lost. A client of mine's dog broke out of his yard and fell over dead from a heart attack just because humans wanted to be entertained by fireworks. And to me, that doesn't that doesn't make any sense at all. With all the. Things that we can do now for entertainment. There's there's things like laser that are quieter and doesn't have fire. And there's just so many reasons to not have them. I think it's pretty selfish to to do it anyway. I mean, it bothers a lot of people. Children with asthma, they're they're toxic. The fumes come downwind and. There's just so many reasons to not have known. Three nights ago I was walking my dog and a cherry bomb or some kind of thing landed right behind us on the sidewalk, and he broke out of his collar and ran all the way home. And I went back to the house where it came from, and they just denied that they did it. And I know it's impossible for law enforcement to stop that, even with them illegal. We have a huge problem on the 4th of July on the peninsula. The police, there's not enough to be there to stop. And the fire department's down there trying to stop illegal fireworks. I mean, I just can't even imagine what it would be like if they were legal. I mean, there's just not enough people to to manage it. And it's like putting guns in serial killer's hands. People are going to do something stupid if they're allowed to buy fireworks. And that's just human nature. And please, please don't pass this. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you for being here. On the fireworks issue, I vote no on putting it on the ballot on state approved fireworks in Long Beach. I live next to Naples Elementary School, which is already a war zone with illegal fireworks going off and explosive litter in the weeks leading up to the 4th of July. We're not talking about one night of fireworks, of sparklers. People begin getting it, getting it into their hands before the fourth. And the problem starts early for the understaffed and underfunded shelters. I'm a rescue volunteer and they beg us weeks in advance of the 4th of July, please come and take the animals, because they're having to put them to sleep, to clear the decks for animals that are going to be coming in. And after the 4th of July, the animals that are dead in the streets and again, they're crowded. They have no chance of getting adopted because of the onslaught of animals coming in. So, please.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Now, can you just identify yourself for the record?
Speaker 7: Louise Montgomery. Thank you. Third District.
Speaker 3: Got it.
Speaker 7: I'm Lynda montgomery. Ditto to what everyone said. I know that. You know, the people that get hurt with fireworks, it's usually kids, in which case the parents are responsible. You know, as a kid, I saw somebody get hurt with fireworks, so I've always been kind of afraid of them. Anyhow, I saw a kid get his toes blown off and that's always, you know, sort of stayed in my mind. I saw another kid have firecrackers throw down his pants, you know, again. So that's embedded in my mind. But the big problem is also adults. I mean, they're stupid adults. But on 4th of July, I mean, I'm the first one to confess I'm sometimes stupid to because we drink. Everybody's at these house parties and they're drunk and they're fooling around with firearms. Hello. We don't let people drink and drive, but we let them have fireworks and drink. I don't know. It just doesn't make sense. I mean, we're a smart city. You're a smart council. I can't believe that we're even talking about this issue. It's so stupid. But anyways, please vote against it. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you for your candor.
Speaker 7: Yes, I do. I follow Linda. I'm Kate Karp, and I live near Belmont Shore. A while ago, one of my dog of one of my friends burst through a plate glass window and went looking for her mistress because of a firework. Whether it was safe and sane or unsafe and stupid, I don't know. But this this was just an example of what everybody else has been saying. My fear is that allowing safe and sane fireworks, so-called safe and sane fireworks, and I'm qualifying them as such because there really isn't any such thing, as our chief pointed out in the city, is going to open the door for anything goes. And to me that means anything that goes boom. It's going to be a lot tougher to enforce the laws that we have now. And Councilmember Austin, let me tell you something. About four years ago, they decided the city was going to have a crack down on the fireworks. We had a bunch of pinheads who lived across the street who were just the scourge of the neighborhood. We got rid of them because of that ban. They were out there. They were stupid enough to throw one in front of the police car that came down when we called them and they wound up out of there after anywhere from a 3 to $5000 fine. So. Yes, thank you. Police department. They did. I live near the shore and it's bad enough there. But I have a friend who lives in Lakewood where they do sell fireworks. And she lives in an otherwise quiet residential neighborhood where there are no draws, such as bottle rockets on the beach. And she said that they're neighborhoods, a war zone on the 4th of July. This is where they sell illegal fireworks. And furthermore, and this is, you know, close to everybody's heart. It's the animals. I worry about the animals, as our chief said, the animal care services manager. He showed you the stats, how they went up and so did the dogs. And this is going to further increase with your your holiday at home. Everybody's going to be setting them off. And that's what we're looking forward to. It just seems to me that it's the height of folly to support a measure that's going to cost about $15,000 a year to get on the ballot when it comes to discretion on this issue. I'm listening to our fire chief. Let's not take a step backward. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Well to the late Judy.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Jenny Warner and I live at 1084 Mahana, which.
Speaker 9: Is Midtown area. I belong to a neighborhood association that basically has four council districts in it. And I can tell you that there's no such thing as 4th of July. It's it starts in June and it ends in May. It's like every year when I.
Speaker 2: Moved here four years ago, fireworks.
Speaker 9: Were a huge problem.
Speaker 7: Basically, since Commander Rocky has taken.
Speaker 9: Over, I want to give him a lot of credit. There's been a lot more.
Speaker 7: Enforcement and the list last year was actually very enjoyable. There were just a few apartment buildings that were problems. I have had my hedges catch on fire.
Speaker 9: It's not as bad as where I used to live. In Koreatown, where my roof caught on fire. But safe and sane fireworks in L.A. were just crazy guns being shot. Long Beach is so much better. I really.
Speaker 7: Urge.
Speaker 9: Everybody, just like Deandra said, to vote no on this.
Speaker 7: I worked in hospitals. I ran disaster program.
Speaker 9: I've seen people, little kids come in with their hands split open from the little pole.
Speaker 7: Kind of poppers. I worked for our Medical Reserve Corps.
Speaker 9: I am involved with Surfrider. We've seen the trash impact.
Speaker 7: There's just a.
Speaker 9: Lot of considerations. And 4:00 in the morning, sun waking up to huge fireworks going off right over my house is not fun. I can see the Queen Mary displays from my house. That's fine. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: But good evening, everyone. I'm Judy Crumpton and I reside in the Forth.
Speaker 2: And my addresses on file.
Speaker 7: And I'm here basically to support what our fire department and police department have already brought forward all the reasons why we need to keep this band. I really like what Councilmember Andrews and our mayor had to say. I echo the thoughts of everybody that has come up here. The previous speakers, they've really said it all. I do have great concerns for our children and our animals.
Speaker 2: Safety, it's all been said.
Speaker 7: What happens to animal care services? All animal control services throughout the country suffered dramatically because of one holiday. I'm a patriotic person too, but I put safety for children and people and animals before any tradition on earth. I would just like to say to that I don't appreciate the pollution that will definitely increase dramatically. And there are wonderful fireworks displays everywhere. They're terrific. So, yes, it's nice to be at home and have a holiday, but it's not so great if it's not safe and kids are getting hurt and they do all the time. The emergency rooms at hospitals are loaded with kids that have lost fingers and eyeballs and and so many animals are killed from from the fear. I know my husband. We cannot go out on the 4th of July. We stay home with our dogs because they are so drastically afraid. We have to keep the, you know, the radios up and the TV's up. And also, I want to say, it's not just the fourth people start this nonsense like two weeks ahead of time. A week later, neighborhoods suffer for sometimes because I know my neighborhood does and we don't even bother calling the police department cause we know they're so busy. It's not that they don't want to come out and help. They're just so busy with phone calls. They can't. They can't do it. Why can't we just find a better way to enforce our ban? You know, why are we even considering increasing a problem? We already have a problem, you guys. Why are we even considering this? So I'm sorry, Councilmember also, but I think this really stinks. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Mr. Double, Vice Mayor, members of the Council. Steve James, President of Long Beach Police Officers Association. You know, obviously, this is a very emotional issue for people. I'm a dog lover. I've got a dog now. I've had two dogs before. I lived in Long Beach for, I don't know, 35 years. We always had to sedate our dogs, but there was a ban, but I had to sedate my dogs. I now live in Westminster. When I moved there, fireworks were illegal. Safe and sane. State approved were illegal. I had to sedate my dogs. Now they are legal. I still have to sedate my dogs. You're going to have to sedate your dogs on the 4th of July if your dogs need to be sedated, whether this passes or doesn't. So I have the utmost respect for these folks. The things that I mean, there's a very good friend of mine sitting back there that does a lot of great work with animals, but I don't think that really is the issue here. I want to see a little bit of full disclosure. I work at a fireworks stand in the city of Westminster that raises money for my son's hockey program. I'm not at all interested in a fireworks stand in Long Beach. The PIO doesn't want one. Steve James doesn't want one. But I want to talk a little bit about we need to separate two things. The stuff that is illegal in the state of Long Beach is 95, 98, maybe even 99% of what you've heard the problems are. We don't they don't sell cherry bombs at a fireworks stand. They don't sell things that explode. They don't sell things that go up in the air. They don't sell things two months before the 4th of July. So if you're having these problems, these problems are not from the fireworks being sold from a fireworks stand. I'm not saying that some of those products don't cause these problems, but for, I don't know, 20 years of my life, I got in the car with my dad. We drove to Lakewood, we bought the fireworks. We brought them back into Long Beach and we had a great time and we let them off. We are criminalizing. Law abiding citizens with this law. If you put this on the ballot as an advisory, non-binding advisory vote, what you're afraid of is that about 60% of the public is going to tell you that they want these things. Why? Because 50% of them are already using them. 10% are afraid because they are such law abiding citizens. Unlike my parents, they won't go buy them. And in Lakewood. We don't need to criminalize these folks. We can't enforce this. We cannot enforce this. We don't want to enforce this. You don't want us to enforce this. I am not going to go and take a box of $50 fireworks that were bought at a fireworks stand from a ten year old child and his parents. I'm not going to. That's not the impression we want this ten year old child to have of the police. The other thing is, I'm going to get dispatch when that kid has a sparkler in his hand, even under adult supervision. And now I'm at that call instead of going to the call where the fireworks are going up in the air, where things are exploding. So this is to me, we need to take some of the emotion out of this and we need to take some of the rhetoric out of it. The presentation, with all due respect to my very good friend who is the fire chief. Huntington Beach had 170 dumpsters of trash. Okay. What did they have when fireworks were illegal? 164 dumpsters of trash. I mean, that that doesn't show me that that we're getting anywhere. If there's no runoff, there's going to be a runoff. All of you people running for mayor, I think, are well aware there's going to be a runoff. So we don't need to talk about $1.4 million in cost. I know the light's red. Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean you have to be rude.
Speaker 5: I think they're saying your lights on. That's what they're the lights on. It's actually been on for about 30, 45 seconds.
Speaker 3: I apologize. But I will just tell you, you're putting police officers in a spot that they cannot be successful. If we take the fireworks, we create enemies. If we don't take the fireworks, we create enemies. It's just a terrible spot to put us in.
Speaker 7: My name is Bill Endicott, and I live in Belmont Shore. When we came here 30 years ago, we had a lot of problems with fireworks. Thanks to the excellent work of the police officers and the fire department. And thank you for your good presentation. Cheap battery. We're now down to a fairly quiet situation. Each year it has gotten better. I think what's missing in the discussion here is if you have fireworks stands around the city of Long Beach, the message to the public is, oh, we've changed our mind. It's okay to set off fireworks. You can buy them here legally and you can set them off. And the public doesn't know which is safe and save and which is not so. Once you open the door to fireworks, you're going to have more and more of them. And I certainly agree with the people who have so much trouble for their animals. I have friends who have to take their dogs to a veterinary place for the weekend of before and after the 4th of July. So we urge you not to spend the money to put this on the ballot. There are good ways to raise money. We've got Girl Scouts selling cookies. We've got people selling candy. There are ways to make money for non-profits that are more acceptable. And I urge you, these are dangerous. It'll just open the door to more. And please listen to your police and fire. Our police commander does a great job in trying to suppress fireworks and we appreciate it and thank them. So thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mayor and Staff John Kelly, vice president with TNT Fireworks. I'm a resident of Huntington Beach. Make a couple comments to that effect in a moment. A couple of comments on some of the slides shown earlier. The top ten cities, I would point out Anaheim voted unanimously about a week and a half ago at their city council meeting to put the issue of fireworks to their voters. In June of San Jose and in Mercury Times in August, Mayor was quoted stating, Our ban is not working and we need to seek some alternate alternatives. And staff is currently studying that issue. And while in Southern California, we don't have any cities that rival Long Beach in population, cities like Fresno, California, do and have been selling very successfully since the early 1990s. Want to comment a little bit on the Huntington Beach, one of the slides showing that £166 of dangerous and illegal fireworks were confiscated. I want to call to your attention some efforts by a task force that was formed in Los Angeles County by the El Monte Police Department, along with some other supporting agencies. The city of El Monte had a very serious fireworks problem and the task force set out in March of 2013 to do something about it. They confiscated over £44,000 of illegal fireworks in a three month period. Clearly, illegal fireworks is a big problem in California. It's a huge problem. It's a huge black market. They do much more business than I do in this state. They're not subject to the restrictions that I am for stores, not subject to the sale periods they operate of seemingly with impunity. A couple of comments in closing on the staff report. On the first page, we make a reference to licenses, sales tax and possibly a surcharge.
Speaker 3: Would serve to offset additional.
Speaker 8: Safety costs. And yet nowhere in the remainder of the report do we offer any dollar amounts for those surcharges. I know that I provided staff with examples of cities that charge surcharges to the retail consumer. Those vary anywhere from 2 to 7%. So you do the math on those retail sales and you're talking anywhere from 20 to as much as $90,000. And I would question if that would assist in offsetting some of the clean up and enforcement costs. And finally, it states.
Speaker 3: In the last paragraph that.
Speaker 8: A sample ballot would be $150,000. I was at the last city council meeting. It was reported it was 65,000. I'm curious why the increase? Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Hello. My name is Vince Watson, and I've been a resident of Belmont Shores since the mid seventies. And I'm here to strongly oppose any sort of legalization of fireworks. I'm a homeowner, business owner, pet owner and the president of a501c3, which is a nonprofit. So I'm very familiar with the needs for raising funds, but I don't think this is the way and I'm not a fund hater either. I'm not unpatriotic. But you know, the old adage about you can swing your arms as much as you like until you start hitting people in the face. And I think that's where we're at with this. I mean, this is this is people pointed out this goes on a long time. It's it's not a daily thing. I do a one day thing, but I'm representing myself, my family and my neighbors and friends who strong who also agree with me that this is just not a good idea. The potential for injury, fire, property damage, vandalism far outweigh any temporary economic benefits to the city from the first and inevitable lawsuit that will follow would eliminate any monetary gains. It also encourages people to come from outside the city, converging on Long Beach with the idea that now it is fireworks friendly, whether they be legal or not. And I don't see any evidence that any of these people have our best interests when they do come into the city, as has been documented in Huntington Beach and so many others. I actually, you know, and if you remember, there were two homes that were damaged and or destroyed back in Lakewood within the last ten years, probably five or eight years, I don't remember. But someone was actually prosecuted because their fireworks caught fire and did burn homes in a neighborhood. Negative environmental impact has been documented. I mean, realistically, we've heard from professionals, police, fire, city attorney, I don't know this, but I'm assuming the city is not really big on this or the city manager. I know animal control is not. These are the professionals. And it seems to me that we should be listening to them. It's a it's a potential step backwards and a liability to the city and the citizens. To me, this is the kind of logic of stepping over $100 bill to pick up a dime. It just does not make sense. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Hello. Kelly Edwards again, still downtown Long Beach. I just will be real quick. I just wanted to bring up a couple of things. I was interested to know what the percentage was of when people get fined, of what the percentages of those that actually pay those fines. I think that's something that we should look at because maybe if we just have more officers that are hired at that time to really hit our cities hard. Make a statement in the next couple of years, we'll start to see that decline. Also, the other thing I just wanted to bring up with in regards to Councilman Austin, I understand that you were talking about educating the nine on one employees. Problem is, is that those that are calling in aren't educated. So they're not going to know if it's a cherry bomb, a gunshot or just sparkler that's going off. They could just completely be freaking out and exacerbating the whole situation to where the nine on and most of the time they're not even seeing it. They can only hear it. So even with educating them on that is going to fall short when the caller is informed themselves. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I've been hearing this argument and I guess I would have to say I'm somewhat neutral due to the fact that, oh, by the way, my name is Hadi Mohammed. And this situation, me personally.
Speaker 3: When I was younger with black convert, I used.
Speaker 4: To, you know, set off fireworks. However, when I hear Councilman Austin and the fact that in this room tonight, I don't think we're qualified to speak for the entire city of Long Beach. And believe it or not, there's some pro, there's some con. There's a lot of bad things like in boxing, people fighting it's entertainment. But sometimes people get killed or sometimes you see blood splatter. I believe that this is a situation that needs to go to the voters. Me personally, I don't set off fireworks. It's not my thing. However. Maybe there are people who do care about this or who do want to set off fireworks. And I believe that it should be done by popular vote. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. No more public comment. Council member Neil.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Pro-Tem. And I would like to thank everyone that has come up and spoke on this issue. This is, as you can see, there is a lot of emotion around this. And I believe I'm not speaking for Mr. Olsen, but I believe his point in bringing this forward was to create this dialog and to really look at a situation that, as the head of our police union has said, is not enforceable as it is. All of these things are happening anyway. So the question in my mind is. Is there is there room for the city to benefit? And is it worth us investing in. And that you know that. That's a decent question. Right. Because regardless of what we decide today or tomorrow, next year on the 4th of July, all of our animals are still going to be running scared. And there are going to be fireworks going off in our neighborhood. It's going to happen. So the question still remains is, is there an opportunity for the city to benefit and.
Speaker 4: Bye. If we were to choose to do a safe and sane.
Speaker 8: Fireworks, does that put the police in a better position to their assumptions? But does it really make it easier for them to go after the unsafe fireworks? Those are the two questions that I have. And I want to thank all of you for your testimony. But I'm still left with as many questions.
Speaker 4: As I have before we set out here. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilmember Neal. You know Councilmember Dawn.
Speaker 6: Well, could we ask Deputy Chief Luna to answer that question?
Speaker 5: What specific question would you like them to ask?
Speaker 6: Answer Councilmember Neal said he had a couple of questions. One of them had to do with whether or not it made it easier or more difficult for the police department to manage this. And I guess I'd like to hear from the police department what their answers.
Speaker 8: Councilman Neal, what you might know, repeating.
Speaker 3: The specific question, please.
Speaker 8: Sure. If we were to have safe and sane fireworks, would would your department be better poised to go after illegal fireworks?
Speaker 4: It's going to be very difficult in the.
Speaker 3: PMA, president stated earlier.
Speaker 4: It puts us in a difficult position.
Speaker 8: Either way when we get out there and we do respond. I would say just talking about the 4th of July itself, our call volume increases between 18 and 20% just for fireworks. People are going to call people are going to call whether they are the illegal kind or what could be deemed illegal. It's very difficult to determine. And when they get there, the officers would make the best determination possible. But what we got to look at from a public safety perspective is that the 4th of July hands down, is the busiest day of the year for the Long Beach Police Department. We quadruple the number of officers that we put in the field. And it's not only to deal with firework enforcement, that's only part of it. We deal with an influx of several hundred thousand people that come to our beachfront. So we're dealing with a lot. The men and women of this police department do an outstanding job. They do enforce firework violations. The citizens of this city call over and over that they are perturbed by this nuisance and the officers do a pretty good job year after year of going out and trying to enforce what they can . Although they do get put in a difficult situation.
Speaker 6: So I guess I'm not clear. Will the police department be better off or worse off if the city permits safe and sane fireworks?
Speaker 8: The position of the police department is that if if this were to pass, we believe it would put us in a more difficult situation moving forward. And we believe that because I don't see the call volume going down. Actually, I see probably and I can't prove this until it happens that the call volume would potentially go up. We still have to respond to citizens calling us regarding fireworks, firecrackers being heard or observed.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeLong. Any further counsel comment? Do we have a motion on the same you?
Speaker 6: I'll make the motion to with recommendation, receive and file a report.
Speaker 5: Actually, the recommendation is well, it's actually approved recommendation, but it's really receiving files for it should.
Speaker 6: Be so moved.
Speaker 5: Council member Austin wishes to comment. Good.
Speaker 12: And for the record, I did second to the motion. I do agree we should receive and file this motion and staff report. I think at issue here is over the last eight years, we've actually lost 200 officers due to attrition, due to cuts. And that is a real problem with our enforcement efforts here in the city of Long Beach. I don't know that fireworks are more prevalent today than they were eight years ago, those. But I've lived here for the last eight years. And I will tell you, based on my experience as a resident, as a pet owner, as a homeowner, and as a as a as a vested stakeholder in this community in a city, I don't believe that the volume has has decreased even with the or the the the less number of police officers on the streets. Today, I think it was as high eight years ago as it is today. And I would just say that I don't believe that we are doing an adequate job of enforcing this. With all due respect, I think we we have the best police department in Southern California, not the state of California. I think they do an excellent job keeping our city safe. But I want them to be able to direct their resources in a manner that is smart and is efficient and that really goes after the dangers in our community. Safe and safe fireworks are are state approved. They are legal in the state of California. And I hear you, I've heard you. And I appreciate everyone that came out to the comment. I appreciate the letters that I received both pro and con, on this issue. I've heard a lot of good, good dialog over the last few weeks. And so I think I've been successful in one way, inspiring a conversation. I'd like to see this go to the ballot, quite frankly, because I think it deserves a hearing and airing among the voters here in the city of Long Beach. This is a statewide issue. If you want to ban fireworks, if you want to, you know, really clean this up and then maybe this is something for Sacramento. And I know a couple of you may be listening to me right here, but, you know, several several cities already have made this are recognizing safer same fireworks. And the youth organizations, the service organizations, the nonprofit organizations in those cities are benefiting from the sale of save the same fireworks. The point is duly noted there. Girl Scout cookies and their bake sales and candy sales that work. I can tell you, as someone who is a parent of two very active young, young, young kids, they they don't raise enough money. And every one of these organizations is struggling to raise money out there, at least from my experience. And I've been involved in youth football, track basketball. PETA's every organization dealing with our youth community based organization today are not raising enough money to meet their needs today. And I'm sure that something like this could serve as a shot in the arm for those those organizations. Now, listen, I'm not this is this is not something that I'm going to die on a sword over. You know what I mean? If the voters in the city of Long Beach say no to circus and fireworks, I'm fine. I'll move on. But I think it's worthy of their consideration. But with that, I. I'm going to second the motion to oversee the vote. Also, I want to just just point out that the the image here on the beach, on our shores was was deplorable. The sea, the bottle rockets, the sea, the fireworks, the see, the blatant disregard for our law and our ordinance right there in our face, on our beach, was not a pretty sight and it's not a pretty sight. Each and every year, let's focus our police officers where they can do their jobs, where they can actually go after it. Protect our resources, protect our shores, protect our beaches, protect our assets in the city of Long Beach. That's what I like to see our police officers focused on doing and not running around the city chasing fountains, you know, fountains that are harmless in our neighborhoods. I spent the 4th of July last, last year in a bank parking lot in Lakewood and firing off fireworks with my kids and feeling really guilty about it. You know, like I was doing something wrong, you know, I was doing something wrong. I mean, I don't think I was violating the law in Lakewood, number one. But when.
Speaker 6: My next door neighbor shoots in my.
Speaker 5: House, Mr. Austin has the floor. We don't need exchange back and forth.
Speaker 12: Well, thank you. But but I think I mean, I'm a law abiding citizen, and there are several other law abiding citizens throughout this city who ask the same question each and every year. Why do I have to feel guilty or. Or Why do I have to go to another city to do something that is illegal, that is legal in the state of California, but illegal in our city? You know, and so that's the question. Again, it's about enforcement. It's about being smart with our resources, focusing our resources on the issues that truly matter. I heard from Chief Luna, and I appreciate that our police officers are dealing with crowd control issues. They're dealing with illegal fireworks. They're dealing with gunfire. They're dealing with violence. Those are the issues that I want to see our police officers focused on and not, you know, breaking up block parties and, you know, family, family fun on the 4th of July. I want to remind you that fireworks are an American tradition. It's something to celebrate it. We gather in big places throughout this city to to watch firework displays and celebrate that. And so I think in some ways, we are we're we're backpedaling and depriving our children, our neighborhoods, our citizens from a liberty that is enjoyed by most other Americans.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Orson. Rather passionate. Councilmember Lipski.
Speaker 2: What can I say? I'm opposed to actually making it legal. I do think that it's fraught with all kinds of problems, not only from the nursing standpoint of what it does to kids and the injuries that it causes. But also, quite honestly, I do think would make it much more difficult for fire and police to respond to legitimate concerns of gunfire and other things that do happen around the 4th of July. What? Mr. Johnston Actually, what I'm I'm curious, though, why isn't why wouldn't you just write an ordinance, see if you've got the votes on council? You can always take it out to the voters for ratification. You can always ask them after the fact if this council approves it, which it may or may not. Then you can go back and ask the citizens if they support it. But I think to spend the money, energy and time to go ask an advisory doesn't move this issue anyplace. It just simply sets up a lot of campaign contributions. But it certainly doesn't do anything to get the issue.
Speaker 12: You probably could benefit from that. I'm not running. I won't do anything right now.
Speaker 4: Just to be clear, was that a question? Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 5: Orlando Councilmember Lipski has the floor.
Speaker 2: My question is that if you feel this passionate about it, why not just bring it forth as a council item for an ordinance? Let the council vote up or down on it. You can always take the results to the voters afterwards. But I just think let's you know, let's move forward on it.
Speaker 4: Can I just ask a point of clarification.
Speaker 12: On how you would do that, write the ordinance and then take it to the voters for even for people.
Speaker 2: Mr. Perkins, you can clarify this. If, in fact, this council does pass something, we can ask for it to be. Is that correct? We can ask for the.
Speaker 5: Mr. Parking. Could you opine on that?
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 8: Mayor of members council member on down members of the council. The. It's similar to asking for an advisory opinion on an ordinance you've already adopted. But the the benefit, I guess, would be is that you have an actual ordinance that you're asking them to opine on. Right. But it's similar. It's an advisory opinion on your ordinance or you could worded as its own initiative ordinance or as a council member indicated, you could adopt your own ordinance on on a Tuesday.
Speaker 5: That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Parking ships here. Go ahead and finish up.
Speaker 2: More importantly, I think we've stepped up and dealt with the issue as the elected officials and, you know, taken taken the consequences of it. I don't think it does any good to send it out to the voters on an advisory opinion on something that is not detailed and specific. And so on that basis, I will support the receive and file and and hope that's the end of it.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council members, item number 18, go ahead and cast your vote. Item number 18, O'Donnell's a yes.
Speaker 1: Motion carry seven votes. Yes.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you. We're on item number 19, correct?
Speaker 1: Actually.
Speaker 5: I'm 12. All right. Let's get moving here. Item number 12.
Speaker 1: And item number 12 is a recommendation from the office. Complimentary shift key to request city manager to provide information on to the City Council regarding the cost and feasibility of utilizing a the government the open government platform or equivalent to make city expenditures available online. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file a report and presentation regarding the impacts of allowing the sale and use of state-approved fireworks. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02182014_14-0109 | Speaker 1: And item number 12 is a recommendation from the office. Complimentary shift key to request city manager to provide information on to the City Council regarding the cost and feasibility of utilizing a the government the open government platform or equivalent to make city expenditures available online.
Speaker 5: Reshevsky.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem of some time ago we at this council did discuss about making data open and available and one of the requests was to as many other cities are doing, they're putting their checkbook online, which means that they put the expenditures online so that taxpayers can see how money is being spent. We we don't do that. There is a sense an open government platform was developed. It it does transparent operations for a number of cities. It's called managed transparency. They take the government chart of accounts and they show how the money flows through the city, not just how it's stored in databases, complete with educational content that helps simplify and explain government finance. The open government platform helps citizens see the complete picture, and to date, they have actually provided this service to 62 local governments, many of which are in California. They are based in the Bay Area. And so my motion would be to request the city manager to provide information to the City Council requiring the cost and feasibility of utilizing the open government platform or an equivalent to make the city's expenditures available online.
Speaker 5: Second only council comment. Hearing. No Council Comment. Any public comment on this item? No public comment on item number 12 members. Cast your vote on item number 12. I'm a yes.
Speaker 1: Motion carry six votes. Yes.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I am over 13, Mr. Clerk. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to, by motion of the City Council, request City Manager to provide information to the City Council regarding the cost and feasibility of utilizing the OpenGov Platform or equivalent to make the City's expenditures available online. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02182014_14-0137 | Speaker 1: Item 13 is a report from the office of Councilman Jerry Ships here with a recommendation to request city manager to work with you and Golden Stuart, director of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. In submitting comments necessary for the city of Long Beach to participate in seeking the designation designation as a manufacturing community.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilmember. Shifting that you wish to comment.
Speaker 2: Yes. Just quickly, I want to thank I understand that through the city manager's office with Tom Modica that Tom has talked with Joanne Stewart, who is the director of public policy for L.A. Economic Development Corporation. This is a wonderful opportunity, I have to tell you. The office of the mayor of the city of Los Angeles is working furiously to make sure that they get their information in so that L.A. can be designated one of 12 communities as a manufacturing community. Receiving this designation would mean that this L.A. region, which we have to work through a regional organization, which is L.A. EDC, would give us access to approximately 1.3 billion funding, as well as the the help and the assistance of numerous federal agencies. So I would just, for the sake of time, would like to make a motion to request the city manager actually continue to work with Joanne Gordon Stewart, director of Public Policy for L.A. EDC, and submitting comments necessary for the City of Long Beach to participate in seeking designation as a manufacturing community as part of the Investing in Manufacturing Communities program established by President Obama.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Andrew Seconds. Any public comment on item number 13? Councilmember DeLong wishes to comment on item 13. Go ahead, Ms..
Speaker 6: Staff. Have any brief comments?
Speaker 8: We would concur with Councilmember Lipski. Mr. Modica has been in contact with the LDC over the weekend and will continue to work with them throughout the week.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson. No, no comment. I will go to the public on item number 13. Any member of the public wishing to comment item number 13, senior members of the public members. Cast your vote on item number 13. O'Donnell's a yes or no. Number 13.
Speaker 1: Motion carry six votes. Yes.
Speaker 5: Item number 14. Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 1: 14 is withdrawn.
Speaker 5: 14 is withdrawn. Correct. Item number 15 has been. We already handled. 15 were unknown. Number 16, correct?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 5: Go ahead with item number 16. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to work with JoAnne Golden-Stewart, Director of Public Policy for Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) in submitting comments necessary for the City of Long Beach to participate in seeking designation as a Manufacturing Community as part of the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) program established by President Obama. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02182014_14-0123 | Speaker 1: As an ordinance, the recommendation declaring orders amending the municipal code relating to electronic cigarets read an adopted as read.
Speaker 5: So moved by any public comment and item number 26.
Speaker 4: My name is Mike Schack, the image owner of Essex City, Long Beach. I was here last week and there's a couple of points that I would like to make. One, everything else is right now. I'm going to go ahead and try to make you all Instagram famous. Yeah. I want to publicize this on the Internet. And my point being is that technology trumps tradition. And we have the ability today that technology trumps the tradition of old cigarets the old ways. Okay. I have an electronic cigaret in my pocket which automatically demonizes me. Apparently that it's bad. It's the same thing as a cigaret, even though there is no studies clarifying that. There is no proof of that. I have studies showing otherwise. So as I take a head.
Speaker 12: It's still legal.
Speaker 4: In this council member. I don't understand what the issue is. I have over 700 signatures asking that electronic cigarets be classified as electronic cigarets and not as tobacco. This is where the problem lies because later in the future, when you classify tobacco as illegal or something else, then electronic cigarets has to fall in that place. I believe it's lazy of the city council not taking the time of something so popular. It is not a fad, it's a lifestyle. People want to become healthier. Last week, Dr. Garcia mentioned that he knew somebody that helped was helped by electronic cigarets. And I think that really needs to be considered by the entire city council. It's not going anywhere. It's the reality. I think that you guys have a very old school mindset and that you need to embrace it and learn more. And I invite you all to come to my shop and any other shops because I believe it. Yeah, there's a few owners here. We would be more than happy to show you what is in electronic cigaret. Can you guys name what's in a cigaret? I can name all four ingredients in electronic cigaret and two of the four are optional. All of them are USDA grade. You make em like tobacco. You tell me that I can't vape in my own shop. You want to put me out of business? I'm a small business. How dare you? Please reconsider the legislation. Please reconsider not classifying electronic cigarets as tobacco because it is not. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Sir. Thank you. Hey, could you just restate your name for the record?
Speaker 4: I'm Michael Schachner, owner of E-Cig City, Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 0: My name's Ken. Attorney. Born and raised Long Beach, California. I'm also the owner of an e-cigarette store. First of all, I'd like to say that this is a huge industry that we're taking on, which is big tobacco. It is a multibillion dollar corporation in which we are already turning people away from them, saving people's lives. I've. Personally have had people come to me and and say, after 35 years of smoking and trying everything to quit, this is the only thing has helped me. And to throw this in a category with something that's not even relevant to it. The thing is, electronic cigarets are not cigarets. As a matter of fact, everybody in this building right now is vaporizing. You are breathing water in and out of your mouth. Okay. Which is exactly the product that comes out of an e-cigarette. Nicotine is not a tobacco product. As a matter of fact, inside of a 150 gram potato, there are five five micrograms of nicotine. Nicotine is an F, almost every vegetable and some fruits. Okay, that that's that's a fact. Okay. To categorize this as a cigaret and put this as in and apply the laws to e-cigarettes as the laws are to cigarets. Well, why don't we do that with pot? Why don't we do that with with other substances? You can't because everything needs to be treated separately and differently according to the situation. And then on a second note, to categorize it, because you can smoke pot out of it or children smoke it. 20% of high school kids have tried e-cigarettes. And that is a fact. And the other fact is the majority of those 20% of those high school kids that have tried e-cigarettes are also smokers looking for an alternative and then for the use of illegal drugs in it. And you can use illegal drugs.
Speaker 3: In tin foil cans.
Speaker 0: Baseball bats. I mean, anything. This poll right here, I mean, it's so to to to justify categorize it as.
Speaker 3: A tool of of.
Speaker 0: Drug use is preposterous. Also, as my time's up. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. My name is William Skidmore. I am not a representative of any organization, but I am a representative of 625 online petitioners that I started on Thursday. I sent you copies of the elongated version of our reason for the opposition of these proponents to all of your emails. And I have a copy of all of obviously the signatures here. I will summarize briefly for you. Because of time, we are opposed to chapters 581 because of its improperly linking the nicotine to tobacco products. This is not done with nicotine gums or nicotine patches. If we're concerned about minors, we took steps against that for things like compressed air or cough sirups. It was not classified as a tobacco product as it as it is requested to be amended in 581. The second aspect is 8.68, where we are having the same rules applied for smoking. There is no studies that show that these there is any harm that comes from electronic cigarets and because of this you're in out forcing people who smoke electronic cigarets and could possibly be ailing from these illnesses to be exposed to the same secondhand smoke, which there is plenty of studies, obviously, that there is that problem of exposing them. So that's all that I have at this time. Thank you very much. Hi, I'm James Pappas from the fifth District. I have a residence and a business in that area. A lot of these guys have already touched on some of the points that I wanted to make. But, you know, the state Senate has looked into regulating e-cigarettes with SB 648 and they showed that the FDA was supposed to hand.
Speaker 10: Down its findings.
Speaker 3: On October 31st, and they have yet to do that. So I think it's a little premature to be discussing regulating e-cigarettes in this manner. And just for the record.
Speaker 10: I am in opposition. Thanks.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Jenny Warner, and I'm going to be quick speaking as a health care representative. I can tell you that four years ago, all the hospitals in.
Speaker 9: L.A. that I worked with and knew of were all banning.
Speaker 7: Anything called a smoking.
Speaker 9: Device. And we were citing a lot of things that.
Speaker 7: Some of the supporters were citing that you can put wax in it and it can be pretty much.
Speaker 9: Any substance. We didn't want that in our buildings. We were promoting health. And there's numerous studies and documents about how there's been an increase in the wax and explosions and it's like more prevalent now than meth labs.
Speaker 7: So bringing that back home, e-cigarettes, we decided they were toys.
Speaker 9: They were not something that we needed to promote in the public spaces, and it was not conducive to.
Speaker 7: Our smoke free.
Speaker 9: Campuses. So we banned.
Speaker 7: Them. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Hello. I'm Jeff Miller. E-cigarettes are about nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive substance. One of the speakers said that potatoes contain some nicotine. Well, it may be, I don't know. But until the FDA declares that these devices are as safe as eating a potato, I don't think it should be something we want to promote. And it should be noted that young people, teenagers, adolescents, junior high school students emulate what adults do. NPR had a report today indicating the alarming rise in usage of e-cigarettes by this cohort of junior high school students. Well, we don't need any more encouragement of using an addictive substance. Yeah, they're not all smoking bubble gum flavors. There's nicotine, and that is addictive. We don't need to give anymore chance for junior high school students to become addicted. So let's regulate these as we do other products containing nicotine. That's all that's necessary. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Good evening. And again. I'm sorry. I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome. Melinda Cotton. I live in Belmont Shore, and I'm a member of the Coalition for a smoke free Long Beach. And we appreciated the council vote last last week to on the first reading to approve this with aid to Andrews for bringing forward Mr. Shad , which I believe the e-cigarette store who just demonstrated e-cigarettes with all the chemicals that are in that vapor. I sat behind him last week and he periodically puffs that in and practically in my face. So if the council fails to pass this ordinance tonight, this kind of demonstration will be prevalent not only in city council chambers, in bars and restaurants, every public place. And I don't think we want this. These are dangerous chemicals in there. And just to remind everyone that we're not preventing people from using these if they feel they help them quit actual tobacco cigarets. We're only saying please don't smoke them in public places. Please don't glamorize them for our children. And until we hear from the public health people all around the world, there are a lot of studies that show great concerns about this and the other things that can be smoked. You can put almost anything inside these e-cigarettes and smoke them. So please support this on the second reading and we appreciate your support of public health. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I stayed to the end. Evan Brownie. My name and address is on file. I've been involved in the tobacco issues and related issues for since I've been on the council. And excuse me, I'm a back surgery last Wednesday, so I'm still a little difficult to walk around quickly. But I wanted to this is an important issue to me. It's an important issue, I hope, for the for the city and for our health health conscious people. My biggest concern I mean, I think they've stated a number of things here and I may or may not be true. What what's inside is are healthy or not healthy. My my concern is when I hear a radio broadcast from, you know, legitimate journalists who are telling us that these places are being bought up, that companies are being by the by the tobacco companies that we have have not been our best friends over the years, at least, certainly not to our kids and and to our the health of our community. And they seem to be buying more of them and more of them to match their to increase their bottom dollar. I'm concerned about what they plan to do with them. And that's and I think that has to be we have to be careful about the future and at least for now, protect our community. And this would go away a ways to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 4: My name is Paula Wood, and I am chair of the Smoke Free Long Beach Coalition. I'm here to ask you to again support this on the Second Amendment voting. We feel that this is something that is very critical to particularly our youth of the community. I also work and run a nonprofit organization, and what I hear in talking to our youth is this is a serious issue that many of the young people, from what I hear, have not smoked in the past, but are trying these candied this candy vapor e-cigarettes. And they're you know, they're just becoming more and more prevalent all over middle school as well as high school. And I just feel that we need to make sure that this does not pass, as we can see if he's allowed the vapor here in the city hall. You know, I've also been in restaurants where it's happened. I understand that, you know, some of the college campuses that there's been some vaping in the classroom. And this is very, very a serious matter. And the concerns those of us who are concerned about the health of others. So I just hope that we can ask the city council to do what we have done in the past and support us on this tobacco issue. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilmember Sheepskin.
Speaker 2: Yes. I'd like to actually make a substitute motion that we lay this over until the next council meeting, because I do not think it's fair. We've got three council members who are not here to vote on this. And I think it's very important. This is an extremely serious ordinance that we're taking into consideration and like the medical marijuana ordinance that we laid over so that there was all full participants, I would I would ask that we do that until March 4th.
Speaker 5: Seconded by Councilmember Neal. Mr. City Attorney can ask your question. This needs five votes in the motion.
Speaker 8: To lay over does not need.
Speaker 4: Five votes. The motion to pass the second reading would need five votes.
Speaker 5: So if I have six people and I have two indicating they're not going to support through the ordinance, if we get to the vote in the ordinance, the ordinance dies.
Speaker 8: That's correct. You need five votes for your second reading to pass the ordinance.
Speaker 4: You need to be.
Speaker 5: So. Okay, so. The practical impact or effect of voting to delay this would just delay it for two weeks.
Speaker 8: That's correct. You'd come back for your second reading again in two weeks.
Speaker 5: Thank you. You don't want to hold it over two weeks. Okay. The vote here is to hold it over for two weeks till the next council meeting. Till here? Yeah. So. Well, that would be. I'm. He's opining on her substitute motion this week. Okay. So any, any any further council comment on this item? Members cast your vote. The substitute motion is to hold the item over till the next council meeting. O'DONNELL Yes.
Speaker 1: Motion carry six votes? Yes.
Speaker 5: Councilmember. He has a question for the city.
Speaker 2: Yes. And Mr. Parking, I think this is the first time that I haven't really gotten a clear answer. Is there any way I know, because of the nature of the fact that people can put in these things any any kind of item? Isn't there a way, though, that can be ferreted out between the difference between because we're putting them under the classification of tobacco, which absolutely this city is is really committed to being smoke free with tobacco. Again, my concern down the line is our our vulnerability. I know other cities have done this, but our vulnerability of including things in a category that really don't belong there.
Speaker 6: So it.
Speaker 4: Becomes a policy decision.
Speaker 8: Obviously, for the city council. I think from an enforcement perspective it becomes, if will be our officers position would be almost unenforceable because you'd have no way to tell what product is in the e-cigarette that's being vaped unless you were able to test it. And I don't think we could enforce that. So the other cities, I think that we're following what they have done is that they have treated all of the product as a cigaret, as we're proposing to do in the second reading this evening.
Speaker 2: And are we distinguishing between, you know, in the first generation of the e-cigarettes, it was a device that lit up and simulate it as if you were smoking. And this these devices are much different. These vapor devices are different. So we're throwing everything in the same category.
Speaker 4: That is correct, in that we are treating.
Speaker 9: Them all similarly.
Speaker 8: I think the the other issue would be is if you adopted the ordinance as it's proposed at a future time, after some other technology advances or studies come out, the council could certainly amend the ordinance to address that issue. If that was a desire of the council.
Speaker 2: You know, what's the penalty for.
Speaker 5: You know, council memberships? You know, you're talking about altering the policy, not I'm not in the request to it. Well, not on the court. Your request was to hold it over until the next council meeting, which is really what our conversation should be specific to right now.
Speaker 2: Mr. Klein. Can I get that information?
Speaker 5: Jim McCall. Thank you. But right now, let's let's let's vote and move forward where he did so. Mr. City Clerk, that that is our last item, correct? Yes. Okay. New business people.
Speaker 1: We need to vote.
Speaker 5: We did not vote. Okay. You said we voted. Well, odor. And did we vote yes or no?
Speaker 1: Just hold on. Hold on. That's correct. Okay.
Speaker 5: We did vote yes. Sorry about that. Okay. Councilmember Lipski. No, no, no, no, no business. Councilmember Neal. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapters 5.81 and 8.68, relating to electronic cigarettes and similar devices, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02112014_14-0104 | Speaker 6: The corporate greed one involves the financial management department with a recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant a permit with conditions on the application of Gaucho Grill at 200 Pine Avenue for entertainment with dancing by patrons permit. This is in District two.
Speaker 5: But I believe an oath is required with all those who intend to give testimony. Matter of hearing item number one. Please stand. Have the clerk administer the oath.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor. Do you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in this cause now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Was that loud enough for you? Just check on this for me.
Speaker 4: Yes, Mayor. Members of the council, Dennis Dakota will provide the staff report on this item.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Assistant City Manager, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council is the clerk indicated this is a application for entertainment.
Speaker 1: With dancing.
Speaker 0: For a couch to a grill at 200 Pine Avenue. The city staff, including four departments, have reviewed the application. Investigations have been completed and they're recommending approval with conditions.
Speaker 7: That.
Speaker 0: Apply to all of the downtown entertainment district establishments.
Speaker 7: And there are no indications that there are concerns about this application.
Speaker 0: That concludes our staff report.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: I apologize, Dennis. He finished.
Speaker 2: Answering.
Speaker 5: Any questions from the council. Any member of the public wished to address the council on this item? Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank Adrian, who is the owner of Agaves. He just walked in. Really for being a part of the Renaissance along Pine Avenue with Gaucho Grill. And I want to wish you continued success. And with that, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to go ahead and move the recommendation.
Speaker 5: Sir. A second moved seconded. Any public comment? Senior members cast your votes. Item number one.
Speaker 2: I mean. Yes.
Speaker 5: Sir, don't you? To announce the vote. Rangers. He'll be you.
Speaker 6: Council member. Austin, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Neal. Motion carries your vote. Yes.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you. We'll now move to public comment. We have six members of the public that was just council versus Reagan-Bush. You just identify yourself and you know when the light goes on and. | Public Hearing | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant a Permit with conditions on the application of Ayres Grill, Inc., dba Gaucho Grill, 200 Pine Avenue
No. B, for Entertainment With Dancing by Patrons. (District 2) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02112014_14-0098 | Speaker 5: Thank you. Members Item 19 Clarke Read.
Speaker 6: Item 19 is a report from the Office of Council Member James Johnson and Council member Susanne Lowenthal with the recommendation to receive a presentation from the Water Department to the City Council regarding the statewide drought and how Long Beach can prepare for its potential effects.
Speaker 1: JOHNSON Well, thank you, Mayor, and I think Councilmember Sugimoto for co-sponsoring this with me. She's certainly very knowledgeable on water issues that are represented for the MWD. As everyone knows, the governor has declared a drought, and while there's no immediate crisis here in Southern California, I thought would be a good idea to revisit our conservation efforts. As David Freeman said many years ago. We do basic get out of the concept of drought. We have a long term challenge where supplies are threatened and demand continues to increase, or at least the demand is not sufficiently addressed by supply. So I think that's what we need to look at. But certainly I want to respect the governor's call and revisit what we can do. I did talk to the chair of the water board, Harry Saul Shaver, who mentioned that they would be discussing this at a future board meeting. And certainly we don't want to preempt anything they're discussing since it is the water board who is in control. But I do invite the water department to come out and address the subject and thank them for their advocacy on this issue. So, Mr. Warriner, thank you for coming.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you for bringing.
Speaker 5: This bringing this matter forward. And as you said, Governor Brown did declare a statewide.
Speaker 0: Water supply emergency on December seven, January 17th, excuse me. And the primary issue that that proclamation raises for local water utilities like us is is to ask us to enhance our water conservation efforts. He's seeking a 20% reduction across the state in water.
Speaker 6: Use, which would be a tremendous.
Speaker 0: Accomplishment. So we're here tonight. Matt Lines is our manager of conservation and planning.
Speaker 6: And.
Speaker 1: He manages all of our water conservation programs.
Speaker 5: So for the benefit of.
Speaker 0: The council and the citizens, that's going to go over all of our different water conservation programs and summarize how our how our citizens can help meet this challenge that's been laid before us by the governor. So here's Matt. Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk to you about water conservation here in the city of Long Beach. Our supply reliability in Long Beach really relies on a number of different things, and one of the most important is water conservation. So I'm appreciate this opportunity. There's really two aspects to water conservation. One is sort of behavior. It's sort of choosing not to hose down the driveway. Choosing not to let the faucet run while you're brushing your teeth or shaving. Choosing not to take a 20 or 30 minute shower. All of this these choices really matter. In the end, they add up the lot. What I'm going to talk to you tonight about, though, are the programs that we have available for the people in the businesses of Long Beach, specifically our rebate programs. So we have a lot of programs for our business customers. We call it CEA, commercial, industrial and institutional. And then, of course, are important residential customers. And we manage these programs through a partnership with the Regional Wholesale Water Agency, the Metropolitan Water District. And I have the websites up there. They're both very good sites that provide a tremendous amount of information in all these programs. I'm going to talk about this, just the legal caveat. They're all subject to change and there's limits of time and funding and that sort of thing. But first, with our commercial, industrial and institutional customers for landscape irrigation, we provide $4 for very efficient water irrigation nozzles for public agencies like the city of Long Beach. It's a special $6 per nozzle. We have $13 rebates for large nozzles, $30 per station for the smart irrigation controllers that just themselves automatically. And for public agencies like the school district in the city, it's a $45 per station, which is a tremendous amount of money and something called an INS Tim Flow regulator to minimize excess irrigation for restrooms for our commercial industrial institutional customers, for control valves to limit the amount of water per minute that's coming through the faucet, but keeps the high pressure, $220 per urinal. And for fitness centers, it's an incredible 510, which is almost the cost of the device itself and for toilets, 110 for fitness centers, 310, again, a special program, really encouraging fitness centers to make these conversions are coin operated laundries. We have a lot of them here in Long Beach. We have, again, another really incredible deal, $500 for the high efficiency clothes washers. It covers about a third of the cost of the device cooling towers. It's basically like the air conditioning on large buildings an office building can use. Half of its water can be used just for the cooling towers. There's 200 or $2,050 in rebates for one kind of device, $725 for another kind of device to help bring efficiency to these devices that consume tremendous amounts of water. Commercial kitchens, thousand $50 for air cooled ice making machines, $585 for connection US food steamers, turf replacement $3 a square foot of irrigated with potable water, $2 if you're engaged with recycled water. And then finally, if that's not enough, we understand that to conserve and the commercial industrial sector can be very difficult. They're all very, very different from one another. So we've even created sort of a catch all program if there's any way that they can figure out to conserve water, whether it's to change a process, to buy new equipment, whatever it might be, we'll bring some money to the table to help them do that. This is, again, a very innovative program, and we're the first one of the first cities in Southern California to actually have this kind of a program, and now it's region wide. So we're very proud of the fact that we're pioneers in one more water conservation program. Now for the residential customers, of course, we have a lot of programs for them as well. $175 rebate for a high efficiency clothes washer. $50 rebate for the high efficiency toilets. $4. These are these incredibly water efficient sprinkler nozzles, rain barrel rebates. $80 for these smart controllers, self-adjusting irrigation controllers in our line to garden program. Our line to garden program. We provide $3 a square foot maximum of 1000 square feet for a single family home to replace grass in the front yard and parkway with a beautiful landscape that thrives naturally in our semi-arid region. These landscapes require about only 20% of the water of a grass lawn. And there's the website. This is a very user friendly program you can apply online. We have free classes about how to convert your landscape. We have photographs of over a thousand Long Beach homes that have done the conversion. So you can see pre and post photographs of other homes in your neighborhood. Virtual tours, the beautiful landscapes. We have online plant databases to databases. They each have about 1500 different kinds of species of plants. We have free landscape designs. We have a deal with a 15% discount at certain nurseries in Long Beach area for people who go through the program to buy you plan material and much, much more. And this is an award winning program, and we're pleased to announce that we received our most recent award less than a week ago from a statewide water organization . And these are the kind of landscapes that we're talking about. We're not talking about putting gravel down and getting rid of the grass and creating an unsightly landscape. It's really we're talking about lawn to garden. So these are all very drought tolerant plants that you see, and this is in the spring. They're blooming like crazy. It's very gorgeous landscape, but we have a lot of other programs to promote sustainable landscapes. And one of the reasons for this is that about half of the water used at the typical single family home is used outdoors. So this is really important to us. That's why we have this emphasis on landscape. We have free landscape classes and they've been going on for years and tremendous interest in our community. For these customers, it's going to apply online. We have our free watering update will soon give us you give us your email address and will notify you when it's time to change your irrigation. Turn it up, turn it down. Depending on the weather, that sort of thing. We have a tour of spring tours. It's free to our customers. And last year we had 1900 reservations, people in Long Beach to go on this tour to tour. They tour over 30 beautiful homes in Long Beach. And I want to make a shameless plug right now. It's time to sign up to register for. This will be our third garden tour. We'll have again about 30 homes in Long Beach, beautiful landscapes. You go there, see the landscape, get a plan. Let's talk to the homeowners. They answer whatever questions you have and they're all very excited about their landscapes. And actually their excitement is really contagious. We encourage people to register and by registering, then you get the updates, you get the maps, you get all that stuff sent to you automatically, to your smartphone, to your email, wherever you want it sent. And it's really easy to register. You can just do it online. And that's my presentation. Be happy to answer whatever questions you have about our conservation program and our rebates.
Speaker 8: Councilmember Lowenthal I don't have any questions, but I wanted to thank you for your presentation. I think it's timely. Also like to thank Councilmember Johnson for this item. As you mentioned, that the drought declaration certainly brought a great deal of statewide attention to this subject and the challenges facing Californians in the San Joaquin Valley and Delta area . You know, I do want to caution us, and I think both Kevin and Matt have alluded to this. Every city and every region is different. While this is a statewide problem and there are no geographic boundaries or political boundaries to our groundwater and really just water in general, we have done a tremendous job here and we need to continue to do so. And I think if residents stay the course, then we could see our way through this. But I certainly don't want to send a negative message that somehow our residents here have not for at least the last decade done just as we had hoped and hope that we continue to do so. You know, we do want to also reach and force the notion that while a lot of us have embraced conservation, there is always more that can be done, even small ways, household appliances, things that are something that we things that we take for granted. So those big and small ways do tend to add up. And single family owners, homeowners, primarily when you do your lawn to garden program, you can see how the old notion of converting your lawn to something that is water conserving doesn't have to be barren or desert like. And so you've been able to demonstrate that. And I and I think it's a better approach to approach homeowners in a way that they can still meet their esthetic needs and curb appeal. We're always taught about curb appeal when when we become homeowners or even renting a home. And so I appreciate that you've taken that approach. I want to compliment the water department for hanging in there with the tiered billing system. It is long in the making. We are. I want to say I brought that item forward five years ago. Do you recall I think it was initially five or six years ago, we researched it. Finally are at a stage where you can implement this tiered billing system and that too will help with conservation. And so really I just want to compliment the staff at the water department as well as our residents and ask that we keep it up. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: That's a membership fee.
Speaker 9: Mr. Mayor, I want to thank both Matt and Kevin for the work that you do. And as you know, I've been sending you some emails because my constituents are extremely engaged. I'm wondering if the department can help, maybe put something out. These are wonderful. But there are some confusion among consumers as to, you know, the announcement by the governor about the drought. And then, as you know, they've indicated, well, we see the city having the sprinklers on in the medians. And, you know, we see the the sprinklers on in the parks, etc.. What is the city doing specifically about the drought? So I'm wondering if we could get something that can get out to the consumers that were acknowledging the drought. And as Councilwoman Lowenthal indicated, that the city has done an incredible job, not only the city, but the residents have an incredible job and conservation. But that needs to continue because as I'm out there, I see a lot of people still watering a lot, watering cars, having a lot of runoff into the street. And so I think there's some consumer confusion out there. Maybe you all could help and get something out to the consumers. Appreciate it. Thank you for the good job you're doing. This is really excellent.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Any other questions? Johnson, you were close. Motion are receiving, Pfizer, etc..
Speaker 0: Can I just say one other? There's been some confusion over the years about whether.
Speaker 1: These rebates are available to city employees. And I wanted to.
Speaker 0: Just clarify that we have worked with the city attorney recently, and other than a few of us in the water department who are in the decision making mode, these rebates are available to all city employees. So I want to make sure.
Speaker 6: That everybody.
Speaker 0: From the city who's here knows that that you're not prohibited.
Speaker 6: From from participating in these programs.
Speaker 1: Other than Matt and I and a few other water.
Speaker 0: Department.
Speaker 6: Employees.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. We have a motion in a second to receive and file. Any public comment, please come forward.
Speaker 0: Very good, because the address you just heard from the manager of the water department. Highly qualified, talented. It's confirmed the governor has declared a state of emergency and a drought. Even though at this point we're not that much affected. I would remind you again what is coming forward on the Ides of March or around that period of time? It makes absolutely no sense. Or you should see have detailed outline of how much water you have available to grow the marijuana. The governor has made it very clear we have to make a choice and think twice of whether or not we flush the toilet.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: It's bad enough the conditions are in the view of some in some cities where it's going down the toilet and we won't have enough to flush that toilet. And I'm very serious about that. It goes back to the issue. Of stepping back and waiting. To see that we don't waste our resources in the instance in this matter here. Waste water. Keep that in mind on March 15th. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Next, please.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. My name is Gary, Cheltenham at 240 Chestnut and another council member is welcome and thank you for the opportunity to approach the dais. Terrific report. Exciting information opportunities for people in all all walks of life to save water and conserve water. I'm anxious to have a little bit of a counterpoint moment, if I can, and that's just to let you folks know. And you do get around the city. You do hear people all the time. But I've been to public meetings and talking in small groups and at other associations that I'm a member of. And we talk about this issue from time to time. And one point that I wanted to thank, the council member from District Number two, Dr. Lowenthal, for her comments, which were pretty much aligned with what I was thinking in terms of looking at an even a larger picture of what can be done and not short feeding the folks who have been doing conserve conservation all the time. The point being that we've all got the brick or two in the toilet tank. We've all maybe not all of us, but many, many, many of us have the low flow nozzles that we've received from the port as a gift. I know I have one. And it was sort of odd. I have such a nasty plumbing situation in my shower that when I put in the low flow nozzle it was like a torrent of rain coming down. It was really terrific. I got even more water, but it still is low flow. What I wanted to say is that coming on line in the next few years, if we approach our housing needs assessment of 7500 new units of housing, and if we see what's in the pipeline come to fruition in the downtown area alone, which some are the Molina project with 600 and some odd business people down there using water every day, a couple of hundred housing units at Alamitos and Ocean using water every day, a couple more hundred at Pine and Pacific and Broadway, using water every day. Even with all the low flow which is expected and the tremendous rebates which are coming from the water department. Where will the water come from? That's the question that people are beginning to ask. Where will this water come from? Everybody's conserving. We're going to continue to conserve. Conservation will improve, but where will the water come from? And we just don't know. It makes some people think that maybe instead of a rebate, there should be a surcharge for adding water usage to the cities. Pool of need. I just wanted to think about that. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Any further public comment? Know we have a motion and second members cast your votes and receive a motion.
Speaker 6: Carries nine votes here.
Speaker 5: Thank you. We'll go to item six. Quick read. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive a presentation from the Water Department to the City Council regarding the Statewide Drought and how Long Beach can prepare for potential effects. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02112014_14-0121 | Speaker 5: Item seven Cllr Cary.
Speaker 6: Seven is communication with the Office of Vice Mayor Robert Garcia, Councilmember Susan Lowenthal and Councilmember James Johnson with the recommendation to request the City Manager to review current licensing, licensing and zoning policies for potential microbrews and brew production estimate. Best Practices for Brew Policy and other localities and engage local brew, pub and retail community for ideas and input and report back to the City Council in 90 days.
Speaker 0: The Vice Mayor.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a little background. The microbrew industry has become a a small cottage industry that's grown quite successful in areas, particularly in San Diego and others. We actually have three microbreweries in Long Beach. Those are would be Beachwood Barbecue, BBC, as well as Rock Bottom, which are the only three that are currently located here . This has been an industry that is seeing really great growth and its microbreweries are a lot for a lot of us. It's kind of like the wine tasting of of restaurants and places to go to. It's a it's a great business. It's really about tasting different craft brews. And for a lot of people, it's more than just a hobby, but something they really enjoy doing with friends and family and others. What we currently have right now in Long Beach is where I, myself and others have been approached. I know by a couple of different businesses that are looking at production. There have been some questions about where they can and can't locate and how supportive the city is. From what I hear from the current tenants, particularly Beach, where we've been very supportive of them in the past and they've had a very good, good experience with what the item is asking for essentially is for us to look at what best practices are. Both Torrance and San Diego have passed pretty comprehensive policies on microbrewery, and the craft beer industry in San Diego has gone as far as to create really a whole kind of marketing and other types of campaigns to kind of bring some of that business to their city. So I'd be just interested to know what other communities are doing. It's been quite large for visitors and tourists. There's a lot of local economic impact that happens around these types of businesses, and so that's really what the agenda item is about. And with that, I'd like to make the motion.
Speaker 5: Moving second, Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 2: Supporter.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm pleased to be a co-sponsor here and want to thank Vice Mayor Garcia for including me. He's already mentioned Beachwood Barbecue. They have been a wonderful catalyst for the promenade area, really, in helping put Long Beach on the Kraft Brew industry map. And I know that their next business venture is going to energize the craft brew community here in Long Beach and beyond. So we're looking forward to that. With redevelopment gone, our options for incentivizing are reduced. However, I am interested in this growing industry beyond Beechwood, so I'll be curious to see what types of zoning or piece specific changes could support the nano breweries that wish to set up storefronts in urban downtowns like Long Beach, the vice mayor's mentioned Torrance and other communities that have actually been able to put themselves on the map and in very micro brewing ways. I'd be interested in knowing whether there are changes in our permitting that could assist medium sized breweries. Perhaps this might be more of a manufacturing question for the city manager and council to discuss down the road, but I certainly look forward to hearing back with that. I'm happy to second the motion.
Speaker 5: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Mayor. I want to thank the vice mayor and my colleague, Councilwoman Lowenthal, for bringing this forward. I think it's a great idea. I think if we can encourage more small businesses and also help those who are here to thrive, we should be doing that. And as the vice mayor said, San Diego's already bought quite a bit of dollars, their regional economy with these establishments and also very large sales tax dollars. So with the look for supporting it and look forward to go some of these establishments in the future.
Speaker 5: Okay. Any public comment on this issue? So please come forward. Identify yourself.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Craig Hogan, president and.
Speaker 6: CEO of the downtown Long Beach Associates. And we strongly support.
Speaker 10: The the proposal.
Speaker 6: Presented by Vice Mayor Garcia and Councilmember Lowenthal and supported by Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 0: As mentioned, we do.
Speaker 6: Have two of those three breweries in our downtown. We are seeing many more.
Speaker 0: Small craft.
Speaker 6: Breweries interested in our urban center, as well as the small craft beers being served in our independent locations in our downtown. And I would.
Speaker 11: Be happy to help.
Speaker 6: City staff.
Speaker 0: Further investigate best practices in other cities. I believe San Diego.
Speaker 6: Is San Diego's goal this year is to have 200 independent breweries, craft breweries in their city, and that's a goal that they're trying to reach at the end of 2014. So I'll be happy to help in any way we can. Thank you very.
Speaker 5: Much, Mr. Cogen. With your help, include actually tasting the product.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 5: I'll join you on that. Sure. You got it?
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Any other public company?
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Gabriel Gordon.
Speaker 6: I'm the owner of Beachwood Barbeque Brewing. I just wanted to come up and thank the vice mayor and council member Lowenthal for bringing this topic up. I would just ask that as you guys go through this process that you talk to the people who have.
Speaker 1: Kind of been through it and done that. I think Long Beach has, as far as our perspective is concerned, has been an amazing city to open up a brewery in. And it was a very conscious.
Speaker 6: Effort on our part.
Speaker 0: And while San.
Speaker 6: Diego is a little bit out of where I live, and so it was never an option. L.A. was.
Speaker 1: An option. And there.
Speaker 6: I guess, overzealous regulation of of the type of business that we.
Speaker 1: Were in was the absolute number one reason why we did not whatsoever even consider Los Angeles. And so Long Beach had really a great amount of regulation. It was fair. And and we had a just a really wonderful experience. And so anything that we can do to help, we'd be more than glad to and offer our support in any way. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Hi. My name's Blackwell. I'm the head brewer at the Belmont Brewing Company and have been for the last 15 years. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, city council members, for bringing this item up. I love the city. Being the brewer at the Belmont Brewing Company is the greatest job in my life. It's a real job. You know, people sometimes think, oh, you're the brewer. What do you do? You go push a button and all the beer comes out and you get to sit around and drink all day. No, my day today started at 4 a.m.. Well, 330, my alarm went off, you know, and I rode my bike down Vista Boulevard. Thank you very much for Vista and for being a bike friendly city. I went to the Belmont Brewing Company. I brewed 200 gallons of beer today. After that, I went for a nice swim in the new pool. Thank you so much. It's beautiful. After that, I took the city bus to Beachwood Barbecue and I walked down the beautiful promenade. It's fabulous. It's fabulous. And these entrepreneurs that have put these businesses on that street should be thanked and the city should be thanked for fixing that promenade up to be so nice and so beautiful. I love the city, the Belmont Brewing Company. I don't know how many of you remember that was a blighted area. That was a blighted area before David Hanson bought that property and turned it into that nice place. And we got a nice little restaurant row there with Gypsy's Diner. And so I want to you I just want to encourage you to. Promote all business in the city, not just breweries, but promote all good, all business in the city and be open to entrepreneurs and tell your staff to please be forthcoming with information and helpful with new businesses that want to locate in the city. Breweries are great for our city. Just be careful not to overregulate them and be welcoming to them. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 5: Cheers. Thank you. Any further comment?
Speaker 6: Did you bring samples?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I wouldn't use it in, but use it in about an hour out there.
Speaker 1: Maybe they took it when they checked me on the way in.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Everyone in the city council. Thank thank you guys for taking up the subject today. I'd like to let you know, Mr. Mayor, I do sample quite often. I've come to you today.
Speaker 5: You need to introduce yourself.
Speaker 1: Oh, of course. My name is Thomas Ricardo. I'm the head brewer at Rock Bottom Brewery, just around the corner there. I'm new to the city. I've only been here for about a year and a half now, but I've seen good things in the city. And I actually came from San Diego, which is why I wanted to come today and talk to you a little bit about this and recommend approving this as a movement. Essentially, crack beer is a great foundation for businesses of all types. The most unique business I've heard recently coming out of San Diego was a Revolutionary War museum that serves exclusively craft beer and wants to become a craft beer destination. And I think that example is really important because it actually shows the foundation, the backbone that craft beer builds on businesses in San Diego. Almost anything is viable. If craft beer is your base, people will show up for it. People are getting excited about it and it's only growing. I'd also like to point out how well the LBA did with their first beer festival, the Promenade Beer Festival, that brought a lot of attention to downtown. They did a really great job and the promenade was shown off to, you know, hundreds of people because of that. Yeah. And that's that's pretty much it. La la is a very untapped resource. And Long Beach is sort of the shining light outside of Torrance right now for that. So we'd like to continue that support and we thank you for what you've done so far.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Go, Giants Vice Mayor Garcia.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Well, first, I want to thank I want to thank all of you for coming out. And you're I mean, you guys are the pioneers of this movement in Long Beach. I think it's it's good to know, you know, what's happened in San Diego and and a few other places. And right now, San Diego is certainly becoming like the Napa of of of the whole craft beer movement. And people literally are going out and spending time there just to visit these different breweries and spending lots of dollars throughout this throughout the county of San Diego. And it's been happened also incredibly fast, at least the last you know, the last growth has been incredibly fast. So I think Long Beach with with our weather and our location and the three great breweries that we have already in place is a great foundation for this type of of industry. So I just think, you know, thank all of you for the work you do. These are also these these places provide good jobs. These are really good jobs that are careers and look forward to getting back the report and how we can facilitate more of this.
Speaker 5: My members have motion in the second cast your votes on item seven.
Speaker 6: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I to make clear. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to review current licensing and zoning policies for potential micro-brews and brew production; examine best practices for brew policy in other localities including San Diego and Torrance; engage local brew pub and retail community for ideas and input; and report back to the City Council in 90 days. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02112014_14-0070 | Speaker 11: I'm going to go ahead and just quickly move item 18 up to the to the next item, because I know we have a group here, Mr. Clark.
Speaker 6: Item 18 is a recommendation to regarding audits, amending the municipal code relating to the payment of living wages to workers at the Long Beach Airport and Long Beach Convention Center read in its adopted as red.
Speaker 11: Cargo motion because of a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Please.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Vice Mayor. City Council. My name's Christine Pettit. I'm a resident of the end voter in the sixth District. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community in recognition of the recent passages of labor, peace and worker retention policies at the Long Beach, the Long Beach Airport and Convention Center. And in anticipation of tonight's final vote to increase the minimum wage for workers at these publicly owned tourism hubs, we'd like to say thank you. Thank you for taking a cue from the majority of Long Beach voters in every district who approved Measure N with 64% voting in favor of the ordinance, it's clear that your constituents want a strong tourism industry with good wages and conditions for its workers. By passing labor peace, you took action to protect the cities and taxpayers investments in our tourism industry by ensuring that operations will not be disrupted. With the worker retention policy, you provided workers with a window of opportunity to demonstrate their value and work ethic when new contractors take over operations. This also ensures that visitors are met with skillful and quality service. And the issue before you tonight. And thanks to councilmembers O'Donnell, Garcia and Johnson, a vote to raise the minimum wage at the airport and convention center will mean a higher standard of living for workers, less employee turnover and more money in the pockets of workers to spend locally. In the first year alone, an estimated $800,000 plus will be generated in Long Beach through the economy. Your leadership on these issues will benefit workers Long Beach's tourism industry, visitors to our great city and our local economy as a whole. Thank you for taking these important steps for Long Beach and for putting forth a vision that recognizes when our residents thrive, our city thrives. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Thank speaker put.
Speaker 4: I will just be translating.
Speaker 12: We will not just close a key commercial center.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Carlos. I work in the convention center.
Speaker 12: And then one or two of the platters we saw last night, I think went that.
Speaker 4: I I've been working as a dishwasher for eight years and I make 950 an hour.
Speaker 12: So we are keeping an eye on the clock tomorrow.
Speaker 4: I'm here tonight to thank you for the leadership you've taken.
Speaker 12: As a wonderful ambassador. I will not go into the world, but I quote Americans here.
Speaker 4: Now with this living wage. I can begin to start a savings account for any emergency.
Speaker 12: Item if I'm here. The deal came on the floor of the Commons, well known in West England.
Speaker 4: I can also begin to help my family out and save for my retirement. That's something they couldn't do with my my wage of 950 an hour.
Speaker 12: It's the content of work. Yeah. Upwork couldn't be more just matters getting to me without in a million years for an opportunity went unnoticed.
Speaker 4: I'm I'm very happy to be here because I am now going to be able to accomplish many goals I have for myself and my family. Thank you very much for your support and good night.
Speaker 11: You're going to miss the best.
Speaker 12: Cordless psychic.
Speaker 11: Glasses, but goodbye. Thanks for your work. Thanks. See no other public comment would nor the public comment appear. Sorry. Yes, please.
Speaker 9: Oh, hey, I am Frances. Emily Tyson Harris and I reside in District one, and I wholeheartedly support this agenda item as written. And I do trust that you will also agree that this is the only thing that needs to be done. And it is essential that as many people as possible do have a living wage. When people work hard, they deserve to be paid for their hard work. When you look at the catastrophic situation that's occurring on the federal, state and ultimately affecting the city in terms of cuts such as unemployment, in terms of cuts, in terms of our food stamps and various other matters, I do believe when people have the opportunity to have more wages, that's going to reduce the effect that's going to have on this city, the state and the federal government in terms of having to find a way to help individuals. So by them having a little bit extra money, they'll be able to move forward in their life in a positive direction. And I also believe that is ultimately going to be a blessing, particularly to their children who deserve to have the best future that they can. Thank you very much.
Speaker 11: I think we have another speaker up there. No.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 11: That's great. Then we're gonna go ahead. And is there any other comment behind Braille scene? And we do have a motion on the floor. Remember to cast your votes. I mean. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Motion carries eight votes. Yes. One vote. No.
Speaker 11: Thank you. And, Mr. Clerk, next item.
Speaker 6: I didn't mean as a report from financial management with the recommendation to receive and file the fiscal year 2013 year end budget performance report. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 16.60, relating to the payment of living wage to workers at the Long Beach Airport and the Long Beach Convention Center, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02112014_14-0111 | Speaker 6: I didn't mean as a report from financial management with the recommendation to receive and file the fiscal year 2013 year end budget performance report.
Speaker 11: So moved by Kelly's demotion in a second. Any public comment? Mr. DeLong.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Hold on just a moment. We're in number 11, is that correct? Yes. Mm hmm. Yeah, I do have concerns regarding this item. I think there's over $7 million of surplus revenue from fiscal year 13. I know that. I would like to see some alternatives for how this money should be spent. It's not the necessarily that I opposed to what the recommendation is, but I'd just like to know what the options are. So I don't know if we want to have an extensive debate this evening or ask staff to come back with several alternatives or I know one of my colleagues mentioned, referring to the Budget Oversight Committee, and I guess I'd be interested in what some of my colleagues had to say before I make a substitute motion.
Speaker 11: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 10: Well, I'll tell you that I am I support the staff recommendation, particularly where it deals with the North Long Beach Library. This is a welcome and and necessary to complete that project. So any anything that would take us outside of that or reappropriate funds from that, that project would be very hurtful for the residents throughout the city and for that particular project in North Long Beach. That North Library is critical to a renaissance that is actually occurring in North Long Beach, the uptown area. It is key to driving economic development and new opportunity for the Atlantic corridor. And so anything that would do anything to to remove funding from from that particular project, I would have a problem with.
Speaker 11: Councilman Neal.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I'd like to concur with them. Councilmember Alston. And this is not just a project for North Long Beach.
Speaker 5: The library is a city.
Speaker 0: It's a city.
Speaker 1: Entity. It's going to be one of the premier libraries in the city of Long Beach and also to go along with all of the things that Councilmember Austin has just stated. It's important to the economic ability of this entire city and not just north of Long Beach.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 11: Mr. City, attorney.
Speaker 1: Vice mayor, members of the council, maybe. Maybe it's my mistake here, but it appears that number 11 is to receive and file the year end budget performance report. And then the next item appears to be what everyone's discussing, the first quarter appropriation and adjustments in accordance with the council policy.
Speaker 11: Okay. So one item 11. There's there's a motion on the floor. Any other public comment on it or council comment? See. None. So long. We'll get a vote.
Speaker 6: Give me one moment, if I may. Just a second.
Speaker 10: I looked at 12, jumped to 12. And I think you'll see the difference for.
Speaker 6: But I'm also looking at the table, too, where it talks about recommendations for the use of funds available in the general uplands oil funds, FY13, any funds available as project B 3.3 million for the General Fund, 4.5 million for the Upland 12 Fund. I, I think Mr. City Attorney, it's both items. Some of the information is in here but you were correct and it also appears again in agenda item 12.
Speaker 1: If I can clarify the the item 11 identifies the surplus, identifies the managers recommendations. And then item 12, if council so desires, takes the action.
Speaker 6: And makes the appropriation.
Speaker 1: So 11 is just to receive and file. It includes the recommendation, but item 12 is the appropriation action.
Speaker 6: Okay. But if we're going to modify the city manager's recommendations as Mr. City attorney, does it happen here? Does it happen 12 or does it happen in both places?
Speaker 1: That's my remember the council, I would recommend that you would you would then modify the recommendation and not just receive and file as is if the if it were as a substitute motion to do that and both items then.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So I think we'll still discuss this a little more, Mr. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 11: Okay. So, Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 8: Thank you and I to support the use of funds to go toward libraries and the various other assets that we have throughout the district. But I'd like a little bit more discussion on at least the district among us representing the various districts on on other options to utilize this funding. I know we have a soccer fields issue. There are a lot of priorities that come up. And so I feel that this should be discussed among all of us and see what the best path forward is.
Speaker 11: Grandson.
Speaker 10: O'DONNELL Well, I was just going to point out that at the end, the agenda items were similar, but that that's been discussed with regard to the North Library, how much more money is needed for the libraries? And we've been setting aside a couple million here, a couple of million there. And it's an understand it's an important project I teach. So my students come from North Beach. So, you know, it's very necessary. So what is the total outlay that we're looking at? How much more?
Speaker 1: Councilmember this goes back to a bond issue that the redevelopment agency did i about 2011. At that time, we were anticipating $12 million for the library because of the market. That number went down to 8 million. So we do have $8 million set aside in an escrow account for this library. We're going out to bid in the library, I believe, the first or second week in March, and we hope by the end of April to have what the cost would be, which we expect somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 and $12 million.
Speaker 10: And you have about eight right now.
Speaker 1: Yes, have we definitely have eight. No question.
Speaker 10: Then you already have some money set aside for books in books, materials and maybe furniture, as I recall, too.
Speaker 1: More than likely, the fixtures and equipment of books money may be necessary to complete the the bricks and mortar of the library. We're not sure until that that's a funding source we can't put in play, but we won't know until we get the bid for the library.
Speaker 10: So yeah, about 8 million for the infrastructure.
Speaker 1: 8 million for infrastructure and 1.5 for other one one, maybe 1.5.
Speaker 10: That's what it is. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Councilor DeLong.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I also want to echo Councilmember Donnelly. I do think this project is a very important project for north of Long Beach, as well as the entire city. But I think there's other projects as well. I know that we've we're all very concerned about the lack of funding for the fire department, and that certainly has some city wide benefits that we have to look at, whether it's restoring rescue 12 or Engine eight or another appropriate vehicle. I know that councilmembers O'Donnell and Shipley recently had a discussion regarding soccer fields out in the districts. And perhaps the approach we're taking and the money that we're coming out with for the artificial turf is not working out as well as we hoped. And there's some issues with the water departments, and that appears to be a significant issue and doesn't require the $4 million, but it might require something to get to where we need to go. I know that there's always a conversation that says, why don't you divide by nine and, you know, see what the appropriate investments would be in a variety of districts, and I'd certainly be be open to looking at that. Now, what other funding sources are there for? The for the North Library? I guess city manager in that had this surplus not occurred. What would you have done? Kenley I'm very surprised to hear this is a huge deficit and the sky's going to fall if we don't act appropriate for.
Speaker 1: First of all, I do want to point out that this is one time money. So certainly soccer fields and one time expenditures are there, but certainly not restoring engines and things like that.
Speaker 11: Well, I'll.
Speaker 6: Argue that's one time money, but we'll get there.
Speaker 1: Again, this anticipated a $12 million project. This was going full steam ahead when the redevelopment agency was alive. And we fully anticipated the redevelopment agency to pick up the entire price tag when the redevelopment agency was disbanded. We also had approximately some one time well, 4 to $5 million come in one time that we allocated to the city council. We were hoping that that money would be allocated the library, but it was divided by nine. So we're taking this opportunity to use this funding source to go to the library rather than be divided by nine.
Speaker 6: And what's the time frame for the construction of the library?
Speaker 1: We believe we will have the bids in in late April, so we could begin construction, hopefully late May.
Speaker 6: And when will it be finished by?
Speaker 1: It could be an 18 month project, I suspect.
Speaker 6: So within the next 24 months or so? Yes. Okay. All right. I guess the other comment I would make is, you know, it certainly isn't this year or next year, but there will be additional redevelopment moneys.
Speaker 1: We could not award the project without the money in hand. And that will be in in May.
Speaker 6: I get that. All right. Well, I hear from my colleagues. Have anything else before I'll put a substitute on the table?
Speaker 11: Johnson Johnson.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Vice Mayor. What I would like to hear, just a short staff report, particularly there is some discussion about says like police attrition is not what we expected and some money is needed for additional police officers, etc. So I'd be interested hearing a quick staff report. I'll turn it over to John GROSS. Good. Good evening. Generally, this this report is about good news. I think you've talked about the $33 million we received in from the dissolution of the RTA this year and about or in FY13, about 17,000,001 time oil money in FY 13 council appropriated that money and then the balance of that money was appropriated in the 514 budget, the budget we're now in. Overall, in FY 13, the general fund had about a $3.3 million surplus. There was a surplus of about $4.4 million in the up once oil fund. That is what you are discussing, those numbers. The city manager is proposing that the 5% of the surplus be used to help fund unfunded liabilities in accordance with council policy. So he's recommending that 300 and some thousand dollars be set aside in accordance with council policy for that purpose. The balance of the upland oil money would be used to help complete some of the projects intended to be funded by the RDA. And the city managers talked about that in the bulk of the one time surplus, and the general fund would be used to help support police staffing and overtime. And most of that surplus that we were talking about in the general fund is in fact a police department surplus. So it simply rolls that money over into the police department. And in FY 13, the surplus was due primarily to attrition. That's the end of my report. Well, thank you, Mr. GROSS. And I do want to commend you and the city manager for following a council direction and setting aside 5% for unfunded liability. So I just wanted to point out that I think this shows that we have a structural solution or at least a path forward towards funding those unfunded liabilities, which frankly is the right thing to do for our employees who we made those promises to and also for future taxpayers.
Speaker 11: Manager. Yes, I do. I have a question and I know some of the people that want to speak again. Mr. West, I'm wondering on the on these proposals and and I'll say that absolutely support certainly the funding for the library and a lot of what's on here. I know normally when we have these amounts that come back, they normally start at the Budget Oversight Committee and usually come to the council's recommendations. And I guess I'm just wondering why that was the process this time.
Speaker 1: Now, that's not the case in the year end account. That certainly comes when we find one time money available, as we did the large amount of money that we had while we're putting the budget together. But the year end amount, the year in surplus or the year in closing just comes to the city council.
Speaker 11: Because we've had in the past that that has not come through budget oversight. Okay. Thank you for that clarification, Councilor Roston.
Speaker 10: Yes, thank you. And I do appreciate the conversation. The Critical Questions. Council Member DeLong, you've always been a budget hawk, and and I do appreciate your thoughtful approach to, you know, possibly redistributing these these funds. But I want to want to just bring up a couple of items. You know, it comes a time when there's a city wide investment and investment that is, in a sense, in the greater good interest of the entire city. And I think that's not library is is one of those those investments, just like the Belmont pool was. And I think you had unanimous support for that in your district, just like Chick fil A was in the sixth District. These are significant transformational investments for the city of Long Beach. And so to to take anything away from this this this public investment that the north town is looking so much forward to getting would be a real, real disappointment. And so I would just ask that you support the staff recommendation and move forward.
Speaker 11: Controversial whiskey.
Speaker 9: I just I actually had a question about the the library I recall in the budget discussions because that was attributed to the increase in library services that there was funding in there for materials and equipment. Yeah, they want.
Speaker 10: Acknowledged that. So I mean.
Speaker 9: I understand that. But I thought that at that time when we that was brought forth, that that was considered to be what was necessary at the time, because the library isn't going to be opening for two years.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Yes, that was 1.5 million approximately in one time dollars that we set aside. So when the library was built, we'd have those dollars available for fixtures, equipment and books.
Speaker 9: And so these additional funds would be used for one for the library.
Speaker 1: The additional 4 million tonight would be used to build the library.
Speaker 9: Help me on this. I thought we had previously budgeted funds for the construction because that was called up in question. Why would we budget money for materials and equipment if we didn't have the funding available to build it?
Speaker 1: We had $8 million from the agency. Again, we were hoping to get 12. We're going forward with the agency, hoping that we'd get money on the ropes. That didn't happen. We did have some one time money that we came back to the city through the redevelopment agency. We we're hoping that that 4 to $5 million would be allocated to the library, and it was not. So we're looking for these funds to go be first to use to look at the library for completion.
Speaker 9: Another different subject, because I don't see it accounted for any place. What happened to $184,000 we appropriated for Code for America? I assume that those coders were supposed to be here in January.
Speaker 1: And yes, that money is. Councilmember That money is being spent. We have a group of Code for America staffers who are working on the 14th floor and working with all the departments to do that.
Speaker 9: Working for.
Speaker 1: 14 for. Yes, at this time.
Speaker 9: Okay. We didn't get. Did you send a memo on that, that they were there?
Speaker 1: They're working through the mayor's office.
Speaker 9: What? Since the council appropriated the money, could we have maybe a memo that indicates they're there and what they're working on? That would be. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 11: That's a real.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And yes, I'd just like to remind this body, as the city manager is saying, we've always been 4 million short since the loss of redevelopment. We did have a plan during the budget process to address that. But this body chose to divide by nine, which still leaves us short without doing this right now, it is going to seriously delay this project and where we're going to find ourselves in the same situation again. So I would urge my colleagues to support staff recommendation that we move this $4 million now to get the city manager to the point where we have the $12 million that we need to make this thing reality.
Speaker 11: Got somebody long.
Speaker 6: Karen, to make a substitute motion to refer the item to the Budget Oversight Committee and charge the committee coming back with several recommendations. We'll start with the staff recommendation. So certainly keep it on the table, but look at what other opportunities there are to provide city wide investments.
Speaker 11: Okay. There's been a motion and a second.
Speaker 6: And we can do that very quickly. Mr. NEILL So doesn't delay the process.
Speaker 11: Mr. Mueller, your comment.
Speaker 1: My my comment is, although definitely not in favor of that. No.
Speaker 2: I won't be supporting.
Speaker 11: Okay. I just have a question on the on the maybe the timing issue for Mr. West. So I do have a question on the on the north side, but what's the give me the total amount again here. We're talking about total tonight.
Speaker 1: We're talking about $4 million. We have $8 million in the bank or in escrow. We're anticipating the library to come in at someone about somewhere between 11 and $12 million, but we won't know that until we actually get hard bids.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 11: And so as as far as as far as the delay on the library piece, the library piece of the funding or what what what can I would that cause any issues for the the process of actually getting that project going?
Speaker 1: We are not planning to go out to bid. I'm looking I misspoke, April. So the first week in April we planned to go out to bid. So whatever the if the boss or the council's looking at this, we would hope we wouldn't go out to bid until we knew the amount of dollars that we had. So first week in April.
Speaker 11: Okay. Mr.. We along with that, would you plan on meeting before that? And I think the last thing anybody wants is to delay any sort of progress for the for the library.
Speaker 6: I agree with you. And we could certainly commit to meeting within 30 days and getting it on the council's agenda a week afterwards.
Speaker 11: Katherine Johnson.
Speaker 1: Well, thanks, Vice Mayor. And I do think it's appropriate to have robust discussion of such an important item. But I think that the council members to my left, I think councilors, Neal, and often have a good point that the North Library really is a citywide asset and we have an obligation to look at our entire city north , south, east and west. So with that, I'd like to make this substitute substitute motion that we approve the staff recommendation. But in addition to that, we do send to the Budget Oversight Committee simply the question of looking at our police expenditures and analyzing certainly looks like where there are some shortfalls we're using for funding for here. Taking a look at whether there may be shortfalls in this current year and reporting back to the city council, but still basically approving this and just sending them to the question of police funding search.
Speaker 11: Emotion in a second. Kathryn Brosnan.
Speaker 10: I just wanted to get clarification. Who sits on the Budget Oversight Committee?
Speaker 6: Mr. Chair, myself and Mr. O'Donnell and Ms.. Lowenthal.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Just want to get clarification on that.
Speaker 11: Councilor DeLong.
Speaker 6: Councilman Johnson, I appreciate that. Substitute I guess the only one of the concerns I would have I'd like to look at is, you know, I would like to understand a little more about what is the projected total cost of the North Library. I know this. For example, if there's any remainder would go to Atlantic Media and Oregon Park. Well, if there's a hundred thousand remainder or $1,000,000 remainer or $2 million remainder, does it go to that? Are those the two most important projects for the North as well as citywide, you know, or any other district? I guess this is just it just seems very nebulous to me the way numbers are being plugged in here. But I do agree that the North Library's important project, I do think it's a citywide asset. But since we have time, yeah, I'd like to see the Budget Oversight Committee just be able to come back and present some alternatives. I know that I've mentioned a couple of alternatives. I've heard others. And I would also say I'm interested in any other alternatives that a councilman would like to say, well, you know, include this in there, and I would do that as well. But I think we could do a good job of providing more information on this alternative as well as others.
Speaker 11: Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 10: Could you staff comment on the points Mr. DeLong just made with regard to the money going to other projects? Because that's kind of like saying I'm going to fly to Hawaii and then maybe I'll go to China. And I'm not sure. I mean, I don't know what the nexus is between the two projects.
Speaker 1: I think that not.
Speaker 10: Surprise me that would be slipped in there like that.
Speaker 1: Those projects are part of the redevelopment bond. The redevelopment bond from 2010 or 11 included the library included shorter hall. It included the Atlantic medians, it included the artesian means, which are no longer in existence because we didn't have the funding. It included Oregon, Oregon Park. So we're looking at the specific projects that were included in the redevelopment bond, which fell short when the agency died. Right.
Speaker 10: Right. And listen, I don't have a problem with the library. It's necessary. Mr. Neill has made his case to me, and I know the children of that neighborhood well. But what I do have a concern is all of a sudden there's other projects on there. I mean, with redevelopment gone, help me understand the nexus between oil money.
Speaker 1: Again, the nexus is these are the projects that were in the redevelopment bond that fell short. We would have no issues whatsoever. I'm looking at Councilmember Neal and Austin that if you just capped it at the at the librarian, any additional funds would go back to the block for for allocation.
Speaker 10: But so I would think that would be a matter of common practice.
Speaker 1: Again, no, the idea was these are all projects that were tied to the redevelopment bonds. Right. That is the nexus. The only reason we're looking at it in this fashion is because those are the projects. Had we fell and fall short, if we fell short in the shorter haul project, we would then you'd see shorter haul here for the East Police Station. But we didn't fall. We weren't falling short in that city.
Speaker 0: I am still not convinced.
Speaker 10: How those projects got labeled in there. I get the library, I'm with you on that.
Speaker 1: And again, just to point out that the four or $5 million that did come back to the city one time for the agency was utilized to divide by nine.
Speaker 10: Okay. That's a matter of fact. I don't know how that's relevant to this point here that I'm trying to make, though. So thank you.
Speaker 11: Concern for the wrong.
Speaker 6: That's okay. I'll pass. Thank you, Rosemary. I guess the only I would say is that I think the other thing that the U.S. could do on this is to look, if there's any other alternative sources of funds, because I'm not sure that using surplus fiscal year funds to backfill RDA is necessarily the best approach. I'd be curious to see what other source of funds and I have a few ideas of whether there might be dollars that might be a better source for this.
Speaker 11: Okay. There is country radio.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. You know, I think this is a healthy.
Speaker 1: Discussion, but I do. And I appreciate Councilmember DeLong and his staff on this and looking at budget solutions. My my biggest concern is making sure that we don't prolong the construction of the library. And the longer this the communities in the north have been involved in this project for well over a decade. We're right at the threshold of making this happen. And again, we had a plan in the last budget cycle on how to get to the 12 million, and this body divided that by nine. So that's why we're here today. So I'm imploring you to invest another $4 million to get us to the 12 million that we know we're going to need to make this thing happen.
Speaker 10: Was the most conservative one.
Speaker 6: I think I'd say, is that I share your concerns about any delays, but at least based on the kind of tive time frame of their RFP, I'm very confident the VRC could meet and come back to the Council in a timely manner that would make sure there weren't any delays moving forward.
Speaker 11: Okay. We're going to go ahead. And the motion on the floor. Is a motion by Councilmember Johnson, I believe it was seconded by.
Speaker 6: Councilmember ousted.
Speaker 11: Councilmember Austin. And this, just to be clear, is a motion to get the library funding piece today, but then move on all other items related to what's in here over to B or C.
Speaker 1: I don't. I'll let Mr. Johnson speak about that. Go ahead. I think one thing that's discussed here is that there's been some issues in the police department in terms of not trading and needing one time fund, etc.. So my motion was basically to accept a staff recommendation for the funding and separately just to ask the PSC to take a look at our police department in terms of, you know, do we expect further ongoing problems in terms of attrition, etc.? So that was my motion.
Speaker 6: Okay. One more comment was Vice Mayor.
Speaker 11: Sure. I've got to follow up on that. And then you.
Speaker 8: Actually are past the restating of the motion was enough.
Speaker 11: Cuts were drawn.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I guess I'm I'm a little concerned about kind of singling out PD and having the Budget Oversight Committee say, we're only going to look on this one particular piece. So I guess my preference would be to kind of send all of it to us and have a look at it and get some recommendations back or kind of none of it. I mean, what we'll do at the council directs us to do, but I don't know that I'm comfortable zooming in on just one department. That's part of an overall recommendation.
Speaker 11: Casey no other similar public comment. Time to vote with first place mayor.
Speaker 6: If you could please state the maker of the main motion, the first motion and the second. We didn't hear that. The main motion was to receive and file the staff report.
Speaker 11: Okay. The very first the very first motion was a believe that councilmember and that Councilmember Neal, with reference I don't know for the first motion. I thought it was country, Neal, but maybe it was not. You don't have that, Mr. Clarke.
Speaker 6: No, we don't. It happened. It happened really quick, and we didn't hear it. I'm fairly confident was down the left there because you're approving the staff recommendation. And then I came on top of the substitutes, I believe it was Council Member Neil. Oh, okay.
Speaker 0: Well, there's no motion. I'll make.
Speaker 6: A substitute. Substitute. So let's get this clarified.
Speaker 11: Mr. Clarke, I thought I heard it from.
Speaker 6: There was a motion.
Speaker 11: I know there was a motion. And I thought it was over and.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 11: Okay. It was it was it was Neil Giuliano Neil. And it was certainly from over here, I thought.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Okay, so we have a motion on the floor, which is Councilmember Johnson's motion. Members, please go out and cast your vote.
Speaker 0: Johnson What's your motion.
Speaker 2: Like when.
Speaker 0: You guys talk.
Speaker 10: Too much? Just tell me your motion.
Speaker 1: Once again, it's to accept the staff recommendation in terms of funding as described and separately. Simply to ask the BBC to take a look at ongoing police funding issues, particularly as it as it relates to attrition, where that can cause future budget problems.
Speaker 10: I support. Well, it can. And we do that every year. So really your motions to adopt the staff recommendation. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Motion carries five votes. Four votes? No.
Speaker 11: Two excited. The next, I don't believe is 12. Mr. Clarke. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2013 Year-End Budget Performance Report. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02112014_14-0112 | Speaker 11: Two excited. The next, I don't believe is 12. Mr. Clarke.
Speaker 6: Yes. Item 12 is a recommendation to approve the fiscal year 2014 first quarter departmental and but departmental and fund budget appropriation adjustments in accordance with existing council policy.
Speaker 11: The motion has been in motion. Second, the Andrews and Johnson.
Speaker 6: Councilmember DeLong Yes, I support the motion. However, want to make a small correction. There is an item on the Collins part that talks about the removing a restroom in its restrooms. So make it plural. So having made the motion, you'll take that friendly amendment, I assume. So we made the motion. You'll take that as a friendly amendment.
Speaker 11: Can you repeat the Family Amendment.
Speaker 6: In the Tidelands area? It says restroom and removal. It's restrooms, plural. It's two not one dollars.
Speaker 11: Don't change tip that's been accepted as friendly amendment. Thank you. Any public comment? So please cast your votes.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Austin, please. Councilmember O'Donnell. Thank you. Motion carries nine votes. Yes. Next item to report from Human Resources with the recommendation to execute a contract with the state of California. To receive $226,150 for Workforce of Workforce Investment Act funds to operate a health care training program. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2014 first quarter departmental and fund budget appropriation adjustments in accordance with existing City Council policy. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02112014_14-0123 | Speaker 6: Item 17 is an ordinance with a recommendation to declare an ordinance amending the municipal code relating to electronic cigarets and similar devices. Read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading.
Speaker 11: Come again this over to the City Attorney. Do you have any thoughts in the comments? Mr. Andrews. Mr. ANDREWS. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, one of the fundamental principles of medicine and developing good public health is that above all else, we should not harm the public. It has taken us a decade to evaluate young people about the harm of smoking, and there is no doubt concerning the negative about the fact that smoking has no has on the public. While doctors of the fifties in the sixties claim that smoking causes no harm to smokers or people subjected to secondhand cigaret smoking, the millions of premature deaths and families that claimed the lives of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. It was proven otherwise after the numerous tragedies. Well, prematurely by cigaret we have in recent years started to see a slight decrease in new smokers and improvement in overall public health facts. Nicotine juice use in e-cigarettes is not regulated and does not have any and unformed ingredients. This inconsistency means that there can be no claim that the ingredient in the product is safe. Facts. There has been an increase in the amount of conversations and alibis in schools and in Long Beach. Young people are getting their hands on and use these addictive devices. Facts. In a recent Long Beach Post article promoting the e-cigarettes stated in e-cigarettes have no health risk and causes no major health concerns. While health concerns regarding e-cigarettes may be lesser or difficult than those associated with cigarets and a simple pack, I agree with the safety statement released by the e-cigarette promoters. Nicotine is still being used in e-cigarettes. Studies have also shown that the harm the human body doesn't have a reaction to the vapor, to the vapor.
Speaker 1: Inhaling for the e-cigarettes.
Speaker 0: Increases airways resistance for 10 minutes. In addition to creating the airway resistance, nicotine is a known contributor of health diseases. The e-cigarette companies may state that e-cigarettes are safe, but the fact of the matter is that there is no proof without substantial and reputable, reputable scientific evidence.
Speaker 2: That these.
Speaker 0: Addictive devices are free of any sort of safe and effective toxins. The use of e-cigarettes in public vapers should be monitored. These companies triggered it, and people who are nonsmokers by marketing fruity flavors and advocate and addicted and their promises of new safe and fun activities. Unless the safety of e-cigarettes have been well documented, it is our duty to ensure that the public is know it. It is not surrounded with these devices unnecessarily. Let's make sure that we learn from mistakes and support this responsible policy. It is a good first step in protecting our public health, and I'd like to move to approve this item.
Speaker 11: Second, get this promotion. And a second. Let me go ahead and open this up to public comment. Please come forward to start off by stating your name for the record.
Speaker 0: My name is Michael Shaq and I am the owner of E-Cig City of Long Beach in downtown Long Beach.
Speaker 2: Is my first time in one of these.
Speaker 0: Hearings, so excuse my jitters, but I believe from personally that e-cigarettes have saved my life as many as well as many others. They've provided an alternative. And I believe that there's a lot more research to be done before we go ahead and start demonizing those who are using electronic Cigarets. I do also believe there needs to be restrictions and regulations like anything else. I mean, if done appropriately, electronic cigarets can help fund everything that we've been talking about in this unsafe building and building the libraries, but it needs to be done correctly. And the city of Long Beach, I believe, has the has the the need to be the city to set the. How do you say set the bar over how regulations of electronic cigarets are going to go? Because so far every city has been taken the coattails of everybody else and is banning them. I'm too scared. I don't know what's going to happen. Well, why not? We have the places to research. We have colleges here. We have Exxon Mobil that have nothing but biochemists running around here, getting drunk up and down pine. I know this because I live right off of pine as well. I believe that if we do a little bit more research that it's not the same. Because you know what? I light a cigaret using one of these. Right. I cannot light a cigaret using a lithium ion battery which has been certified. So with the regulation that's been proposed, and from what I understand that we want to make electronic cigarets the same as tobacco. It's not doing anybody justice. You're sending your addicts back into the den. They are now going to be triggered with the same oh, I want a cigaret again. It's not the same. I'm not saying that they should be allowed to be smoking and there needs to be regulations 18 over away from schools. But us as adults. Why do we need to have something that tastes like crap? Excuse my language. Once again, what's wrong? That if I want to smoke on something that is like cherry or bubblegum and it's not marketed towards children. I believe that it's an old school stigma that needs to be broken by a new generation that will be taking your seats one day and that technology, outdated tradition. So with that said, I believe that this motion needs to be reconsidered, revised by not only the public health and safety. I've spoken with Linda Vu, with the city attorney. I've spoken with Nelson Kerr over at the Health Board, and I've even cornered Mr. Robert Garcia once in a while, see if I can press him a little bit, because he works at ITI right across the street. But I do believe that the city of Long Beach needs to look more.
Speaker 11: Thank you for.
Speaker 0: Your time before making loss. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, sir.
Speaker 5: Honorable Vice Mayor and City Council, thank you for this opportunity. I am Father Jack Kearney and at 3230 Clark Avenue, just across the border in Lakewood, where I'm on the board of the California Association for Alcohol and Drug Educators.
Speaker 0: Or Kitty Kitty is a group that certifies.
Speaker 5: The highest level addiction counselors in California. We also train them and.
Speaker 0: We accredit colleges.
Speaker 5: And universities in California, Nevada and Arizona at the highest possible standards. We are in one of those schools, by the way, as Long Beach City College, which you should be very proud of for the addiction studies program, that we are the experts in addiction. We know about electronic cigarets. I teach addiction studies at Cal State Fullerton and at Loyola marymount University. I am because I teach the pharmacology of substance use disorders. I have become a nationally recognized expert on electronic cigarets.
Speaker 0: And I'm here to tell.
Speaker 5: You, Mr. Andrews, the questions you've asked have been answered. I have the science.
Speaker 0: Right here of chronic cigarets do not harm. They save lives. They help people quit smoking.
Speaker 5: Millions of people have quit smoking because of electronics. Or if they do not harm.
Speaker 0: The science is in.
Speaker 5: I think you read an old statement that was written probably by the tobacco industry or certainly the pharmaceutical industry, because they're the ones who have the most to lose. By the success of e-cigs, they have been proven.
Speaker 0: There is enough science to say they're 100 times.
Speaker 5: Safer than cigarets and.
Speaker 0: Are by far.
Speaker 5: Our most effective tool for helping people quit smoking. So we got to go with the most current research.
Speaker 0: So you have a choice here. You can you can go to press releases from the tobacco and the pharmaceutical industry, or we can go with science and clinicians like me.
Speaker 5: Who actually help.
Speaker 0: People on a daily basis quit smoking. Electronic cigarets work. But they are not being marketed to children. The flavors are intended for adults. It is illegal.
Speaker 5: Already to sell.
Speaker 0: Electronic.
Speaker 5: Cigarets to people under 18. That's already been taken care of. We're doing all more research and we'll continue to do so. So I ask you to at least.
Speaker 0: Postpone or stop this legislation.
Speaker 5: Which will hurt the people of Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Next speaker, please leave.
Speaker 0: Can I leave science with you?
Speaker 11: Actually, the clock over here. Next speaker.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Vice Mayor and council members. My name is Paula Wood and I am a resident of District seven and I am currently the co-chair of the Tobacco Up in Smoke Free Long Beach, along with Pete Flores. We're deeply concerned. First of all, we'd like to commend the council for moving this issue forward and dealing with it tonight. And we hope that you will vote in favor of this. We have a deep concern about what's going on with the e-cigarettes and the paper products. We notice that many of these or these these these these stations or these stores are cropping up in our neighborhoods. And we're concerned about, even though there may be they're not legally be able to being able to be sold to the young people there on the campuses. We have teen groups. I've talked to our young people and they're telling me they're all over the high school, they're available and the young people are attracted to them because of the colors and the just that it's something new. And so they are in the hands of our youth and we're deeply concerned because this is new and we know that there is tobacco and nicotine involved, and we're concerned that this is creeping up all over the city and there's no regulation. And we support the council in their effort to regulate these and treat them the same as Cigarets. And we ask you to support this tonight on behalf of the coalition of a smoke free Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Nick. Speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is P floors were from Paula Woods. I am a co-chair for the Long Beach Coalition. Mayor and councilman, this is actually my second time being here, observing you guys and all that. And I, I really just wanted to say with this being a co-chair and, and also.
Speaker 0: I am a.
Speaker 1: Coordinator for Project Greater Southern Cal that we deal with educational to youth. And I go to car shows and I educate the youth about smoking and e-cigarettes. Now we revise our our surveys with the youth because we had to put in with the e-cigarettes and the vapes. So I know that this is a ongoing battle. It's been ongoing for a long, long time. And I just wanted to I just want to go forward with this with you know, with the council of hoping to go ahead and go forward with this. And again, thank you very much.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia. Council members, thank you for bringing this forward. I think there must be a misunderstanding on the part of either Jack. This does not this ordinance does not prevent people from using e-cigarettes if they feel it helps them stop smoking. What this does do is put nicotine charged, electronic cigarets in the same category as far as preventing the smoking in public places. The gentleman in the plaid shirt gave us a distinct opportunity to understand what happens. We're used to this council not having smoking, but all of a sudden there was this puff of smoke in the air . And I could smell it. And you could. And you don't know what's in it. There's formaldehyde, there's benzene. There have not been complete studies to know what we're breathing from secondhand smoke. So we're asking that the electronic cigarets be treated like tobacco cigarets. The FDA is working on a regulation because of the need to understand better what the health aspects of this are at the Center for Disease Control over two years. The 2011 2000. 2012 found that twice as many teenagers have taken up e-cigarettes. So it went from like 4% to 10%. My neighbor came home and found her son, who was that totally non tobacco smoking youth sitting with an e-cigarette and thinking that that was a glamorous thing to do. So we asked that you pass this so that those of us can go to a public place and find that we're not reading some chemical we know not what coming from one of the electronic cigarets and that our tobacco retail permit process. Watch over these sites so that we know what's happening there and we urge you to pass this. And thank you very much.
Speaker 11: Thank any of the public speakers up here. Yes.
Speaker 9: Frances and Frances Emily Tyson Harris and I reside in District one. This is a very controversial matter and I agree on both sides. There are series of facts in. And when I made that comment I'm making in the sense that they're serious, the facts that can affect your health in terms of smoking cigarets which are known to have formaldehyde and all kinds of other things in regards to and cause cancer, you know, aggravate people to have asthma attacks, etc.. That in terms of the e-cigarette, I look at it more like a evade hearing. I'm not 100% familiar with the whole thing about the e-cigarette, but I can say that I do have friends and I know people that smoke and they smoke and they changed to using the e-cigarette and they were able to cut down tremendously in regards to smoking and quite a number of them actually have quit and they feel so much more better. Now I look back at the matter regarding interest in marijuana have could affect you and all of the things about what the federal government thought in the state and everything else. And when I'm hearing everyone and what they're having to say, the federal government, I understand, is in the process of determining something about this matter and how it should be addressed. Well, I kind of wonder if it may not be a bad idea to put this matter off to find out exactly yay or nay what's happening in terms of the e-cigarette. I don't think it's something that has to be addressed right now, this moment, because to me matters that need to be looked at to know exactly, you know, what's happening here. And I do appreciate Lambie's being smoke free. I think it's absolutely essential. I feel there should be regulations in terms of the use of this product. I'm deeply concerned by young people getting their hands on it, but I'm hearing all of these matters and to me there's too many unanswered questions and matters I feel that need to be addressed in order to be able to move forward without coming back and having all kinds of problems on your hands. I think if you get the answers more find on this matter, I think you'll be able to move forward in a matter where it's not going to be so many stumbling blocks. Thank you very much.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Any other public comments after after unexpectedly other public comments came at a good cause, a public speaker less piece.
Speaker 4: A Roseanne Lamendola. Again, I hope you follow your commonsense and avoid any. Extra additional smoking venues in the city of Long Beach. If anyone is considering this as a a negative move, if your support of e-cigarettes, please look what happened to cigar smoking. A business decision was made to allow cigar smoking within the shops, and somehow that evolved to smoking again in public areas, exposing everyone to increased health risks. So if you are in favor of e-cigarettes, please contain it inside. Do not let it evolve to the point where it has. With our outdoor cigar lounges, there are many young people, young adults in their twenties, male and female, who think it's very hip and cool to smoke a cigaret when again we know this is a documented hazard to your health. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. We're going to get behind the council controversial scheme.
Speaker 9: Yes. Mr. Perkin, in reading the ordinance, is this specific only to e-cigarettes that have a nicotine, that utilize a nicotine product or are all e-cigarettes?
Speaker 1: It's the direction given on the December 3rd meeting of the City Council was all cigarets, not just limited to nicotine legally.
Speaker 9: I'm wondering, can we do that and classify the non nicotine non tobacco product as a under the rubric of our tobacco ordinance about candy. Yeah, I'm going to and about the candies.
Speaker 1: We have followed. Yes, we've followed other jurisdictions and looked at other cities who have adopted these ordinances and I believe were consistent with the other cities where we have been asked to regulate those products as in the same manner as we are currently regulating tobacco products. So the restrictions would be the same as a CIGARET product, so wouldn't be able to be consumed inside an enclosed space. That is correct.
Speaker 9: What about the issue of the what they call the Candy Cigarets? In fact, we got a letter from the American Lung Association regarding the fruit or candy flavors such as Captain Crunch, Gummy Bear, cotton candy, atomic fireball and Froot Loops.
Speaker 2: Like a fireball. Yeah. I'm sorry if it's a question.
Speaker 9: No, what I'm asking those are if they do not have nicotine in them, then they're going to be precluded from selling any product that.
Speaker 1: It does not preclude the sale. Again, they can that the cigarets we're not banning the cigarets we were regulating them similar to Cigarets. So by definition the electric cigarets we've added those definitions and it is not exclusive to those products containing nicotine.
Speaker 9: Okay. And then how are we regulating the the shops as we do with the tobacco shops right now? I believe our health department. I may be wrong, but I think our health department goes out and verifies whether or not under the I think our Smokefree Coalition about whether or not that they are displaying appropriately, are they under the same regulations then as the tobacco shops about how they can promote and put advertisement at a certain level and making sure they don't sell to kids?
Speaker 1: That is correct. The regulations and the the way we've amended the ordinance in two separate chapters, 5.81 and 8.68. We have we have added to the definition section to define the electronic cigarets and then made all of the applicable regulations regarding tobacco products applicable to them. So if it's covered in 5.81 or 8.68, it would be now applicable to electronic cigarets or vaping.
Speaker 9: And if I recall, under the ordinance regarding tobacco shops, you're not allowed to unless there is a we don't have the cigaret lounges. I thought we. Yeah. The cigar lounge but I don't think you have the cigaret lounges correct.
Speaker 1: That's correct. I believe there's eight currently allowed cigar lounges.
Speaker 9: But so if people purchase this product at these tobacco shops or whatever the e-cigarette shops, they would not be allowed to sit on the premises and, and, and use them outside.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 1: That is the well they would be allowed to use them. When you say outside it, meaning.
Speaker 9: They couldn't sit in chairs and and use the product because I understand that's our tobacco ordinance.
Speaker 1: That is correct. You would not be able to consume the product within the within the business or within so many feet of the entrance of the business, similar to the way that Cigarets are currently regulated.
Speaker 9: And do we have any idea when FDA is like maybe this company could answer that when we think the FDA might be coming up with some kind of recommendations? I know that they're looking at it, but is there any kind of indication when we'd get a report.
Speaker 4: And I don't know when that would be the status currently moving forward? It's passed the Senate and it's sitting at the assembly and they're looking at a statewide conversation that looks.
Speaker 2: Exactly like this one. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 11: We can't we can't we can't do it. We can't ask questions. Sorry that way. But counsel worships with you all. Any other comments? Oh, I do have a I do have a quick question also for for the city attorney as far as the ordinance. So it's my understanding that there there is a difference. All right. As far as on the the vaping cigaret, there are those that have nicotine and then those that do not. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: That is correct. It's the so the e-cigarette is a device essentially that you can drop with whatever you.
Speaker 4: Want it to do and uses a vapor. So you can.
Speaker 0: You can easily use a nicotine product. You can use a non nicotine product, you can use THC, you can put whatever it is you'd like to in there. And it depends on whatever is being sold. And yes, so there are some that are that do not have nicotine in them.
Speaker 11: Okay. And then those are the four the cities that have done regulation. Have any cities actually separate those categories out? I'm just curious, or is it all been one size fits all?
Speaker 0: I'm not sure, but I'm not sure about that. I don't believe so. In fact, a number of people, a lot of cities around the area have said we're just going to ban them for a year until we figure out what's going on so that the others that I know of have treated it exactly as it as they would a tobacco product.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: And that's consistent with our research on other cities.
Speaker 11: Where if we pass what we passed tonight, the retail establishments that have opened would still be allowed to be in place, correct? They still be able to sell the products that they're currently selling, but they would not be able to. But establishments or businesses would not be allowed to or wouldn't wouldn't be able to allow people to smoke the vaping cigarets. Correct.
Speaker 1: If I understand, you're correct. Yes. The stores would would not be closed. They would just not be allowed to consume the product inside of the establishment.
Speaker 4: Okay. So there are currently 18 shops that have been.
Speaker 0: That are currently doing business as vapor only shops.
Speaker 11: So, you know, I'm just going to close my comments here. I completely understand where where this is coming from. I understand the concern. And for me, the only part that's difficult for me to to get over is I have a couple of friends and family members that have particularly one that's been smoking for 35 years and has destroyed his lungs and he's never been able to quit, tried everything in the book and now he has been he has tried to e-cigarette and he's actually been able to quit. And I certainly don't know all the science behind what's in that cigaret, but I couldn't imagine it being, you know, obviously worse than nobody was putting in his lungs before. But but I understand that this essentially is is really about the public. And that's I think what I'm trying to to understand is this this would not outlaw the sale but would just outlaw the use of it as we do for Cigarets.
Speaker 0: And it would be consistent.
Speaker 1: With his usage for the last 35 years.
Speaker 11: That's correct. We have before us. Does this have a one year kind of review as well or a review process?
Speaker 1: It does not. But at any Tuesday, the council could come back and amend or tweak this ordinance if there was a further desire to do that.
Speaker 11: And if there is if if tonight if we wanted to put in a, let's say a ah review of this policy, it at six months or a year, would that mean another reading or could be could we add that in if if if the council member agreed to that.
Speaker 1: The the ordinance is here this evening for first reading so it would not become final until after a second reading. And then 31 days after the mayor signs the ordinance, at which time then you would have your ordinance is in effect with no review, period. But if there was the council's desire to revisit this at some time, they could ask staff to come back at a certain at a future date if in fact it is passed tonight. But if we.
Speaker 11: If we put a review period in it tonight, would we have to come back for another first reading or could it passed as a first reading?
Speaker 1: It would need to come back for first reading again if you're making a change of the standards of nature.
Speaker 11: Okay, Councilor Johnson.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think you have a good point. I think no one here wants to ban e-cigarettes. We're not banning e-cigarettes. I think that's simply what we're trying to do is treat them like regular cigarets. And certainly if science comes out and there are turned out there are problems with e-cigarettes or they're less than we expect because certainly change the ordinance and that we have the power to do that. So I think we're open to the science. One thing I want to bring up is I think the vice mayor had a good point about, well, what about if they have nicotine in them or they don't have an equity in them? But the problem there, I think, practically speaking, how would the store owner ever know the difference? Right. So if you're seeing someone vaping, you really are in a position to know, is there a THC in there, nicotine in there, or is it just water or whatever? So I think as a practical matter, I do think it's rational for us to treat all vaping the same because we don't want people to be put in a position of, well, let me vape off of that myself to see what's in there or something like that would be kind of an absurd result. So I do think it's appropriate treat all vaping the same way, you know. So I just want to defend the audience in that way.
Speaker 11: Any other council comment? See? None. So this is a vote on a first reading will happen and will come back for coming back to council for an additional reading before we move forward on it. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 11: So, Members, please go ahead and and cast your vote.
Speaker 2: Vice mayor.
Speaker 6: I got him in. Motion carries five votes. One vote no.
Speaker 11: Believe we're now going to move.
Speaker 0: On to new business.
Speaker 11: New business. Councilor O'Neill.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapters 5.81 and 8.68, relating to electronic cigarettes and similar devices, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02042014_14-0085 | Speaker 4: Clinical read item is a report from the city attorney with the recommendation to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Long Beach, opposing bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act.
Speaker 3: Mr. JOHNSON.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you, Mayor. I believe we have some folks who've come out tonight to speak both. I think we have some people from the medical community and the legal community. Can we go ahead and hear from the speakers?
Speaker 0: Would you like a motion, Mr..
Speaker 3: Mayor, of a statement as to what way? Oh, sure.
Speaker 5: Well, you know, this is a very controversial issue. I know we've discussed it in the past. This is a state issue that's been debated for 39 plus years, will continue to be debated for many years to come. So I personally think that because there's no initiative that's qualified, there's really no reason for the city take a position . And I think we should just stay neutral, see if something qualifies and if it does qualify, we can come back, take the position. So with that, I go ahead and make a motion just to receive and file this item at this time.
Speaker 3: Moving. Seconded. Please come up. Those who wish to make a comment, please identify yourself. When you see the yellow light, it means you have 30 seconds to conclude. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor Foster. Council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Tammy Smick and I am here to speak to you about our experience with Micra and to urge you to oppose any resolution that would support micra. This is our 20 year old son. Alexander Smick. He was born here in Long Beach in 1991. Alex died due to medical negligence on February 23rd, 2012, at an Orange County hospital under the care of Dr. Daniel Hedrick. Alex was prescribed and administered a lethal combination of medications that caused his death within hours of admission. Shockingly, after Alex was administered the combination of medications, he was left unmonitored without even a blood pressure check for over 7 hours. When he was finally checked on during morning rounds, Alex was found dead already in rigor mortis. After nearly six months, the Orange County coroner determine the cause of death poly acute drug intoxication. When we received the coroner's report, we thought that some governmental agency would leap to action and hold to account those responsible for our son's death . We were very wrong. What we discovered was that doctors and hospitals are very insulated from accountability. And we learned that if we wanted to hold the doctor and hospital accountable, we would have to seek legal action. We are not litigious people, but we wanted to make sure this horrific treatment would not happen to another innocent victim. And that's when we learned about micra. Alex was a college student studying to be a surgical technician. He wanted to work in the medical industry. Erotically the very industry that caused his death because he was not a wage earner. Michael limits the value of Alex's life at $250,000. Michael also limits access to the legal system because of the high cost of litigating a malpractise case. My husband and I have invested thousands of dollars to ensure we have our day in court and to fight for justice for Alex. Our fight is not with the many wonderful doctors who responsibly treat patients and save lives every day. But our fight is with this system that would rather protect dangerous doctors than protect patient safety. I implore you protect patient rights and oppose any resolution that would support my micra. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Sorry for your loss.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: And next, please. My name is Tim Smith. And I'm a very angry father. Alex was my son. And I'm here to urge you to oppose oppose any resolution that would support micra. I'm a father who grieves every single day over the loss of my son. I suffer constantly from the image of my son's cold, stiff and purple body as he lay dead in the hospital bed where he sought help. Alex died a preventable death at the hands of the medical professionals from whom he sought help as Alex was dragged to death in a hospital. And we are fighting to stop this tragedy from happening to another innocent victim. We only lost we not only lost our beloved son, but we have been victimized by micra. Micra has made our access to the legal system very difficult. Doctors take an oath to do no harm but when they do negligently harm patients they need to be held accountable. Patients and their families should not have to fight against an archaic law such as micra and multibillion dollar insurance companies when seeking accountability. Please do not rush to judgment in support of Micra. I urge you to contemplate this. Have $250,000. Was fair in 1975. How can that same amount be fair in 2014? Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. Next.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You didn't council when it was Peter Mackler, who is the executive director of the Government of Communications and Public Policy for the Memorial Care Health System, which Long Beach Memorial, Miller Children's Hospital, Long Beach and Commune Hospital members. And I applaud Mr. Johnson in his opening comments a few moments ago that this is certainly a complex and difficult issue and telling our thoughts and prayers go out to the previous speakers. I am here actually to ask for your vote on the resolution on 14 to 8085 to oppose any changes to the Michael Law. The Act has served to keep health care costs in a state down and it does indeed stand as a national model. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that the projected changes could cost local and state governments tens of millions of dollars if they attempt to quadruple the noneconomic damages becomes a reality. As severe a domino effect would take effect and affect. Each of our shared constituencies are bound to be affected at a time when every hospital an integrated health system such as memorial care, is facing unprecedented challenges due to considerable reductions in our reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid and the prospect of higher health care costs due to an increased insurance premiums and more complex claims will certainly take its toll on communities to the cuts from the Affordable Care Act. Across the board sequestration reductions due to the sustainable growth rate, the memorial care health system is facing almost half a billion dollars in reduced payments over the next ten years. And despite these challenges, the three Long Beach based medical centers provided our communities, our shared constituents, with over $67 million of quantifiable community benefits in fiscal year 2015. And that includes over $17 million in charity care for the uninsured and the under-insured. And this also includes $33 million in local breast cancer screenings and prostate screenings and neonatal classes and such other community based programs. I mentioned the domino effect. If our rates were to increase, which they surely will, coupled with the federal and state decreases, no health care system in the state will be able to sustain community services at the current levels. If nothing else, if the cap goes up, so do our attorney's fees and the time needed to negotiate. And this is money that is desperately needed in the communities as memorial care health system. And every health care provider in the country is working hard to truly transform the way we deliver care in our communities . It is critically important that might not be changed. May Council I thank you for your time and I do ask for I vote on resolution 1485.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Next.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I'm Tina Kim, assistant director of policy at the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County. Khaleesi represents 53 federally qualified health centers, community clinics and free clinics throughout Los Angeles County. Our members operate nearly 200 clinical sites throughout the county, providing medical, dental, mental health and pharmacy services to over 1 million and duplicate patients every year. The majority of whom are uninsured or underinsured. In Long Beach alone, eight clinical sites operated by three of our members alone serve over 38,000 patients annually and provided over 106,000 medical encounters in 2012. The vast majority of patients served by the clinics are low income. 69% live below the poverty line and 58% are uninsured. I'm here to urge the Council to adopts the resolution before you today with an eye vote. The trial lawyers push for a potential November ballot measure to change Medicare would significantly undermine clinics local efforts to continue providing much needed high quality care to the underserved. CCRC has been a longtime member of the coalition Californians allied for patient protection. We strongly support micra. It is fair and allows clinics to focus on the important task of providing health care to all of those who walk through the doors regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. As the largest regional association of nonprofit community clinics and health centers in California, we do have a stake in the game when it comes to Micra. Surely changes in the law proposed by the trial lawyers will greatly impact the clinic's ability to keep doors open if the trial lawyers are successful. Increased lawsuits and higher attorney payouts come with a hefty price tag that not only affects local and state governments, but also affects the very patients clinics serve. Michael would be altered in a way that makes it easier to sue health care providers and triple lawyers legal fees in the process. Meanwhile, clinics will be forced to offset higher health care costs and medical liability rates by cutting expenses elsewhere, such as reducing hours, cutting staff or reduced services. This will only make us further out of reach to the people who need the health care our clinics provide. Therefore, it is important that you vote in support of the resolution. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Q Next, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Honorable Councilman. My name is David Kim. I'm a family physician in the medical director of the New America Medical Group Clinic off of Bellflower and Stearns in the former Borders bookstore. And I'm here tonight because we are in a time where, as a primary care doctor who is managing other primary care doctors, we're having a difficult time drawing primary care doctors into the field. And if this proposal to change micro limits goes through, it will make it even more difficult for us to draw quality care, primary care doctors to practice in the very areas of Southern California that we most need into practice and we are already experiencing. A real need and a dearth of primary care doctors to serve the communities, to be able to keep patients healthy, to keep them from becoming ill in the first place. And that's really a transition that we are feeling and moving toward in America. And I think anything that will make it more difficult for us to incentivize or to create an environment in which to allow those physicians to practice in the way they desire. And why we went into medicine, I think, will really hurt our cause and hurt our community to keep them healthy. I think the the very the increase in cost that any change in micro will bring will ultimately lead to a decrease in service to the very public that I think that this measure or this change to micro is proposing to protect. I think the fact that it. Comes across in a way that I think lacks integrity by throwing in this bill to measure and screen doctors for drug abuse and then kind of funneling in this change to make her afterwards. I was leaving a target the other day and someone asked me, would you want do you want to sign a petition to screen doctors for drugs and alcohol? Please sign this petition. And I said, no, thank you. But I think that there's such a more profound conversation behind that, that the public, I think, deserves to be engaged in. And I think for them to hide behind this initial sort of tagline and then expect it to be passed and slide this migraine behind the change in Medicare, behind it, I think, really is disingenuous. And so I really urge you to consider this thoughtfully and on behalf of the constituents that you serve and and the patients that I tried to keep healthy to really oppose any change to Micra. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, doctor. Thanks, blue.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is Barry Thorpe. I've been a resident of Long Beach for 49 years, a resident of the fifth District for the past 23. I'm I'm here not to talk about what may or may not happen with Micra as it's changed or not. I'm I'm here to talk about what's happening in Long Beach today something that some of you may or may not be concerned be aware of other and that I'm I'm here because 119 days ago my sister Laura was a patient at Pacific Hospital in Long Beach. She was there on a non-threatening, non-surgical stay. And over the course of a few days, over repeated acts of negligence and neglect, she was given an overdose of medication. And over the next few days, went to multiple organ failure and died. At the time of my sister's death, two state lawmakers both expressed concerns about patient safety at Pacific Hospital. One of them, state Senator Labus, specifically stated that he was concerned about the mismanagement and mistreatment of patients and the potential for that. And it's not a potential because it happened. Now, the nice gentleman offered thoughts and prayers to some other people that spoke about their loss and thoughts and prayers and concern to lawmakers. I suggest do not substitute for viable legal remedy and you don't have that currently in a Micra with a $250,000 cap which is 25 years old . The amount of of deterrent value that this offered to the numerous people at Pacific that watched my sister decline and die and did nothing to stop it. It's meaningless. It's almost a cruel joke. It's an illusion of a remedy because we immediately encountered problems to even get an attorney that would be able to represent us and address the problems at Pacific because of the limitations of Micra and we worked hard to find one and we found a very good one and we were very lucky because we had the ability to do that. I'm sure other I'm sure other people are not as lucky. I would ask that there is no haste to, to to weigh in on this resolution, on this initiative before it's even qualified. Let the process work out. Let people hear both sides in Long Beach about whether or not it's appropriate to adjust micra for purposes of patient safety. I'm asking you to do that as as a citizen of the city and as a person who knows firsthand just very recently why this is something that really does need to be considered at length. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next, please.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Eric Andras. I actually sent you all an email this past week with a lot of.
Speaker 6: Information, and I hope you all were able to.
Speaker 2: Take a look at it. My sister, Cali Andrus.
Speaker 6: Was mentally.
Speaker 2: Retarded. She had the learning ability of a four year old, and I took her to the E.R. one night because she had a terrible stomach ache, and two days later she was dead from medical negligence.
Speaker 6: The hospital refused to give her any pain medication for 15 hours.
Speaker 2: The poor thing just sat and suffered in.
Speaker 6: Horrendous pain for 15.
Speaker 2: Hours. When they finally gave her medication, they gave her a drug called Dilaudid, which is seven times stronger than morphine.
Speaker 6: Even though she had only been.
Speaker 2: Prescribed a low dose of morphine shortly before they gave her the Dilaudid, they gave her a radioactive beverage to drink for an unnecessary CT scan. Because of the sedative effect of the Dilaudid, she ended up aspirating that radioactive beverage into her lungs, which caused pulmonary edema and sent her into cardiac arrest. The hospital was under the wrong assumption that my.
Speaker 6: Sister was a DNR.
Speaker 2: A do not resuscitate. So while she was laying there in cardiac arrest, they were standing there doing nothing. When they finally realized that they were wrong. They called a code blue and they were able to bring her back 17 minutes later.
Speaker 6: But it was too late. She was nearly.
Speaker 2: Brain dead by that time. This is when I finally learned about Michael. I had never heard of such a thing. 38 years this law has been on the books and I've never even heard of Micra. When I tried to get a lawyer it took me over eight months to get a lawyer to take my case and it only I only ended up getting one because I started advocating for patient safety. Over a dozen lawyers turned our case down. And this is what everybody that's that's going through medical negligence these days is going to. My sister had no husband. She had no work. She had no children. So she only qualifies for the $250,000 cap. So what lawyer is going to take that? It costs sometimes $100,000 and in fees to bring a court case. Then you've got $75,000 in lawyer fees. You've got to take that out of the 250,000 before a victim can even see any more money. And then that's in 1970 $5. By the time $75,000 is left in 1970 $5, it works out to about $17,000. That's what a medical negligence victim gets these days because of micra. It's a horrible law. I've actually been in contact with senator barry keene who wrote the law in 1975. He has come out and he has written a statement and I sent you all the link to this and he is also for raising the cap. He wrote the law and he's for raising the cap. So I beg of you all please do not support anything that has to do with with promoting Micra. It's a terrible law and it's really affecting a lot of people who are suffering from medical negligence. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next please.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name's Betty Brown. I'm here because of my sister, Tamara Walter. That passed away four years ago from medical negligence. She went into the went into the clinic for a minor procedure and 20 minute procedure.
Speaker 7: And never came out. They ended up putting her in a room.
Speaker 0: A recovery room, forgot her, and she suffocated. As the other gentleman said, too, I wasn't even aware of my crew if we went out to try and get help to see attorneys to to make some changes and couldn't get any help. I happened to have the opportunity to go to Sacramento a couple of years ago and work on the SB 100 and we bill and we got it passed, which is to improve the standards at the clinics and hospitals, which I hope helps because of the limitations with Medicare. It's very hard to get any type of, you know, help with attorneys. And my sister also was single, had no children. So her life wasn't worth much either. You know, the last two, the rest of the families just horrendous. Please. You know, a. You know, we have to make change to make. We have to see people, you know, in the future. And the only way that's going to do it is if we are able to hold the doctors and whoever accountable. And unfortunately, the only way to hold them accountable is financially they don't care. You know, it's and there's a lot of great doctors out there, you know, just the few that don't care. Hopefully if we make changes that will affect them anyways. I mean, other than just being a victim of the medical negligence, we're also you know, we're a victim with with with the micro, you know, with not being able to to do anything. So. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Byrne. Next with.
Speaker 2: My name is Dr. Carlos Martinez. I'm a local ophthalmologist. I have been in practice here for the last 13 years, and I have served as chairman of ophthalmology at Memorial. I have served a quality assurance on memorial quality assurance in Los Alamitos at Reagan Street Surgery Center. So I am interested in taking the bad apples out of the community, and I have done everything I can. And the truth is that every one of our colleagues and every one of the cases that I've reviewed have always been about caring doctors, trying to do their best in a field that is incredibly difficult. But the answer to the problem is not changing. Micro. Micro. There are no caps for gross negligence. There are no caps or economic damages. So the idea that raising the cap for pain and suffering would lead to a resolution or would lead to taking those who have made mistakes or acts of negligence out of the field is just not the case. If I thought that that would solve that issue, I would support changes to micro, but I don't think that's actually a factor in the whole equation. So I support the resolution that you have come up with supporting micro, and I invite everybody to have a discussion about how to solve the issues. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Victor Christie. With Californians Allied for patient protection. I'm here to urge your support of the resolution to support micro micro works. Any change to Micra will only jeopardize the citizens of Long Beach and all Californians ability to access quality health care. It is wrong to increase health care costs for every citizen of this state, especially now at a time when we are implementing the Affordable Care Act. We cannot return to the crisis that led to the passage of micra where the san jose mercury news then stated that insurance rates will peril medical care in the Los Angeles Times stated then that doctors face an insurance crisis which will affect 8000 in the Southland. Yes, regrettably, there are individual tragic cases of medical negligence that no one ever, ever wants to see. But this is not the way to do it. Changing Micra is not the solution. That is why we have a broad based coalition of community health centers, public safety positions, labor, the Department of Public Health of Los Angeles County and more than a thousand others to support micra. I respectfully urge and I vote please protect access to health care. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is James Ah Christie. No relation to the last speaker. I have been a resident of Long Beach for over 20 years. I'm an attorney and my law firm represents victims of medical negligence. One case that we to give you an example of the kinds of cases that I that I see. I represented the parents of a 25 day old baby who went to the hospital with sepsis and high fever and five days later was about to be released. The physician said he's he's going to be okay. Let's release him. The mother said, I'm not going to take him home. You can see he's jittering. The baby had symptoms of seizure all these five days that he was in the hospital on that last day that the physician decided he would needed an emergency MRI of this infant rushed him down to the MRI room. The baby went into cardiac arrest and resulted in brain death at 30 days old. We won that arbitration. But the most that it was available to that family, those those parents was 250,000, not apiece, but for both of them together. And this is a couple they still go to the park every birthday with a birthday cake to commemorate Jayden's birth. But I'd really like to speak about the people who can't get a lawyer who are victims of medical negligence. And I see them all the time and my heart really goes out to them. They can't get a lawyer because the cap is too low and the economics don't work out. Is so expensive to litigate the medical negligence case, they cannot find a lawyer to represent them. That's why it's socially responsible to lift the microcap. It's going to provide access to justice. It's going to make physicians more responsible for the care they give. And I respectfully urge a no vote on this resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: My name is Nicholas Domingo. I did not know that this issue was on the agenda today, and I'm not prepared to talk about it. I am in the medical care field and. I make my living by that. Also, I had a mother who died in a local hospital. She stated in front of witnesses that she wanted to live and that she wanted treatment. And despite that fact, a DNR was placed on her without authorization. The only person that could. In the world. Agreed to that DNR was me and I didn't even know about it was placed without authorization. And then she was denied treatment even. Which would have been given to a deranged patient. She needed to be on a ventilator. And she died. And there were many, many other gross and embarrassing mistakes. I don't know any of these people here. I don't know these two people who suffered the loss of their son. I've never seen them before. But the things that they experienced I encountered ten years ago. I don't have an agenda at this time. I do not have a lawsuit. That was years ago. I do know that that hospital probably spent over $1,000,000 on attorney's fees. And they're saying there's no money. There is money. Like in most other aspects of the world. Businesses are money driven. Anyway, at the very end, I watched my mother suffocate. And. The nurse at this hospital knew that that was happening and didn't even stand up because at that point she was a legitimate DNR because there was no more treatment for her. And she suffocated. And then they tried to usher me out of the room so that they could withdraw the medical devices and carry me out so they could get on with business. It's very, very difficult to obtain an attorney because of money. But the hospitals can afford high priced attorneys. And they do. And again, I get no penny for this. I have no agenda, no lawsuit. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next.
Speaker 2: Mr. Mayor, council members, I thank you for a brief minute. My name is John Hinman. I live in Long Beach. I live in the second district. I'm a small business owner in the third district. I employ two employees who live in the second district and I believe the fifth District. I practice medical malpractise defense for four years in Long Beach at a prominent defense firm and I now practice medical Malpractise plaintiffs work along with Social Security, disability, employment, and a variety of other things. I have to tell you that I urge you strongly to get all of the opinions of all of your constituents and the people who really know what's going on about this before you make a decision. I think that's most important. I have two brief comments. First of all, I think that the bar to filing medical malpractise cases is the fact that you need experts to come out and say that there was medical negligence. That is a huge bar to filing these cases. And I think to claim that the $250,000 cap is the real bar to filing these cases is not necessarily the reality. Second of all, I want you to know that I have, in my short four months of representing plaintiffs, have had to have several tearful conversations with folks who have clear liability cases. But because of the complexity of their situation and the 250 cap, I was unable to represent them. These folks had consulted with five, ten, 15 lawyers. I was literally their last line of somebody who could potentially take the case, and I had to, through my own tears in theirs, tell them, no, this is real. This is the real situation that's happening all the time. Please get all of the facts before you make a decision. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next.
Speaker 2: Mayor Foster, members of the council. My name is John Blumberg. I've been an attorney in this city for 39 years, and my office has been across the street in Long Beach for all of that time. And before that, my father's law firm was in this city since 1955. I'm on the Long Beach Symphony Executive Committee. Your children, your wives, your husbands, your family. They've been calling me for medical malpractise advice for many years. And there are many, many, many terrible stories that I hear every day, every week. This is an issue which is a complex issue. Medical malpractise law is among the most difficult to practice. Expert witnesses are necessary before a case can ever get past the first step. The medical the medical lobby, the insurance companies would be much better off if there are artificial limitations on the compensation that people can receive from medical malpractise cases. However, those who are victims of medical malpractise cases should have the right to be compensated in an amount which is commensurate with what they have suffered. This is neither frivolous nor is it meritless. It is simply a matter of what is appropriate compensation and what was appropriate compensation 38 years ago is not appropriate compensation now . If it was fair 38 years ago to set a $250,000 limit on the recovery of a life of pain, of suffering, of misery, if it was fair 38 years ago, it could not be fair now. And so you are the representatives of the city of Long Beach, of the citizens of the city of Long Beach. And I think that it would be most prudent, since there is no initiative at this time, most prudent not to take a position and never to take a position because this is a matter to be debated. It's a matter to be discussed. And it's a matter that perhaps if an initiative ultimately does qualify for the ballot to allow the political, nonpolitical and sociological debate to take place in the city, with the city council not taking a position where the citizens of the city of Long Beach essentially are told that this is how your representatives feel about the issue. And I would join those who say it is appropriate not to take a position at this time. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank everyone that's come to speak on this issue today. It is very heart wrenching, all of your experiences. And I'm sorry I can't see you over there, but I do want to thank you for coming. Where I'm coming from on this issue and certainly where I believe seven of our council members we had eight council members here last week. Seven of the eight are coming from on. This is really an access to to health care issue. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act has protected patients and our health care network for over 35 years in California. We've heard from our medical professionals right here from Long Beach coming to speak on that. And I'm asking our council colleagues, my council colleagues to consider that Long Beach memorial while Molina health care was not here. They are a home based health care provider here serving health care to really the less visible among us, serving those that aren't able to afford the health care that each of us here are able to. And so we have to consider that micros original purpose is still relevant today to ensure that injured patients are fairly compensated, medical liability rates are kept in check, and physicians and clinics can remain in practice treating patients, driving physicians out of the practice, especially those that are good physicians, the ones that intend to do right every single day does not serve our families, does not serve Californians. The Troy and Alana Park Patient Safety Act of 2014 is a ballot measure that is attempting to qualify for the November ballot with potentially significant impacts to the community and our city. California's own Legislative Analyst's has reviewed the proposed ballot measure and determined that the likelihood of cost. Increases to state and local governments is substantial by eroding micro's protections to increase lawsuit payouts. The ballot measure will hurt community clinics. We have many community clinics here. It will hurt doctors and hospitals and for the purposes of this council's consideration. Also, increased costs and lower sales tax revenue to the city as the costs of employer malpractise suits and health care policies go up and our residents expendable consumer income goes down. Small percentage increases in our cost of doing business could have an exponential impact on our future budgets. As I commented at our January meeting, yes, it was our January meeting. I believe that our city should join the more than 800 organizations including hospitals, community clinics, county and city governments, business and taxpayer groups, labor unions and members of public safety that support Micra and oppose any changes. As I said earlier, I'm coming at this in order to protect access to health care for all but really for those of us who are less visible in our communities. And it's important to restate what was said earlier by one of our speakers that there is no cap here for gross negligence. We are still allowed unlimited economic damages for past and future medical costs, unlimited damages for lost wages, lifetime earning potential, and any other economic losses. Micro only impacts. The punitive I'm sorry, the noneconomic damages and caps. The noneconomic damages. That to 50, there's unlimited punitive damages. And so with that, I ask my colleagues to stay the course from our direction and our action last week and vote no on this receive and file motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 3: Council membership scheme.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank the people who came forward and talk today. And I'm extremely sorry for your losses. You know, I'm a registered nurse practitioner, an attorney, so I kind of work in both worlds. I also am on the California Medical Board, and I would urge you and anyone here, because a lot of people don't know this, that if you have if you believe that a physician has been negligent, please file with the medical board, make a complaint. I spend roughly about three days a week reviewing cases that are given to the medical board. We do them online about physicians that are being disciplined. So the board is extremely active. We take it very seriously. And when a hospital senses an 805 report, which they're required under law to give us when a physician has been negligent , we take that very seriously as well. So I encourage the public to use that venue. But that being said to individuals, I think the point that I would like to support is that they have this kind of issue on a consent agenda without really having a lot of public input. I don't think serves as well at all about this initiative. What I would like to do is make a substitute motion that we send this issue to our state legislation committee so that we can have further public comment and review, and then the ledge committee can make a recommendation to the full city council on it. And by that time, hopefully we will have a clarification about the language, the potential language or what is moving forward. And the city council can actually take a more informed position. So I make that motion.
Speaker 3: It's been moved and seconded.
Speaker 9: Mr. DELONE Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's my understanding the original motion was to receive a file and now we have a substitute to send it to state. Loj Is that correct? Well, I know that there's a second meeting now. We've had some pretty significant discussion on this and I think what I'd like to do is make a substitute substitute to support the original recommendation to adopt the resolution.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's in order. Mr. JOHNSON.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you, Mayor. I want to thank everyone from both sides this very heated argument for coming tonight. But I think the question that has not been answered, that's been asked over and over again, I ask this question and many of you have asked the question is simple. If $250,000 was the right number in 1975, why is it the right number today? How long are we going to wait? Are going to wait 50 years when $203,000 buys 10% of what it does today, or he does not believe in pain and suffering damages. If that's the case, let's just say it. Let's just say that there should be no pain and suffering damages. But to basically let inflation do what we're not willing to do ourselves, which is to help victims and their families, that you have no access to justice is wrong. I think, simply put, we know in all of our policy areas, we constantly look at CPI adjustments. There's no reason not to do it here. So I oppose the motion because while I think we should kill this outright, I think Councilwoman Shipley has a good point, which that this does deserve more consideration from all sides and from all perspectives. And I would certainly support going to the legislative committee.
Speaker 3: All right, members, we have a motion on the floor to support the original motion. Members, cast your votes on that motion.
Speaker 8: You know, in this day and age community. They want it in the state budget committee.
Speaker 4: The motion carries five votes. Three votes no.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Thank you all who testified and appreciate that the motion has passed.
Speaker 2: Your Honor, my name is Mark Werth. I'm sorry. I'm here for the first time. I did not see what the recorded vote was.
Speaker 3: Five three. Right there, right on the board.
Speaker 2: Okay. And that motion is to approve the original? That is correct. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 3: You're out of order. So if you have a question, you can do it offline. Okay. All right. Thank you. And we have you have a question. See that gentleman right at the end right there? Mr. Barkin, I'm happy to do that. That means the original motion, I guess, to support the microphone position has been adopted by the council. Thank you. Item 23, Will. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution of the City Council of the City of Long Beach opposing bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02042014_14-0070 | Speaker 4: M23 is a report from the city attorney with the recommendation to declare an ordinance amending the municipal code relating to the payment of living wage to workers at the Long Beach Airport and the Long Beach Convention Center. It read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading.
Speaker 3: But I hear emotions moving second. Mr. Barton.
Speaker 5: Mayor, members of the council. This ordinance is being brought back to you for first reading. At the last council meeting we were requested to change the ordinance that was before you to include retail or retail portion of the ordinance. We have done that and that is the.
Speaker 2: Motion before you today.
Speaker 3: Can you more thoroughly explain what this does for everyone involved?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mayor. And members of the council, the the at the request of the city council, we were asked to prepare a living wage ordinance that would be in effect for future contracts at both the airport and at the convention center. That would follow the same guidelines as the measure in which adopted the living wage for hotel workers, for hotels, over 100 units.
Speaker 3: We had just I did have a question by someone who was looking at a restaurant, the restaurant pre security at the airport, maybe in it may be renovated or potential change of operators. Would this measure, if it's adopted, apply to that change?
Speaker 2: I think the answer.
Speaker 5: If the contract is amended or we enter into a new contract, then yes, this ordinance would apply to that facility. That is correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. So I want to make that clear. And remember, the public was just council on this issue. Please come forward.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mr. Mayor, we're on 23, correct?
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Sorry.
Speaker 3: Okay. Any council discussion? All right, members, cast your vote.
Speaker 4: Motion carries seven votes. Yes. One vote no.
Speaker 3: Thank you, members. Good item ten. CLERK three. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 16.60, relating to the payment of living wage to workers at the Long Beach Airport and the Long Beach Convention Center, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02042014_14-0086 | Speaker 4: I'm tennis communication from Councilwoman Jeri ships here. Councilmember So Long Island. Councilmember I'll ask them to the recommendation to request the city manager to provide an update on how Long Beach residents can utilize the MIL Zack tax savings and how this information can be posted online.
Speaker 2: Good. Councilmember Lipski.
Speaker 8: Wait till everybody is exiting exits. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. And I want to thank my co-sponsors on this. The Mills Act Historical Property Contract Program has been in existence for quite a few years, and it allows qualifying owners of historically designated property to receive a potential property reduction and to use that savings to help rehabilitate, restore and maintain their buildings. And as we know, in Long Beach, we have so many neighborhoods where we have properties that that are of historical significance that need to be rehabilitated. And that is very costly for property owners sometimes to do that without some kind of tax relief. The Mills Act is a state tax relief, but there's also federal tax relief available if the property is qualified at at the state level, the Mills Act is probably the single most important economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of historic buildings by private property owners. It was enacted in 1972, and local governments go through a process by which they contract with the property owner to have a formalized agreement. The city of Long Beach had this in place for many years and stopped doing it in 2006, and I believe we probably have maybe only 30 homes. I may be incorrect. Mr. or Amy, I think you have the figure 30 homes right now that are eligible for the Mills Act incentive. One of the things in talking with city management that has come up is that, you know, and they certainly can speak for themselves, but in the briefing I had, some of the objections were is that it takes away property tax revenue from the city. It costs the city of Long Beach to have staff to audit the property owners to make certain they actually did do the rehabilitation to qualify for the tax incentive. Additionally, that city has not completed an audit and needs to do so on the existing owners that was standing. Some of these turn out there. That withstanding, I would like to go ahead, make a motion to request the city manager to go forth to indicate to the City Council how we can restore the Mills Act within the city of Long Beach. And I make that motion understanding that perhaps maybe city manager can comment on that, that there is concern about the auditing and the cost audit. And I would suggest that perhaps we have the city auditor take over that function for auditing since it's a concern to the city. So actually what I do, Mr. Garcia, is just wait and if we can maybe hear a staff report and then get the public input, then I can make a motion.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: That was the motion or no. Okay. So I'm just.
Speaker 8: Waiting and waiting to hear staff report because I see Mr. Westhead.
Speaker 2: Nodding up. And what we're going to do is we're going to hear staff report, we're going to come back to conservatorships for a possible motion to hear from the public. So, Mr. West, Amy Borek.
Speaker 7: Vice Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council, we do have the Mills Act, the ability to implement Mills acts. And as the Councilwoman Ships said, we did pause the program in 2006 because of some discrepancies related to the program. The issue that we have with the program is that under previous iterations, units within a single building, condo units within a single building could apply for Mills Act contracts. But if the entire building does not apply for the contract, it's very difficult for the city to understand what its historic improvements were made for that portion of the building. We have three multifamily buildings that are that have condo units in the Mills Act, but those buildings are not entirely in the Mills Act. One of the buildings is, for example, the Villa Riviera. We have a number of condo units in the Villa Riviera, but not the entire building, which makes it extremely difficult for us to assess what value those folks are making to the overall improvements of the building when the entire building itself is not not under Mills Act contracts. So we are looking to audit all of the existing contracts we've completed, all of the single family contracts. There are 31 single family contracts in the city. We've got about 200 condo contracts that we're in the process of going through right now and auditing all of those. We are trying to understand what improvements we're committed to by the property owners, whether those improvements were made, and whether they did in fact receive the appropriate tax credit if they received the tax credit. But it did not make the improvements. Clearly, there is an issue with that. And so that is what our audit is. It is less a financial audit and more of a physical inspection audit. So I would suspect that it would be appropriate for other types of staff to work on it as opposed to the city auditor. Additionally, once we complete the audits of all of the multifamily projects, we would then come up with a a series of changes that we would suggest to the ordinance, and then we would bring that ordinance back to the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Speaker 8: If I can. Here. I'm a little puzzled, though. Why have we stopped issuing contracts in 2006? It's taken eight years for an audit to be done to see whether or not these are valid contracts. What spurred what spurred that audit?
Speaker 7: It's been very difficult for us to get access to all of these locations. We do need to get the property owners access permission to access their facilities, their condos. And so it's been a little challenging for us to do that.
Speaker 8: Well, my concern is the city of Los Angeles has a very detailed website and a very aggressive program on the Mills Act because they've reached out effectively to owners of property. They're encouraging them to contract with the city of Los Angeles because they understand how it helps specific neighborhoods. So I'm I'm I guess what I'm questioning is that can we not go for it? And I recall maybe Councilman Lowenthal can chime in on this. I think when we passed when we discussed the whole issue about implementing the cultural. Heritage. Historic preservation aspects of our planning. We talked about two things. We talked about reinstating the historic preservation officer position, and we also talked about reinstating the Mills Act. And I think I forget what year that was, but we didn't do it too long ago. So I'm just wondering why we can't embark back on the the Mills Act program, clean it up and make sure it operates the way it needs to, but at least go forward and offer it. Because we are talking about having homeowners and I understand about the condo situation. But, you know, certainly that's something that I think the city attorney could assist on in cleaning that language up. But I, I don't understand the reluctance to not just go ahead and reinstate the mills and program so that the homeowners can take advantage.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 7: Under the current guidelines. I would not recommend to reinstate reinstatement of the program. And that's the purpose of of us doing this has always been to clean up the program and reinstated.
Speaker 8: When do you think the program will be cleaned up? Because, again, we cut this off in 2006.
Speaker 7: When we complete the audit and we understand what value has been derived from that. And then we'll be working on the the changes to the municipal code.
Speaker 8: And do we have a time frame on that?
Speaker 7: Probably this summer. Probably went probably this summer.
Speaker 8: This summer. All right. I'm going to hold off to hear the comic Councilor O'Donnell.
Speaker 2: I just actually I was just going to help council memberships. We kind of move this along and get get what she's looking for. Do you feel are you okay? No.
Speaker 8: No. I want to hear from the public about why we need to reinstate it.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's great. They're here. Good. Kotsenburg. DeLong, you know what?
Speaker 9: I'm going to wait to hear from the public, too. And then Travis suggestion for maybe how we can move this along a little sooner.
Speaker 2: And because we're a long can hear from the public first.
Speaker 0: Of course we can.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. I'm going to open this up for public comment. We'll come back to the city council. So please identify yourself for the record and come forward if you want to speak on the Mills Act item.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia and members of city council. I'm the public. I'm John Thomas. I've had the pleasure to represent Long Beach charities this evening and Bluff Heights Neighborhood Association, both our which have been very instrumental and watching and monitoring the progress since the Mills Act was postponed or sustained in 2006, just not to generate some of the most recent history. But in 2010, you might recall, we worked really, really hard with the council, the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Planning Commission and staff to adopt the city's first general plan element, the historic preservation element within HP. There were a number of recommendations, kind of taking a pinpoint on the city of Long Beach as history as it relates to cultural and historic resource preservation. We are also a certified local government because we have a commission, because we have an ordinance that would allow landmarking, facilities and organizing the Historic Preservation Office within the city's planning office. Both the Certificate of Local Government and Historic Preservation Element both recommend and in the HP actually says reinstate the Mills Act. Now we understand because we've been along for the process, that there were a number of perceived issues with the original function of how we were doing the Mills Act, most notably the multiple units. And that's just that's absolutely correct. I know that staff because Long Beach Heritage, since my involvement in the last six or seven years have been monitoring other cities City of Los Angeles, Santa Ana, Guard, Garden Grove, Fullerton and Orange and Pasadena. Looking at all those different cities and kind of developing a hybrid approach, and I, I heard a staff report to the Cultural Heritage Commission back in January where I think the staff has gotten to the point where working with the consultant, where the audit is underway, we're looking favored typically of reinstating a new Mills Act process that would do three things that I think are important, which monitor this leakage of property tax, which I think was one of the principal reasons. In 2006, the program was abandoned. In Los Angeles, they cap it. They cap how much property tax can be up for grabs, if you will, on an annual basis. Secondly, the audit program, it's a cost recovery or fee for service. If you charge an administrative fee to implement the Mills Act, that implementation fee ought to go to the audit process estimated for that that number of years, which is ten years. But at the end of the day we are very supportive of reinstating the Mills Act. It is a critical element and tool for historic preservation. In Long Beach we have over 140 landmarks. All those are coming due at some point in time owned by individuals or corporations where they're going to need the financial opportunities of the Mills Act. Thank you very.
Speaker 2: Much. Thank you, John.
Speaker 9: Mr. Garcia, can I ask him a question?
Speaker 2: Sure. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: You mentioned that there was, like you said, had a cap. And how much was it? I'm just curious.
Speaker 10: I believe it's 3 to $4 million. It's a just every year.
Speaker 9: And if we did something in Long Beach or Spring, a different size city, what do you think a reasonable cap might be?
Speaker 10: You know, Mr. Councilmember, I believe that it would be difficult to estimate at this point. I know that just in Bluff Heights alone, we have about 12 owners of homes that would like to get into the pool of the Mills Act. And because we've been without a Mills Act for some time, there's a lot of people that I think would stand in line to seek the initial opportunity. I do know that the Cultural Heritage Commission has agreed that looking at some sort of performance based objective where the initially the very most architecturally significant buildings might receive the opportunity for application first, and that might go hand in hand with assessing the need for the Mills Act for those properties, are they close to them or by neglect, are they, you know, in a in a tough spot in terms of maintenance?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor and council members. My name is Barbara Sinclair. My address is on file. I am currently the acting president of the Wrigley Historic District, and we as a group and with the support of the Wrigley Association, would like to ask you to put your full support behind the reinstatement of the Mills Act in our historic district, as you probably all know, is pretty small. And Wrigley is is not an area of mansion style homes or large high dollar homes. We have very modest homes in our little district. And, you know, we're working people there and we're there because we understand the importance to the city of preserving our rich architectural buildings and homes. I myself live in a Cecil Schilling home. And it it kills me that there are so few of his buildings left in Long Beach. And in fact, the woman for whom this house was custom built in 1935, the school she was the principal of has since been torn down after a long fight, you know, with the Cultural Heritage Commission trying to protect it. The value of protecting these homes, I think, gives a unique boost to the issue of pride of place. I know where our area is, places in the middle of a a pretty rough neighborhood. And I like to think that the neighbors and our concern for what the place looks like and how much we care about all of Wrigley makes a difference to people who may just be passing through or may be tempted to throw something on the sidewalk. I think that the care of these places is critically important to Long Beach. I think it has a lot to do with Long Beaches character. I think we have become known as a city that does protect its historic places and its historic architecture in the downtown area and near the beaches. And I would like you to make every effort to make sure that that continues and that people who are willing to take care of these properties are given some help in doing so. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Honorable Vice Mayor, I have to say, Foster Garcia and City Council. My name is Karen Clements. My address, 1330 Knoxville Avenue, District three. And my comments are because I think I'm the one that's been here the longest with preservation in 1977. The ordinance was passed in November, and it was a hard fight to get the ordinance. I was on that first committee. We weren't a commission then. I was on the first committee and we set about trying to decide how in the world to address first things first. This survey was first, and after this survey, the most important item on our agenda were incentives. Because how in the world would you ask someone to to do the unthinkable, adding up money that they didn't even know they were going to have to add up because of stroke properties? You don't have an answer. How are they going to care? And and now that we have an ordinance, somebody cared, we thought. So that was a real tough fight.
Speaker 7: And it took.
Speaker 0: Us a very long time to get any incentives. And now we have the Mills Act, or we did have the Mills Act, which because of the.
Speaker 7: Fees that are involved with restoring a property, the C of A.
Speaker 0: And the.
Speaker 7: And the property.
Speaker 0: Fees, it's it almost evens out if they get a tax incentive. And I just want to encourage you to remember that you.
Speaker 7: Care about historic properties.
Speaker 0: You did write an ordinance. You also care about sustainability. We're a green city, and you also care about affordable housing. All of these things are accomplished with the Mills Act and it was a hard struggle to get it. Let's get it back. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Q Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Hi. My name is.
Speaker 7: Steffi Han's address. 2149 Kallon fifth District. I'm also a realtor with real Remax real estate specialists here in Long Beach. I specialize in historic properties myself, my clients, my friends.
Speaker 0: We all own these homes and we all spend a lot of money restoring and preserving them.
Speaker 7: Improving the property improves the street, the historic district, and ultimately the entire city, and also helps increase our property values and hopefully revenue.
Speaker 0: To the city. Los Angeles, Anaheim.
Speaker 7: And Orange have implemented this program to great.
Speaker 0: Success.
Speaker 7: And I really believe that the reenactment of this program will greatly further improve.
Speaker 0: The city of Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I'm Emily Stevens, and I'm a resident of Rose Park. And many here can speak better about the Mills Act than I can. However, I didn't want it to go by without mentioning to you that if you are looking at it from a financial aspect, the people that are incentivized to renovate their home move into these neighborhoods and take on that burden and do a good job doing it. They fill the job of the police, the fire department. There are so many aspects of that financially that the city will benefit from. So when you look at a cost of a program like this, I think that it would be very difficult to assess monetarily what the residents are doing when they renovate the home and they move into a neighborhood and try to renovate it to a historic capacity. But they are actually bringing alleviating services from other parts of the city. That was all I wanted to say. I do support this. I hope you do it real soon. Thank you. My name is Kathleen Irvine. I'm the president of Whitmore City Heritage Association. I live at 539 Daisy Avenue in the First District. And I know from personal experience with my 1905 bungalow.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 8: The amount.
Speaker 0: Of money that you would get from the Mills Act Four if it was reinstated, will not make up for the incredible amount of money that you will put into a historic home. That being said, I appreciate that it's being brought.
Speaker 8: Up and I encourage you to.
Speaker 0: Speed the process along because we all understand that it takes a lot of money. But far more important, I think, is that it stabilizes our neighborhoods. In the first District, there was at least 50% of our homes are owned by absentee landlords. It is a rental city. And I think that if there were.
Speaker 8: More incentive.
Speaker 0: For people to actually preserve these homes, instead of just slapping a coat of paint on and flipping it, that it would stabilize our neighborhoods, it would stabilize our city. And of course, everybody talked about the character and all of that. We all know that. But I really feel that it would also.
Speaker 8: Encourage more families to take on that burden of.
Speaker 0: Renovating a home so that we have more families moving in instead of this horrible flipping of homes of our old homes.
Speaker 2: That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Kathleen. Next speaker, please. Good evening, all. Norman took my wife and I owned two properties on First Street, one on the 1600 block and one on the.
Speaker 5: 2700 block of First Street.
Speaker 2: 2003.
Speaker 5: 2006. My wife and I made two trips to this building here when the Mills Act was still available to us.
Speaker 2: And wasn't going anywhere. I know that today.
Speaker 5: And we're many, many years later, and I would really like to know exactly how many single family dwellings we're talking about.
Speaker 2: And unbelievably, condominiums.
Speaker 5: Within units that are not the.
Speaker 2: Whole building. Why can't you.
Speaker 5: Get access to those places to find out to do your audit? But I know that today my wife and I are spending our children and our grandchildren inheritance. I restore old cars. I'm a retired longshoreman. I restore old cars as a hobby. And my cars are beautiful and immaculate. The buildings that we owned in Long Beach are the same way beautiful and immaculate love.
Speaker 2: We spend a lot of money on them and if there's anything we want would get out of that is some kind of break and taxes. Only because I've made a commitment to my old cars and these old buildings. I live in San Pedro, but I love Long Beach. I grew up in San Pedro. I made my living in San Pedro and in Long Beach as a longshoreman. I'm spending that and my pension on the beautiful.
Speaker 5: Buildings that we own at Long Beach. So the sooner the better that we get the mills back in place. So the individuals like myself and my wife.
Speaker 2: Can maybe get a little bit of a tax.
Speaker 5: Break for us in the last part of our our years, that if I'm talking to you all personally tonight, I would ask that you immediately pressure the office to have this happen now.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker.
Speaker 0: Hmm. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Christine. Velma. 901 East 37th Street in California Heights. My husband and I were the recipient of the Preservation Award from Long Beach Heritage last year, and we've offered our home for the great homes of Long Beach Tours and twice for the California Heights Neighborhood Association. We are very fortunate to own a home by renowned architect James, our friend. When we purchased the home in 2006, we were also able to purchase the original furnishings. The home had never been touched. We bought it from the grandchildren. It had one coat of paint on the interior and exterior. Everything in the home is original. It was a dream come true for us, but it's been a labor of love. So we purchased it in 2006, right before the markets turned. I immediately got in my application for the Mills Act and it was pretty promptly returned to us in the fall of that year. And it's been devastating for us. People that preserve architecture do it because they know that architecture is art and art is worth preserving. Art tells us who we are and it tells us where we've come from. But this is an expensive endeavor. We began by chipping away at the things that we needed to do restore the electrical, redo the plumbing, remove the fixtures, and have them re chromed, rebuilt, scraped, pushed apart everything delicately with a kid glove. The home looks much today as it did then. We have changed nothing about the home. But however, our restorations have slowed down tremendously and now we're kind of at the point where we're just trying to maintain the house. So for example, on December 23rd, our gas line went out and my husband on Christmas Eve dug up the line and that was our gift to each other. So people in this audience that know and understand the expense of maintaining a home. Know what it costs, but they know why we do it. We do it for love. We do it for passion, but we really do it for the future. So please, as we think about Long Beach going forward, please consider supporting people that support this cause for Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Next speaker.
Speaker 0: Hi. My name is Sasha Witty. I live at three, two, one, four East Second Street. I am the current president of the Bluff Park Historic District Neighborhood Association and have been for the last few years. This is one of the items we get questioned about the most frequently. When is the Mills Act going to be reenacted? Why hasn't it been reenacted? My partner and I live in a 1913 home. It's certainly a labor of love. We demoed out upgrade to from 1913 to 1960 standards to current electrical and plumbing a few years ago. Found out our second floor was collapsing into the first floor. And needless to say, our kitchen is put off long term until we can kind of recover those costs. So in my personal life, I also work as interior designer, primarily residential, and I would say I work on a lot of historic properties and I work on a lot of contemporary properties. There's no comparison in the cost to upkeep, maintain and bring up to date a historic home in comparison to newer construction. And I would just say I'm so glad this is before the council, and certainly it would make a big difference towards promoting and preserving these wonderful historic structures that make such a difference in our historic neighborhoods of Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: I, Tonya is the longest seven district resident address on file. I just want to thank you for bringing this councilmember, for bringing this to the agenda. I think ever since people have heard about this, that it may possibly be coming back, there's been a lot of excitement in the community. The sixth and seventh District is not downtown. We're not the fanciest neighborhoods. But I'll tell you that any hope to.
Speaker 7: Be able to save the.
Speaker 0: Homes that we see as beautiful I think is a plus. I hear loud and clear from staff that it is difficult, extremely difficult to do from their perspective. But anything worth doing is difficult. And I've heard loud and clear from the community that they want this and that they wait long enough. Anything that you see when you drive down the streets, especially in the beautiful seventh District, Councilmember Johnson is is is an asset to the entire city. And when we get recognized for historic homes and buildings as a city, it brings not only recognition to us, but, quite frankly, visitors and money. So I think in the long run, we win. I hope that this passes. I hope that we get this done quickly and that we don't wait another eight years. Everyone wants this and we have enough resources in the community. A lot of the speakers that you heard tonight to be able to help you figure those things out, the the the barriers, the the the blockades or whatever you want, the excuses. But there's so many people here that want to I think we have the brain trust here to get it done. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Speaker Wendy Horn 3214. East Second Street. Third District. I'm speaking on behalf of Long Beach Heritage and we emphatically support the reinstatement of the Mills Act. We are all about the passionate identification, restoration, protection and preservation of historic properties, iconic and within the historic districts. So anything that can be done to expedite that, we would support strongly. We feel that's a minuscule economic impact compared to the vast gains that you'd have in growing your cultural artifacts. Then as the co-owner with Sasha Whitney of our home at three, two, one four East Second Street in the Bluff Park Historic District.
Speaker 8: It was the.
Speaker 0: City council that approved my ability to move that home from across the Long Beach Art Museum in 1989. And at that time, they were extremely supportive, as I assure you all are, of historic preservation in historic districts. And I worked very closely for two years with then historic preservation officer Ruthanne Lear in the moving and restoration of that home. 23 years later, my that old, we still have quite a bit of work to do and we have also gotten some awards and recognized. And it's a wonderful property. We're enthused, we're excited. We love living in a historic district and everything it represents in this city, and we are excited to hope that the city would reinstate that. I too had applied and was told at the time. I think there was about 40 people on the.
Speaker 2: Waiting list and they weren't even accepting.
Speaker 0: Any more applications many years ago. So we definitely are supportive and would encourage anything that you could do would be a great incentive to us. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And our final speaker. This is done. Let's move ahead. Let's advance. Look at linger in the past with old buildings that are dilapidated and if they were updated would still.
Speaker 8: Look old fashioned.
Speaker 2: Because renovation means doing the new. But building again means making it even more new, maybe functional. I recognized one building in particular the brick rubble on Ocean Boulevard and Alamitos that has some historical value that I haven't been able to ascertain. Architecturally, it's really unique. But it is really one of the best offerings. The historical sites have to really offer something Lincoln preserved. Now, the ranch, the ranch that we have with tours, tours and that sort of thing, that's kind of nice. And I think the art museum is a nice building, too. But what you haven't seen are the rest of the buildings. And interestingly enough, not one picture has been shown. These buildings that are going to be renovated, changed, changed to a new will generate more revenue. The bill. Let's bill. Let's not sustain the old. It just doesn't look good. Architecture advances its modern. Let's not Long Beach be an old fashioned community. Let's advance and certainly some buildings. I would I would surmise most of the buildings are just not beautiful. And by making it trying to make the more beautiful, you discover the fact that it can be rebuilt. Probably a lot cheaper. And if not cheaper, more beautifully. Thank you. We have one more speaker. Please come forward to the last speaker. The one to get behind the. I just wanted to get the previous speakers name if it was on file yet. Mr. Dunn. Career? Dunn. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go and take it behind the rail over here. And we're gonna start with Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 0: I want to thank all the speakers that came forward, especially those that have been working on historic preservation for quite a long time, from the neighborhoods and and those who served on the Cultural Heritage Commission, i. The questions I had, I think have been answered. And then council memberships get asked about what year the element was. The historic element was passed, and that was 2010. And I think that had been excuse me answered as well. So I wanted to thank Council membership scheme for bringing attention back to this council. On this item. I first became aware of the Mills Act when I lived in a loft in the Kress Lofts, which at the time we had not qualified for the Mills Act yet. But certainly that building being one of the newer buildings, having come back online through adaptive reuse, we were looking forward to that and appreciated how oversubscribed the program was that it was oversubscribed because I believe we have well-intentioned homeowners that would like to preserve as much as they can of their historic homes. From there, I moved to another historic neighborhood, Rose Park, and the home is a 1917 home. So it is a labor of love. It's very difficult, but certainly worth doing. And so I want to thank you council memberships for bringing this council back in. Focus on the issue. It has been quite a while since we've discussed the Mills Act, as you mentioned earlier, but the topic remains very popular in the second district. And as we heard from Councilmember Yarrawonga, it's popular all throughout, regardless of which district we live in. But if we just look at the intent really of what we want as a city, what residents want, I think we do want the same things. We live in communities like this because of its history. And one of the speakers earlier indicated what history really meant to us. And preserving that, it tells us where we came from and it informs us really where we're going. And so I appreciate that if if my memory serves me, we approved the element in 2010, which I think Amy's confirmed. And at that time we committed to reestablishing the Mills Act program after evaluating contracts and implementation from the last program. And I think if we look right at language from the element, it says the city will reestablish the Mills Act program for owners of designated historic properties and will implement a program to inspect and monitor existing mills, act properties and to review new applications to ensure that proposed projects meet the Secretary of Interior Standard for Rehabilitation. So I can appreciate some of the original concerns associated with that loss of revenue to the city, especially given the last decade of budget cuts and positions eliminated in the city serving on the Budget Oversight Committee. That point is not lost on me, and I recognize that many of council's directives here are heaved upon the shoulders of development services with an expedited timeline. I, for one, am guilty of that. And you can you can smile, Miss Burdick, because, you know I am guilty of that. We do put that on you and we everything needs to be yesterday. But I'm concerned that that we and our consultant are still evaluating properties at this point. I had hoped to see recommendations for a new program by now. I don't know the details of what goes on in those evaluations, but it's been a long time properly performed. Improvements provide a return on our investment in the form of higher property values, which in turn leads to increased revenue coming back to the city. I'll just talk about Rose Park. Rose Park today is not what it was 11 years ago when we moved into it because of the work that homeowners have put into it, with or without the Mills Act and it has raised property values, I can assure you, just from my own personal example, it really has what my neighbors have done through blood, sweat and tears and hard work has assisted the entire neighborhood. So we know that to be true. So in that regard, I think we will make up those lost revenues through increased property values, perhaps changing of hands of these properties, although many of us, you know, would like to stay forever in our homes, it's a reality. And so in that regard, I think that's where we make up this loss, this anticipated loss. And so I'm not insensitive to it, but I do know we will make it up if we do support neighborhoods in bringing these properties up and raising the entire area's property value. In some, the mills act as a useful tool for preserving our city's heritage and a return on our collective investment. I firmly believe this. And so, Councilmember Lipski, I'm happy to support a motion that you put forward. I'm delighted that you asked me to coauthor this with you and. Honored to do so. But I will take your lead. I would like to see us move forward in a direction where we can make good on the original intent of our 2010 historic preservation element.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Counselor DeLong. Thank you.
Speaker 9: You know, I have a few questions. First, Ms.. Broder, could you just take a minute and describe how we've used the Mills Act in the past to just tell us what the benefit is to the residents, perhaps what the cost has been to the city. Just give us a quick overview of the program when it was enacted.
Speaker 7: I don't have the financial numbers in front of me of the of the potential tax losses that the city has has incurred because of contracts with the Mills Act. It is a clearly a benefit to a property owner of a home that does require significant improvements. They do receive a discount and state and federal taxes for the work that they put into their property. It is clearly not a 100% rebate and the property owner does get does bear a significant burden of those improvements. But it is meant as as it was stated several times tonight to incent property owners to maintain their properties or to restore properties that have fallen into disrepair. We do also have folks who purchase properties in historic districts, and they know of the possibility of a mills act and they try to forestall improvements until they know that they can get some relief from their property taxes as part of a Mills Act contract. We do believe that there is a value in reinstating the contract, the contracts. What we do need to do, though, however, is modify the ground rules under the contracts to deal with some of the the issues that we've had with the program in the past. And that's what we're in the process of doing. The City of Los Angeles does have an annual cap. There are other cities that only allow a certain number of applications that are per year. So it's not necessarily a dollar amount, but it is a number of applications that they're willing to accept in a year . So we're looking at different models to see which one would work for Long Beach. Once we do that, we do have to calculate what the potential financial impact is. But again, as as Councilwoman Lowenthal said, it is very likely that a lot of that impact could be made up in increased property values over time.
Speaker 9: Okay. So, for example, if I if I bought a home for $500,000 and I put $200,000 into it, what would be the financial benefit to me and what would be the impact on the city?
Speaker 7: It's based on your property taxes, not the value of the improvements that you put into it.
Speaker 9: So let's assume that the value of the property went up to $200,000 for my additional investment.
Speaker 7: The value of their property went up.
Speaker 9: Bought it for 500,000 that my tax base, I bought 200 into it, which added $200,000 for the value.
Speaker 7: So now you have an assessed value of 700,000. Yes. Okay. So you're paying taxes on $700,000. You get a portion of that rebated. I don't know, portion.
Speaker 9: Of the incremental 200,000 in value.
Speaker 7: If you've made $200,000, yes, you get a portion of the value of that.
Speaker 9: So a portion of $200,000.
Speaker 7: Yes. I apologize. It's based on the 700,000, the total assessed value of the property.
Speaker 9: Okay. So is it possible that I would pay less taxes for this home that was worth 700,000 than I paid property taxes when it was only worth 500.
Speaker 7: I can't answer that. Right here, right now.
Speaker 9: Okay. Can we just about how did the program work before? Was it first come, first serve? Do we have any caps, any limits? How did we determine that? A property qualified for a mills act?
Speaker 7: It was first come, first serve. You had to be either a in a historic district or a designated landmark. And those contracts were entered into based on some some very general bullet points of what the property owner was going to do in terms of improvements for those homes, for example, a home. And then the property owner would make the improvements and be able to take a credit on the property taxes.
Speaker 9: And what was the and how is the amount of that credit calculated?
Speaker 7: I don't have that that information in front of me. I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: And how many homes are currently covered today under the Mills Act in Long Beach?
Speaker 7: Individual homes, we have about 31 individual homes and we have almost 200 multiplex condo units that are also covered by the program.
Speaker 9: And what are your concerns regarding the multiplex units? I noticed in your opening remarks you think they shouldn't be covered or is it the way we're covering them today? Doesn't make sense. The reinstatement of the program.
Speaker 7: The way we're covering them today does not make sense.
Speaker 9: Because.
Speaker 7: If you have a six plex condo building and three of the two of the property owners do not participate in the Mills Act, but four of them do, and the entire six owners agree to improvements to the building. It's very difficult to determine the value of the credit that should be derived for each of the individual property owners. If some of them did not, you know, did not have a Mills Act contract. If someone restores a window in their unit or there's a lobby that gets restored and that's covered under common area maintenance charges or an ATO, it's very difficult to ascertain the level of the improvements that were made that should have been historic in nature. That should have been just your condo reserve, that should have been applied to the individual property owners.
Speaker 9: So your recommendation being a multi-unit property that all the units need to be applying for the Mills Act?
Speaker 7: All the units need to apply, but the applicant would be the away and not the individual properties. So theoretically, the, the the majority of the of the improvements that would be derived from a Mills Act contract are within the common area are or are for the benefit of the entire building like reroofing a historic roof, you know , dealing with foundations repointing the brick facade that benefits the entire building as opposed to just individual units.
Speaker 9: And is that more in line with how other cities that have viable programs are working?
Speaker 7: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 2: Well, I.
Speaker 9: Guess what I'd like to see is, you know, sometimes I think we look for the perfect answer and it takes us forever to get there, if at all. I guess what I'd like to see us do is come up with some kind of a pilot program with the understanding that may not be the perfect program and put some appropriate caps and limits on it so it doesn't get out of control. And then based on the experiences with with getting that program in place, then we can grow it, we can evolve and we can modify it over time. Now, I'm sure the Council can come up with something along those lines, but the other alternative is to request staff to come back in 30 days or some timeframe with some recommendations for putting a pilot program together for the Mills Act. Shift your thoughts on that. But I guess from a staff perspective first, I'm sure some other folks here that would like to see something done. I guess, Amy, what is your thoughts on that?
Speaker 7: I don't really see the need for a pilot program. I think the answer is to just continue to move into the implementation of making revisions to the ordinance.
Speaker 9: How quickly can you do it?
Speaker 7: As I said to Councilwoman Chayefsky, I think we should be complete with all of our work by summer.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I guess for me or other council members, I have to say, I think that's too long. I don't see why we need all that work to be done in order to put a program in place. But what if some other members but if we can't do it faster than I think we should put something in place immediately.
Speaker 2: They can continue to move on the council membership scheme.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. DeLong. And if I can, for the the public explained about the calculation of the property tax, it is actually a very convoluted property tax situation about what the benefit is. For instance, the city of Berkeley gives the example on a condo with the assessed value of 250,000 and current taxes at 3125. Once the calculation is made of the historic property risk component, what they call the capitalization rate and the property tax component. This person now is, instead of paying 3125 in property taxes, is paying 1135 for a savings of 1990 dollars. In Berkeley and other places, as a ten year contract is ours, a ten year contract situation.
Speaker 7: It's a rolling ten year contract.
Speaker 8: As a ten year contract. And so at any time both either the city of the property owner can cancel it. And there's also a 12.5%, I think, penalty if in fact the property owner does not continue to do what they're doing. So I'd like to make the motion based upon the discussion. Certainly the city of Los Angeles, you might know, and I think Ms.. Bardach mentioned this, they have just reassessed their Mills Act program. They have come up with some new conditions. They've put a cap and a timeline on when people can make applications. They've also increased the application fee. I don't know what our application fee is. I know Mr. West had expressed some concern about not being able to fund staff to. Follow this program. But I do know the city of L.A. does charge 250 for single family house and I think 1450 for a multiple dwelling unit. So perhaps we could look at that as well. So on that, I'd like to make the motion to direct the city manager to report to the council in 30 days how the city, how we are going to reinstate the Meals Act savings program in the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 2: The second second there's been a motion and a second. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I'm glad you make the motion before my comments, because I think most of my questions have been asked. You guys asked them some very good questions. I was sitting here actually reviewing the City of Los Angeles Store Preservation Program and their Meals Act. I believe it was stated earlier that they set aside up to $3 million a year and I rent a million a year. And then there are caps on on the assessed values of the the homes that participate in the properties that participate in the program. And so I'd like to see something like that included in anything that comes back as well. So I'm going to support the motion I signed on. I think this is great for our neighborhoods and any the benefits are going to far outweigh the costs or liabilities to our property tax revenues here. The city of Long Beach. So I'm happy to support.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman O'Donnell. Yeah, I think I think it's all been said. I was just curious as to the cost of the program. And I think you when you come back, there would be some recommendation included. Is that correct?
Speaker 7: You mean in terms of implementation? Yes, sir. So we would if we were to do a cap, we would then try to do a calculation to determine what the fiscal impact would be on property tax revenue for the city.
Speaker 2: Right. And with a recommendation of some potentially.
Speaker 7: Yes, I would absolutely recommend a potential annual cap.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor DeLong.
Speaker 9: Just one more question on if the city attorney or maybe Mr. Thomas, but does anybody know how that calculation is done on the on the income tax savings was done on the net increase or maybe has a home covered by property tax savings? You know, Charlie John, do you know by any chance it's okay?
Speaker 8: Mr. Don Berkeley actually has it up online and they talk about it as if it's a income property. They do recalculate gross income, less expenses, net income, capitalization rate.
Speaker 9: And did it say how about on a personal note? Because I think it's probably more work.
Speaker 8: On a on a personal property. Yeah. Yeah. No, it does it does have it's it says the property valuation is determined by the revenue and tax code.
Speaker 9: But I guess whether or not, you know, you get a benefit where your rates are actually lower than what your initial value because that wouldn't make any sense to me. So it seem to me that you would just get a credit toward your incremental value. Do you know.
Speaker 10: I believe that it was stated correctly that it's a total assessed value as it's reassessed on the home or the income property or multiple residential property. Generally speaking, Councilmember DeLong, it's roughly 50 to 63%. We've we've studied this over the last several years, depending on the calculation methodology and the unique tax code, it's generally in that range . I think Councilman Ski's testament to about 1900 dollars out of.
Speaker 2: 30,000 or something.
Speaker 10: He's probably right in that 63, 65% of.
Speaker 8: 60, 65% savings.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm going to make just some brief comments. I think this is great. I want to commend Councilmember Sheepskin, but also consumer Lowenthal and Austin, who brought this forward. I remember before joining the council even I also live in a historic building and there was a lot of discussion about the Mills Act and the people in the.
Speaker 3: Building, I.
Speaker 2: Believe, lived there because we love it's its historical nature. It's an incredibly gorgeous place to live in the temple lofts here in downtown Long Beach. One of the I believe to be one of the best landmarks we have in the city. And there's a lot of I think there's a lot of opportunity for this to be something. There's an opportunity for us to help a lot of people. But more importantly, a lot of good a lot of these homes and buildings restored back to their glory days. So this is a great thing. I have one question I'm assuming that is broadcast in your review of of where we're at and what you're bringing back. You're going through a best practices review of what L.A. is doing, and everyone else is basically correct.
Speaker 7: Yes, sir, that's correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. And conservatorships cases, Anaheim. Right. Okay, great. Well, then we have a motion on the floor. There's no other community, no other council comment will take a vote. I mean. Yes, Mr..
Speaker 4: Her motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 2: Great. And we'll go ahead and take the next item.
Speaker 4: Item 11 is communication with the office Councilwoman Jeri Ships and council member Gary DeLong with a request that the city attorney provide a review of the city of Costa mesa, civic, civic openness in negotiations, ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted in the city by the Long Beach City Council. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to provide an update on how Long Beach residents can utilize the Mills Act tax savings and how this information can be posted online. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02042014_14-0087 | Speaker 4: Item 11 is communication with the office Councilwoman Jeri Ships and council member Gary DeLong with a request that the city attorney provide a review of the city of Costa mesa, civic, civic openness in negotiations, ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted in the city by the Long Beach City Council.
Speaker 8: Councilmember Lipski I think, Mr. Garcia, this actually is a report from the Civil Service and Personnel Committee that has taken up this item over a period of years, and we wanted to report it out to the full council. Over this time, we have taken a look with the city attorney's assistance, potential measures that would afford the people of Long Beach with more information concerning the collective bargaining process. I want to stress that we talked in this council before about the possibility of adopting the government code that is utilized for school districts that require some training , among other things, proposed bargaining items being offered and ask, as well as tentative agreements before ratification by the legislative body. Until recently. Well, what happened when we had this discussion at council originally, and how did it the Civil Service and Personnel Committee was that cities had not adopted anything similar and the city attorney's staff brought to us a committee that recently the city of Costa mesa had enacted the Civic Openness and Negotiations Ordinance, actually with the support and help of the City Employees Association and among other things. What this requires is the city must hire an independent negotiator before contract talks with an employee association. Begin an independent economic analysis must be done on the fiscal impacts of each contract term, and the results of that analysis must be made public 30 days prior to negotiations. Often this council doesn't even get that each council member must disclose if he or she has had any communications about the negotiations with the representative of the employee association. As negotiations begin, the City Council must report publicly after closed sessions, any prior offers and counteroffers and their fiscal impact to the taxpayer. And they meet and confer related bargaining positions received and or made by either side that are no longer being considered must also be disclosed and before the City Council can vote on an employee contract. It must be discussed at least two council meetings and the proposal posted on the city website at least seven days prior to the first meeting. The Civil Service and Personnel Committee brings us to the full council with a request that the city attorney take a look at this ordinance and advise the city council whether or not that is something that the City Council could adopt. Please don't shoot the messenger. This this is something that we want it to finish up in civil service and personnel committee. I know it is controversial, particularly among labor unions. I will give you my credits out here first that I've been a longtime labor attorney and I understand both sides in terms of their position. But I also do understand that we need more transparency and openness in this process. And I want to thank Mr. DeLong for co-sponsoring this. And with that, I would make a motion that we request the city attorney to provide a review of the city of Costa mesa, civic openness and negotiations ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted by the Long Beach City Council.
Speaker 9: Second.
Speaker 2: There's been a motion, and a second, any public comment on the item? I'd like to make a substitute move to receive and file. There's been a motion in a second to receive and file any public comment on the item. See none. No other council comment. Councilor DeLong.
Speaker 9: So I'm sorry, Jerry, could you elaborate on exactly what was your motion here?
Speaker 8: My motion was to request that the city attorney would because we don't have this in the agenda item that he review the ordinance that has been in use in the city of Costa mesa and report back to the city of Long Beach as to whether or not such a ordinance is feasible. We have the report in committee, but we didn't get a follow up. Thank you. It my intention here.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Okay. Well, I guess what I'd like to do as a substitute substitute now I what I'd like to add to that that now I request the city attorney to look at it from a legal perspective, but to ask the city manager to respond to the council as well as to how and what the identified potential pros and cons are from a city staff and human resources perspective in moving this direction. You know, while I would certainly like to see what they both have to say, I would tell you for me, anything that improves the transparency of what we do, I think is a good thing. I know that some of the most difficult questions that I get from the community is after we have voted and, you know, a very large contract such as this is, you know, how did we get to where we got to? What can I say? What can I not say? You know, a great deal of it occurred in closed session. So I really can't provide that much information from a legal perspective, the community and I think this would go a long way towards not only providing the community additional information, but also making it clear to what we can talk about, what we can't talk about, because it will be a published document or at least the appropriate portions of it will be published. So that's my motion.
Speaker 2: But there's been a motion and a second concern. Boston.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sikorski and a longer list for bringing forward this this issue for discussion. I have no issue with transparency either. I think as public officials, we should all be laying it out there for our public to see. And as far as I'm concerned, our labor negotiations, the contracts are online and available for any resident to see at any time. The contract negotiations obviously is done between city staff and labor negotiators representing various unions. I don't think any of us are in those rooms or in those proceedings are or or privileged any of the the information in those proceedings other than giving direction to the staff. As far as the transparency component, I've worked through the Mayor's Millions Brown Back Act that actually governs collective bargaining, the state law that governs collective bargaining for local government and for the city of Long Beach. There's nothing in here that that that that refers to that. I've actually read the deals act where there is some sort of a little bit more transparency with state employees as far as disclosing the terms of the contracts upfront. And so in that regard, I think you may be on the right track, but what I'm also concerned about is the additional and unnecessary cost that could be associated with some of the the proposals here specifically related to hiring outside counsel to negotiate contracts. I mean, if we don't have qualified employees here to do that in H.R., we need to get them because that is a perpetual interest that the city has. I mean, contract negotiations don't end at the end of contract negotiations. Meeting confirms happen throughout the year. And I think what's missing here is probably from the public as well is that negotiations are ongoing. You know, they never stop. On wages, conditions, benefits, particularly in terms and conditions of employment. When policy changes are made, their meaning confers. And that's that bargaining. That's collective bargaining. So I'm really concerned about the additional cost that that could be associated with this. I will agree that during this last round of negotiations, there were some areas where I had some concerns about, concerns about I'm not sure they're fully addressed here. And because of that, I think I'm in support of Councilmember O'Donnell's motion to receive and file.
Speaker 2: Okay. We're going to move on. Before we go on, conservatorships, we can get a clarification. I thought I'd heard a second on counterpart to Long's motion. Was there a second? No second concern for Lowenthal, Second City Councilmember Shipka.
Speaker 8: Mr. Ashton, I appreciate your comments. Although you did talk to me about perhaps having an outside negotiator for the management portion of the contract.
Speaker 2: So you're right, I did.
Speaker 6: I think that is that's prudent. And it eliminates any sort of conflict if that is the case. But this doesn't say that.
Speaker 8: Well, if I can, I will I will add that I know the Miller is Myers Brown at backwards and forwards, having represented numerous city employee groups. And I will tell you, nothing in that act prohibits us from doing this whatsoever. This in no way impacts the rights of the two parties to negotiate. It is not bringing the public in to the bargaining room. It is simply getting information out to the public in a timely manner. And perhaps maybe with the substitute that I think Mr. DeLong did, the city attorney can come back. And that's what my request was. And in fact, if there would be any difficulties in terms of the contracts online, there is no cost associated on those contracts. There is no financial analysis published either for the council or the public about each contract term and the cost. That is much different than just posting a contract online so that this goes beyond that. And then I would be very interested from the city manager's point of view what the added cost would be for us to be transparent. I think, you know, the fiscal impact, as I put in the motion, is to be determined by the city manager and we don't know. So perhaps a separate from hiring a independent negotiator for the management team, I would be very interested to see what the costs would be involved for the other issues here, too. And I think maybe in Mr. Lang's motion that could be covered when we get the report back.
Speaker 3: Mr. O'Dowd. I can't remember long ago.
Speaker 0: I just wanted to confirm that we're looking for information on this issue. I don't think we're changing anything. I'm not averse to receiving a report from the city attorney or staff on on any aspect of this. And then we can take up any recommendation that any council member may bring forward. But there's no recommendation here, and it's asking for a report. And that's where my support is coming from.
Speaker 3: Mr. Dillon.
Speaker 9: Thank you. You know, Councilmember, often I share your concern about adding any cost to the government process. But like Councilmember Lowenthal, I guess what I thought we were doing was asking for some additional information here. I'm certainly not wedded to it has to be done this way. But, you know, maybe a maybe a third. It's this good, maybe a half, maybe 80%. I don't know. I think I'll have a a better feel for that up to the city attorney and the city manager come back with some kind of report for us to to review and discuss. But certainly, I would share your concern that, you know, does it really make sense to hire an outside firm to do all this? Perhaps not. Maybe it does for management, but it doesn't for the other labor groups. And I would certainly be, you know, very open and interested in that kind of a discussion. But at least I to have the information come back so we could have that kind of discussion. So that's why I support the the motion that's on the table.
Speaker 3: Let's get along just for you. Just repeat what the motion is.
Speaker 9: Basically, yes, the motion is to request the city attorney to provide a review of the city of Costa mesa Civic over openness, negotiations, ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted by the lobby, city council. And for the city manager to provide, you know, perhaps a memo that determines the feasibility from a staff and human resources perspective, what the pros and cons might be of this approach.
Speaker 3: So you're not adopting it.
Speaker 9: You're just just asking for information.
Speaker 3: All right, Mr. Ralston.
Speaker 6: And thanks. Thanks a lot. I do appreciate, like I said, that discussion. My my my real concern here is that we the collective bargaining process is difficult and complicated enough, as is with the dynamics that exist by further complicating this and politicizing it. I think it will it will dilute and pollute the process even further. And so I think and I don't mean any disrespect to to to the authors of this agenda item. I just think we need to move forward very carefully using Costa mesa as an example. Costa mesa has not been the the the example city that we want to follow in terms of our labor management relationship. And so I would I will just rest on that.
Speaker 9: Mr. Mayor, can a comment.
Speaker 3: Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 9: Well, you know, I had the same response when I saw the draft of the of the item. And Councilwoman Chavkin explained it to me when I brought that to her attention when she said that the ordinance was actually developed cooperatively between management and labor.
Speaker 2: But I guess.
Speaker 9: I beg your pardon.
Speaker 0: Were.
Speaker 9: Well, but I guess it wasn't shoved down anybody's throat. So it was it was done in a harmonious way. And if we move forward with some aspect of this, I would hope it would be done in a harmonious, harmonious way in Long Beach as well.
Speaker 3: And also, so have.
Speaker 6: We consulted with any of our employee groups about this?
Speaker 3: Well, I know that that's the motion is in fact, I won't get that kind of information, Mr. Austin. But nobody nobody is agreeing to go any way in the direction of goes to Mesa or not in the direction of Costa mesa. And I think what everybody's trying to do, or at least with the motions trying to do, is to see what the pros and cons of that approach are. And quite frankly, you know, I mean, people say if it's not broke, don't fix it. But that doesn't mean if it's not broke, don't improve it. And you at least should have some information out there as to what some alternatives are. I know there's a lot of nervousness. I don't know which election period and all that stuff. But you know what? Just getting information doesn't appear to me to be harmful. I'll just state that. Mr. Garcia.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm going to first, I think listen, open and transparency, I think is great. I'll be brief. I am familiar with the Costa mesa model. I personally have information about I don't think it's a model we want to replicate here in Long Beach. So I'll be voting no on the motion.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Any further comments? If not, we have a motion as described by Mr. DeLong, the city attorney, city manager, to come forward with information about my words, pluses and minuses of the the outlines of the Costa mesa at all procedure on collective bargaining members.
Speaker 2: Castro.
Speaker 9: Well, Mr.. Mr. Mayor, if I may. Yeah. If if Vice Mayor Garcia has a concern, they want to look at one model that that he doesn't think was the most optimal. I mean, I'm not going to do this. I'm certainly open looking. If there's any specific cities that you're aware of, do you think goes well? Or if you want us to give staff a more general direction to take a look at other cities in addition to Costa mesa? I'm certainly receptive to that. Would that be helpful?
Speaker 3: All right, let let. Let's go forward. Okay. All right. On. On Mr. Dillon's motion. Members casting votes.
Speaker 4: Motion fails for four votes. Four votes? No.
Speaker 3: Okay. So we would go revert to Mr. Donnelly's motion, is that correct? Right. Which is to receive and file that. Correct. All right. Members on Mr. O'Donnell's motion to receive and file reset the board. I'm Mr. Downs motion.
Speaker 4: Motion carries five votes. Three votes.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you and good discussion. Thanks very much. That was item 11, was it not? Correct. Item 12. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Attorney to provide a review of the City of Costa Mesa "Civic Openness in Negotiations" ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted by the Long Beach City Council. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_02042014_14-0096 | Speaker 4: Motion carries five votes. Next item is a recommendation to execute a contract with Paradine systems for the purchase of touchpad touchpad mobile computers not to exceed $1.157 Million.
Speaker 2: Okay. There's been a motion second and a second. Councilmember DeLong.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Staff, could you give us a quick overview of what this technology will be?
Speaker 2: Curtis Tunney, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council. Councilmember DeLong This is actually to acquire 342 Panasonic tough tablet computers using U.S. Homeland Security grant funds. The computers will be installed in police, fire and harbor vehicles. Police will receive 200, approximately 260 of the tough tablets fire 71 and the harbor department ten. The the currently the these vehicles have some Panasonic tough TOUGHBOOK computers which are eight years old or so and so they're in definite need of replacement. So this does this upgrade for.
Speaker 9: Just replace all.
Speaker 2: All.
Speaker 9: Of these computers now.
Speaker 2: Nearly all of the computers that are in that field today.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. See no other public comment or counsel? Please take your vote. I'm a yes.
Speaker 4: Motion carry six votes. Yes.
Speaker 2: Next item. We're done and we're done. Actually, there's no more. And we think we're going to go ahead and move on to your business council member, Andrews. Yes, thank you. Vice Mayor and I will be hosting my Free Six District food distribution on Friday. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. ITB TS-14-034 and authorize City Manager to execute a contract, and any additional amendments thereto, with Paradigm System Solutions, of Tempe, AZ (WBE and SBE), for the purchase of Toughpad mobile computers and related components, in a total amount not to exceed $1,157,552. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01212014_13-1034 | Speaker 5: Thank you, Vice Mayor. First hearing involves financial management with a recommendation received supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant a permit with conditions on the application of La Lune investments. Doing business as a loan imperial at one four or five eight Atlantic Avenue for an entertainment with dancing by patrons permit. This is in District six. The you in each of you solemnly state that the testimony would be given this cause now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth help you God. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Good God, introduce city management?
Speaker 6: Yes. Vice Mayor. Members of the council, denis dakota will provide the staff report on this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Assistant City Manager. Mr. Vice Mayor and members of the Council. This is a recommendation for approval from staff for entertainment with dancing by patrons for Live Lune Imperial Investigations. Inspections have been.
Speaker 0: Conducted by fire departments.
Speaker 3: And 20 standard conditions have been issued along with four additional conditions. And this establishment currently does not have a liquor license. They have applied for one which was approved by this council in December, but the ABC has still not acted on it.
Speaker 4: But this is independent.
Speaker 2: Of that action. That concludes my report.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and move on to any public comments, if there are any further hearing. See none that we're going to go ahead and take this back to the council for any deliberations and to close the hearing. And I'm going to start off with council member Andrews.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. And Vice Mayor, I'd like to move to approve with the agree with the conditions and I would like to move to approve this agenda item.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a motion and a second on the item. See no other comments. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes on the item.
Speaker 5: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Moving on to public comment. Our first member of the public speaking has been Mike McGowan or Meghan Markle Windsor, and then followed by Tom Couch and then Dennis Dunne. Our first speaker, Mr. McGuigan. Can we get the mike on? | Public Hearing | Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant a Permit with conditions on the application of La Lune Investments Inc., dba La Lune Imperial, 1458 Atlantic Avenue, for Entertainment with Dancing by Patrons. (District 6) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01212014_14-0070 | Speaker 5: And 21 is an ordinance from the city, the office of the city attorney with the recommendation to declare the ordinance amending the municipal code relating to payment of living wages to workers at the Long Beach Airport and the Long Beach Convention Center. Read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading.
Speaker 0: There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Case? None.
Speaker 2: You know, there was.
Speaker 0: Actually a counselor.
Speaker 3: JOHNSON Well, thank you, vice mayor. I mean, I heard from some members of the community, some of the folks who are advocating for this, that there was some concern about definition of, I think, retail worker. And I don't know, I hadn't heard much more than that. But as you may hear from the state attorney's office, as that concern being addressed or some policy questions for the council to look at, or are you aware of this concern?
Speaker 0: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor, members of the council with Councilmember Johnson. I have not been made aware of a specific concern regarding the definition of the concession worker. We did meet with some of the union groups that were in favor of this, and they had reviewed the language and had had no comments regarding that. So as of as we sit right now, I'm not aware of that. As an ordinance, if as adopted by the council, if there was a change that was desired by the council at a future date, it could be amended on a Tuesday to if there's clarification necessary. Okay. Well, certainly if there's anyone here in the audience who'd like to offer a clarification, I'm happy to hear it. If not, this will come before us in second reading. Is that correct? So if there is an issue, please voice that concern. I think the council has to make sure there's no ambiguity.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Constable O'Donnell.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the concern was to add retail that there was a concern. So this is first reading. So it would have to come back for a subsequent first reading or would this be a a non substantive change so that it would not come to that for a first reading and come back for a second reading?
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor Members of the Council. Councilmember O'Donnell. That that would be a substantive change. And so if you I think your options before you tonight are adopted as it is, we could continue the item if if there was direction to change it and bring it back to you for first reading at a later date. Or if you adopted it as it is, it would come back, I think, in two weeks to the next council meeting for second reading. And then at any time subsequent to that, it could be amended to a to add additional to retail workers if that was the desire of the council.
Speaker 0: That is my desire. So what I'll do is I'll.
Speaker 2: Make a motion to I do we have a motion currently we do make a substitute motion to add retail workers to the to the ordinance and city hall level for first reading. I believe next week we need to do it two weeks of I'm sorry, two.
Speaker 0: Weeks and we'll have to come back for first reading with that with that change of the retail component is that. That is correct. Okay. And Mr. Parking just so that we're we're clear are you understand what a comfortable bonus talking about as far as the convention work go to include the retail piece, correct?
Speaker 3: I yes, I believe. Okay. I understand that.
Speaker 2: Okay, great.
Speaker 0: So there's the we have a first and second on the substitute motion, which is Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell's motion. Councilmember DeLong.
Speaker 7: City attorney, could explain for me so which workers would be included under the new arrangement that weren't previously included.
Speaker 3: My understanding, we would expand the definition to not only include the concession worker, which would be the food and beverage individuals, but also those working in retail stores or shops at those two facilities.
Speaker 7: Okay. I guess the one concern I will mention is that, you know, we've we've kind of patted ourselves on the back with one of the accomplishments at the restaurant was that you get street pricing for the food, that you wouldn't pay any more at the airport than you would at a restaurant in Belmont or downtown. I would tell you, if we increase the cost of the operation, then that's going to change and the airport will become more like a standard airport where you pay a premium price. But we could certainly go in that direction. But that will be one of the downsides.
Speaker 0: Okay. So no other council comment on this. I had called for public comment, didn't hear any. So what the motion on the floor is, which is a substitute, is to have this come back in two weeks. Mr. City Attorney, with the change on the retail component. Please cast your vote on that motion.
Speaker 5: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 0: Moving on to the next item, we're going to do 13 and then go back to the regular agenda. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 16.60, relating to the payment of living wage to workers at the Long Beach Airport and the Long Beach Convention Center, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01212014_14-0071 | Speaker 5: Item 13 is communication from the Office of Council Vice Mayor Robert Garcia, Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell and Councilmember Al Austin with the recommendation to require the city manager to return within 90 days and report on the status of filming in Long Beach. A review of the incentives we provide and a proposal is to stimulate further interest from the film companies to locate their productions in within the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Cutouts makes some brief comments and we've had a lot of conversations are here I think get the city at the council level about filming and production here in Long Beach have had some interesting conversations over the last few weeks with members of the industry. And certainly there's concern, I think, not just statewide but across the country. As far as what filming is looking like in the direction of our filming here, I know that the state led committee has been doing some really good work on this issue and moving forward some legislation as well. And so essentially what this would do is this would bring back Mr.. Mr. West, hopefully sooner rather than later. You can do a presentation to the Council about the changes. I know we've made some staff adjustments in filming and in that area. I think it'd be great for the Council to know what those are, kind of who they make contact people are. Now we've created, I know some new roles. I think it'd be good to review those as well as review exactly what the incentives that we provide here in the city. Certainly we do some really great filming at the city. We also want to make sure that part of that is respecting the neighborhoods where they're filmed then and then if we could also look at what what other cities are doing out of the L.A. is kind of rolling out some new incentives in this area. And so I think it'd be great to review all that and maybe get a get a presentation from the from from all of you on that. So that's the motion on the floor. I'll turn this over now to and I'll make that motion and I'll turn this over now to Councilmember O'Donnell.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And I do want to comment first and start off, you know, by saying, as I understand it, language is very proactive with regard to supporting the film industry. And remember, this is not just about Long Beach. This is about supporting our regional film production, how we want to label television sets, whatever you however you want to say it. Our you know, our big employers don't think of the actor in front of the camera and think of the set. Think of all the people supporting that set, whether it's the the truck driver that delivers the equipment, you know, the food support and, you know, someone holding the grip above the the actors. There's a lot of people that work on a set. If you live in Long Beach, you know that because there happens to be traditionally at least a lot of filming in Long Beach. And again, that's because we've been very proactive. So this is our effort to partner be a partner to our region to support the film production industry. And as you mentioned, Mr. Garcia, we're also adding as part of our state ledger to be as supportive and proactive at the state level, the Sacramento level, to support the film industry staying in California, because there are 42 states, 42 nations that are offering film credits and other ways to take our film production and put it in their community and put people to work in quality jobs. And we want to keep them here. This is our effort to keep the film production industry present in Long Beach and across our region.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Counts. Membership Scheme.
Speaker 8: I just hope, though, that the public understands that. I think Mr. O'Donnell just said this. We had a conversation on this council. I don't know if you were here, Mr. Garcia, when we did this, but L'image is the cheapest date in the state when it comes to filming. We ask for a review of the permit fees. We were one of the lowest. Our special events department has gone to extraordinary lengths to work with the movie industry. One of the difficulties we had when the Boeing property was being used for filming is that many of the movie studios that use that site would bring in outside catering. Not in Palm Beach. So we've you know, we're we've got to make sure that we're when we do things, we're not giving ourselves away too cheaply. So I would hope that our our permit fees can be competitive. But at the same time, I just don't want to leave the impression with the public that this isn't something that the city staff hasn't been working on. They have extensively. And that is why we've had Dexter and CSI Miami and a number of films that it's done here in Long Beach, because we've been very accommodating, particularly our police and fire department as well. And I think that that has brought some extra revenue because those are chargeable hours. So I think certainly a review of what we've done would be very helpful to figure out where we need to go.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Landers.
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, first of all, I like to think that I should be in a special event staff. They're doing an amazing job in our city. And I know that the cities across the state and country is seeking ways to enhance their FEMA numbers. And I appreciate your team hard work in getting them permit increase since last year. You know, as per this report, I think this will provide us with some useful information. And I would also like to stress that there's a very important to keep the balance of the family company coming in and in the needs of our constituents , especially in the downtown area where a lot of films are taking place.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Andrews. We have a motion on the floor. Any public comment on the item? Mr. Dunn. Thank you.
Speaker 11: A picture is worth a thousand words, and particularly film folk. Auditions are the celluloid world, you know, impressed by film. I would recommend, if you haven't already done it, already commissioned a half an hour film to be made about the incentives along each say encapsulate in the cheapest to state the cheapest. As far as film goes, as far as things offered. Interview with the directors in a film here would provide incentive. You know, even go a step further. It might strike some as humorous, but it is true. Sometimes the likes are caused by stomach use. And what I'm trying to say is it it might sway assuage your appetites if doing one of these film commission movies they may be served salmon and chopped and champagne. There is the royal treatment and and the regal touch my this I think that when you might find it appealing and just at the point of gossip apparently is it Isidora won a Golden Globe Award and an Oscar on the basis of what the critics say. Her husband provided them with salmon and champagne. Champagne, and that, likely said, influenced greatly her ascendancy with an Oscar Golden Globe Award. It does happen, but I do think that a movie, if it is not really made a movie, should be made to appeal to appeal to movie folk.
Speaker 0: Thank you. See no other public comment. There is a a motion on the item members to go out and cast your votes.
Speaker 5: Motion carries nine votes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Back to the regular agenda item 11 a.m..
Speaker 5: Item 11 is a communication from the Office of Vice Mayor Robert Garcia with a recommendation to approve the use of First Council District f y fiscal year 12 surplus funds for neighborhood service projects in the amount of $15,144. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to return to City Council within 90 days a report on the status of filming in Long Beach, a review of the incentives we provide and a proposal to stimulate further interest from film companies to locate their productions within the City of Long Beach. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01212014_14-0069 | Speaker 5: The recommendation for the Office of Council Member Sujatha Lowenthal with a request to the City Council to oppose any bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, thereby increasing health care costs for state and local governments and limiting patient access to health care services. And request the city attorney to draft a resolution in opposition to bills or ballot measures that would weaken this act and request that the City of Long Beach become an official non dues paying member of California's allied for patient protection.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to turn this over now to Councilmember Lenka.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I would like to make the motion to approve and add a few comments. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act has protected patients and our fragile health care network in California for over 35 years. Its original purpose is still relevant today to ensure that injured patients are fairly compensated, medical liability rates are kept in check, and that physicians and clinics can remain in practice. Treating patients. Eroding Michaels protections to increase lawsuit payouts will hurt community clinics, especially community clinics, doctors, hospitals and other providers by increasing medical liability costs and threatening the health care system's ability to take on more patients. As California implements the Affordable Care Act, the timing of the collision of these two items couldn't be worse, especially since we are struggling to implement the Affordable Care Act. Attached to this item is an extensive list of micro supporters that formed the Californians of Allied for Patient Protection. More than 800 organizations including hospitals, community clinics, county and city governments, business and taxpayer groups, labor unions and members of public safety that support Micra and oppose any changes. This is a broad coalition across the political and health care spectrum and council members. I would like to ask you for your support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Q Councilmember, I'm sorry, did you make a motion? Did did an emotion on the floor get the motion in a second? Councilmember O'DONNELL. Quick question. I know I've.
Speaker 2: Had a variety discussions on this topic as well. I thought we were listed on the list of micros supporters, my incorrect on it.
Speaker 6: So I thought we had discussed it.
Speaker 0: I did see your name.
Speaker 2: On a list not too long ago.
Speaker 6: I didn't see it on a list. We had brought it up in some conversation but did not formally take a position. And I had checked that. And Mr. Modica or his staff. Oh, there she is. She can respond. I know we.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Maybe we can let let's go and look staff respond real quick on.
Speaker 2: That and then you just hang let me just clarify what I know. I saw it on a list and I don't know if it said the city of Long Beach or it said the Long Beach Department of Health or Health Department. I don't know. But I, I given that we have doctors and provide medical services, I thought we were already on this.
Speaker 6: List of the city council. The city of Long Beach has not taken a position on this, but we are awaiting your direction.
Speaker 0: Okay. So so you're saying there's been no official position on behalf of the council, correct?
Speaker 6: Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mr. O'Brien, do you want to continue the floor?
Speaker 2: No, no, I just I. I know I saw it on the list at some point. Either it's not there or I'm in. Very incorrect. But we're going to edit, it appears.
Speaker 0: Councilor Johnson.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you, Vice Mayor. There's certainly a very contentious conversation that's been happening since 1975. I think the issue here is how do you balance the rights of injured parties to be fairly compensated, particularly when something goes horribly wrong and people are negligent versus the right of doctors to be treated fairly and certainly the need to keep health care costs low and have access. I think my concern about this item is that whether or not Micra was a good idea in 1975, it basically locked in an amount $250,000 without inflation. So if we assume for argument's sake that two or $3,000 is the right figure in 1975, why would that possibly be the right figure in 2014 given inflation? So what happens right now in our micros at every year, that amount effectively goes down. And I just don't think that's good policy. I think on a wide variety of issues, for example, along with his Campaign Reform Act, we we build in inflationary adjustments to make sure that once they come to a number , that number changes with time. You know, and a number of years of assuming we'd never made the change to fit $200,000, you know, might buy a Honda Civic in a number of years from now. Do we really think that's the right number? So with that, I'm going to go and make the motion to receive and file this item.
Speaker 0: There's been a substitute motion to receive and file. And a second on that. Councilmember DeLong.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I strongly support this item. I think it's a great idea. It certainly helps in making health care more affordable, which is obviously something very concerning to the community. But I would do a substitute substitute, which is for the city to take a position as recommended in the original item, but also send it to our request staff to come back with perhaps a detailed list of actions that the city could take and what some potential time table would be to support it.
Speaker 4: A second.
Speaker 0: Okay. There's been a substitute. Substitute. And can you can you repeat that second piece council word on.
Speaker 7: So the same piece is to direct staff to come back with a list of items that the city could take to advocate on behalf of this item in an associate estimated timetable.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, and I appreciate the discussion that's taken place. So certainly, given a city such as Long Beach, where affordable health care is not only a challenge but seems insurmountable at times. I think this is certainly the time that we want to ensure access first and foremost, prior to considering any other priorities. And right now we have a great percentage of our residents who don't have health care and who are struggling to learn enough about signing up for affordable the Affordable Care Act. And anything that erodes that option is something that frightens me and concerns me deeply. You know, I won't trivialize it by suggesting that we're a tale of two cities, but we don't all share the same narrative. Everyone on this dais has health care that is not reflected across the board with our residents. And that's an unfortunate fact. And I'd like to ensure that we stand up and be sure that we don't further erode access to affordable care. And I think starting by supporting this is a good start. So council members, I do urge your support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 2: It's just a point of clarification. I wanted to find out exactly where this ballot initiative is in the process. Had the signatures qualify and has it been assigned a number? Where are we in the process? Might we be jumping the gun here?
Speaker 6: I believe it has qualified for the do you have the sufficient signatures for that? And then the language is available as well.
Speaker 0: I'm going to let the city staff come in on that as well.
Speaker 9: Mr. Hanging has a comment.
Speaker 6: I believe this ballot measure is still up for circulation. It has the attorney general's title in summary, but I believe February is when we find out whether or not it has gathered signatures.
Speaker 2: And that is the reason why I seconded Councilmember Johnson's motion to receive and file this just because we are there's a lot of uncertainty as I look at the list of supporters for this this coalition to protect Micra the there are very few municipalities that are that are currently listed here and again I don't want to see us jump the gun here I do understand the merits in the of the argument to to to to support this initiative. But at the same time, I'm not sure if it will even qualify. And by doing so, what message are we sending?
Speaker 0: Constable Lowenthal.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I just wanted to add that we are one of the few cities in the state of California that has a health department. And perhaps our concern and obligation as a municipality would be greater in that regard. And so I take that very seriously. Hosting a Department of Health right here in the city of Long Beach and see it as a privilege and also see that it is our obligation to send a message, especially because we have a health department here that is working to ensure that the Affordable Care Act is is is something that our residents have access to.
Speaker 0: Got somewhere, Austin.
Speaker 2: So are we asserting that if we don't support this, our residents won't have access to the Affordable Care Act and Affordable Care if this somehow goes awry?
Speaker 6: No, I'm drawing the nexus between affordable care and the dangers that bless you and the dangers of increasing the meritless lawsuits and the amounts that can be paid out. There is that nexus. So the higher those costs are, the more primary care providers we drive out of that business. And so that's the nexus. But no, no, to answer your question specifically, absolutely not. By not supporting this, it doesn't mean that people won't be able to sign up for the health care. The nexus I'm drawing is to the affordability. There's a direct link to affordability by ensuring that certain costs are kept down.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you, Vice Mayor, and I certainly appreciate the diversity of opinions on this very contentious issue. But I think it's important to note that meritless lawsuits lose. This is not about that. The question is for the lawsuits with merit, where there's been proven negligence and we have major damage to somebody's someone who's perhaps in a wheelchair for life or has lost vision or has had some other horrible thing happen to them that shouldn't have by definition or negligence. We're telling that person that under no circumstances can you have more than two or $3,000 for your pain and suffering, even though that was the same amount in 1975. So I guess I'm just kind of curious from the body I haven't heard so far what the possible reason is for basically not having an inflationary adjustment. Do we really believe that that person who's been permanently disabled, for example, should every year receive less and less just by the nature of inflation? I mean, I don't understand the reason unless we just don't believe in medical negligence lawsuits. And maybe that's what we're saying here. So I do oppose the motion. And keep in mind, this is not about meritless lawsuits. This is about people who've been seriously harmed and have a jury has kind of conclusion that they are merited, some compensation, further tremendous harm. And whether or not that person should have an award that's adjusted for inflation or whether you should pretend like this is 1975. So I urge a no vote. And I'd be curious to hear if anyone has a reason why we oppose basing inflationary adjustments here and we support it for virtually all other policies
Speaker 0: . Counter Ron Paul.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And. Well, all meritless lawsuits don't lose. You and I both know that. So but that's that's not to be debated. Actually, on the second page of the agenda item, there is a cost implication there on how local budgets would be increased as a result of raising the cap from $250,000 to 1.1 million , as the item suggests. And so that's not inflation since 1975. That's more than that. But I'd like to go ahead and just vote. Yeah, I'll call for the question.
Speaker 0: Okay. The question has been called, is any objection going to go to public comment?
Speaker 11: It is somewhat oblique, but it does. Is of concern on the part of the appropriate bill to keep medical costs down and to prefer and to make medical capacity even further. I would suggest that they be made a health certificate, emergency aid certificate, given for two hour sessions of the procedures to be had. It often takes 10 minutes for the paramedics to get there, or even a lot more time. During that time, a person could die or suffer up the agony if not served. That should be done at the school and biology class. But I would guess that we should be even open to the public to have to have these training sessions issued. It could be covered monetarily by the Red Cross and by funds given to the fire department. Those two entities could contribute to be the sponsors of it, or just be a health official, a nurse at school. How often have we wondered? What would we do if somebody was giving birth to a baby or is choking on food or had a seizure epileptic? I dare say not even the council knows what to do. What you do could be covered in a couple of intensive 2 hours at the most to cure this problem in medicine . I think that this would reduce the cost of medicine. Might she not show? I would also affirm competency for these dire situations.
Speaker 8: Mr. Vice Mayor, I want to point out to Mr. Dunne as the registered nurse practitioner on this council, I could respond to any of those problems. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Well, certainly glad that I think I'm in good hands, but I just want to. Not my district today. Thank you, madam.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. The question's been called. So we're going to go out and take any public comment. I don't see any other public comment. There is a there is a substitute substitute, which was Councilmember De Long's motion. And we're going to take a vote on that. I'm sorry. The substitute substitute was wrong. You want to repeat it?
Speaker 7: Yes, it supported the original motion but added directions to staff to come back with recommended list of items that we could advocate as well as an estimated timeline.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's the item on the floor. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes.
Speaker 5: Council member, Neil. Motion carries seven votes. One vote no.
Speaker 0: Next item, Johnson.
Speaker 7: The attorneys.
Speaker 5: Adam 14 A report from the city manager in the Financial Management Department, along with Parks Recreation Marine to approve the award of a contract to biotech construction company for Bixby Park Bluff. Improvements in amount not to exceed $2.450 million. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Council to oppose any bills or ballot measures that would weaken the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), thereby increasing health care costs for state and local governments and limiting patient access to health care services;
Request City Attorney to draft a resolution in opposition to bills or ballot measures that would weaken the MICRA, thereby increasing health care costs for state and local governments and limiting patient access to health care services; and
Request that the City of Long Beach become an official, non dues paying member of Californians Allied for Patient Protection (CAPP), a coalition which is dedicated to supporting MICRA. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01212014_14-0066 | Speaker 5: Is a recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute four as needed. Real Estate Broker Services Agreement with four commercial real estate firms in amount not to exceed $200,000 so moved.
Speaker 0: There is a Councilman Lipski.
Speaker 8: I think Vice Mayor. Mr. Parkin, I understand there was a comment to the clerk about the concern that the city is contracting with black commercial real estate and that its principal is on our planning commission, and that they raised the issue of conflict of interest as the city utilizes their services but then has a planning commissioner. So I'm wondering if you could address that, because that was brought to the clerk's. It was one of the comments on online with the clerk.
Speaker 3: Members of the council. Yes, we received that comment and we are looking at that. We believe that there is not a 1090 violation. We've had this situation in the past with architects who have served on the planning commission and then have applied for other various work with the city. The issue is, as we see it right now and will continue. If anything changes, we will certainly notify the Council. But the if there was work that was provided to Blair real estate and Mr. Blair is over 51% of the company, then she would be required to recuse herself on any action. A city item that came before the Planning Commission. This could and has in the past created a problem with a quorum on the Planning Commission. But as we currently understand the facts, it would not raise a 1090 violation.
Speaker 8: Can I ask if if at some point certainly you could send a memo just back outlining that so that it's very clear if there's other people that have questions about it that you've you know, you're absolutely vetted.
Speaker 3: We will do that. Yes.
Speaker 8: We appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Because that hadn't been moved. Was there a motion that's been moved and seconded? Any public comment on that? I'm hearing no public comment. Members, cast your votes. I am? Yes.
Speaker 5: Motion carry said vote yes.
Speaker 2: Item number 19, the clerk will read.
Speaker 5: Her 19 is a report from Technology Services and Financial Management with with recommendation to exit contracts with federal CIGNA Signals Safety and Security Systems of University Park, Illinois for the furnishing and delivering a video, surveillance cameras and related system components the amount not to exceed 500,002nd. | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute agreements with Blair Commercial Real Estate, Inc., Cresa Partners of Los Angeles, Inc., Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc., and Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., South Bay, for "as-needed" real estate broker services, in an aggregate total amount not to exceed $200,000, for a three-year term, and to execute any necessary amendments to the agreements relative to extending the terms for up to one additional year, changing the contract dollar amounts, authorizing additional services, if required, within the provisions of the agreements, and adjusting the fee schedules for inflation, all within the aggregate total amount of $200,000; and
Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute listing agreements, and any other necessary documents with Blair Commercial Real Estate, Inc., Cresa Partners of Los Angeles, Inc., Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc., and Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services Inc - South Bay, for the listing of City-owned property as needed, for a term not to exceed 12 month | LongBeachCC |
Subsets and Splits