Datasets:

Aznor

/

MeetingBank-original

like 1

DenverCityCouncil_06192017_17-0498

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 300-306 Elati Street in Baker. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 300-306 Elati Street from U-RH-2.5 to U-MX-2 (urban row home to urban mixed-use) in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-16-17.

Two nays. Counsel Bill 497 has passed. All right, we have. Councilwoman Kenney, will you please put on Council Bill for 98? Yes, Mr.. President, I move that council. Bill 498 be placed upon final consideration and do. Pass. It has been moved. It has been moved in second at the public hearing for council bill 498 is open. May we have a staff report. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. And Counsel Scott Robinson again with community planning and development. This is a request to rezone 300 to 306 North L.A. Street from you rh h 2.52 You and X to property is located in Council District seven in the Baker neighborhood. It's at the corner of LRT Street and Third Avenue in the Baker Historic District. Property is about 3600 square feet. There's an existing commercial building on site and the applicant is requesting to rezone and to allow the existing commercial uses in the commercial building to continue to operate without having to go through additional processes by rezoning from you. RH 2.5 The Urban Neighborhood Context Real House two and a half storey maximum height to you Annex two Urban Neighborhood Context Mixed Use two storey maximum height. Property is surrounded by you are h 2.5, although there are a few small annex to properties scattered throughout the bigger. They just don't show up on this map. The property Baker neighborhood is mostly residential mixed of residential with single family, duplex and multifamily units. Although, as I mentioned, there are scattered commercial corners throughout the neighborhood, including this one and the one directly across the street on the west side of LRT and into to the south is the Fairmont School. You can see the subject property there in the center, a two story brick commercial building and the one across the street there on the bottom. Right. Otherwise, residential buildings shown at the top and the school at the bottom there. This application went to a planning board on April 19th, was approved by nine oh vote. Two members of the public spoke in support and also went to the Lands Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 16th. You know, in your packet you have a letter of support from the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association, and I believe the applicants also passed out some other letters of support that have been received. As before to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first is consistency with adopted plans. There are three relevant plans for this property. The first is comprehensive plan 2000. In the staff report, staff describes how the proposed rezoning meets these strategies, mostly related to re-use of existing buildings and creating mixed use neighborhoods. Blueprint Denver from 2002 designates the future concept land used for this Single-Family duplex, which calls for primarily residential but with some complimentary small scale commercial use such as this building currently has. It's also an area of stability which says in some cases it may be appropriate to change the zoning in an area to create better match between existing land uses and zoning, which is the proposal here. Both LRT and third are on designated locals. The Baker Neighborhood Plan is from 2003. You'll notice in the map here that north is to the right and its property is designated a single family and row house residential district. There are multiple recommendations for that district, but mostly it's to rehabilitate and reuse existing commercial structures that provide neighborhood services. Which this proposed rezoning would allow. So staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in uniform application of the units to zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and welfare of the city. Staff finds that this application would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and encouraging reinvestment in the area and these businesses allowing them to continue. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. There's a fairly lengthy discussion of justifying circumstances in the staff report. I'll be happy to answer any questions about that if they come up. But basically, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the change in changing conditions in the area. There's been investment in the bakery neighborhood, especially along the edges. Increased density that results in increased demand for these kind of neighborhood services. So the rezoning to max two to allow the existing commercial uses to continue. It's justified by these changes. And the fifth criterion is consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would allow businesses and uses consistent with the urban neighborhood context and the annex to zoned district purpose and intent. Staff finds all five criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Scott. We now have let's see here. Four speakers Heidi Martin, Lucia Browne, Sarah Martin and Jeff Martin. Please come up to the front here. Heidi. Martin, you will be first and you have 6 minutes. Hi, I'm Heidi Martin. I live at 641 South Pearl Street and my office is at 302 L.A. Street. First of all, I'd like to thank Scott and all the city staff for helping me through this process. Speaker Neighborhood Association Neighbors, my attorney Allison with Hutton. Johnson They've been very helpful through this process since the building at 306 300 to 306, a lot was erected in 1936. It served as commercial purposes, pharmacy feed, store, sewing shop, retail shop and office. And currently the tenants are waffle up, which is a restaurant Blackbrook Art Gallery, which is an art gallery and Intelligent Investments, which is my office. The reason I'd like to change the zoning is the zip pin process is quite onerous, time consuming. So I have to go through that for every new tenant, even if it's the same use. It takes me several months to get through that process and identify a new tenant, so the zoned of mixed use will facilitate attracting and keeping tenants in that space. I purchased the building in May of 2000 for my family and I just saw the the beauty in it, even though it was considered an area of blight. And we had heard earlier from Councilman Lopez about a unit that was in his neighborhood that was nicely developed. We were inspired by what we saw, even though it was in terrible shape, and brought it back through the historic neighborhood association to bring it to what it had originally been designed for. The tax bill is now ten times the the ten times the amount that it was when I purchased the building in May of 2004. So I am paying commercial taxes on the property. I received Mayor's Office of Economic Development Funds to help renovate the building with commercial commercial components. I put a new electrical lighting, plumbing, floor tiles, new roof doors, all renovations to maintain the historic character of the building. In connection with the rezoning, I met with the Baker Neighborhood Association on numerous times neighbors. Also, you have letters of support from neighbors and the Baker Neighborhood Association in your packet and the tenants also support the use as you Memex to zone. Similar properties in this neighborhood were zoned residential earlier and were all developed earlier as commercial buildings as well as mine. But in 2010 they were all changed to you imx to zone and I just could not figure out why my building which was like those buildings at 61 west second to 80 Gallup pay go five or one west first and 303 West first. We're all zoned you max two but mine remained residential zone. Um, we've enjoyed being part of the historic neighborhood. We're so proud of the building we created and maintain rezoning would make it appropriate for the building type and I wouldn't have to go through the zip code process anymore. So getting new tenants in and keeping new tenants would be very helpful to me. It would save us money as far as having to go through these transitions which are time consuming and it would be able enable us to redirect funds to maintain and improve the building. I thank you all for the consideration and I respectfully request your approval and would like to use any time remaining for questions. Great. Thank you, Ms.. Martin. We'll call you up if we have questions. Let's go, Brown. Hello, everyone. My name is Lucia Brown. I live at 132 West Fourth Avenue in the Baker neighborhood. And I have been active in the neighborhood for 20 years. And as Heidi was saying, the building has operated with businesses since it was built. And the neighborhood loves the businesses that have been in there. Humble pie, waffle up the gallery. And the fact that it's not zoned unmixed to now was simply, in our opinion, an oversight on both the city's part and the zoning committee and was unintended excuse me, unintentional. The light commercial use of this site is congruous with the vision of the city for more walkable and livable neighborhoods. As a former president of the and active member of B and A, we welcome not having to go through this process every single time a new tenant goes in. We got a lot of stuff going on in Baker and we would really rather spend our time dealing with these other issues than dealing with yet another business that wants to come into this property. So we fully support this zoning change and I hope you'll vote yes. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Brown. Sarah Martin. Jeff Martin. Once you both come to the front here. And Sarah Martin, you are first. You have 3 minutes. So I love. To see your name. First. My name's Sara murray and I live at 641 South Pearl Street. And I love living in an urban neighborhood. There are tons of different little businesses nearby where I can walk to, such as over. It's a restaurant and I can go there and a place that I can go get my bike pumped up. And it's I they bought the building two months after I was born. So I've seen this building go from start to finish. And I know that this would be very helpful to get tenants in and out of there quickly and make it easier on everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Good job. All right, Jeff Martin. I thank you for allowing me to speak. Once again, like to reiterate what Heidi mentioned before. It is very time consuming and it takes up a lot of her time and also. Takes up a lot of my time too, as well. I'm the person who has to put the. The signs and the building. And what? How many times have we done this? Five times in the past couple of years. So please think about her time and putting money back into the building. It will make the neighborhood much better and will make the process, I think a lot. Streamline in the future. Thank you. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? All right, CNN, the public hearing for counsel. Bill 498 is close. Comments by members of Council Counsel Clarke. Thank you, Mr. President. Just wanted to thank everybody for coming down to speak on this, especially you, for taking time out of your night to represent the neighborhood association. Always very appreciated of the neighborhood voice live and in person. And I know it's not easy getting down here. So thank you. And Sarah. Yes. Awesome. Thank you for coming down and sharing your voice as a voice that we could use a lot more of down here at city council. A voice like yours. So thank you for coming down. You know, I think there's one for me is pretty straightforward. A mistake of some sort was made somewhere along the line. A property that should have been commercial was zoned in a way that allows commercial use, but only jumping through a lot of hoops. That causes a lot of pain and suffering for the the owner and for the neighborhood association. And there is a lot going on in Baker right now. I can understand why zip in on change from humble pie to waffle up is not a high priority here, especially when it's not necessary. And so I think that this is a slam dunk. Open and shut case. Thank you to CPD for the work on it and I would ask all my colleagues to please vote yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say, I know this building very well. It is, as Councilman Clark. Said, to think of it as anything other than commercial. I mean, it just screams out the period that it was built in. It fits in so beautifully with the area. So I look forward to supporting this. And if if we'd have had a gold buzzer, I'd have hit. It as soon as she started speaking. So I concur. Councilwoman Cashin, any other comments? This is this is a project I'll be supporting for the for the obvious reasons stated above, and because this meets all of our standards. But I really am doing it because it was so incredible. And I hope I hope that we have more young people like Sarah advocating in their neighborhoods. All right. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Clark. I. Espinosa. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. I. Susman. Mr. President. I saw the voting and not the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 498 has passed. Congratulations. On Monday, June 26, 2017, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 613, amending the individual Denver landmark designation by reducing the size of the landmark boundary for properties located at 1943 1946, West 33rd Avenue in Council District one.

BostonCC_06082022_2022-0486

Councilor Fernandes Anderson called Docket #0486, message and order, referred on April 13, 2022 Docket #0486, approving an appropriation One Hundred Thirty Eight Million Five Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($138,535,000.00) for the acquisition of interests in land or the acquisition of assets, or the landscaping, alteration, remediation, rehabilitation, or improvement of public land, the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, alteration, remodeling, enlargement, demolition, removal or extraordinary repairs of public buildings, facilities, assets, works or infrastructure; for the cost of feasibility studies or engineering or architectural services for plans and specifications; for the development, design, purchase and installation of computer hardware or software and computer-assisted integrated financial management and accounting systems; and any and all cost incidental or related to the above described projects; for the purposes of the Boston Public Schools, from the Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing no objection, the matter was before the body. On mot

Technology, Environment, Fire, Neighborhood Development, Office for Arts and Culture. Parks and Recreation. Police. Property Department. Property Management. Public Works and Transportation Departments. Boston Public Library. Boston Redevelopment Authority and Public Health Commission filed in the Office of the City Clerk on April 11, 2020 20486. Message in order approving an appropriation of $138,535,000 for the acquisition of interest in land or the acquisition of assets or the landscaping, alteration, remediation, rehabilitation or improvement of public land for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, alteration, remodeling, enlargement, demolition removal or extra ordinary repairs of public buildings, facilities, assets, works, or infrastructure for the cost of fees, feasibility studies or engineering or architectural services for plans and specifications for the development design, purchase and installation of computer hardware or software and computer assisted integrated financial management and accounting systems and any and all costs into incidental or related to the above described projects for the purposes of the Boston Public Schools filed in the Office of the City Clerk on April 11th, 2022. Thank you. The chair recognizes Counsel Fernandez Arneson, chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. Counsel Fernandez Anderson. You have the floor. Q Counselor. President Flynn. Mr. President. I'd like to request that we move Docket 0480 to the end of the list and take docket 048120486. First, with the counsel indulgence. I will speak on all dockets collectively and then return to remarks on individual docket. You should have all of you should have five committee reports at your desks. Yes, that's. That's. That's fine. Thank you, Counselor Fernandez. And sent you over the phone. Thank you. Well, it's been quite a budget process, but here we are with some daylight before us. We have all done a lot of work over the last couple of months, and I salute all of you and your passion and patience. Before I go any further, I want to shout out to my team to whom who are integral to getting us to this point. My sincere gratitude to Amena, Scott, Joshua McFadden, Arlene Mercury and Colombo for working so hard behind the scenes, which allowed me to properly out face with you guys. A huge thank you to Michelle Goldberg with Michelle. Yes. It's. For her efficiency, tenacity, humility and professionalism. Thank you to Carrie Jordan, Juan Lopez, Lorraine Schettino, Ashley Purcell, Candice Morales, Ron Cobb, Christine, Megan, Joe, Lady, and of course, especially Miss Quorum on Tron for all that they do in keeping us informed and making this process work. And now for Boston Public Schools. For our Boston Public Schools. I feel they need to continue in order to continue in order for us to or our support in order for them to continue. Yes, there are improvements to be made and discussions to be had. But our students have a variety of needs and you don't meet these needs by reducing a budget, and yet there is surely work to be done. We need to continue to diversify our teachers workforce. Our schools are predominantly students of color, while our teachers are still largely white. It is imperative that our black and brown youth see more pedagogies and who look like them and who have lived in the experiences that are integral integral to their lives. Additionally, all of our youth need more mental health support, more addiction counselors, more librarians, more teachers, more music teachers, more afterschool programs, and more athletic opportunities. So let us support our most precious resource, our young, by funding and supporting the schools they attend in appropriate manner. I realize that some of my council colleagues and historically have rejected without prejudice and I welcome conversations and comments. Again, I re-emphasize that we have much work to do in order to for BPC to bring their services up to standards, the standards that our young deserve. And again, welcome your comments. Docket 0481. Is one of the several dockets that comprise the city's total operating budget and is a prop and appropriation order for BEPS for FY 23 in the amount of 1.33 billion. This FY 23 budget includes a 400 million increase in funding over our FY 22 to exceed a third year of three to exceed the year of three year 100 million. Commitment made to Boston schools in 2020. Investments in FY 23 operating budget include 6.6 million, four new social workers, school psychologists and guidance counselors to build out coordinated, multi-tiered systems of support for students and their families. 26.7 million directly to schools to ensure equitable access to vital student programs and services. 5.5 million to expand access to libraries and invest in inclusive library collections and materials. 6.8 million and operations. Improvements and expanded organizational capacity for transportation, food and nutrition services and facilities maintenance repairs. 3.8 million to increase access to mass core at the secondary level and access to more physical education, art, music, and academic enrichment. Creating high quality, rigorous and ethically and culturally responsive curriculum and instruction. And. 2.6 million. To expand language access with transition translations and interpretations for school meeting and materials. The FY 23 operating budget also includes a proposed $16 million increase for charter school students totaling public education funding for FY 23 at $1.6 billion. Public education spending remains over 40% of the city's budget, and per pupil spending at veeps will reach $27.20 sorry, $27,100, an increase of $3,600 over last year. And so as Chair of Ways and Means, I recommend that this docket ought to pass. Thank you, Counsel Fernandez Anderson. Would anyone else like to speak on this stock? And this is docket 0481. The chair recognizes. Counselor, me here. Counsel me here. No, that's okay. I'm going to go to counseling here. Counsel me here. You have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. And a thank you to the chair for shepherding us through such a whirlwind of budget conversations. And one of the things that I always kept saying in the budget hearings is don't bring me any more PowerPoint, and you hold them accountable to making sure that they talked about the return on investment. So I really do appreciate your leadership in that space. And I'm not here just only as the chair of education, but also a graduate and a parrot. And everyone in politics likes to talk about what, you know, the critical moment that we happen to find ourselves in or major turning points. And it tends to get overused. But when it comes to BEPS, it's really true. Think about all of the upcoming changes going on in our Boston Public Schools. We're working towards creating a an elected school committee. We're expecting a new superintendent. And of course, the issues of state receivership still looms over our heads. So all eyes are on us at this moment. And while the chaos and the politics happens at the top, it's the people at the bottom who are experiencing the ripple effects of our decisions. I know this because our office has visited and spoken with educators and students from across the district. We have seen firsthand how our educators are working their magic in classrooms to mold a generation of compassionate, curious and well-rounded students to go from those schools. Seeing educational excellence at work to go into administration budget hearings can give you a little bit of whiplash because there always seems to be a disconnect between the decisions that are being made at the top and the impact that they'll decisions have on everyone, not just overall. What we are spending our tax dollars on this year and BEPS is in alignment with the goals that we have for our students. We're seeing more money for ELL students, more money for special education. Fewer schools are seeking a decrease, are seeing a decrease in funding. And when we went out and spoke to educators and students across the district, many of their concerns from mental health to other support services are seeing an increase in funding this year. With that being said, there's still a number of areas that are of concern to me when it comes to capital planning. We need to see greater strategic vision in cases like the Shaw School. We still don't have a just a decided upon plan on how to support the sixth grade option there. I'm also not satisfied with how we're using our equity and opportunity gap tools to make decisions for our district. There are lots of areas that we can do better. The funding is there, but it's never a matter of how much money we're spending. I want to stand up here and say that we need to see more investments in this or that. But at this point, it's not a matter of investments. So I want to be clear that I'm planning on voting in favor of the budget. Absolutely. But I don't think it's fair to say that someone who votes against the budget is opposing public education and someone who votes in favor of the budget is in favor of doing business as usual. So I just think it's really important for us to to recognize, you know, that this moment is crucial. And as the chair of education, I take that role to heart. And I'm looking forward to this year really looking at how we can support our Boston public schools to get to where they need to be . But it's going to take all of us working together to make that happen. And so I am supporting the passage of the budget with the caveat of knowing that I'm going to be watching it as a hawk for the next year, but also holding myself accountable to what we need to do as a council to support them in achieving their goals. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Here, the chair recognizes Counselor Murphy. Counsel Murphy over the floor. Thank you, Councilor Flynn. So I stand, as you all know, as a former teacher, student and parent. But I don't have many good reasons to pass this $1.33 billion school budget. Our return on investment is low, with declining enrollment, poor reading levels, an increase in violence, and the inability year after year to properly service our most vulnerable students who are on IEPs and receive ESL services. Those were my students for many years. We even struggle with the basic operations such as transportation and food services. And we all know how I feel about the dismal amount we invest in our school athletics, which, if properly funded, can provide the opportunity for so many of our children to participate in team sports and build the physical and mental health that in strength that we know they need. And you mentioned, Councilor Anderson, that they've increased to $27,000 per student, more than that. And we're still spending less than $100 per student on athletics. I also struggle with the lack of transparency apps. I've asked questions time and time again in the six months I've been here on the council. In most time, those questions are half fancied or ignored entirely. Moving forward, there is a need for accountability, transparency and oversight in our Boston public school system. I will continue to always advocate for our teachers who I know show up every day and work so hard in many of the administrators. I'll always advocate for our families and always put our children first. Every child in the city of Boston deserves a quality education. And there are so many moving parts right now in beeps that make this more challenging. There's the possibility of receivership. Council meetings are happening now around switching to an elected school committee. And we have an outgoing superintendent who's leaving in a few weeks. The finalists will be announced next week and possibly a vote on June 22nd. And we'll know who our new superintendent is going to be. And that superintendent is going to be tied to this budget. And we know that Superintendent Cecilia's and her staff who are leading these budget proposals will not be there on July 1st. So the timing of this budget would be more reasonable, I believe, if we named the superintendent first. But I know that we have time constraints here on the council. So I wanted to share my concerns and hear from any other council councilors. So thank you. Thank you. Counselor Murphy, the chair recognizes counsel. We're all counsel. We're all you off the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. And thank you to counsel, Anderson, for leading us through this budget process. Student enrollment is declining. I'm encouraged with the new initiatives and the investments EPS will be making to our students this year. While we have heard about all the great programs and new investments. We have not heard data on literacy rate, postsecondary success or how our students do in the job market. As a counselor, we do not have a clear understanding of BP's goals for our students what our students outcome, what student outcomes we are driving towards. Do we know the academic baseline of our students? With so many high school graduations taking place this time of year, it is important for us to ask how BP is preparing our students for success after high school. What data shows that our children are ready for college, a trade, a certificate program, or a job. We are spending $1.33 billion dollars without the ability to evaluate and validate the curriculum, programs and initiatives to ensure we are preparing our students for life after high school. How many of our students graduate college? How many our students go to go into trades? What is the what is a BP educating worth in the real world? Do we know the average salaries of our high school graduates in 2016? So data graduates, average salary was around 35, $37,000 a year. This is the most recent data I found, and it is old data, but that's the issue. We can't change the outcome. We cannot change the outcome, but we do not have the information readily available. Making a livable wage is important. We need to be tracking that information, making the necessary changes and beeps to prepare students for college or career. We do not need to wait for Superintendent Tenet to tell us that our students need to prepare for life after high school. We can start that infrastructure building right now by being transparent with our student data set and benchmarks, identifying metrics and working with trusted partners for evaluating and validating student data. Although there is still work to be done, I'm grateful for and confident in the collaboration and creation when it comes to data. So I will be voting yes for the studio for the DPS budget. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Earl. You know, we'd also like to speak on this matter. Councilor Fernandez Anderson, the chair of the council. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to say the chair recognizes. Councilor Coletta. Councilor Coletta, you have the floor. Thank you. Council President. I just wanted to go on record to give a statement. So we all know the world is faced by peace right now due to generational divestments and mismanagement, but I won't repeat them. What I will say is that as a BHP's graduate, I know how strong our kids, families and teachers are, especially with what they've gone through the past couple of years during the pandemic. I believe that BHP's community is resilient and I believe in what public education can do to transform the lives of our children. I will also say that I do not support any top down approach and I still have yet to see the receipts. So given this, I still have great concerns about adequate supports for English language learners and children with special needs. I also want to see an investment in my O'Donnell school playground in Boston that serves 88% of Latin kids who do not otherwise have access to open space in their community. I also believe that increases in central office budget should be reallocated to go directly to our classrooms to recruit and retain excellent teachers and paraprofessionals, enhance healthy learning environments, and improve and modernize our curriculums to give our kids the best shot at success in the 21st century. And despite this, I'm going to support the Chair's recommendation to pass the DPS budget. We as a family, including the mayor, the school committee, and the new superintendent, whoever she may be, can get this done. So I will go on record in support of passing this budget and look forward to the conversations I. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. The Chair recognizes Councilor Braden. Councilor Braden, you have the floor. Mr. President, this morning I had the very great pleasure of visiting the Baldwin Early Learning Pilot Academy in Brighton, a diverse inclusion school providing our youngest students with a solid foundation for their future learning within Boston Public Schools. I am so impressed and grateful to all the teachers and staff who work every day to support our students and a school community across the city for their tenacity, their resilience, and their stick to it ness. Our public schools are in a competitive market to attract and retain students, and it is vitally important that we. In. And as and so I stand to appeal a stand and ask us that we invest in early learning and literacy to ensure that our youngest students get the foundation that they need to succeed right from the very start. If students begin an early, early education in our school system, they will. And the system they will continue. And those families will be engaged and invested in our and our public school system in Boston. I want to echo my colleague, Councilor Wales, concerned about outcomes. How prepared are students to enter the 21st century workforce? I also want to raise up the issue of access to athletics. I firmly believe that athletic programing in schools is a mental health support that our students vitally need. Having weathered this unprecedented pandemic that we've just come through for the last two years as the Council for Alston Brighton District nine, I also want to stand up and advocate for a robust and planning process for the fair and a new Jackson Elementary School and for a new Horace Mann School for the Deaf, which is a regional school for the Deaf for 150 year history of excellence. And I hope that we can continue to support our special ed students across the city and our English language learners also. It's it's so inspiring. When I visit a classroom and see the work of our students and our teachers every day. And although I have very grave concerns about the state of things in the Boston Public Schools, I will be voting to support this budget today, but I do realize that we have a lot of work to do. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Bright. And the chair recognizes Counselor Arroyo. Counsel Arroyo, you have the floor. Thank you. Counsel President Flynn, I want to take a second to thank Counselor Fernandez Anderson for her inaugural budget and shepherding us through this the first time for everybody with the amendments and all the changes that we've done to the budget process in the last year. So thank you very much for your leadership and for putting in the hours to get us here. I just want to take a moment to thank our educators. It has been an incredibly difficult two years for our teachers. My sister is a teacher right now teaching in a Boston public school, and my mother did so for 35 years. And so I got a first hand seat at watching her grade papers and correct papers until the wee hours of the morning and just sort of the dedication that it requires. And when we added sort of the virtual learning and all the challenges of this pandemic, that job got incredibly difficult, incredibly fast, and our teachers responded. And so I just want to thank them for that. I know that beeps. I, as a former student myself, often gets a bad rap in how they are discussed or talked about. But I know that in each and every single individual school, we have educators and teachers and nurses and social workers and guidance counselors who are doing their very best to educate and prepare our children and are sometimes facing surmountable odds when insurmountable odds when we talk about the requirements that we are placing upon them and or the lack of resources and funding that we are giving them to reach and meet these goals and frankly, the lack of supports they receive when we are talking about things like housing or outside of the classroom, problems that impact inside the classroom. And so I am very heartened by the fact that this budget maintains the progress we made last year with a school nurse in every school. I am grateful that it adds one social worker at minimum per school full time. I think that's one of the places I would like to see our budget continue to go, which is addressing the mental health of our students. And so in that sense, I'm grateful that this adds 26 school psychologists. I would like to get us to a place where we have one per school as well, because we already had issues with making sure that our kids were receiving the social and emotional supports that they need at school. The pandemic only is going to continue to sort of make that a much more dire and pressing need. And I think we are seeing sort of the impact of that on educators and on students. And so I'm grateful that this budget adds 26 school psychologists. I'm grateful it adds one full time social worker per school. And I hope that as we continue to work on these things, that we continue to take into account not just their performance academically, but their actual social and mental health and well-being, which includes also athletics, as Counselor Murphy has brought up in making sure that we are teaching and reaching the whole child. Right. I'm grateful to the strides that this budget makes towards creating curriculum and materials that are inclusive and diverse in who and what kids are learning and seeing, and that they are seeing themselves reflected in both what is available to them in their library, but also in the curriculum. And so I will be voting yes on this. There are places where I think we can do better. I would hope am still pushing for ARPA funding to go towards infrastructure changes so that we can actually address some of the real infrastructure problems that we have within our schools that we've had for decades and frankly are long overdue and that we continue to build upon things that we have not done well and we continue to sort of ensure that we are giving funding to those issues and addressing those issues with staffing and making sure that we get to a place where our teachers are reflective of our populations. But this budget, as it's currently written, does address one of my major issues, which is social and emotional health for our students. And so in that way I'm grateful. And in that way I support this budget. I will be voting yes. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Counsel Royal. The chair recognizes counselors and counselors. And you have the floor. And and I. Want to thank Counselor Fernanda Anderson for all the work you've done in really getting us here. A lot of it was late nights and by yourself and and doing a lot of work with Michelle. So thank you so much on that. You know, as many people who are here, I am also a graduate and DPS is our biggest expense as it should be, as if we maintain public education as a public good and we need to support it with our resources. So I'm encouraged by this budget. I'm encouraged especially by the $2 billion commitment to a Green New Deal for our schools. Our school buildings need to reflect the dignity and affirm the dignity that we have for each and every one that each and every one of our students has. And so I'm encouraged by that. And one of the things that was really that struck me at the hearing on state receivership that I spoke in opposition to and so many others spoke in opposition to, there was a guidance counselor of the year was present and a lot of the members asked her, what can we do to better support our students? And she said, we can have more guidance counselors, more and more and more guidance counselors, even more than meeting what the state minimums are and what the national standards are. Our students are facing an unprecedented, unprecedented mental health crisis. When we talk about what's been happening not only with the pandemic, but, you know, the racial reckoning and issues going unaddressed. And so I think that we have a lot more work to do when it comes to providing more guidance counselors for our students, when it comes to supporting our English language learners, our students with interrupted learning in our slide program who have faced a number of challenges but are still trying to either learn English or maintain going to school despite life challenges, we need to support our principals and support greater teacher diversity to reflect what the classrooms look like, because we know that there's incredible value in that. I talk about these issues because they're also the issues that were important to me. My guidance counselor really helped me navigate processes that I wasn't familiar with, that my family wasn't familiar with. And we know that guidance counselors can really change lives. So and I hope that in that the work that our new superintendent does and the work that a lot of folks have been talking about, that we continue to support our students as they navigate issues both in school and out of school. And also, there's something that I've said a lot. There are a lot of good things happening at BP's, and Bebe's just needs to do a better job of communicating what's working. Like the availability of more kids are our kids are in k onesies that parents don't know about, students graduating with associates degrees, including from Madison Park. So a lot of our ability to attract students from charter schools, although we need to be able to track that data better. So there's a lot of things that are working in that we just need to do a better job of communicating that. So I'm going to support the chair here and her recommendation to pass that BEPS budget with the understanding that our role here as city counselors is to hold BP accountable, to really make sure that BP's central office is is doing the work, to make sure our busses are arriving on time, to make sure that students are getting the teachers that they need, that we are that when we see graduates crossing the stage, as I was seeing yesterday, that we can look into their eyes and say that we've done everything we can to prepare you and set you up for a good life. I'm not sure we can do that 1% now, but our role is to make sure that that happens. So thank you. And thank you, Madam Chair, for all of your work. Thank you, Counsel. The chair recognizes counsel. Have clarity. Counsel. Clarity. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks to the respective chair of the Chair, ways of beans and Chair of Education for me. As it stands right now. I'm a no. We have children who do not feel safe in school. We have children who are not arriving to school on time and some not arriving at all. We have we don't have the bona fide vocational tech school. I'm talking best in the country. Not enough of our kids are getting into some of the greatest schools in the world that call Boston their home. We boast of the best colleges and universities in the world. Not enough of our kids are getting into those schools and the ones that do and are fortunate to get in. Most of them are home at the Thanksgiving break, not to return because of the curriculum. And so as it stands, let's forget about facilities. And we're talking about, obviously, lack of sporting programs and lack of attention to to school psychologists and things like that. So, yeah, we're continuing to make strides. And, you know, I've never not supported our Boston Public Schools and our Boston Public School students. But the time has come with this legislative branch has to say, we have seen and heard enough. And whether it's the bullying that takes place in the schools or whether it's the violence that's taking place in the schools, or whether we continue to hear story after story after story of late arrivals or children actually being left on the street at the curb, not getting picked up at all. Enough is enough. And I think our leverage is right now. We have an opportunity to send the message back to Boston Public Schools that we you know, we're obviously tired of of the spin. We're tired of ducking and dodging. We're tired of no accountability. And then our leverage now is that we send it back, that we're not prepared to pass this right now. They need to do better. They need to make assurances to this body, to the student body and to their families that their schools will be safe, that their children will get to school on time, and that with respect to teaching. And learning and. In addition to the extra efforts that need to be made, obviously, for our English language learners and students with disabilities who are completely being left behind, all of that, some in substance says, hey, we shouldn't just pass this right now. We ought to send the message back to them that they need to do better, that we're going to hold them accountable. And this isn't about our teachers who do great work. Our colleague spent tremendous amount of time on the front lines, taught my children. There are some good news stories happening in the Boston Public Schools. We don't hear enough of them in its in. The classroom with. Teaching and learning. So my issue with this budget is not with our teachers and not with the teaching and learning. It's with Central. It's bloated. It's a morass. They don't listen. They're not responsive. And they're not accountable. No matter what, superintendent comes in. And as a result of which, we're seeing the results of decades of neglect. So for me, I'm a no. I'm encouraging my colleagues to be a no. Let's send a message back to them that we're not there yet. They need to sharpen the pencils. They need to come back to us with all of the things that we've just discussed. Our colleagues, through you, Mr. Chair, have raised some very important, critical issues. And my suggestion through you to them is if if what you've raised is not in this budget, then we need to say no right now, and let's see if we can get them in the budget over the next three weeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Counsel. Clarity. The chair recognizes counsel. Baker That I'll recognize counsel. BLOCK After counsel. BAKER You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't want to delay belabor a lot of this here. We've talked about safety, transportation, vocational, vocational education, certain curriculums. I believe that we're not giving our children the best what we should give them. This is not an issue. 50 plus years. And we think something is going to change. A vote here, a yes vote here today is a vote for status quo because we think you're doing good enough. I don't think we're doing good enough. And I will be voting no today to echo a counselor or a well warrior who was was eloquent in in the way he spoke about what are they doing after school? What is the value of a veep's education? I'd be. I'd be very interested to see what that is. Multiple people have talked about great concerns that way. We will speak to grave concerns if it's if it's a no. And we send it back and it becomes a 1/12 budget. And they come in front of us every month to talk to us about what they're doing. I don't feel that this was a oh, and also think I want to do from the beginning, I should have thanked Counselor Anderson for her work and all this yeoman's work. But yes, I think there's a saying in AA, if nothing changes, nothing changes. This vote is to throw more money at it. But we're not getting it through that. We're not changing some things. We need to change transportation, school safety, vacation, what we're doing around inclusion, the one inclusion school that I had in my in my, I think, council role and I share that chair the area has been decimated. They were a national model. They're not anymore. And that was because of decisions made from on high that they implemented in a school that was that was doing very well. We can't say that today with a straight face. So I will be a no here today. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel. Baker, the chair recognizes counsel. BLOCK Counsel of the fall. Thank you, Mr. President. And I also want to thank Counselor Fernando Sanders, and I know firsthand how much work this all is. And I want to offer more thanks to some of the other dockets, but definitely on DPS. It's about a third of the hearings and and really quite a lot of information to process for the council so we can be here today. I think what I want to say is it's very much to agree with colleagues about many of the great challenges that we face ups. But to disagree with councilors. Baker and clarity about sort of what the logical move at this juncture is. I think we recognize that the Boston Public Schools face tremendous challenges. I was here a year ago saying that obviously enrollment declines. Seems like in certain ways the biggest one, if only because it drives the challenges for everything else in terms of giving our students these quality schools and and attracting everyone to the system. And then, as I've mentioned before, the early literacy rates continue to concern me deeply, although I think the the administration has in the intervening years been quite aggressive about rolling out new standards across and so on the academic front. I'm encouraged both by that and by the commitment to those core. But with huge challenges and we all know that the, you know, the building commitment is great, but gosh, is it needed? And and, you know, the thought about, okay, we want to have a quality schools commitment is great but how are we going to get there? I just think that when, you know, when you're in a storm and then you're about to appoint the sort of captain of the new ship, it's not the time to also kind of court martial them. And my sense is that, you know, that this is really a moment where we need deep partnership in the city. And that means that we need the council to be in partnership with the new mayor and the imminently very new superintendent to really to really steer the ship in a better direction. And I can't see starting that out instead of being from a place of partnership, sort of being show up your first day and maybe before us on your budget. I mean, to me, there's already enough swords hanging over this system when we talk about sort of the state apparatus recently, and it just feels to me like we're reaching out to all of our partners. We want our you know, we want our private partners, our universities, all our community partners to really, like, come in and all wrap our arms around us and make it the best system it can possibly be and a system of choice that attracts people and get those enrollment numbers back up . And it's hard for me to imagine that we would start that virtuous cycle by saying by signaling, you know, an unwillingness to pass this budget. So I guess the way I feel is that although these challenges are before us, there are challenges that we have to take collectively and that the steps that the council can take in good faith today for an incoming superintendent facing a lot of uncertainty and headwinds is to give them the certainty of a passed budget. So I'll be voting in the affirmative. Thank you so much. Thank you, counsel. Anyone else like to. Speak on this. Council. Fernandez Enerson, the chair of the Committee of Ways and Means, seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of Docket 0481. Mr. Clarke, can you please take the roll call? Roll call on docket 0481 Council or Royal Council? A Royal Yes Council. A Baker Council. A Baker and eight Council. The Board Yes. Council. The Board. Yes. Council agreed. Yes. Council Aberavon. Yes. Councilor Coletta. Coletta yes. Councilor Fernandez Edison. Yes. Councilor Fernandez Sanderson yes. Council three The Council of Phil, everybody. No. Council Flynn. Yes. Council of Flynn. Yes. Council Laura. Council. Areas Council. Louisiana Council. Louisiana is council on me here. Councilor, me here? Yes, Councilor Murphy. Councilor Murphy know and council well? Yes. Council world? Yes. Docket zero 41 has received the majority. Thank you, Mr. Carter. I'm so. The chair recognizes counsel FERNANDEZ Innocent. Counsel Fernandez innocent of the full. Is it okay if we take a five minute break? I have to tinkle. This body will be in recess for 5 minutes. And then. We're back in session. Counsel Fernandez Anderson will speak on docket 048 to this is the next matter we'll take up. The chair recognizes Counselor Fernandez Anderson. Counsel Fernandez Anderson, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Docket 0482 represents the operating budget allocation to funds excuse me, to fund the city's liability for other post-employment benefits. OPEB While the city is required by law to make an annual contribution toward reducing its unfunded pension liability, there is no such requirement for retiree health and life insurance benefits. In FY oh eight, the city was required to follow new Governmental Accounting Standards Board Gas, GASB required requirements to identify and disclose this estimated liability. At the same time, the city also voluntarily began to annually allocate funds to reduce to OPEB liability. Annual allocations are retained in an irrevocable trust fund authorized through the city's acceptance of Massachusetts General Laws. Chapter 32 V. Section 20 as added by Chapter 479 of the Acts of 2008, the city has been contributing $40 million to this fund each year since f y 13. And so as Chair of Ways and Means, I recommend that this docket ought to pass. Thank you. Counsel Fernandez innocent. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Council. Fernandez Andersson, the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, seeks acceptance of the committee report. Passes passage of Docket 048 to Mr. Clark. Can we do a roll call vote, please? Roll call on docket number 0482. Consuelo Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Counsel The Baker High Council of Baker High Council. Book Counsel of Buckeye Counsel. Brady Counsel Very nice counsel. Collette Coletta Oh yes. Counsel Coletta, yes. Counsel Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Counsel Fernandez Henderson Yes. Counsel Clarity. Yes. Counsel Clarity. Yes. Counsel of Flynn Yes. Counsel of Flynn yes. Counsel Yes. Counselor Yes. Counsel. Louisiana counsel. Louisiana Yes. Counsel Let me hear. Counselor me here. Yes. Counselor Murphy. Counsel. Murphy Yes. And Counsel Warrell Yes. Counsel We're talking of 0482 has received a unanimous vote. The docket has passed. Mr. Holmes counsel Fernandez Anderson will speak now on docket 0483. The chair recognizes Counsel Fernandez Anderson Thank. You again, Mr. President. Now moving to docket 0483 ten, Docket 043 involves an appropriation of $1,600,000 from the city's Capital Grant Fund to address the impact of transportation network services on municipal roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure, or to be used for any other public purpose sustainability related to the operations of transportation network companies. Taxes in the city. Under Chapter 187 of the Acts of 2016, certain transportation network companies must submit to the Department of Public Utilities dpu the number of rides from the previous calendar year that originated within each city or town. And for a ride assessment which are credited to the Commonwealth Transportation Infrastructure Fund. And then half of the fee is distributed by the Department of Public Utilities dpu proportionately to each city and town. Based on the number of rides that originated in the city or town, the funds are collected and deposited to the city as special revenue and must be included in must be appropriated to be spent. These funds are earmarked for TNC related purposes, including investments into way into into ways of mitigating the impact of taxes and alternate modes of transportation. And so as chair on Ways and Means, I recommend that this docket ought to pass. Thank you, Counsel Fernandez Anderson. Mr. Clarke, can you please call the roll. Roll call on Duncan Number zero 43. Councilor Royal Yes. Council Royal Yes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker I Council the book council the Book of Celebrity Council The Great Knight Council Collective Council Collective Yes. Council Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Councilor Fernandez Sanderson Yes. Council Third yes. Council Clarity yes Council Flynn yes. Council of Flynn yes. Council Lara yes. Council ah yes. Council Louisiana yes. Council Louisiana yes. Council Let me hear. Council on me yes. Council the Murphy Council and Murphy yes and council overall. Yes. Council overall. Yes. Lucky number 0483 has received unanimous vote. The docket has passed. The chair recognizes council Fernandez Anderson on docket 0484. Thank you. Now moving on to docket 048420486 capital. We come together as a collective today to put forth a budget that will work for the masses of the residents and citizens of our city. And it isn't just for the matter of total amount of money that will be spent. Rather, it's who the money will be spent on and who gets to decide how the money will be spent. That we acknowledged today. We speak often of equity, but we don't practice it nearly as often. And when it comes to the proposed capital budget, I see much of much to approve of. But I can't help but to note that the plethora of projects that are being proposed are in predominantly affluent communities. It has been said that in the capitalist country, when there is a struggle between a rich person and a poor person, the rich person usually emerges victoriously. I humbly propose to you that we should put our shoulder to the wheel in an effort to reverse this to the best of our ability. So for those who do not have access to power, for those who aren't listened to when they speak, and for those who are food insecure, rent burton burdened, homeless, suffering from addiction, victims of an untreated mental illness. Simply put, for the masses of black, brown, immigrant and working class communities throughout our city, we must say to them clearly and unequivocally that we are with them and that this budget will begin a process by which they can thrive and not merely survive. The resources are there. Of that, there is no doubt and we support that the significant funds be utilized via the capital budget, but we must ensure that our support is rooted in guaranteeing that our communities most in need of resources and services get what they need. This is essential both as repair for histories of racism and class inequality. And for the ongoing manifestations of inequity that are prevalent across a spectrum of socio economic concerns. And so with all of that being said, I will recommend that as Chair Ways and Means. I recommend that these dockets be read for the first time and assigned for further. Further action. Thank you, Counsel Fernandez Anderson. Mr. Kirk. Well, before we do that, would anyone else like to speak on this matter? The chair recognizes counsel. We're all counsel. We're all. You have the floor. Thank you. President Clinton would like to thank the administration for working in collaboration with our office to bring in expanding capital investments in District four. And when I walk the streets of my district, a constant theme I hear in the black and brown neighborhoods in Boston is it's kind of sad to hear it is that nothing, nothing changes and government doesn't work. The truth in their statements is visible. When you walk on main streets and neighborhoods and see the legacy of generations of investments vacant lots, unused buildings, broken sidewalks and repair schools and playgrounds disproportionately in my district. Last September, many of our residents went to the polls, hopeful that after two years of protests against systemic racism in a historic mayoral field, they will finally be served in a way that understands the urgency of the moment. We all were sworn in knowing that business as usual was not working for too many people. The word equity we use often came to the forefront, and in that time we all understood going back to systems and practice. The practices that historically contributed to disinvestment of black and brown neighborhoods was clearly out of the question. If not now, then when? And what other moment is needed in the last five years? District four has received the least in the capital plan by dollar amount in percentage of any neighborhood. It is not. It is the only neighborhood whose capital budget has not surpassed $200 million during that time frame, while other districts have surpassed over $1 billion. We need corrective, equitable investments that are constructive with urgency. I want to I want to thank Mayor Wu that in this capital plan, we are inching towards making those investments and righting past wrongs with line items like a steady for town field, improvements to streets and upgrades to Banka, along with commitments for future investments. Our communities, who have strictly not seen infrastructure investments, will now see more the state of our environment. The state of your environment affects your behavior and how as a city, the role we play in eradicating the ongoing issues facing black and brown communities and directly it is directly correlated with the investments that are made in the capital plan. New and increased investment investments will not only be perceived as transformative leadership, but will heal past trauma and restore faith that local government can and will work in underserved communities. I am looking forward to the urgency around current and future future equitable investments to correct the wrongs of years of disinvestment in black and brown neighborhoods and making our capital plan more equitable. Thank you. Thank you. Council World. The chair recognizes council board counsel Bach. You have the floor. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And also rise to support the capital plan. But to say that, you know, I think I'm I'm glad to hear about studies and such that have been added to achieve greater equity. I think as we've often seen in the capital budget and a small study in the first year can turn into a major expenditure. And I hope that as some of the things that counsel were, I'll just reference that sort of bloom that that really adjusts some of these totals that he was just talking about. And I also just want to say that I am. Just as hopeful and also impatient that by the time we're here again in a year, we will really be seeing the the progress from the administration adding these positions in PFG that they that are promised in this budget. Because I think, as folks have heard me say before, one of my frustrations is not only that. There's the question of what what is the equity and frankly, just the level of commitment that we're rising to in the actual capital budget. But then it's like, how quickly is that commitment actually realized? And, you know, so many of us see projects that just kind of languish year after year. And so I'm really hopeful. I know there's a significant number of us on the council. I know Councilor, the Madam Chair, Councilor Fernandez Henderson shares this view. Cats are legion, but that we could be just doing more in the capital budget. And the reality is even under our 7% limit, we're only hitting an effective 5.3 because we're just not getting these projects out the door. So I just I want to emphasize that I'm excited about a number of things in this capital budget, but particularly excited about the idea that we could just be building more infrastructure more quickly for the residents of Boston, because I really don't think there's a better bet investment wise than public infrastructure in this country. Often, you know, we we talk about it like it's 30 year stuff, but we tend to build a hundred year stuff and it just has such a huge impact on the kind of public goods of the city that all of our residents get to enjoy. And I just wanted to flag I meant to say this, but it's more appropriate here that for me, one of my focuses in the next six months is going to be, as we talk about this, BHP's $2 billion capital plan. How do we really make sure that that specifically is being pursued with the urgency? That doesn't sort of put us in the traditional capital timeline, but actually really make sure that those new schools are going to be delivered for our students on an expedited schedule, because I think that will make all the difference for it really fulfilling its promise. So with all that said, proud to support the capital budget today. Thank you, counsel. Berkeley Chair recognizes counsel and counsel and you have the floor. Mr. President, I will belabor the moment. I just wanted to thank the Chair Ways and Means Councilor for Andre Anderson and Council World for all their work. You know that we've done really an uplifting, how inequitable we can sometimes be when we're planning for our future, when we're planning, when we're looking at the capital budget. So I just when we're looking at our poorest districts, we're looking at our districts that have a concentration of black and brown folks. And when we're thinking about equity being the corrective action that we need to take, we really need to be leaning in and making sure that our capital budget really reflects that council back up. You know, we are we are very wealthy city. We have a lot of money. And it's just that wealth is not shared, that prosperity that we experience as a city that is often built on the backs of working class folks, black and brown folks, that is not shared. And I think our capital budget is a way for us to really think about how we're using our fiscal strength and think about how we're bonding and how we're using our triple-A bond rating to really invest in the public infrastructure in the way that Castro Brock was talking about. So I just want to thank you, Madam Chair, for the work that you've done here, because all the data and the research you've done to show how much you've disinvested in neighborhoods like before, and hopefully we can get it right continuing in the future. So thank you. Thank you, counsel. Lewis And the chair recognizes Councilor Murphy. Counsel Murphy you have the floor. And thank you, chair, vice chair for all your work. So I definitely have high hopes for this $3.6 billion capital plan. And I want to thank Mayor Woo and the administration for this. It includes improvements to our schools, open spaces, community centers, streets and bridges. Although I am in support of the project, I want to highlight a few that I'm especially excited about the improvements to our community centers, especially the Curley Matter Hunt in North End centers and the Paris Street Pool, improvements to the East Boston Police Station, the preservation of the Long Island facility in Woods, Mullins shelter and the resiliency improvements in the harbor walk and open space construction, which I know will make our oceanfront more equitable and accessible to all. In the improvements to the Boston Public Schools facilities, especially when I see athletic facility upgrades, I'm very excited. So the amount of money, this amount of money has the ability to transform our city and jumpstart projects that have been overshadowed in the past. And I do want to thank you, counsel world for bringing that to us to light with your data of d for and as an at large city councilor, I'm here to support and advocate your efforts in that district, so I will be voting in support of the capital budget. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Murphy. The chair recognizes. Counselor. Me here, Counselor. Me here. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a new day, right? The way we normally do business is we either when it comes to the capital budget, and we usually have a tradition to just, you know, vote without prejudice. And so I wasn't prepared to speak on the capital budget, but now I have been inspired to do so. Just really quick, again, I want to thank the chair and the vice chair and actually all of my colleagues who have been uplifting the importance of recognizing that we have a responsibility as a citywide councilor. You know, I spent a lot of time across the city, and I see who has and who has not. And I think as we continue to move through these processes, I think it's really important from a process standpoint, is that when it comes to the capital budget, I don't see a lot of conversations that are happening in the community about what it is that they need. And I think that that's an opportunity where we have to be able to lean in to create more opportunities for those who are living in in different neighborhoods, to speak for themselves around the things that that they want to see. Oftentimes, a lot of these conversations around the budget usually just falls on the operating budget, which I appreciate and I understand there's a lot at risk. But at the same time, I think capital should be another space where we start leaning in a little bit more if we're really serious about building equity here in the city of Boston and more importantly, creating space for those who actually pay for our salaries to be informing how we spend their capital dollars. So with that, I just wanted to uplift the importance of voice and look forward to moving the conversation along. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember here, the chair recognizes council, president, council. And you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm excited to see this broad ranging capital budget. One, two concerns I want to flag up. One is, you know, in terms of we appropriate funds for capital projects. But but in the in the past, I echo my colleague, Constable Cox, concerned about sometimes the glacial pace of progress, but very often that boils down to the need to have a project managers in place and all the folks that manage a project and and shepherded through the process. And we have a human resources challenge here, and I hope that we can address that aggressively in the next year to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place to help shepherd these projects to their completion. As a district councilor for Allston, Brighton District nine, I applaud the inclusion of a study for a new elementary school in Alston and the new school, the Horace Mann Regional School for the Deaf and Hard of hearing. One of my biggest concern is the urgency of addressing the imminent closure of the BCA f community center at the Jackson Man Complex in Union Square. It is the only community center, busy wife community center we have in our neighborhood. We're the second largest neighborhood in the city with a population of over 75,000. And this is our only. Community center. It is a it is an emergency, FEMA emergency, central heating and cooling center. It is the polling place for five precincts. It is it is adult education, early education and child care. It is an absolutely essential piece of our community infrastructure. We cannot afford to have it shuttered and closed and have nothing in its place for for the time that it will take to build a new center. So I am appealing for urgency, and I will be continuing to advocate strongly to have this this project expedited in the near future. So I will be voting in support of this capital budget, but I also want to hold up these concerns with regard to Brighton. Thank you, counsel. But anyone else like to speak on this matter? Mr. Clarke, can you please call the roll. Roll call on docket 0484? Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker. Councilor Bug. Councilor BLOCK. Councilor Brady. I have been a Councilor Coletta. Councilor Colette. I guess. Councilor Fernandez. The interest a. Counsel for Ananda Sanderson. Yes. Counsel. Clarity. Counsel Clarity. Yes. Counsel Flynn. Yes. Counselor Flynn. Yes. Counselor. Counsel. Lara Yes. Counsel Louisiana. Counsel. Allusion Yes. Counselor Me here. Counsel Let me here. Yes. Counselor Murphy. Counselor Murphy. Yes. And counsel. World Yes. Counsel World. Yes. Talking number zero 44 has received a unanimous vote. The docket has received its first reading and will be assigned for further action. The chair recognizes Counsel Fernandez Enerson on Docket 0485. Thank you, Mr. President. Typically I like to talk and I have jokes, but today I didn't want to talk so much. Moving on now, returning to docket 0480 departmental operations. No. They recognized. What? Oh, sorry. Yeah, that's right. The chair recognizes Counsel Fernandez. Innocent Docket 0485. Yeah. I've already spoken on them. Say it again. The. We'll take a brief recess. Yeah. We're back in session. We're continuing 0485. Roll call vote on docket 0485. Counsel Arroyo. Yes. Counsel Arroyo. Yes. Counsel Baker. High Counsel Baker Uh, Counsel of Counsel by Counsel Brady And so Braden. Counsel Coletta. Counsel Coletta yes. Counsel Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Counsel for Ananda Sanderson Yes. Counsel Flaherty. Counsel Clarity Yes. Counsel Flynn yes. Counsel Flynn Yes. Counsel Yes. Council Area Counsel. Louisiana. Intrusion yes. Counsel here. Counsel Murphy. Counsel Murphy Yes. And Counsel. World Yes. Counsel Well, yes. Lucky number zero 45 has received a unanimous vote. The docket has received its first reading and will be assigned for further action. Mr. Clark, would you do a roll call vote on. Dockers 0486 Roll Call on Docket 0486 Councilor Royal Council Overview. Yes Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker High Council of Full Council of Book Council. Green Council. Green Council Calera Council. Calera Yes. Council Fernandez Sanderson. Yes. Council Fernandez Sanderson Yes. Council Florida. Yes. Council Clarity. Yes. Council Flynn. Yes. Council Flynn. Yes. Council Area. Council area yes. Council Allusion. Council Louisiana. Council me here. Council meeting. Yes. Council Murphy. Yes. Councilor Murphy. Yes. Council world yes. Council. Well, yes. Talking numbers 0486 has received a unanimous vote. The docket has received its first reading. Will be aside for further action. We will go back to docket 0480, which is the operating budget as amended by the Council pursuant to our new authority under the Charter Amendment. Amendment. The Chair recognizes Council. Fernandez innocent. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And now the moment we've all been waiting for. Now returning to docket 0480 Department of Operations. Finally, I want to take this time to first thank our dear clerk, Alex and team. Appreciate all the work that you do. Thank you. I'd like to thank my incredible colleagues who this could not have been possible without. Counselor me here. I thank you for standing firmly. Feet planted. As you speak, your truths with an epic strength and passion. Councilor Murphy. I applaud you for your fundamental decency, your career in education, and for your ongoing concern and advocacy for our city. Councilor. President Flynn. I deeply appreciate your kindness and consistency in the face of ups and downs in seemingly second nature to this work. Councilor Morrow, I warmly acknowledge your quiet, quiet strength and steadfastness and your willingness to collaborate. Councilor Lara, I salute you for your for being an eternal soldier on behalf of these disenfranchized and marginalized. And for bringing your fighting spirit into this chamber each and every day. Councilor Braden. I greatly appreciate your thoughtful, intuitive and quietly strong demeanor. There have been times. In this chamber when I may not have heard or seen you, but I felt your presence. Councilor Bach. I am incredibly, incredibly grateful for your intelligence and for the hard work you put in. Your ability to selflessly do the work of five people is nothing short of mind boggling. Councilor Baker. You're my guy. I love your big heart and powerful passion. In truth, because of those traits. I would rather disagree with you. Then agree with most of the people I've known. Councilor Lucien. You have become my sister. You combine equal parts, brilliance and boldness. And getting to know you has been a highlight of this journey for me. I care for you deeply while learning to love you. Counsel clarity. I so appreciate your acts of kindness to me personally. And for your great professionalism, class and class that you demonstrate daily. Counselor Arroyo. I wouldn't have this experience without you. And you know what I mean. This was not possible without you. I am grateful for your skill and your, well, your passion for justice in your quiet but firm leadership that you exercise so eloquently. And finally, Councilor Coletta. So gentle. I salute you for jumping in right into this process. With the confidence, knowledge and presence of a ten year old veteran, and it has been a marvel to behold. I am happy to have all of you as my colleagues, and I am happy to say that we have put forth a budget that can begin. Might I say that again, begin to function toward a betterment of all Bostonians? On this day, I state with confidence our proposed policies have begun to match our jargon and our actions have inched closer to our words. Let us continue on this path together until we collectively craft and create the conditions that will assist in producing a city that we can all be proud of. Pursuant of the 2021 Charter amendment, the city council has worked as budget season to put forward an amendment draft rather than our typical rejection on the second Wednesday in June. The committee conducted a robust process to review the mayor's proposal beginning in April and running through June through this week . This process has included 30 public hearings on departmental budgets and associated capital projects, including two sessions dedicated to public participation and has received written testimony from all city departments as well as written recorded testimony from the public. The committee also held four working sessions for council deliberation to put forward amendments to the mayor's proposal. The Council's proposed amendments to Docket 0480 fall into two categories intra departmental and inter departmental. It's for inter. I'm sorry. For intra departmental amendments include additional environmental health inspectors, for pest control, for other rodent abatement materials, including traps, baiting and dry ice. Additional funding for senior home repair programs. Two additional part time cross guards for the Winship and Baldwin schools. Funding to contract a tour bus company for the artery in District seven. Tourism contracts dedicated to African culture events such as festivals and parades. Additional addition of an EMS supervisor in the Community. Initiatives Division. Initiatives Division. Mental Health Response. Crisis Training to be provided to the City Council and 311 staff. Additional youth and senior programing at the Nazario Community Center. Grant opportunities along the artery in District seven. Two additional parking enforcement officers in East Boston. A pilot home ownership voucher program for the BHF. Funding for Historic Preservation of an African-American Arts Museum in Roxbury. Maintenance of the Grant to the Smart from the START program. Funding for acquisition of land to preserve natural wild. Funding for a college youth academic partnership program that will pay students for participating in tutoring. Funding for experiential learning. Opportunities for youth. Funding to expedite pedestrian safety measures. Funding to build capacity. And linguistically appropriate. Technical assistance for immigrant businesses. Grant opportunities for immigrant owned small businesses. A Jackson Man Transition Coordinator Position. Jackson Man Transition Resources. Addition of an early literacy specialist position. A pilot for housing stipends for young people age 19 to 29. 20 for my apologies. Housing stipends for municipal employees struggling to pay rent. Or own a home payments. Now moving on to an intro. So Interior Department to amendments totaling $8,832,000 or 0.53% of the budget of the appropriation order. Now, moving on to entire department or amendments. The addition of 15 Hokies two for Allston, Brighton four want one for Chinatown, two for East Boston, two for District four, two for Roxbury, two for Fenway Mission Hill. Beacon Hill two four District two and two City Wide District three. My apologies. The addition of a director of waterfront planning position funding for BHO for the city housing voucher program, which set aside for project based basing at IDP units to buy deeper affordability. Returning citizens and VHA Home Ownership Pilot Launch funding to accelerate waste reduction programs with additional staff positions. Funding to provide a subsidy for expanded Mission. Hill Link Service. Additional staff for tree maintenance. An increase to the annual allocation to the Boston Groundwater Trusts to $200,000. Full funding for 6000 youths jobs and 1500 year round jobs. Additional personnel for general support in a city clerk's office. Increase capacity for black male advancement. Funding for erstwhile courses. Increase capacity in the Office of Returning Citizens. Small grant opportunities for graffiti busters. Increase to city council personnel services to right size staff wages. And add central positions to support the Council with its new budgetary authority. Funding for LGBTQ Events. Additional Funding to support immigrants. Lead Boston. Personnel funding to bolster already budgeted for upgrades to the legacy 311 system to reform Boston 311. Funding to provide technical assistance for all 20 Main Street districts. Funding I'm sorry additional staff for Saw Charlestown funding for burial assistance, funding for senior programing at the Veronica Smith Center in Brighton and commissioning of a citywide life insurance study. Funding for BFD Carr five Boston Fire Department. Carr five. Funding for the Clerk's Office to provide. Procure clarification services for the review and. Sorry. Record ification of the City of Boston Code Ordinances and special acts relating to the City of Boston, including the city charter youth workers to support programing for youth residents of VHA, Commonwealth Apartments and the Boston Public Housing Authority. Public Housing Authority. Faneuil Garden's Programmatic Support for citizenship day salary increases for employees at Boston Youth Development Network. Interdepartmental amendments total $17,006,618 in $18 in fund transfers across various departments, which represents just over 1% of the docket appropriation order. The amended draft being proposed is net neutral. Pursuant of our responsibilities under the Charter and reflects the Council's priorities for FY 23 in working toward a better, safer, more equitable city that takes care of its residents and employees. And so, as Chair of Ways and Means, I recommend that this docket ought to pass in an amended draft. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Fernandez Emerson. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? The chair recognizes counsel. Our counsel, LRA. You have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn, and thank you to Counselor. Fernandez Anderson for stewarding us through this very long and tedious process in the budget. I rise today to show my support for this amended budget. I think that. The budget that was presented to us by Mayor Woo did an amazing job at what she calls getting the small things right so that we can do the big things . And this budget that has been presented by the City Council in its amended version goes one step further, not only to reaffirm the mayor's vision of doing the small things right, but to do it in a way that is collaborative. And that includes not only our personal vision for the big things that the city of Boston needs, but the very specific needs that our constituents has that have asked us to represent here on the city council. I think that this amended version of this budget is a beautiful amalgamation of both the mayor's vision and the needs of all of our districts. And I'm excited to send it to the mayor for her approval. I want to rise today to speak specifically about the amendment that I included here in the committee report. The amendment for a just under $7 million for youth jobs in the city of Boston is representative of the largest line item amendment made to the city of Boston budget. And it's something that's very near and dear to my heart because I got my start organizing here in the city of Boston, asking for the city of Boston to increase the city's budget. At that time, I was 15 years old. I am almost 33 now. And so it's been a long fight of almost, if not already, two decades of the young people of the city of Boston asking for the city council and the mayor to ensure that the resources that were set aside for the young people in the city of Boston were up to par with the needs that we would be investing in young people, investing in their well-being and investing in the safety and the well-being of our communities as well. But today, I don't just want to talk about myself. I want to talk about Michael Brown. Eyeball. Brown was a 17 year old young man from Mattapan. Cool. At a very young age as a juvenile. Spent his time with the wrong crowd. And became getting involved very early. At the age of 15, I came across a youth worker who offered him a youth job during the summer. And that was the catalyst for eyeballs transformation. I've always spent the next three years becoming what I consider one of the most prolific youth organizers received. An eyeball spike of choice with the UV job spike. Year after year. Eyeball came. And testified before the City Council to ask that the. Boston City Council increase the budget for the youth jobs. Sometimes we won. Sometimes we lost. Sometimes we made concessions. But never did the mayor or the city council meet the requests that the young people in the city of Boston were making. I got the incredible pleasure of being eyeballs youth worker at 31 Heath Street. Youth in Boston, a family service of Greater Boston. I got to watch Eyeball Blossom into an incredible young. Man. Who committed all. Of his time. Not only into maintaining his own youth job, but into ensuring that all of the young people in his neighborhood who were currently or previously getting involved had an opportunity to get out. On Memorial Day as I was sitting on his front steps waiting for his mother to bring him to one. Of our actions. I've always stopped and killed. Now I know that to a lot of people this may sound like maybe it's not a success story. Because Eyeball didn't make it. But my advocacy for these $6.9 million. Comes from a place of considering. The shooting. That didn't happen. And the young person that didn't. Have to lose their life like I will. Because they weren't at the wrong place at the wrong time. The young person who decided to change their life. And go back to school or attend college. Because of the redirection that was given to them by being a part of a youth jobs. I know that we talk about this budget in frame of numbers and in frame of balance and in frame. Of the financial health of the city of. Boston. But I am incredibly, incredibly heartened by the support that has come for this specific amendment from my council colleagues. I am excited about what we're going to be able to do with this level of resource. And I just wanted to lift up what the human cost is. We don't always win. We don't always get these amazing young people that we can save. But if $6.9 million means that maybe we lose 15 less young people somewhere, then I think that that is an incredibly worthwhile investment. And I am so incredibly happy to support it and I'm incredibly happy to have the support of my council colleagues. Thank you, Chair, for including this here. And I'm thankful for all of the youth organizers that almost 20 years later continue to show up here to tell us that they need resources and that the vision for the city of Boston that they have is one that's not only inclusive, but meets every single need of every single young person in the city of Boston. I am a product of the youth justice movement here in the city of Boston. I'm elected here to the city council because the youth justice movement in Boston got behind me and made sure that I got elected. And it is my honor to steward this amendment on the city council. So I just wanted to thank my colleagues and I wanted to lift up the voices of all of the young people in the city. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Laura. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? The Chair recognizes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker, you have the floor. Mr. Chair, just a quick point of of of. Of interest, I guess so we're voting on this is where all of our and this is for much is the people at home as it is for us here we are voting on our amendments now, which is different from the way it used to be. Correct. Okay. So. I'm not necessarily in agreement where with some of the direction of the city and in particular down at Mass and Cass, I think that that's going to be basically a money dump for the next 20 years, and I don't think we're ever going to get in front of them. The problem I think the people that are down there, the way they're handling with them, we're putting them on a treadmill. And I think it's I don't think it's going to get any better. That doesn't say I hope I don't hope it gets cut. I do hope gets better because my ass in cash now is leaking into every neighborhood around it. My neighborhood. Your neighborhood, lower Roxbury. Your neighborhood. Not going to get any better. So. With that being said. This budget's different in a sense, where we you guys, more than me, I think, have been able to add in things that are important to you and important to help your neighborhoods, your districts, and you be able to do your job. So I think that being said is good news. So I will be voting in favor of this operating budget here. Anxiously looking at how it comes back, how much of what we did yesterday, in the previous days, how much is actually going to come back to us? How much are we going to be able to say we made a difference? We were there. And quite honestly, I wish that what we did yesterday, we did with ARPA because the Apple Money is where we can bring things into into District four, where we can help out. Everybody knows what I'm looking to do. I'm looking to do the fieldhouse. The fieldhouse is going to be generational change for people. Generational. There's three housing developments that within walking distance, yet unable to get any kind of back and forth with this administration on that issue. That would make me want to vote against an operating budget. That would make me want to vote against a capital budget just because of the lack of. Someone coming and asking me who I am, what I, what I want, what you know, what do you think? What are your thoughts? It hasn't happened in this in this budget season. For me, $800 billion, $800 million has gone through this floor right here. We haven't had a say on it. None of you have had a say on. So that to me is problematic, is problematic of what may what the future looks like with an administration that's not really going to pay attention to us. You know, they're paying attention now because we had those budgetary amendments and we were able to we'll see what happens with it. I think the process, because a lot of what we did yesterday, I thought if I one opportunity without the money being that we could have filled a lot of those holes with the money. I hope what we did didn't go in and read budgets of city departments because I consider myself first and I've said this a thousand times, I consider myself a city worker first, a good 35 years in the city. I started in real property. I went over the printing department and every year around the budget season I was like, Oh, I hope our boss, the the head of the department, is fighting for us, getting us the money we need, getting us, you know, whether it fits, whether it's, you know, cleaning products we needed at the printing department, whether it was whether it was, you know. An extra person to come in and be an extra hand. I hope. I hope we didn't go in and just raid city departments and now they're all going to scramble for figuring out how they make that work happen, where they thought the budget was there. Now we went in and are shifting it around. We'll see what happens. I'm interested in seeing what happens, but just wanted to make a couple of points, especially about ARPA. This offer here is is a missed, missed, missed opportunity. We're just being told where it's going to be spent. You'll be good with it. Just trust us. Trust, but verify. We haven't had a chance to verify here. His three 350 million. You guys are okay with that, right? Yeah. Just improve at the. Send it along. That's a problem. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting in favor of this because. Not because of the budget that came from across the hall. Because it's the budget that you guys helped to put together. And you guys are going to be able to do things in your districts and in your neighborhoods that are going to help you, because we know as counselors in a smaller, more refined way, I think what our neighborhoods need more than maybe people are a little bit removed. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Baker. The chair recognizes. Councilman. Here, Councilman. Here, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. This budget season has definitely been a learning experience. Two years ago when I stood up and voiced my opposition to was then referred to as the mayor's budget. We made it clear that we can't be doing business as usual because this isn't the mayor's budget, it is the people's budget. And with that, since then, the city council, the city councilors have been working and more importantly, the people. We are now in a position to reflect the voices of the people in our budget process. This first year was a proving ground. It was an opportunity to test the waters of these new powers. Because of that, we have been bowled. And we have been sitting through at least. The last few working sessions 7 hours to get to where we needed to be under the leadership. Of this powerhouse over here. I feel I'm 6 hours, 16 total, but 7 hours each. It felt like maybe 24 hours roundtrip. But I feel really confident in our ability to fight for things that the people have been demanding. A little bit in our process. Every year, our office holds a series of budget pop ups in our community spaces across the city, in barbershops, hair salons, restaurants, schools, you name it. We're there, people. We're there to listen. This year, we were able to hear firsthand from residents from across the city about what their priorities are. And through our amendment process, we were able to make those priorities a reality. And I also want to shout out the advocates who have been working fiercely around youth jobs. And I am so incredibly happy that Councilor Lotta, as someone who has been in deep community with young people, has been able to deliver on these promises. And there's still so much more to do on that front. And I look forward to working alongside her to get some more money next year. And one of our pop ups. We heard firsthand from immigrant business owners about the struggles that they have getting their businesses off the ground. And because of that, we managed to secure. You know, $500,000 to do two things. First. We're using some of the funds to create two positions. We will serve as case managers for immigrant businesses. The rest of the funds will be available to small immigrant owned businesses to access resources like web design, logos, banners and other technical assistance that immigrant businesses have. I'm not going to go through the whole line item of all the things that we were managed to secure, because I think you all will get the memo. And this is not just about the things that we were able to do as office, but I do want to just take a moment to really highlight that this can't be politics as usual and if the council has been given the power. To make amendments. It is really important for the administration. Right. To recognize that power and give us the power to do just that, which is to send back the budget with the needs and wants of this council. Right. Anything other than that would be completely unacceptable. And I want to go on the record that what this council has approved is what I will be supporting. Periods and end story and you could rewind. Because this is not the moment for us to say that we want to be collaborative. And then send us something that we're going to have to compromise on. And this should not be about The Hunger Games either. Where there is a will, there is a way. And this is an opportunity for us to find the dollars to make it happen. And I want to be really clear. As I stand here in support of passing this operating budget. That's, I think. This is our responsibility and our in our opportunity. To rise up and give the people. At the very least, the belief that government is working for them. And one last thing that I'll say is that I've been echoing this alongside my other colleagues about the opera funding. Yeah. I am not going to when it comes to that budget approved things that we have not really had a real say because there's a lot of money on the table right now. And we need more processes. And protocols and procedures in place to make sure that we get a piece of that pie, too. So with that, I just want to go in favor of supporting this operating budget in a better come back as is. Thank you very much. And Madam Chair and Madam Chair, like what you did so masterfully. Masterfully. Right. It is not easy to work with 13 multiple personalities because we all have the. And get us to where we need to be. And I just want you to know that the work that you did to get us here, given that this was the first time that we were all doing this. Thank you. And thank you to Florida and Flint for feeding us along the way to really do appreciate that. Because, you know, I'm a grub, but not seriously. Let's just make sure that we lean in and we recognize this moment as a collective. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your hard work. Thank you, counsel. Here the chair recognizes counsel of counsel book. Thank you on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And with your indulgence, I just want to spend 2 minutes addressing off topic the ARPA question and then turn back to the docket at hand. I want to emphasize to counselors that, you know, when the administration filed this ARPA docket, their original hope was that we would also be having an ARPA vote today . That's why it was introduced with the budget. And we are not having an ARPA vote today precisely because my committee is focused on making sure that council is going to saying that. Now, folks may have noticed that there hasn't been a lot of legislative time because we have been going through five major dockets that the Chair has just spoken about today. And so we have grabbed every possible hearing slot that was available to consider this, the proposal that the administration proposed. Now, I think it's fair to the administration to have gone through in a series of hearings the proposals they put before us, much like Councilor Anderson sat over 30 hearings on the department budgets before we got into working sessions. So it is my hope as the chair of COVID 19 recovery that with hopefully results from today that the Ways and Means Committee is going to be able to release a few holds over to the COVID 19 Recovery Committee so that we can hold some of these working sessions that councilors are clamoring for. But I do not, frankly, think it is fair to the committee or to myself as Chair to suggest that the problem mid process is that we haven't gotten where we got at the end of a process with budget. So I just I would really appreciate if councilors would maybe pursue their challenges on this differently. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. And then on Councilor Anderson's docket, and I really do want to congratulate her. I just think. You know, Councilor McInnes referenced the fact that a number of us who are sort of, you know, here together, we were actually not here. We were on Zoom two years ago talking about the budget in 2020 and feeling tremendously frustrated by the by the tools that the council had at our disposal, the tools that we discussed. And at that point, we embarked on this process led by Councilor Edwards. Now Senator Edwards, to propose. Yes. On one this charter change and. I, I always thought to myself that, you know, I don't know if the council fully knows what we're getting ourselves into because what the yes on one charter change did was yes, it gave the council more power in the budget, but it also gave the Council tremendously more responsibility. It is much easier to say, no, no, I don't like not good enough than it is to say, here's what would make this better and actually put your vote on the line to support something that would make it better. And it's harder because we live in a world that's a work in progress and nothing is ever perfect. Right. And so I think that, you know, it's a it is a big responsibility for the council to have take it on. And I also think that once we passed it and we started looking at it, you know, one of the things that you realize is that so much of how we do the business of government, it's not just in the written legal language, it's also in the norms and the institutions. And the reality is that in this budget process, we have been doing something that the Council has no prior norms or institutions for. And I just think that in that context, that Council for understand and has shown tremendous grace in trying to piece that new process together and really saying, hey, we need to use this like we need to step into this responsibility. Yes, it's going to be a little bit awkward and it's going to involve all of us saying more directly to each other the different hopes and dreams we have, as opposed to everybody kind of going off and saying it to the mayor's side and hoping that they're the ones who are heard . And I think that that is harder work for this body and that it is the work of really the democratic representative governance. And so I'm just I'm really grateful to Council for Number Sanderson for leading that and for leading us to a point where, as Councilor Baker said today, we have an omnibus amendment that's being proposed by the chair, one which I intend to support. And I a couple of things that are particularly exciting for me about that. Councilor Laura is not here, but I'll just echo her remarks on, you know, I think the youth jobs are probably marginally one of the most impactful things we do with city dollars. And so I think the call for us to to meet that commitment in the budget with more further funds was important. Um, I also was really pleased that council that colleagues saw fit to include this 2.5 million further increase in addition to the 2.5 that the administration is putting forward for housing vouchers. I think we found that these city housing vouchers are a really great source of sort of flexibility for us to help particular vulnerable populations that aren't well served by the feds in the state. And whether we're talking about, you know, the really project facing and IDP, we're talking about our returning citizens, we're talking about undocumented folks. We're talking about how to pilot a new homeownership voucher approach that council has been working on. I think that getting that line item increased in the operating budget is really important. And I think folks know that if if I have had a secret mission, not that secret for the last six years, um, since really coming back to Boston, it's been to increase the total amount of housing resources and particularly the total number of resources from the city going to housing. And I think this is another step in that important direction. And then, you know, we've been talking a lot under the mayor's leadership about a Green New Deal. I think there's some amazing amendments in the council's proposal here that are part about making that real. So I'm really excited about the idea of these like eight additional people for parks on the tree, that sort of tree maintenance and urban wilds maintenance front. Um, I think that's a constant. Speaking to Councilor Vega's point issue for us in our districts. And I also think that as we support the green jobs program of the city is launching, we need permanent parks jobs for folks to land in and not for nothing. You know, the Parks Department once set up at like 400 people and now it's that sort of 200 odd. And I just think when we talk about our when we talk about our commitment to being a Green New Deal city and all that infrastructure, it needs maintenance, it needs city workers. That stuff that we should be doing here in house in the city, not contracting out. And so I feel like this is a really substantial step in that direction. Similarly, the support for waste reduction work which the city really needs to accelerate. Um, another person working on open streets the some a little bit more support for the groundwater trust which sewer is a really important natural resource in my district these and across a number of other districts these just they feel like really important things and that's why I'm hopeful that and I think we have reason to be hopeful that this law of across the net by the council will be met with collaboration in the mayor's office. I think that what the slightly different tone I would take from councilman here is just, you know, I do think that there are places here where we can go back and forth collaboratively. What I mean by that is, for instance, we proposed that the tree maintenance for people are. In a specific there are specific like job description. If if the arborist and the parks commissioner were to come back to the council and say, actually, for the right kind of tree pruning, we need this different description, like I as a councilor be open to that. I think what's nice is that this process has moved that whole conversation into the light, into the public, has let us all kind of like learn along the way about the whys and wherefores. Why is this money available and why is it not? And and I'm excited about that process and and not for nothing. The last two years. Each budget season, the argument has been. Between like the concept of the perfect budget and no budget at all. And I think that's always set us up with a really crummy false choice where we're kind of hanging out over a cliff, looking at the 112 and saying, is it worth it? And I think that's put everybody in a difficult position. And I like the fact that, you know, with the mayor proposing a budget, with us proposing back this amended budget today, which I hope we will in support of the chair and with the mayor then responding, and then an opportunity for the council to respond. I think the hope would be that we are working together on perfecting a budget. And so I very much look forward to that work ahead and plan to vote in the affirmative. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counselor. The chair. The chair recognizes counsel, allusion and counsel. The and you have the floor. This president says this budget represents stark investments in opportunities to reimagine our city and what city services look like. Kudos to mayor. This is our first budget. She's a mayor committed to transforming, redesigning and rethinking how city hall works to make it work for the people and for all people, from affordable housing to investments in early childhood education and child care. The mayor has been recognizing the urgency of this moment. I commend her and her team, including Jim Williamson, budget director, for all their efforts and also especially for your willingness to listen. I commend Chair for John Anderson. I think if nothing, this process has shown how brilliant you are and how you are willing to pour your entire self into this work, not for you, but for the people of Boston and for the people who have often been silenced by our budget and ignored by our budget and whose backs the city has been built. So thank you for that. This has definitely been historic. This is our first time in the city council being able to weigh in. And I, I as a new city council wasn't part of the moment where we started thinking about how do we have an influence and impact. So I also think all of my colleagues who were here before me really did the fight to make us have this shared power that the people have given us on these amendments to the city budget, help us achieve that shared power, which hopefully will translate to more shared prosperity on some things like investing in the Office of Returning Citizens, which we've heard from numerous times, both here and in opera hearings, is important to those who are formerly incarcerated, because that's an officer has never been invested in it was created and never given the power or the or the capacity to really lean into the work of making sure that our returning citizens and formerly incarcerated folks have space in this city to really thrive. And so investing in that is sending a signal to the administration that we need to look at all of our city departments and fund them holistically. The budget with the council amendments are fiscally sound and will lead to transforming how our government shows up for people. It's saying, you know, we need to rein in overtime. And when Vpd tells us, I was just but went back and looked at their responses to an RFI where I asked, you know, what are the efficiencies? And they talk about all of the things that they're doing to improve that expenditure. We should believe them and really hold them to task there. You know, every day is another chance for us to get it right as a city and for us to continue the fight. And so we must continue to push for a budget that invests in building strong communities. And this is a start. I don't know. Someone said that this is just the beginning and and there are so many great things that we were able to do as a result of these amendment powers. You know, we're still learning, so making mistakes as we go. But I think this is a really great start from funding things like Smart from the start to the quarter to more Hokies, so that all of our neighborhoods, including Dorchester and Mattapan, can look as good as all of our other neighborhoods. So supporting a lot of 13 and car five, you know, to supporting immigrant businesses, to supporting our citizens who are immigrant communities, who have faced so many stumbling blocks when it comes to becoming citizens. And so providing them with the resources to legal assistance and has been something that I care deeply about so that they can become citizens and making sure that we are not forgetting our immigrant communities when we're doing this work. So I'm just really thankful for this shared power that we now are experiencing alongside a mayor committed to the work, thankful again to chair Fernanda Anderson. I will be supporting these amendments and seeing looking forward to the work that will continue to do here. So thank you. Thank you, Constable. The chair recognizes Councilor Carter. You have the floor. Thank you, Council President. I'll start my remarks just by saying that I'm extremely excited that we are now utilizing our new power. I want to thank the mayor and her team for a great first budget. I want to commend my colleagues for welcoming me, welcoming me into this process with patience as I dove right into the thick of it the last three weeks. I especially want to thank you, Madam Chair, for shepherding us through this new found power with grace, authority and humor at the appropriate times. I think on that point, I am grateful to everybody to have been given four, to have the opportunity to articulate my priorities and to showcase the power of targeted investments as a statement of our values. And I especially want to uplift in honor now, Senator Edwards, who said, let's break this down and change the system. She leaned in to the work with Armani White. And those who involved and those who were involved in. Yes, on one for a better budget. So I just want to uplift them in this work. What we are voting on today is historic. Let us not forget the time and energy it took to get us all here and what we've proposed. We do know that some of what's in here is a work in progress. There is still relevant information that needs to be obtained by the administration, and I look forward to working with Mayor Wu and members of our team to iron out the details, especially as it pertains to funds allocated to youth employment and engagement. I do believe that that amendment is needed right now in this moment and I think council are for introducing it. What I am most proud of are the significant investments in specific departments and programs that will positively impact East Boston, Charlestown and the North End. I'm not going to get into them, but I do hope that I hope and pray that the odds are in my favor and they will remain. So I do plan to vote in the affirmative on this, and I look forward to collaborative conversations in the months ahead with the mayor's office. Thank you, Counsel Carter. The chair recognizes. Counselor Murphy. Counselor Murphy, you have the floor. Thank you, President. Yes. So as this was for many of us, our first budget season and the first for all of us with the new council powers, I do want to recognize the chair and all of us for the hard work and effort over these past few months. We powered through and I am pleased with the amendments that we are presenting to the mayor. Increased funding for senior programing and standalone senior centers, increase programing at our community centers for our youth and teens. A big investment in youth jobs, which is very necessary. Addressing the road and problems throughout the city that many businesses and residents deal with in all of our offices, not just council, operate and get lots of calls on them. We all we all get them. We know supporting public safety by bringing back car five, which we know will increase diversity at the top of the department and also returning Ladder 13, which will bring quicker responses to ourselves and residents and also bring more supports to those struggling at mass and casts. As a chair of Veterans in Public Health, I am pleased. I'm most pleased with the increased funding for recovery and mental health services, especially for our veterans and young adults who are struggling not only with mental health emergencies, but also with the opioid crisis. So I will be voting in support of these amendments today. But I do hope the mayor finds other ways than taking from public safety to support these important amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Murphy. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? I want to take this take this opportunity. To thank the chair of Ways and Means Council, Fernandez Anderson, for the incredible hard work and professionalism that she has shown during this budget process. She has worked with our colleagues, with the mayor's administration in a professional manner. In an inclusive manner and making sure our voices are heard and respected in the process. She also has included the public. In a robust discussion to make sure the public voice is heard during the budget process as well. It's a difficult job of being the Ways and Means chair, but counsel for them is. Anderson You've done an exceptional job leading. Leading our strongest budget budget process in budget debate. So I want to acknowledge our. Incredible work during this. During this time. During this time. Is it as a district councilor? From district to. I'm also concerned about what Councilor Baker has highlighted about the Mouse and Cass area as well. And it certainly impacts my area because I represent the South End in South Boston and Chinatown, and it certainly impacts Councilor Fernandez Anderson, her district as well . Councilor Baker actually Council Councilor Bach also we share the same area down towards the the Boston Garden, which has some challenges, major challenges. So as I would I would like to see over the next several weeks, too, as we vote for the final budget, I would like to see. What services, what programs, what assistance we can provide the area in and around mass and CAS. Because we know that residents are calling us daily about quality of life issues and as district city council councilors. We don't pass the buck and we deal with these constituent calls and constituent requests. Every day. And I want to I want to work with the mayor's administration and team on what services, what programs, what assistance we can further provide to the residents in and around mass and chaos. And that's certainly. Roxbury. The South End. Dorchester. South Boston. Chinatown. Is further out, but it's impacted. So I'm going to. Hopefully coordinate and work closely with the. With our colleagues, but also with the mayor's office. As we as we continue this debate about what services are are critical in the mountain house area. The the quality of life issues that were mentioned already in this budget, including pest control, including inspectors for licenses related issues, whether it's Airbnb, whether it's after hours work, construction, whether it is. Other quality of life issues. But it's the nuts and bolts of of city government is what's important. To two district councils in At-Large councils. But we want to make sure that these nuts and bolts issues, these basic city services in this budget are protected because the quality of life for residents is what's really important for for all of us. And as we go forward over the next several weeks, I want to make sure that we continue having a meaningful conversation about quality of life issues nuts and bolts, city government issues, city government related issues. So, again, just want to say thank you to Councilor Fernandez innocent during this period of time. And also I want to highlight my district council is particularly certainly my At-Large colleagues, but the district city district council has played a critical role during during this budget. And we listened to residents. We have the calls, as did large councilors. But we want to continue to focus on basic city services. I just want to acknowledge one of our one of our colleagues as Councilor Council. We're all for the important work that you've demonstrated during this period of time. So thank you, Council. We're all for bringing a lot of these political issues to the forefront and for your important work and leadership on the. On the budget as well. But anyone else like to speak on this matter? Council. Fernandez Andersson, the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of Dorking 0480 in an amended draft. Mr. Korra, can you please call the roll. Roll call on docket 0480 as amended? Councilor Arroyo Council. Arroyo Yes Council. A Baker Council. The Baker High Council The Book Council A Book Councilor Brain Council. Brain Council Coletta. Councilor Coletta. Yes. Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Counsel for Ananda Sanderson. Yes. Counsel for. Counsel 30 years. Counsel Flynn Yes. Counsel of Flynn Yes. Counsel Lara. Counsel Ah, yes. Counsel Allusion. Counsel Allusion, yes. Counsel Let me hear. Counselor me here? Yes. Counselor Murphy. Yes. Counselor Murphy. Yes. And. Counsel Well, yes. Counsel. Well, yes. Dark in number. All 480, as amended, has received a unanimous vote. Thank you. 0480 has passed and an amended draft. We're on to something. Yeah. The chair recognizes counsel FERNANDEZ Innocent. COUNSEL You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I didn't want to close that chapter of this meeting without thanking the administration for their participation in public hearings and for their crucial work behind the scenes, particularly Jim and Joanna and the rest of the budget team. Thank you. I am exceptionally grateful for the IG team. I'd like to thank Claire Kelly, Neil Doherty and a very special thank you to Shantel Barbosa. We didn't move any money out of ADR so that you can get a big raise. I think you three were you incredible patients for your incredible humility, professionalism. You were there every step of the way. You did your work, you came, you showed up, you never complained. And you really supported my first year as chair on Ways and Means. And I thank you. And I think we all here thank you and thank you to my council colleagues for believing in me and for us doing this work together. I really, truly believe that whatever we submitted here for the amendments we all today submitted, all of these amendments we all have passed, or at least for now have passed the recommended budget. So I thank you so much and I look forward to my work. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Fernandez Anderson Well-stated. And I also would like to echo especially the comments you mentioned about the Intergovernmental Affairs Team. They've been exceptionally professionalism and very responsive. So I want to echo what you said in thanking the Intergovernmental Affairs Team. Um. We're on to motions, orders and resolutions. However, I would like to take one, one docket out of out of order at this time for scheduling issues. So, Mr.. Mr.. Clark, can we go to. Can we go? 20726. .0726 Council Operate in Louisiana offer the following resolution designating June 2022 as LGBTQ Plus Pride Month.

LongBeachCC_07132021_21-0655

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to submit a grant application to the Ocean Protection Council for the 51st Street Greenbelt Development Project, in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000; and, if awarded, execute a grant agreement, and all documents necessary including subsequent amendments, to accept and expend the funds. (District 8)

Thank you. Next, we have item number 28 and I'll make the motion on that one. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing city manager to submit a grant application to the Ocean Protection Council for the 51st Street Greenbelt Development Project in an amount not to exceed 3 million. District eight. Thank you. We know Councilman Alston couldn't be here to make the motion I'm making. That on his behalf is a great project from North Long Beach. Any public comment? There is one public comment. Amy Valenzuela. How? Thank you. Thank you. I have prepared comments because I'm kind of verbose. And it's late. So my name is Amy Valenzuela, and I am the president of the River Park Coalition and also Tongva. And I want to express. Our support. For the Greenbelt Project River Park Coalition, as many of you know, because you've met with us or not met with us over the past months as we have formed as the first advocacy organization that's focused on the lower river as a community organization and the acquisition and development of land around the river in order to transform it , and. The. Watershed into an asset for habitat and climate resiliency and open space for our citizens, especially in areas where people have been impacted by park inequity. So we have about 2000 members now and we're working with our first project, which is four acres just south of the Dominguez Gap. So this will be a great contiguous kind of experience for people who who need the river and walk along the river or recreate along the river. The greenbelt will be a great addition to what people are already able to experience, but it also represents the type of project that not only provides a benefit to the community, but also creates climate resiliency and water reclamation practices. Along the river. It's also a small step. But an important one to creating more park availability to an area that has historically not had a lot of access to park space. So we are very happy to be working with the city now in this way to acquire additional potential park space along the L.A. River. But I do want to take this opportunity to just really push all of you. The river is the river, right? It doesn't exist in one district. It really impacts all of us, and it can be transformed into an amazing asset for us, for climate resiliency and the decisions we make now, because there will be flood events, there are going to be impacts to our city and there are going to be pressures upstream that will impact the way we experience our river. That may not be the best for us here in Long Beach. So now you have us at River Park and we just want to make sure that there is funding and attention and leadership from all of you, please, to really address what the potential is for the river now and what that can mean for people who don't have a lot of access to park space and. For our air. Quality and for our ability to manage the the climate crisis that we're facing now. So that's what we're about at River Park. We're very, very happy to partner with Councilmember Austin and all of you as it relates to your projects along the river and really everything that's happening south of South Gate to the ocean at this point . So thank you for your time and we're very happy to support this project. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries eight zero.

LongBeachCC_05232017_17-0399

Recommendation to approve renaming the Convention Center Exhibit Hall as the “Ernie Kell Hall” at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center.

Motion carries. Thank you, Adam. 2121 is communication from Councilwoman Mangum recommendation to consider renaming the El Dorado Neighborhood Library, then the Ernie and Jackie Calle Neighborhood Library in honor of late Ernest Eugene Ko, junior city of Long Beach. First elected mayor. Councilman. Mongo. Thank you. I hope that I will have the support of my colleagues in starting a process to discuss the naming of the Eldorado Park Library on behalf of our first citywide elected mayor and his also committed wife, who served as a vice mayor of the city. Thank you, Vice me, Richardson. I wholeheartedly support this motion and I hope we can count on the Library Foundation and others to support this motion as well. Thank you. Public comment, please. Sounds like you may not mean to make comment at this time. Honorable Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council. My name is Elaine Hutchison. In my address is on file. And thank you kindly for this opportunity to speak in support of Agenda Item 21 to request the City Council to consider renaming the Eldorado Neighborhood Library to the Ernest and Jackie Hill Neighborhood Library in honor of the late Ernest Eugene Kell Jr, the first citywide mayor to be elected mayor in Long Beach. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo, for bringing this forward. Mayor Kell was a visionary who worked hard for a Long Beach during the mid 1980s. The city was in decline. The previously strong shopping district on Pine Avenue was all but boarded up. When the stores moved to the malls, the car dealerships that line Long Beach forever moved out to Cerritos and Signal Hill. The red card no longer brought shoppers to Long Beach. There began to be discussions that Long Beach needed a way to bring focus and leadership for solutions for citywide issues. Representation in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. was urgent. If Long Beach was to compete with other cities, Long Beach was the only city our size not to have a citywide elected mayor in California. One proposal for a citywide mayor was put before the voters of Long Beach, but it failed at the polls. Mayor Calvin, a councilman from the fifth District and mayor elected from the council, envisioned that an independent charter amendment citizens committee should study whether there should be a citywide elected mayor. And if so, what model? Following months of study as chair of the committee, I had the privilege of bringing our report to the City Council, which was unanimously approved and the Charter amendment placed on the ballot. At the next election, the voters approved this recommendation by a margin of 2 to 1 for a citywide elected mayor. Two years later, the election for the first citywide elected mayor was held, and Ernie Keller was elected as the first citywide elected mayor. Because of Mayor Killorn, we have, among many things, our convention center, which was conceived, funded and begun during his tenure. Further, we have a legacy of wonderful mayors who have followed and each of whom have moved our city forward, including Mayor Beverly O'Neill, Mayor Bob Foster, and our own mayor, Dr. Garcia, who is overseeing our new city hall complex. Many new developments and new apartments to house our residents all highly talented and have endowed Long Beach with their unique accomplishments. It is fitting that we remember the team of Ernie and Jackie Kell, both of whom served two districts as council members of the fifth District and made many contributions to the residents of the district and therefore renamed the Eldorado Neighborhood Library to the Ernie and Jackie Hill Neighborhood Library. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Oops. Sorry about that. Yeah. No, it's all right. Don't worry. I know it's late. I can see Darrell's barely surviving right there in his seats. I will. I'm going to make this for three people. How about that? Two ladies beg me to say this one thing for them regarding this item, and I'll just throw my name in there. They want to have there's a current parks guideline that says that you can't that you shouldn't be able to put forward this after until a year after the person dies. And I know that Stacey, I mean, Councilwoman Margo is trying to speed things along and she's trying to do her outreach. But I'm just saying what these ladies want me to say it and I support that. I like Ernie Keller. I think he's a great guy. But I think that there's also people that may be more worthy of of that honor that are have been more closely associated with the library. I acknowledge all the good things that both the locals have done. That's it. I made it quick. Thank you. So, you know the public comment. There's a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote. I think this is a great way to honor both the council. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Motion carries. Thank you. Next step is item number 25. Homelessness 20th five. Sorry, we did that. 125.

DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0261

Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow short-term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use, with limitations, where residential uses are currently allowed. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow short-term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use, with limitations, where residential uses are currently allowed. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-13-16.

Thank you, Mr. President. Since this is the zoning measure and we have a required public hearing in four weeks, I just wanted to take the occasion to ask staff and anybody who is listening, who intends to come down here for this public hearing on short term rentals. I want to. To make to disclose some of the issues that I wanted addressed at the hearing. Okay. This ordinance is addressing an industry that whose business model is based on violating our current zoning laws. So we're looking at making a fundamental change in how we've regarded commercial activity in residential neighborhoods. So I would like some and I know I've distributed this to members, to my colleagues on the council and a few others. But this is a map of all the short term rental listings in the city. I don't know if Channel eight can zoom in on that or not. As of a point in mid-January, and I know they change from time to time, but it should be apparent from this map that while we are taking a one size fits all immediate legalization of short term rentals in every residential neighborhood, the demand is concentrated in only certain neighborhoods. So I'd like staff and any witnesses who want to testify to address why we should not look at a more tailored approach as to where we permit commercial intrusion and encroachment into traditionally residential neighborhoods. So that's one thing. Also, in our zoning code, we have plenty of provision for what we call home occupations, and we require a process called a zoning permit with informational notice for these. And if a person wants to repair watches in his basement for his customers, that requires a zoning permit. If they put in an art studio in their home, it requires a permit if they want to tutor students home tutoring. It requires a zoning permit. It's matter of fact, one of our home occupations is rooming house, but that's defined as being longer than 30 days. It requires notice to the neighbors posting of the property and a zoning permit. So I'd like to I'd like some input on why we are adopting approach and approach of making this short term rental, which is nothing more than a rooming house for less than 30 days. Why are we making this a use by right everywhere? When the guy next door who might rent as a rooming house for longer than 30 days has to go through all the notification of neighbors. So I need some more input on why we are not being consistent and why we're why we're affording this disparate treatment to short term rentals as opposed to any other home occupation. Did you to do and also the last thing I like addressed is the the amount of resources we believe will be required to enforce this. The reason I raised that is just in the last couple of weeks, I've been able to go through a few of the listings online , and I have found that there are some hosts on some of the platforms who have converted basements into basically into accessory dwelling units under the radar. So they've taken a single family home, they've made a duplex out of it. But in these basements, they have locked doors and they have four kitchens. And so I'm wondering what kind of resources we have to devote to enforcement of our zoning fire and building codes in this instance. So, Mr. President, those are the the major questions I would like to see addressed at the hearing in four weeks. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And for those watching, if you're unaware, should to 61 be ordered to publish? There will be a required public hearing on Monday, June 13th. Councilman, you dropped out. Councilman Espinosa, you got a question or comment or you want to called out. For a vote and just a comment. Go ahead, sir. I just I'm glad to follow Councilman Flynn's comments. I, too, am looking forward to seeing those answers. I have more thorough comments that I have that I'll be saying in the subsequent to 62 Bill. But it's consistent with what he's saying there in that there is a lot a lot of lot that needs to be still figured out. We're going to be the onus is going to be on us trying to solve it in real time after these bills are are passed. If they're passed. And we've been down this road with marijuana. And I see parallels when you legalize something citywide and you're not properly equipped for it. So to that end, when we do something like this citywide, I get it. When we did the legislative rezone in 2010, that was a much more complex thing and nuance thing and whatnot. But this is a single issue and I think this should have gone to the vote of the people. We should be voting on a ballot measure and letting you guys decide and then coming up with regulatory rules, not just putting it out there like this. And I'm not one, I'm not afraid, not shying away from my responsibility as an elected official. But but this is a citywide thing. I actually represent one of those districts that heavily has a lot of stores in northwest Denver. But what what's good for northwest Denver and a couple other council districts may not be good for the balance of the city. And I would like you guys to make that decision for yourselves. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman, comment to 61. Yes. Just comment. Thank you to my council men for raising the questions. I think that you'll find on the night of the hearing that you'll find some really good answers to those questions. We've been looking at this for two years. It's not the first time we've done a zoning change throughout the city. Just recently, the council did the Cottage Foods zoning change throughout the city. It is a common practice by the city and certainly this is one of those bills that has been studied very closely, not only by the planning staff, but also excise and license and not the least by community members who we talked with for quite a while and look forward to the conversations on the night of the public hearing. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Any other comments or questions? On to 61. All right. That was not called out. So we're going to go to 262 and we've got Councilmembers Flynn, new Espinosa and Susman. I'm sure somebody wants to call this out for a vote. All right. Yes. And I believe Councilmembers Flynn and Espinosa have amendments at offer. So let's first make sure. Councilman Lopez, can you make the motions for us tonight? Yes, Mr.. President. All right. So we'll start with Councilman Flynn. You called out to 62. What would you like to do this? Thank you, Mr. President. You. You read my mind and the script. I have an amendment that would like to allow for a vote. Thank you. All right, so council members that we had an electronic issue, but you should have copies of both amendments on your desk so you can refer to those when the council members offer their amendments. Councilman Lopez. First, we need on the floor to be ordered to publish where you please put 262 on the floor to be ordered published . Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill to 62 series of 2016 be ordered published. It has been moved in second. All right, Councilman Flynn, you're at first. Go ahead and offer your amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I have an amendment to offer that is aimed at addressing the issue of homeowner associations and coven and private covenants that may also deal with the same question. So if I may, I would like to to move this, read this amendment, and move it on the floor. Thank you. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 16 to 62 and the following particulars on page two, line 25. And this refers to the hard copy as opposed to the paginated copy on page two, line 25.

DenverCityCouncil_10062014_14-0712

A bill for an ordinance approving and providing for the execution of a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation, concerning the "Traffic Improvement Program – Denver TIP 2014 Signals" project and the funding therefor. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a $1.344 million Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation to fund the 2014 Traffic Improvement Program for citywide signal system improvement and appropriates and establishes the capital grant fund for the program. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-27-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 9-25-14.

Thank you. You bet. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, are there any other questions on 692 scene? And remember that activity up to next one 712 but called out by councilmembers Ortega and shepherd and I just I'll start with Ortega did you want to call this out or do Councilwoman Shepherd did you want to call it out or did you have a question? Questions. Question. Councilwoman Taylor? GRENELL. My question is for someone from Public Works. Your final Q. So this bill deals with traffic signals. And what I'm wondering is if it involves removing any traffic signals from locations, because I know in a number of our neighborhoods where we have had lights, they've been removed and replaced with stop signs. So is this just for new lights or is it also for removing traffic signal lights in some areas? Okay. I'm Michael Pennacchio with Denver Public Works Transportation. This particular grant is for upgrading existing traffic signals, so it's going to upgrade the communications and the backup battery power to the existing traffic signals. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilwoman Shepherd. So to go a little bit further with that, I am wondering, does it include any kind of upgrades that might have like pedestrian countdown signals associated with them? This again, this grant is more for aimed at communications and battery backup. So most of the equipment that we'll be replacing isn't seen by the general public. It's it's the way that the signal is going to operates, the way that we maintain and operate in. You mean how the brain, like the central brain communicates to these? Yeah, it's the computer that controls it. Okay. And then how how are the. So are you saying that that the brain is getting updated or the individual signals the brain is being updated or the individual signals? It's it's the way that it communicates to our central system. The individual ones. So how are those chosen? Well, how do you choose which ones to upgrade? Yeah, we have a well, we have the list of all of them that we take to. This is a grant that we apply for. And we received four years worth of grant money to upgrade regionally significant signals. So typically we'll see these programs along like Federal Boulevard along shared in a lot of state facilities, ones that reach outside of the extent of Denver. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Shephard. Any other questions on 712? All right. And thank you, Mr. Flynn. Okay. And that's 1786 called out by Councilman Monteiro. What would you like for us to do with this? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call it out for a vote for the purposes of abstaining.

LongBeachCC_07212015_15-0720

Recommendation to adopt a minute order declaring a moratorium against the issuance of any permits for the construction of any new homes or additions of more than 1,500 square feet to existing homes in the R-1-L zone; and direct City Manager to have the Department of Development Services and the Planning Commission review the development standards for the R-1-L zone and make recommendations to the City Council.

Communication from Councilman Austin. Recommendation to adopt a minute order declaring a moratorium against the issuance of permits for the construction of new homes or additions. More than 1500 square feet and the r1l zone and request development services and the Planning Commission to review the development standards. He counsel for Austin. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Several months ago, many residents of the Lower Cerritos neighborhood approached my office with concerns about the possibility of changes to the district character. Distinct character of the neighborhood. The Yellow Cerritos neighborhood north of Bixby Road is the only area in the city that has the r1l zoning designation because of the large lot sizes. Many of the homes in the neighborhood are marked by spacious yards and set backs of the homes away, away from the sidewalk and street. However, the development standards in place for this zone do not do enough to protect the character of the neighborhood. It is timely now because of the maturing of the neighborhood. We are seeing a transition in ownership and more homes for sale than in recent times. A community of neighbors. I actually did their homework researching the history of the building permits in the neighborhood and surveying what other cities and similar zoning have done to address this issue . They work with my office in developing a recommendation that will place a moratorium and allow our development services staff to work with the neighborhood to develop new standards that would ensure the protections for this zone. The moratorium would not limit homeowners owners from doing any improvements on their property. It only applies to the construction of new homes or the addition of more than 1500 square feet to an existing house. When you think about it, 1500 square feet is about the average size of most homes in most neighborhoods in our city. Anything less than that? And a homeowner can still get permits under the existing standards. Other cities, including Arcadia, Pasadena and Los Angeles, have taken similar approaches, and the neighbors have worked hard to inform and involve the entire neighborhood affected by this recommended action. More than 250 residents have signed a petition in support of tonight's recommended action. I ask you, my colleagues, to support this motion. It only affects this one neighborhood in eighth District and allows the residents to work with our planning staff to review and improve the zoning standards in the very near future. So with that, I would ask for your support on this matter. And I know there are some residents here to speak on it. If there's a motion any second on that comes from Iran, could you have any comment on the government? Okay. So what's the public comment of vice mayor, which after a public comment, please come forward. I have three speakers on this item. There's four speakers on this item. Please come forward. If you're going to speak, please line up then when we have a long night. I'm trying to abbreviate and know how, but what's the length of each comment here? So please, please begin. Esteemed mayor and council members. My name is Stacey McDaniel. I live at 4110 Cedar Avenue in the low risk district. There is an urgent need to enact this temporary and limited moratorium to preserve the character and livability of our neighborhood caused by an unprecedented number of homes for sale in the neighborhood. The action only applies to about 600 homes in the R-1 L zoning area, all of which are completely within the eighth District. And over 300 of our neighbors have signed a petition supporting both this moratorium and more zoning restrictions. This request is not about any particular family or home or street. It's about preserving the character of our neighborhood. When we say preserve the character of our neighborhood, what are we really talking about? We want to preserve the spacious feel of the lost Tahrir Square. The homes are appropriately scaled to maximize yard areas, preserve heritage trees and provide adequate light and airspace surrounding homes on their lot. Our current zoning zoning restrictions do not do this. For example, under the limited restrictions we now have given the size of the lots in our zoning area, a 12,000 square foot home could be built on a 20,000 square foot lot. And if that lot was on a corner, one side of that home could be built to within six feet of the sidewalk. There are two homes in this area that are currently on the market that fall exactly within those parameters. In fact, one of those homes could legally be subdivided. Rather, the lot could be in two separate 7200 square foot homes could be built on those two lots. We carefully researched what other comparable Southland cities were doing, and our city does not have many of the protections other cities used to prevent mega mansions and preserve gracious neighborhoods . In the last ten years, 75% of the remodeling requests in our area have been to only add between 501,000 square feet. This moratorium would only apply to additions greater than 1500 square feet. Please help us preserve the jewel that slow, storied us. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Samir. Council members. Staff. My name is Freddy Carolus. I represent a resident of Los Rita's neighborhood. First off, my client is not opposed to the trend of stopping. The mega-mansion in. The mega-mansion development in this area. Is opposing. To how its it is. Suggested on imposing the moratorium or immediate moratorium on construction. It's in its current form. The suggested moratorium will negatively impact several aspects of the real estate. Development business and the construction industry. There are other measures that could be properly affected, properly imposed, such as the stopping of the mergers and verifying if the reduction of the FFR goes from 60% to 50%. The approval of the suggested immediate. Moratorium. Will. Affect the following items. Current projects that are in the planning. Development stage. That have been through the planning department for several months have been reviewed and approved. On phases and are close to acquiring. A permit for construction. My client has been in the planning department for almost three months, has been working very hard with the planning department. Officials met all the requirements. And is. Short of a future meeting of next Thursday for final review and approval and potential permit application. My client has been has invested. A large amount of money in. Acquiring the services of the professional architect. And this architect is specialized. In high end. Development to just make sure. That the character of his new business model is going to is going to be okay with the character of the neighborhood. Having said that. My client has never been properly notified of such a petition being in the works. Had he had been properly notified, he would have stopped this much investment in such a model. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Karen Miller. I have lived at. 3833 Pine Avenue since 1998. And have been selling real estate in the area for the last 11 years. My concern with the mansion ization is the lowering of. The property values. In our area. Please consider the homes that have been there for about. 80 years and a mansion is built next door. The current residents lose privacy in their backyards. They use loose natural light in their. Homes, in their. Backyards, and their views are obstructed. When these people. Go to sell their house as houses. Many of them have been there for about 80 years. Suddenly, next to the mansion, it's considered small and dark. And will sell for much lower property value than other comparable homes in the neighborhood. For these reasons, we say that. This mansion zation, along with lowering. Our property values, it's caused dissension among the residents. Which is why we're asking you tonight to. Please help us stop this. Happening in our neighborhood. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Look, I'm. I'm a little confused by the speaker mentioning that by raising the general neighborhood, you would thereby impact property values negatively. But let's just put all that aside. If I wanted to change something in my house, I would have to apply for a variance and then I would have to put a public notice. That's not the measure that's being put forward here tonight. You are now coming in and saying immediately, we must stop all new construction. I happen to live across from a home that is, quite frankly, an eyesore. It's probably 80 years old. I know that somebody purchased the house. They planned to knock it down and built something new, nice and esthetically pleasing. This moratorium would effectively quash that immediately. I also want to point out that I used to live at 4256 Country Drive, which is the house is well over eight years old and it's over 6000 feet. Its next door neighbor, also a relatively old house. Also over 6000 square feet. So I don't understand what exactly is being proposed here. And then on one final note that I would like to make is that a wise person once told me that there is no such no thing, so permanent as a temporary government action. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Mayors, City Council members. Kevin Case I've lived in the eighth and in Los Cerritos for over 25 years. I support what's in front of you. It's a. Temporary moratorium, but it really. Is an. Opportunity to give everyone a chance to take a breath. Step back and. Look at how we're going forward. A lot of the zoning standards don't really work well in our neighborhood. And we're asking for the opportunity to work with people on the standards. And try to get something better. And it's not all about big houses. A lot of the lots have been subdivided. They've gotten pretty tiny over the years and you can put a really huge house. And again, it gets into what some of the other people have said where. They're very close together, they're very tall. And it just. Disrupts the openness. And the look and feel of the. Neighborhood. So what all those people that have signed, I guess it isn't a petition, but they're noting that they are in favor of a second look or another look in more detail at some of these. Zoning standards. And trying to get something in place for our little pocket of homes. There. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. This is our last speaker. And we're going to we're going to vote. Thank you, Mr. Austin, and your staff, for the work that you've done in bringing this forward. The goal here is to give city staff a toolbox to use to develop and maintain the unique character of the law street as neighbors associate Las Vegas Neighborhood. In the past, there are 15 or 20 years. There have been a number of loopholes that have come up where it's it's changed the character. We have three streets coming in Bixby, San Antonio, Roosevelt and some people have changed the direction of their front yards and it's and allowed them to turn a different direction, which again, allows instead of a large setback, not only having a six foot step setback that can affect the ingress and egress out of the area, causing, you know, the character to change. And these setbacks are what what what make it unique and actually benefit the neighborhood for everybody. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Public comment has now closed. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I don't know if the city manager has someone from planning to answer this question, but in the report it indicated that Council District eight may be the only district that has this circumstance or not circumstance, but the r1l zone. Angela Reynolds. Thank you, Angela. So sorry. City Attorney Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I checked with planning staff on that and they indicated to me that, in fact, the eighth district is the only place in the city that does have this unique r-1 one l zoning designation. And I see all the compelling reasons why we should definitely support this. And out of curiosity. Were there others with those designations and we had eliminated them or this was always the only one with this designation? I'm just curious how this comes about in one particular district. What is the nature of that district that compels a planning team and a policy body to do something like that? Councilwoman. The question was, is this was. Were there other one else zones in the city. That we had. To leave? So that's our one one house. L for large, for the larger lots. Any thoughts on how this policy came about? Yeah. Well, you know, the city and how how it developed over time. That area has much larger lots than most any other part of the city. So that's why they had their own specific zoning. Okay. And then I wanted to know from the maker of the motion, how long is the moratorium for? Typically when we do moratoriums, we have a time certain. You know, I kind of left that open ended because I recognize that that staff in talking to the staff and preparing this that it would take several months to to to be able to go through a process that would engage the community and development services staff. So I think that question might be best for Councilman Austin. Generally speaking, with the moratorium on land use, what we do is we craft into the ordinance itself because we will have to bring back a formal ordinance, three meetings from now. And that ordinance typically would have a one year moratorium period. But there is a provision in there that the moratorium goes away if the planning commission and the City Council adopts new regulations prior to that time. So there's an incentive for staff to bring it back, but it also gives them flexibility as to when it comes back. I appreciate that. And I'm very supportive of measures like this that support neighborhood character preservation. And my questions really just were from being personally stunned that this exists. I thought really it was the second district that had all of the bad planning measures that were implemented. So it was an equal opportunity. I mean, you know how we look with our parking status. So I'm disappointed, but I'm glad we're able to rectify it, hopefully rectify it going forward. So thank you. Canterbury Ranga Yeah, you actually one of my questions in regards to the length of the moratorium. So just to get the fair idea as to when it takes effect that we will vote on this tonight, will take effect tonight or will it take effect when it comes back to us as a as a as a ordinance. The way moratoriums work, you are actually adopting the minute order that was proposed by the councilman for the eighth District. So it does take effect this evening. It is formalized 3 minutes from now when we bring back an ordinance, one thing that we typically ask for clarification of and sometimes it's not easy to know the first night it comes is what happens to projects that may be in somewhere in a pipeline. In other words, someone mentioned that they had, or at least in the planning process, typically you are not vested to move forward with the project until you have an actual building permit in hand. In the past, sometimes council has chosen to exempt people that aren't quite that far but are somewhere in the process. But typically most councils that do that would want to know how many are somewhere in the pipeline, how many that would affect, what the nature of that particular construction or constructions were. So we can address that when we bring the ordinance back. But you may not be able to adopt the ordinance the first evening if you want to later exempt people that are somehow reasonably in the pipeline. Otherwise it would apply to anyone that does not have a permit in their hand as of this evening. And that's my concern. I know there's an investment that's been made by some people, although I support I support the ordinance, no question. However, I am concerned that people have already made an investment in going to planning and trying to get a permit. And I just want to make sure that it's fair to them that they get property noticed and know exactly what's happening. So. Do I need to make a friendly amendment to this to to maybe give it a 45 day extension before it takes effect in order to in order to address those issues for those applicants? Well, what what typically happens if you give it an additional 40 day, 45 days or any period of time, it does alert people and sometimes that generates folks to get in the pipeline and actually spurs the type of development that you're trying to put the brakes on while you formulate new regulations. When we've done pipeline type situations before, we have exempted folks that, for instance, have don't have a permit in hand, but prior to the night you adopt the moratorium, had submitted an application and the planning department has deemed that application complete. But they are still in the process, for instance, because they are still going through planned check and you know, back and forth between the architects and the planners and no actual building permit has been issued. So that's an option. I'm not suggesting that you do that, but that isn't an option. Yeah, well, I guess my concern is those that are already there as of today. Do we have a number of applicants? We have a number of advocates who are already there. That would be, I guess, exempt because they weren't properly notified of this possible moratorium. Mr.. Reynolds. I think the. From what I understand, there are none that have actually received the building permit per se, but there may be some that are in the process of trying to get to that place of the permit. I also, from what I understand and correct if I'm wrong, Councilman Austin, but this motion as presented is with no exceptions, is just to have the minute order begin tonight, regardless of where they are in the process, in that process. Isn't that correct? That is. Unless they have a building permit in hand. This would this would stop that process. Well, the building permit and what the city attorney. Correct. Is a little different. Yeah. Mr. Reynolds, can you can you can you add. Do we know if there's a group of folks who answered to answer? CUSTOMER Your Angus question and customer assistance question. Mayor, I'd have to actually get that information to at a different time. I don't know how many are in the planning process. I know it's very few, but I can't tell you exactly how many. Like maybe one or two. And I don't know. If they've gone to plan check yet or not. We don't know if the one or two either have their building permit or not because isn't isn't that the. That's. Well, if they do have a building permit, this would not apply but will. Not apply to them if they don't have the building permit. This would. Apply that this would apply in order. To get the building permit, you have to go through basically the whole planning process and the and the building plan check and it's at the end you get the building. Permit. So I think that's the clear indicator. Councilmember So, so I just want to get some clarification because I heard two different things I heard. I mean, and the mayor's kind of focused on permit. Mr. Mayes you you made reference to in the planning process, and that means they're in the planning process. There has been some sort of engagement with development services that. Correct. Typically what that means is that someone has submitted an application to start a project, but they are and the planning staff has deemed the application complete, but they have not yet been issued a permit because what usually happens is there's a back and forth with the larger house between an architect and the planning staff to make sure everything is being designed correctly. So Ms.. Reynolds indicated there may be one or two that are in the process somewhere in they've submitted an application. The application has been deemed complete, but they haven't actually got the permit in their hands. What I the intent of my my motion was obviously neighborhood preservation. And, you know, I don't want to to to hurt any of any of my residents who or anybody that that may be in the process as well. But I want I want this to start this evening. But if I could amend the intent of the motion to if to exempt anybody that has any any applications in the planning process so that nobody is losing their their investment, so to speak, and then we can move from this day forward. So if I can suggest an amendment to your motion that would be to adopt the minute order and direct the city attorney's office to bring back an ordinance that reflects the minute order, but exempts anyone who lives with in the r1l zone that has a completed application on file that has been deemed complete by the Planning Department as of July 21st, which is this evening. So moved that the motions are on the floor. Please cast your votes. Motion carries nine zero. Thank you. Next up is Adam, 35.

LongBeachCC_06092020_20-0538

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the City Manager Department by $448, offset by the Second Council District One-Time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to provide a donation to AOC7 for their food pantry event that took place on June 5, 2020; and Decrease appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Citywide Activities Department by $448 to offset a transfer to the City Manager Department.

Thank you. Now we're moving on to item 24. Current Communication from Council member Pearce recommendation to increase appropriations in the general fund group in the city manager department by $448 to provide a donation to AOC seven for their food pantry event that took place on June 5th, 2020. Can I have a second, please? I have a muslim accounts number. Pierce, can I have a second? Second accounts from Ringo. Roll call the police. This one. Right? This or two. I District three. I district four. All right. This record. District six. Higher District seven. I am District eight, District nine. I know she cares.

DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0819

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance designating the projects to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the November 7, 2017 election. Designates the projects and level of funding to be undertaken with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the 11-7-17 election. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-24-17. Amended 8-7-17 to reallocate a portion of the bond proceeds associated with the debt issuance for transportation and mobility projects by eliminating the Federal Boulevard Transit Infrastructure Project; thus, freeing up $9.8 million to be reallocated as follows: An additional $4.2 million for Morrison Road Improvements, bringing the total amount of bond proceeds to be dedicated to this project to $12,242,500. The addition of the following three projects that were originally listed on potential project lists, but were not included in the Mayor’s recommendation: Central Street Promenade (with an estimated cost of $850,000), Federal Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements (wi

Two nights, three knees. 823, 28, 24. 826 have been adopted. All right. We are going to go back to I believe is 811, Madam Secretary. 819 819. I'm sorry, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put 819 on the floor? 30 Did you do it one more time, sir, please. I suppose. Where am I in my agenda here. I remember the. Council Bill. 819 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in segment. Councilman Flynn, go ahead with your amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I have an amendment to Council Bill 819, which is the companion ordinance to our bond issues that we are moving forward in a block vote later. So I move that council bill a series of 7 to 17 number 819 be amended in the following particulars in the project description tables on page two after the words citywide bike infrastructure strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to on page three after the words sidewalk construction, strike the words, for example, and insert the words including. But not limited to. On page four after the words improvements to fire department buildings strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to. And on page four, after the words, improvements to police department buildings strike the words and Mr. President, feel like I should ask the audience to participate in this strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to. Don't play along time. One Page five After the words library or branch renovations, strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to. And on page five, after the words, aquatic facilities strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to on page six. After the words park improvements strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to. And on page six, after the words recreation center, renovations and improvements strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to. On page seven, after the words city owned facilities based on the condition assessment program strike the words, for example, and substitute the words including but not limited to. And on page seven, line nine after the word council, add the following. Whenever a line item project set forth in this ordinance includes a list of specific locations where the project will be undertaken, any modification to remove any listed location will require an amendment to this ordinance by the Denver City Council. All right. Question comments by members of Council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. We we heard about this during the all the presentations on the bond issue and the I think the bond team on the 2007 Better Denver Bonds did a fabulous job in transparency and in reporting any change that occurred to what the voters were promised. And I think the biggest one that I can recall was the Belcher concert hall issue that had to be brought back to the council and in fact, was the reason my wife and I voted for the entire package in prior bond issues in 1989. In 98 and in 2007, the companion ordinance and each occasion had included much more extensive lists of the projects that we were going to undertake, that we were telling the voters, You're going to get these things. And this this time around, initially it was proposed that on some of these lists that were bulleted in the companion ordinance , we would say, for example. So that would give more flexibility if changes had to occur down the road. And when I looked at the list, I noticed that any project that was in my district that was listed in the companion audience and remember, were only listing very few of the hundred. Some projects were doing any project for my district that was on this list was on that bulleted list, which meant if anything was deleted out of my district, no one ever had to come back to this council to say, we're not going to do that and here's why and here's what we're going to do instead. So all we're doing here, Mr. President, and this does have the support, even after the the remarks I just made of the administration, what I'm doing is saying that of the projects that are on that list, including the bulleted ones, if they end up unable to do them. They would have to come back to the council and explain why and how they're going to how they're going to reuse those funds. So with that sentence, Mr.. I would ask for my colleagues to join me in supporting this. And and when I have any questions, I just want to verify on the record. Take us all the way. I believe you're representing the the administration on this. You also want to come to that to the mikes, sir. You all are supportive of this amendment. Good evening, President Brooks. Members of Council. Deputy Chief Projects Officer take us all the way in the Mayor's office. We are in support of this amendment moving forward. Okay, great. That's all we need to hear for the record. All right. It has been moved. And second, they were voting on the amendment on 819. Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn I. Gillmor, I. Herndon I. Can. I. Can eat. Lopez I knew Ortega I accessible. I black I Clark Espinosa. Mr. President. I please Kosovo and thus results. 13 eyes. All right. 13 Eyes. The amendment passes to 819. Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. We now need a motion to pass as amended. I move the council bill 8819 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended before we go into voting. I want to give folks a just a chance to make a comment who didn't make a comment last week on the entire package, believed it's a good time to do that. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I know we're only voting on the companion ordinance, but that was part of what I wanted to point out, is that for those of you who've been watching and are watching on TV and following all of these projects and have participated in this process at public meetings through our committees and structures that all of the the bond ordinances are going through on our block vote. And I just didn't want it to go by unnoticed that when we vote on a block, which is a yes, meaning that if nobody called it out at this point, those are going to pass today. That is the near billion dollars worth of infrastructure projects that the community put forward. And I just want to say thank you to the community for everybody who participated to the team, from the administration, for the awesome Bond team that we have, for putting this together and to our council president for working very closely with 13 of us, I guess 12 not counting yourself and in being that liaison between the mayor's office and council to make sure that tonight we stand here with a group of projects that is so supported that we're not even calling it out for a separate vote. It is on the block vote. So I just wanted to say thank you before I missed my chance, since it's on the block. Yeah. Thank you, Councilman Clarke. And you've been great to be working with on this as well. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I did not comment last week, but everybody else did. So I will be brief. Ditto what Councilman Clark said. I too appreciate the input from all the community members and the hard work of staff and committee members. I submitted all of the hundreds of requests that my constituents provided me and our visioning meetings and through surveys, emails and phone calls. I'm very pleased that some of our requests were added to the list, like improvements to Hampton, Yale and Colorado Boulevard. And Are You Hill's Library? I'm especially excited about the Highline Canal Tunnel at Yale and Holly. It is much needed for safety. Some of my constituents were hoping for a rec center since we only have one very modest one in all of southeast Denver. But for the record, it's not on the list because projects need to be shovel ready. And at this point, we don't even have a location or any plans. So I'm hoping with Denver right and game plan, hopefully we can start more conversations about a future rec center. In the meantime, there are many, many worthwhile projects all across Denver on the list, and all of the investments will then be beneficial to our great city. So I'm very happy to support the 2017 G.O. bond. Excellent. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. And and I'll just say to Councilman Flynn and Cashman and Black and Espinosa, I think we came into this process and and their districts were lacking, to say the least, and just appreciate your inclusiveness in this process and working real hard to get to a good place. And guys, you're about to see something you rarely see on council. 13 votes in favor of $1,000,000,000 plan to improve Denver. Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn. I thought I heard in Cashman I can eat. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Hi, Sussman. I black eye. Clark. Hi. It's Wednesday. Mr. President. I police force of voting and thus. Results 39. 13 Eyes Council Bill 819 is passed as amended. Okay, that is all of our bills caught out. All of the bills for introduction will be ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Espinosa, will you put the resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. Yeah. I move that resolution. Resolutions be adopted on file. On final consideration. It be placed upon. On final consideration. To be placed upon final consideration. Do pass in a block for the following items. All Series 17 built in 081083108350846084908390842085009210803080508320833. 0836. 0840085108200792079980800080408120813081408150816 and 08170818. 0818. Madam Secretary, get him on. Think he got them all? Yes. All right. It has been moved in second. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Black. Hi, Clerk. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmer, i. Herndon, I. Cashman. All right, can each. Lopez. All right. New Ortega I. Assessment by Mr. President. I. Please. I was working as a result. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, there will be required public hearing of Council Bill eight or nine regarding the 14th Street General Improvement District. A required public hearing on Council Bill 810 approving the Emily Grove Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Area in a

DenverCityCouncil_04042022_21-1528

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3435 North Albion Street in Northeast Park Hill. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 539 to E-MX-2x (planned development to urban edge, mixed-use), located at 3435 North Albion Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-1-22.

Unknown 111111111. When I make a decision on for those participating in person when called upon, please come to the podium on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down for those participating virtually when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will ask permission to allow us to promote you. Please accept the promotion. Once you accept the promotion, your screen flash will say Reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You'll be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera. If you have one in your microphone, you'll see your time counting down at the bottom of the screen. Once you finished speaking, you'll be you will change back to participant mode and see the screen flash one more time. All speakers will begin their remarks by telling council their name and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their Home Address. If you've signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you're available for questions of council speakers. We'll have 3 minutes. There's no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you'll be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing. Must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 20 1-1528 on the floor for passage? I move that council bill one 5 to 8 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 1-152. It is open. May we have the staff report? Great. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Good evening. Members of Council Jason Morrison, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development ten. I'll be presenting the proposed resource rezoning at 3435 North Albion Street, where the request is from an old code PD 530 92mx2x. The proposed rezoning is located in Council District eight, which is Councilman Herndon's district. It's in the Northeast Park Park Hill neighborhood. The proposed rezoning is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the site and the preservation of existing 133 year old Victorian single unit structure on the property. Under a separate landmark designation application, the structure is in the process of being designated as a contributing historic structure. The property owner is requesting the rezoning to provide additional residential units for the neighborhood while also preserving this important piece of Northeast Park Hill, the proposed zone district BMX tracks, which is urban edge neighborhood mixed use up to two stories. Minimum maximum height is intended to provide safe, active and history and scale diverse areas in established residential neighborhoods. It allows for a mix of uses in a variety of building forms, including townhouse general and shopfront primary building forms. And the X indicates that allowed uses in building forms are more limited and TMX to zoned district. For example, drive thru services and drive to restaurants are not allowed in this proposed zone district. The current zoning of the subject site is 5539, which is a custom zoned district out of the former Chapter 59 zoning code. The PUD allows for the expansion of a restaurant use on the subject property. Maximum building heights within the PWD are two stories or 38 feet. Surrounding zoning an area includes a mix of commercial, multi-unit and single unit zoned districts. The existing land use on the site is a mixed use, surrounded by mostly multi-unit, commercial, single unit and open space. This slide shows the existing context surrounding the subject site with the proposed rezoning on the top left. The Matthew Moon application was unanimously recommended for approval by planning, board and before by committee. All public notice requirements have been met since the staff report was published. We have received one letter of support from Northeast Park, Parkhill, R.A. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of a request. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three applicable plans to this rezoning that's current plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Parkfield Neighborhood Plan. This rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan and they are detailed in the staff report. When looking at blueprint, the future neighborhood context is urban edge. Within this context, small multi-unit, residential and commercial areas are embedded in one and two unit residential areas. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is appropriate and consistent with the urban edge. Neighborhood Context Plan direction. Blueprint further identifies the future place as areas low medium residential, which typically provides a mix of low to mid scale multi-unit options where limited mixed use can be found along collector streets. Buildings are generally up to three stories or less and high. 35th Avenue is a collector street, and the maximum building height of the BMX two zone district is appropriate and consistent with this plan guidance. The subject property is located within the all other areas of the city growth area. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the growth strategy that is mapped in this area. Blueprint also has policy language around resuming properties out of the former. Chapter 59 Zoning Code and out of custom zoning such as the sites plan specific condition on the subject property today. Therefore, staff find that this proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver when looking at the Parkfield Neighborhood Plan. Parkfield Neighborhood Plan was adopted by Denver City Council in 2000 and applies to the subject site. Staff finds that the proposed annex to Access Zone District helps maintain and enhance the small scale neighborhood character as cited in the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan. The scale of any future redevelopment provide an important transition between the prevailing neighborhood pattern of single and two units at the East and the higher density activity along Colorado Boulevard to the West. Staff also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through its implementation of adopted plans and through improved design standards. Additionally, the proposed Zone District will help facilitate housing density near a mix of uses and transit amenities such as Car Boulevard and the 40th and called Colorado Rail Station . This rezoning would bring this property from former Chapter 59 zoning into the Denver zoning code, and such a change is listed in the zoning code as an appropriate, justifying circumstance. Lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the zone district purpose and intent of the to exist on district. And based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the application and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Sorry. I'm following a script. It's not as easy as it sounds. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris. Is our first and he is joining us online. Jesse, I see you're in the panel, if you can unmute. Be heard. Yes, go ahead. My name is Jessica Sampras and I'm representing for Blackstone Movement for Self Defense, Positive Action for Social Change, as well as the United Party of Colorado, the council in Front, Black Nose. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 and I file today. I am in favor of this zoning sometimes. I just had a few questions. What is going to be here? It was it was presently a restaurant, a band, a restaurant. What is exactly going to be here? Is it going to be condominiums? Is it going to be mixed use? Have mixed mixed use developments, housing as well as commercial? If it's going to be housing, what is the army level going to be for housing? And has there been a parking study done? And this is directly adjacent to the across the street from the Parkville Golf Course. And we know all the upheaval that we had last year because the golf course with the easement. So if someone could please answer my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Flowers. Hi. My name is Michael Flowers. I'm here representing Historic Denver, which is located at 1420 North Logan Street in Capitol Hill. I'm the director of Preservation Action at that organization. We are 51123 nonprofit dedicated to ensuring Denver's unique identity, cultural landmarks and historic places are thoughtfully maintained, actively used and relevant for all generations. Last year, our organization turned 50, and to celebrate, we asked the Denver community to help us identify the next 50 places that we should develop a preservation action report. The 1889 Robinson House in Park Hill, which sits on this lot, was nominated by the community and one of the 50 chosen. This brought our full attention to the home, which was actually threatened with demolition at the time. We worked closely with current owner Steve Davis, who bought the house and saved it from that threat is also in the process of landmarking. The House landmark designation, which was initiated in tandem with this rezoning effort, will come before the Council in the next couple of weeks. Not only does he plan to rehabilitate the Storch House, but he's also plans to build additional housing units on the north side of the lot. This rezoning TMX to X will help with that effort. Historic Denver fully supports this rezoning proposal. This is a perfect example of how historic preservation and new development can work together when a park to US oldest homes is being saved and new housing units are being planned as part of the same project. I consider this project a win win, and I hope you all do to. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council and Council. Bill 20 1-1528. Councilwoman Sawyer thinks that I'm President Pro-Tem just curious about the transition rate. So if the earmarks to X will allow for certain building farms, I'm glad that they chose the ex so that there's no drive thrus or businesses, but there are potential small businesses that could be built there with this zoning. So just curious about kind of how that transition would work between, you know, a historic home that is super exciting, that this is one of the 50 projects that have been identified by historic Denver, but just want to make sure that there's a thoughtful transition there to the neighborhood. So a little bit curious kind of what that looks like. Sure. Great question. So with this particular zoned district, that transition really comes with kind of that maximum height. So that two story so surrounding zoning in that area is already indexed to X. So this is kind of nestled within that. But when you look along Carter Boulevard, you see higher intensity use as you see higher intensity in terms of building height as well. And so this will kind of taper down as you go east to that one into two unit housing. So it's kind of just a gradual transition from west to east. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks for the present. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Thank you. Madam President, pro tem Jason, the. The request to district seems really appropriate because the rest of the block is is the same. But when I look at the lot itself and the location of the building, which is proposed for preservation, I'm wondering what building forms can actually fit on the north side if they do the lot split. And I saw on the staff report that there was some mention of, you know, the lot splitting isn't a guarantee because there had to be consideration of the proper setbacks, etc.. What what is envisioned to be able to build on that north side of the property if it is split off? What? How many units could be built there? Any. Do we have any idea? Sure. Great question. So I'm certainly not an architect, but from the conversation I've heard and we'll back up for a minute. So the the proposals are the allowed building forms are townhouse shopfront in general. And I'm sorry to interrupt, but there are townhouses just to the east of it. Correct. But they are larger than would fit on. On a split lot here. Yeah. Correct. So it's my understanding the owner is proposing anywhere from 3 to 5, so there's not a high number at all. I do know that they are on the call tonight, if you'd like to ask them. But that's my understanding, based on conversations that I've heard. So. Looking anywhere from 3 to 5 like townhouse now. Okay. Thank you. Kara, can I ask you a question? Karen from the Landmark Office. Can you tell us at what stage is the process in the application for landmarking or designating this Robinson House as a landmark? It went to Rudy. Last week, is going to Meer. Council tomorrow and will be for before you guys on April 18th, I believe it was unanimously. Recommended by the LPC. Mm hmm. Okay. Did did the staff look at all. At the impact of whatever the proposed boundaries are? And I haven't seen the file on it yet, so I'm I'm not prejudging it at all. But did you consider the impact of where that large split would occur and the intrusion on the integrity of the Robinson House itself? We did we had some pretty lengthy conversations with myself and Michael Flowers and. Steve Davis as we. Talked about, like what could allow for density to be built on the site while also preserving the historic structure. So the boundary for the landmark is intentionally designed to give it. About 5 to 8. Feet of. Distance before you would get to any sort. Of like I'm sorry to say that again. There's about 5 to 8 feet from the edge of the building. That's part of the landmark boundary. So. That Steve can build. Without. Having part of it. Just going through landmark. Design review so that there's a little bit of a buffer between the new construction and the old construction. Without having to go through landmark design review for five feet of a building or five feet of a garage. We don't we. Don't we try not to get into that position. So 5 to 8 feet on the north side. Yes. And then obviously, the whatever is built on that north split lot would have its own rear setback that it would have to. So you'd have. Okay. Thank you. I'm just trying to visualize the impact on that building. So I know the goal is to preserve that building. Thank you. I thank you, Madam President, for them. Thank you. No more council members in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, dash 1528. Councilmember Herndon I'm present as this is in district eight very familiar of walk the site. I went to that restaurant when it was open however long ago it was. I think the criteria has been clear and met and I will be supporting this and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Thank you. No other members in queue. Madam Secretary, roll call unaccountable 20 1-1528. Herndon, i. Cashman. Ortega. Sawyer I. Black. I. See tobacco. Clark, I. Flynn, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results tonight. Tonight is Council Bill 21. Just one 5 to 8 has passed. Councilmember Black. Will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0147 on the floor for passage. Final passage.

AlamedaCC_06152021_2021-1003

Adoption of Resolution Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government Code Section 8630(c). (City Manager 2110)

All right. And that one was pulled by Councilmember Herrera Spencer, I think. Thank you, Mayor. I don't really think that this will take that much time, but I did want to speak to it because I actually. This is to and the local emergency state of emergency or actually the most the item is to continue it. And I and I received an email and I think a lot of people did today from our city staff, which I appreciate that as of today, 85.1% of our meetings that are eligible to have received the COVID vaccine have received at least one vaccine. 71, which is currently 12 years old, and 71.4% of Alameda EMS that are eligible are now fully vaccinated because the 12 year olds were just recently eligible May 13th. And it takes a few weeks in between each one before it's actually considered effective or complete as these numbers of who's fully vaccinated within that group. I would expect to go up within the next week or so whenever we get new numbers. And I do want to commend our meetings for getting vaccinated. We have, as someone had shared earlier, very high numbers. In fact, as a state, we also have high numbers. My understanding is least the last report I saw, we have at least 71% of our adult population has at least one vaccine. And we have one of the lowest COVID 19 case rates in the country. Another data point that I've been monitoring, I know many of us have been has is what what what's going on with the hospitals, the bed occupancy and the most recent information I can find for Alameda Hospital. Of inpatient beds currently being occupied is 33.2%, and that was as of May 28. And then in regards to the ICU beds being. Okay. Okay, I'm going to exercise my prerogative as the chair and I'm going to call the question. And what that means is we are going to take a vote. There is no discussion. We're going to take an up and down vote whether to suspend discussion on this item now. And if we have a majority for that motion, then we will go forward and vote on item five. I so I'm calling for the question. Do I have a second on that. From. Vice mayor of L.A., your seconding. May we have a roll call vote, please? That's my vacation. I will wait. For the. Order. So what is the. Basis of calling? The basis of calling this and calling? The question now is that it is almost 10:00 at night. We are still on the consent calendar. We have some very significant, substantial items. What happens is. As Roberts rolls, that's what I meant. Let's. It's procedural counsel. Madam Clerk, you went to. The Robert's Rules of Order does allow for calling the question. Okay. All right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. So that was your question. All right. So sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize if I snapped at you, but I'm very mindful of almost 100 people in the audience. So, deep breath. May we have a roll call vote, please, on the coffee question. Councilmember de SAG. I know her, Spencer. And no knocks like High Villa High Mayor as Ash Carter I. All right. Do I? Thank you. That motion passes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. May I have a motion on the adoption of item five I? Adoption of resolution continue has been moved by the vice mayor. I see Councilmember Knox White's hand up. All right. And there's no further discussions. It's a roll call vote. That's my rotation. I agree. Spencer. No. Knox way. Hi. Villa. Hi. Mayor. As the Ashcroft. I. That carries 4 to 1. Thank you, Madam Clerk. With that, we adjourn. They re closed the consent calendar. Now, this is what I'm going to do. We've already been going almost 3 hours. And you know my zoom rule, we take a break after 2 hours. However, we have got our appointees to the Social Service Human Relations Board waiting. I think they're still waiting to to be voted in, presumably by you and then to be administered the oath of office. So they will be able to attend and participate in the next meeting of the Social Service Human Relations Committee, one of our several , many very important boards and commissions, Vice Mayor Vela. I'd like to move for approval. Thank you. And so, madam, do you want to just tell us what we're approving? The the resolutions. Adoption of resolutions. Appointing Christian for you to function at the Green Scott means and Diane Yamashiro on the as members of the Social Service Human Relations Board.

LongBeachCC_07242018_18-0621

Recommendation to request City Manager to conduct an inventory of beach and park space signage to determine if we have sufficient signage, and consider changes to sign locations and messages to make them more effective.

Okay. Okay, now we can move to number 15. Item 15 is communication from councilwoman praised Councilmember Peers case of membership in our and Councilmember Oranga recommendation to require city manager to conduct an inventory of beach and park space signage to determine if we have sufficient signage and consider changes to sign locations and messages to make them more effective. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. The basis for this item really has to do with a lot of the efforts of city staff to maintain and upkeep some of our public spaces, our beaches and our parks. As many know, we have found items on the beach and I'm sure in the parks as well that present some public safety hazards. And a lot of that comes with occupancy of the parks and beaches at a time when they are not supposed to be inhabited and they're not patrolled. And so there's not a lot of attention given to cleaning up the trash and debris that's left behind. So we're finding things like hypodermic needles in these public spaces that are posing a public safety hazard for people that are using the beach space. So in recent discussions with city staff that have been out there for some of these cleanup efforts, it was brought to our attention that perhaps the some of the signage out there is old. There could be better opportunities for signage. And also the wording on the signage could be a little bit better clarified in terms of appropriate time and usage of those public spaces at a time when our police and other resources are able to patrol and monitor the area for municipal code violations and of course, littering and other such conduct. So thank you very much. I ask my colleagues to support this item. Thank you, Councilman Ringo. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank Councilmember Price for allowing me to sign into the settlement. I always say, as a member of the Coastal Commission, very much concerned about not only what goes on in our beaches in terms of debris and unsafe items that are left there, but also the fact that we want to make sure that people continue to have access to the beach. So my concern would be that one step is looking at this item, that they ensure that we don't negatively affect the public's ability to access the beach as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Yeah, I just want to say I support this item. I think making sure we're streamlining all of our signage, that we're getting rid of some of the old signage that has faded that you can't read is really helpful. And then anything I know that we're struggling with our trash on the beach right now, and I know that we've invested a significant amount of tidelands funds for some of the fancy trash cans, or we still have some that need some work. So any signage around littering or something like that, if we can explore those options as well as we're trying to finish funding the the trash challenge that we have down there. Thank you. Thank you very much. As a public comment on this item seen on members of Castro's. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. Bush case. Great. Thank you. Okay. We're moving on to item 616, which is the L.A. County Stormwater Measure presentation that I know our staff is going to make. And so I'm going to have the clerk read the item, please.

LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0779

Recommendation to request City Manager to provide a report to the City Council within 60 days on the status of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, an overview of the City's school crossing guard program, including how many and where crossing guards are currently deployed, and what the cost, as well as the City's overall efforts to ensure traffic safety in school zones.

Communication from Councilwoman Austin, recommendation to request to report on the status of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee and an overview of the city's school crossing guard program. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I think the agenda item is very much self-explanatory. I received many kind of constituent calls over the last few weeks. So as school has started again and many of them are concerned, many of my constituents have expressed concerned about safety around schools, roads, pedestrian safety, the safety of our children, the high traffic volume. And we we wanted to to look into the pedestrian safety advisory committee, understanding that this was something that was brought forward by the voters back in 1978, a time where we had a population of about 360,000 residents. Today we have 100,000 more residents. And it's it's apparent that that these safety issues are still a major concern in our neighborhoods and around our schools. And so I wanted to see where we were with the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, and we'd love to hear from staff on that and what we can do and how we can start working as a city council to start improving those conditions in and around our schools. I'd love to get a staff report from from staff on where we are with the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee today. I think so. Mr. West, I wanna make some comments. Certainly, Mayor Council members are traffic engineer Dave Roseman can give us a quick report. The Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee, as the councilman mentioned, started in 1978. We're one of only a few cities that have in California actually have an ordinance that specifically outlines when crossing guard should be deployed and not. And I believe we're the only one that has a citizens committee that makes the Approvals Peace Act is essentially a 13 member committee comprised of one member representing each council district one member from L.B. USD, one member from the PTA, one member representing NONPUBLIC schools and myself as the city traffic engineer. And in order to have a meeting, we need seven members to have a quorum. The last meeting of the committee was in November of 2008. Unfortunately, with the advent of the Form 700 reporting and ethics rules applied to committees at that time, we lost most of our membership because they felt that those requirements were too onerous. We are actively seeking additional members. We have nine potential members now, of which only six have actually completed the appointment requirements, which is a form 700 and the ethics training. The last meeting of peace in 2008, they set out a plan for us to study 14 locations for potential new crossing guards or reallocation of existing crossing guards . Those are throughout the districts, and that's about how many we were studying. We're studying about 12 to 15 locations a year piece. Also recognize at that last meeting that membership was a problem. Many of them felt that they would not continue and they suggested a few things to us at that time. One was to move the meetings to an evening because we were having the meetings during the day, which I think is a good idea. They also suggested having meetings in a central part of the city, perhaps around the airport area, rather than at city hall, to make it easier for them to get there. And the third item was they suggested that perhaps the city should consider some compensation for membership because of the Form 700 and the other requirements that they would have to be exposed, their financial information exposed to the public. And that's essentially where we stand now. We're actively trying to get the additional members, the three that would names that we have completed through the process so that we can start up the committee at that time. You also asked about how many cross. And guards. We have currently we have 82 personnel positions. That's through the police department. And I think it's 68 locations that are covered by crossing guards at this time. And that concludes my report. Thank you. At this time, Mr. Austin, going to take to the public, unless you have any comments. Any members of the public that want to comment on the item, please come forward. Good evening. I'm Janet. What? I'm a parent with some Long Beach Unified School children and other schools. Here to talk about the issue, I'm very glad this has come before the council. My children walk and or bike to school and beyond just walking. I think we need to look at the bike lanes yet again so that they can transition there safely without my supervision. So I'm going to say that as a preface as I know they want to speak. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Uh, I want to pull the mic down. Just. There you go. And just introduce yourself. Hello. I'm Pierce White. And it is an honor to meet all of you. And I go to Little Cerritos Elementary, and there is such a problem with the bike lanes, and there are no bike lanes. And so it's dangerous for me to ride in the street because a car could hit me and I could get seriously hurt . And so I go on the sidewalk, which is also dangerous for the other people around me, because I could run into them and hurt them, too. So I really appreciate it if you put some more bike lanes in to the schools and the city so I could ride around more safely because I enjoy my time spending and bike riding and stuff. So. That's all. That was an excellent presentation, actually. So. Yes. Excellent. Next speaker, please. Miss Kerr. That's a tough. That is a very tough act to follow. I won't even try. Good evening, Honorable Mayor. Council representatives, city staff. My name is Megan Kerr. I'm a member of the Long Beach Unified School District Board of Education representing District One. Happy to be here. We finished our meeting and I managed to get to back to school mate tonight. So I'm kind of glad that it was delayed. Personally. So thank you. I'm here to speak in support of this agenda item, which is an overview and update of pedestrian safety. The school district works closely with the city and agencies such as the police department and Long Beach Transit to ensure the safety of our students not only while they are at school, but on their ways to and from school traveling with their families. Our schools take a number of precautions and proactive steps related to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. And we welcome the periodic review with the with our efforts with the city, its residents. And we're always open to new ideas that might improve safety for our students. Thank you, Councilmember Austin, for bringing this item forward. I encourage you to keep the school district appraised of your review process as our input can be very important to you in this effort. And please let us know if we can be of any further assistance to you. Thank you so much for your time tonight. Thank you. Any other speaker? I think we had another speaker up. Yeah. Come forward, please. Hello. My name is Elise. What? I'm 12 years old and I'm a seventh grader at Intellectual Virtues Academy. Today I will be speaking for the bike lanes. When I rode my bike to school in the mornings with my friend Alex, we felt as if we could not be safe while riding in the streets, considering that they were so busy. So we rode on the sidewalk when there was a driveway. As adults always say, we looked both ways. Halfway across a car comes turning into it. And before and when he finally notices me, he's a foot away from hitting me and my bike. Consequently, I feel I'm feeling less safe while riding my bike in the city. In summer, my mom, brother and I rode to Jamba Juice on our way back. I rode through the entering and exiting of a parking lot a few minutes late. A few moments later, a car exited. Once again, I was almost hit by a car because I was on the sidewalk since bike lanes were not available. Lastly, in front of this building, it says that Long Beach is the most bike friendly city in America. This, though, is hard for me to believe, considering that twice I've nearly been hit with cars and two years ago I spoke for the bike lanes, yet they're still debating whether or not to put them in. Thank you for. Another excellent presentation. Give her a round of applause. Two. Very good. Very. Any other comments? Please come forward. Mr. Mayor, council members, my name is Michael Jensen. I am a long term resident. Of the eighth District. And I also would. Like to voice my support for Councilman Austin's proposal. I think that anything that we can do to improve the traffic and safety infrastructure of our community is. An extremely valuable investment. I think anything that we. Can do to expand the bike lanes will improve safety for bicyclists, as well as students who ride to our local schools. And I think anything that we can do along these lines will make our community a. More attractive place to live and will help the values of our property and make Long Beach an even greater place to live. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Any other comments on the site and from the public, please? My name is Alec. Watt and this bike lane put in and encourages the biking and this there's the environmental aspect of it which is it decreases people driving around, which decreases carbon emissions. There's also the. Danger to both bikers and drivers. When the bikers are on the side of the road or on the sidewalk, there's more of a possibility to get hit by cars or to hit other people and also cars if they see a biker. They'll often move more to the middle of the road or someone comes around the corner. A car could swerve to avoid hitting anyone and hit another car instead. Putting the bike lanes then would also decrease the traffic of cars because more people would be on their bikes and having all the people out on bikes in the neighborhood builds community. Thank you very much. Very good. Thank you. And seeing no other public comment on the I don't want to take it behind to the council, starting with Councilwoman Gonzales. I just want to thank Councilmember Austin for bringing this forward, because I know this is something that we've talked about many, many times in the first District, particularly because we have two schools, elementary schools. And I know I've talked to Dave Roseman about it many times. Chavez and Edison right next to the 710 Freeway. So it also may be good to look at. I mean, I know there's current accidents that we have that have occurred, unfortunately. And looking at those, I'm sure, which you will. But are those factored into or how are we working with that exactly? Actually, when the committee was in existence or meeting regularly, they really drove how we conducted these studies because in the past we would just look at the pure numbers, but it's not all about numbers when it comes to safety around schools. There's a lot of other elements. So the Peace Committee also requested us to do traffic signal studies. We've installed a number of traffic signals because of Peace Act requests. We've done other all way stops. So the crossing guard is a element of safety around the school. And so it would be really good to be able to get this committee back together, to be able to help guide that discussion within public works as well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And back to Councilmember Austin. Yes. I want to thank the speakers who came out to speak this evening on this very important issue. They speak for several people in our community. And I want to just say well done, especially to the youth, takes a lot of courage to get up here and speak as eloquently as you did right before the city council here this evening. And I think you were solution based with your comments talking about the importance of of laying out infrastructure to make school zones a lot safer. I think bike lanes can do that. If we could do that throughout our entire community, I think we'd be better off personally. But I want to get back to the core problem, and that's the fact that we have a committee that hasn't met since 2008. This agenda item asks for the city manager to review our crossing guard program, including how many and where the crossing guards are, where they're currently deployed, and at what cost and when. Well, as as well as the city's overall effort to ensure traffic safety in school zones. We have asked for a report back in 60 days, and I'd like to move the item. With that said. Kay, there's been a motion in a second by Councilwoman Gonzalez. Thank you for all for speaking for the motion, seeing no other council comments, please cast your votes, members. Thanks for. Watching. Case eight zero. Excellent. We're going to go ahead and move on to the consent calendar, but we're going to pull item number six at the request of one of the council members. So can I get a motion? There's been a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar.

DenverCityCouncil_01252016_15-0927

Amends a contract with Busco, Inc. to add an additional $40,000 for fiscal year 2015 for the months of November and December and to add an additional $550,000 for the 2016 fiscal year program for a new contract total in the amount of $1.45 million through 12-31-16 to provide transportation for clients from the Denver Rescue Mission to various approved recreation center/shelter locations throughout the Denver metro area (SOCSV-2013-13589-04). (SAFETY AND WELL-BEING) Amends a contract with Busco, Inc. to add an additional $40,000 for fiscal year 2015 for the months of November and December and to add an additional $550,000 for the 2016 fiscal year program for a new contract total in the amount of $1.45 million through 12-31-16 to provide transportation for clients from the Denver Rescue Mission to various approved recreation center/shelter locations throughout the Denver metro area (SOCSV-2013-13589-04). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 12-8-15.

Okay. So that was my primary concern was just trying to figure out you were able to address a lot of my questions related to some of the, you know, the the terms of the agreement, the price that we're paying, you know, the condition of the land that we're going to get it in. You know, all of those things, you were able to answer my questions, but I was curious about employment and what kind of displacement we might be seeing. So you're saying there they have it on the market because they were looking for a new location and until we acquire it and utilize it for relocation or whatever of other other businesses, then they'll continue to occupy it until that time. There's two sides to that. One is the. Seller of the building, owns the building. And has space within. The building. And then the primary tenant, Boulder Meats, is a tenant. So they are not the ones that are. Choosing the sale to occur. What we're doing is, is. We will inherit their lease, but we'll work with them to allow them to get out of their lease when they find a new location that they desire to go to that will accommodate their expansion. Do we have any idea how many of those workers actually live in these neighborhoods of Globeville, Swansea, Elyria? I have no idea. Okay. It would be helpful to have some kind of, um, plan or fold that into the work that the city is doing around workforce development. As we're working to put together a robust program for both I-70 and National Western, ensuring that employment opportunities are available to people from those neighborhoods. So thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. I believe that was all the bills that are called out. So we are now ready for the block. Vote on the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Cashman. Sir, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that following resolutions be adopted in a block. C.R. 15 932 C.R. 16 0008. C.R. 15 965 966 967 968, nine, 69, nine, 79, 71 nine, 72 973. C.R. 16 00300 ten zero zero 30 700 38. C.R. 15 eight, 98, nine, 27 and 988. Thank you. You've got them all. It's been moved and seconded. I've seen no comments. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Can each I. Lopez. Hi. New Ortega. Black. Brooks. I. Black. I said I. Oh, I'm sorry. I can hear Clare Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gillmor, I. Cashman.

DenverCityCouncil_07262021_21-0758

AS AMENDED A bill for an ordinance designating the La Alma Lincoln Park Historic Cultural District as a district for preservation. Approves the designation of La Alma Lincoln Park as a district for preservation, roughly bounded by 14th Avenue on the north, Kalamath Street on the west, 10th Avenue on the south, and Mariposa Street and La Alma Lincoln Park on the west in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-13-21. Amended 7-26-21 to reduce the size of the proposed historic district by amending its legal description. The new legal description removes 2 noncontributing properties on the edge of the proposed district boundary.

No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen. Council members say to Barca, Please put Council Bill 21, Dash 758 on the floor for publication. And move that council bill 21, Dash 758, be ordered published. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Torres, your motion to amend. Thank you. Thank you. Council President I move that council build 20 1-0758 be amended in the following particulars. Online five strike online on page five, line nine strike and on page five, insert two new lines after line nine to read as follows. BLOCK 14 lots one through 20 and lots 25 through 40. BLOCK 23 lots one through 14 and lots, 19 through 38. And on page five, line ten strike 14 and 23 respectively. Thank you. We have the motion. We need a second. Are we good, Madam Secretary? Okay. We're going to see here. Yep. It's been seconded. Thank you. Has it. Been seconded? All right. We weren't seeing it show up. Thank you. There's a little bit of a lag with the system. All right. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Council Pro Tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. So the purpose of the amendment is to remove corner non contributing lots of the proposed historic district by amending the legal description. And the new legal description removes two non contributing properties which are on the edge of the proposed boundary. I've been in communication with the owners of the two lots, the cultural historic district applicants who are residents of Lamar Lincoln Park, Historic Denver and the Landmark Division folks on this and all agree that removing the parcels suits with the stakeholders and doesn't impact the integrity of the district boundaries or the integrity of the process that's been done thus far. We have folks in the room if there are any questions. All right. Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres. Not seeing any hands raised to speak or request to speak now. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. Torres, I Clark. I see. Tobacco. I Flynn. I Herndon. I Cashman. I commit i. Sandoval, i. Sire, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes. Council Bill 20 1-7 58 has been amended. Council members say to Barca, Please put Council Bill 20 1-0758 on the floor for publication as amended. I move that council bill 20 1-758 be published as amended. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 10758. Councilmember Torres. No comments. All right. Seen no one else asking to speak. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 758 as amended. Last. I see tobacco. I when. I. Opened in. I. Cashman. I can each I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 1-7 58 has been ordered published as amended. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember CdeBaca, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. These are all 21 series 763 764 765 766 771 768 769 589 seven 6762 seven, 54, seven, 51. And that is it. All right. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Black Eye CdeBaca. I swing. I Herndon. I Cashman. I can each find Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, dash 526 changing the zoning classification for 401240404046 and 4058.

DenverCityCouncil_03292022_22-0278

A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Integral Recoveries, Inc. to amend provisions, extend the term, and to expand the scope of collections. Amends a contract with Integral Recoveries, Inc. to add two years for a new end date of 2-1-2024 and expands the scope of collections to include cases owing less than $300.00. No change to contract amount (COURT-202261912). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-18-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-15-22. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Torres called this item out at the 3-29-22 meeting for a one-week postponement to 4-4-22.

Thank you. Now I'll do a recap under resolutions. Councilmember Torres has called out Resolution 278 for a vote under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item up on our screens for us. Thank you. Council Member State Abarca, will you please put resolution 278 on the floor for adoption? Yes, I move that resolution 20 2-0278 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I call this out with a bunch of questions. In reading the contract amendment language and I did, we have somebody from Denver County Court. Great. Couple of questions for you. And we'll ask you when you come up. Please make sure and speak into the mic and introduce yourself for the public record. Thank you. Kristin Wood, I'm the court administrator for Denver County Court. I thank you for being here. So I didn't get a chance to fight this when it was coming through finger. And if what I'm understanding is correct, correct me if I'm wrong. This is putting into place a collections system for fees or fines under $300 in Denver County Court. Correct. We've had a collection systems in place for several years since I believe 2011. During the budget cuts, the budget shortfalls, we re-engineered our collections process entirely. And we have been collecting on amounts that have been owed that are delinquent to the city and county of Denver. Over that $300, it was going to take extensive programing hours to program a collections capability where we interface with that provider for under $300. So this amendment is requesting that expansion to that amount that's under $300. And was the amount over 300. What was in the collection fee matrix, 30% of the referred amount. That's the the the fee for the service. For the under 300. Now over what we currently provide. Currently. Let me pull up the contract. It's a structured amount. It's a flat rate amount for those that are under that. That $100 amount for those that are over 25%, that goes to Integral, which is the company that provides the collections process. 5% is reverted back to the city and county of Denver. So it's a 30% total amount. Okay. So why was the decision made to start to capture this piece? With the $300 to under $300, the under $300 represents approximately 90% of the fees that are owed to the city and county of Denver by way of costs and finds that are assessed as a result of either a traffic infraction or a criminal or municipal sentence. And so, generally speaking, 90% of those of those costs, the balance remaining that are referred, are approximately 90%. And what happens now to those if they're not referred to a collection, we. Have collections investigators that work with individuals and they establish a payment plan, and that is an ongoing process. As long as those individuals remain in compliance, we continue to work with them in that payment plan when it's 90 days or more delinquent, and we cannot continue to work with that individual or their refusing to work with us , we will work for them. Out to collections. What percentage go beyond 90 days? I can get that information for you with respect to the amount that is over, that $300, the number I can give you the amount that has been referred for 20 for the entire year of 2021, that is over that 300 amount. We've referred $2.7 million to collections. The amount that this entity has collected for us is $2.3 million. And for for those who owe less than 300, is there an average of what is owed or is it is it run that spectrum? I think it runs the spectrum. I'm happy to provide that information. We would run a script to get you that information from our database. Okay. I have a lot of questions to give you an opportunity to respond to those rather than a vote tonight. I'd actually like to postpone this to next week, and I can send you the the questions that that I've got and then bring this back through next week for for discussion, if. That's not a problem. That's all right. Okay. The the the final question that I have is, was any equity study or assessment done to see if this would be a disproportionate impact to low income residents? No. There wasn't. We can certainly factor in some information with respect to the individuals that are owing that are referred to collections. And I can provide some demographic information for you if you'd like to send me those parameters on what you're looking for. We're happy to include that in the query. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Council President. I can't remember if there's something formal for me to do. Yeah. I'm going to thank you, Kristen, for being here. And thank you, counsel pro Tem Torres, for the questions. And. Madam Secretary, do you want us to do anything additional? I know since we invoke 3.7, it can just be held over. But we have a motion on the floor. Yes. If we can just have Councilmember CdeBaca withdraw the motion, we can go ahead and let Councilmember Torres invoke Council Roll 3.7 and postpone that for one week. Okay. I move to withdraw resolution 22, dash 0278. All right. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. We're good, Madam Secretary. All right. Wonderful. We'll see you back here next week. After Council Pro-Tem Torres's questions are answered. Councilmember Hines, I've got you in the queue, and you might have additional questions for our representative, so go ahead, please. Thank you, council president. And thank you, Council Pro-Tem Torres for your calling this out. Would the court please in responding, will you respond to the full body? I'm I'm interested in the answers to the questions as well. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. All right. Thank you. Will that make sure and request the court send that information over to the entire council once they've gathered it? All right. We have no further action on to 78. It will be back on the agenda next week. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All the calls for introduction are ordered published. Council members, please remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote.

DenverCityCouncil_07202020_20-0592

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado, whereby City will secure provision of food and beverage, cleaning, laundry services and directly provide certain IT services at the Colorado Convention Center to support provision of medical services in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. Amends a short-term services agreement with the State of Colorado by adding $318,000 for a new total of $768,000 and three months for a new end date of 9-30-20 to secure emergency provision of food and beverage, cleaning, laundry and certain IT services within the Colorado Convention Center in support of its temporary repurposing as a medical care facility in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (THTRS-202054373; THTRS-202054407-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-27-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-24-20.

All right. 11 days council bill 668 has been ordered published. Next up, Madam Secretary, please put up on the screen the next bill. Councilman Herndon, will you please put council bill 592 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President. I move that caterpillar 200592 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved. Please get a verbal second. Thank you. Councilwoman Sawyer, questions or comments by members of council. Council member said about that. Thank you, Madam President. We discussed this at length last week and I am still a no on this and strongly encourage my colleagues to not support this so that we could potentially discuss what we could and should be doing with the convention center right now. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Seen no other hands raised by my colleagues. Madam Secretary, roll call. In about now. Clark. All right. When I. Pardon? I. Hence I. Cashman. I. Beach I. In about. I. Sawyer, I. Taurus. I. Black I. Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. You have a nice one day. You Lebanese one day. Council Bill 592 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 562 on the floor for final passage?

DenverCityCouncil_01102022_21-1516

A resolution approving a Second Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Hensel Phelps Construction Co. concerning the extension of construction management and general contracting services for the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport. Amends a contract with Hensel Phelps Construction Co. by adding $900 million for a new total of $1.265 billion and 1721 calendar days for a new end date of 12-31-28 to continue to provide Construction Management and General Contracting (CM/GC) services for the Great Hall Project completion at Denver International Airport (202161481; 202053359-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-18-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Ortega called this item out at the meeting on 1-3-22 for a one-week postponement to 1-10-22.

Under resolutions, Councilmember CdeBaca has also has called out Resolution 21, Dash 1516 for a vote. Councilmember Sawyer has called out Resolutions 21, Dash 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 15, 19 for a vote. And Councilmember Hines has called out Resolution 20 2-0005 for comment under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item up. Council Member State Abarca, would you please put Council Resolutions 21, 15, 16, 21, 15, 17, 21, 15, 18 and 21, 15, 19. On the floor for adoption. Yes, I move that council resolutions 21, 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 15, 19 be adopted in a block. Thank you. It has been moved. May you get a second? Second. Thank you. Council Member Sawyer Comments by members of Council on Council Resolutions 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 1519. Council Member Sayed Ibaka. Yes, thank you very much. I'll be brief. I wanted to go on record not supporting these. These are totaling over $1,000,000,000 for our airport and taking our renovations out to the year 2028. I don't believe that in the last year of this mayor's tenure, it's appropriate to incur that kind of debt for our airport without a comprehensive visioning process and without really recalibrating after our last major renovation, which is currently still happening. So that is why I'll be a no on these tonight. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I'm also going to be a no on these this evening. Our airport is probably the most financial, most important financial asset we have as a city. We know it's the number one economic driver in the state. And it doesn't just serve Denver, it serves the entire front range and the entire region. But just because an airport is incredibly valuable and important doesn't mean they're beyond the oversight of the council. And I do. You know, when I proposed ban on flavored tobacco, we found it appropriate to hold three committee meetings and a public hearing talking about the merits of the legislation. The airport is requesting over $1,000,000,000 in additional funding. But a 90 minute committee hearing was all that we had. I was hoping and hoping that we could move to a date certain to delay the contracts for further discussion, but unfortunately was overruled. And since then, I've asked the airport a number of questions, and they were answered in a very brief and vague way. So, for example, I asked, why are there only three milestones stated in this contract? The last one is specified to 2023. The project is expected to continue until 2028. And the response was they'll be special specified in the individual task orders and be memorialized on the public dashboard. That's not an answer and certainly not one. We're talking about over $1,000,000,000 in contracts. So I want to be really clear. I think the airport is a completely worthwhile investment. I believe that we need to finish the security upgrades that we started with great hall phases one and two. And I think given the proper time, these contracts would be worthwhile to approve. But I'm very disappointed at the rushed process, the lack of partnership with council and discussions with community, and the cavalier attitude towards $1,000,000,000 worth of funding. And so because of that lack of transparency and accountability in the process, I'm going to be a no vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Steuer, we have Councilmember Cashman. Next. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. This is a tough vote for me tonight. When the original Great Hall contract came before the previous council. Councilwoman Ortega, then Councilman Espinosa and myself sought expert counsel from an outside agency to evaluate the contract, but were stopped by our city attorney who felt our actions were outside the scope of our charge as council members. Since that time, voters have given us the power to seek professional services as needed. And I believe these contracts are just the type of situation that was being considered when we were given that authority. As a couple of councilmembers said to me recently, It's a great idea. I wish you'd have raised it two months ago. Well, I believe it was a good idea then. I think it's a good idea now. Now it's an opportunity missed. I do believe the bulk of the work proposed in this contract makes sense. And I actually believe we have a good team in place that ten airports are cities unto themselves and the numbers on work that needs to get done do get large. But while these large scale design construction contracts are far less convoluted than the former 34 year public private partnership, this is a $1 billion plus deal that I think in view of the mess that preceded it, deserves an in-depth look by a fully objective third party. Without that in-depth investigation, I'll need to vote no tonight. Thank you, Madam President. And you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. So I think everybody knows I voted no on the first contract when it came to us as a P3 deal for some of the reasons that were spelled out by Councilman Cashman, but for a lot of other reasons in terms of just not sharing the budget with us . We were, you know, unless we actually signed a non-disclosure agreement and met in a. One of our conference rooms on the fourth floor City Council. And you had to know what question you were asking. We never saw the full budget. That is completely different from this time around. And the information that was shared with us was was by the applicant themselves, the contractor, not by the city folks, although we did have some a couple of people from the city in the room. So this is a whole different process from what we went through last time around on the first phase. And, you know, once it was approved by council to move forward, I supported the project getting completed and getting us at a place where we get it right. Obviously, you know, what has happened has has occurred. I do know and Councilman Flynn, you may want to talk about this, that the airport has committed to coming back and walking through, you know, the lessons learned and and just, you know, helping us understand exactly what happened and why it went south. But we have a project that was promised to the public that part of addressing the safety and the security of moving the TSA check in from level five up to level six was going to happen. And right now we will have we have a hybrid. We have half of that traffic down on level five and the other portion of it on level six, I believe we have to complete it. Yes, it is a big, expensive price ticket. I've had the opportunity to meet with our bond counsel and our legal advisor to the airport. They do an incredible job working with our team and I am very confident that the safety precautions in looking at the fiduciary responsibilities of our airport have been thoroughly looked at and address both with our external experts as well as our internal folks that run and manage our airport on a day to day basis with the number one focus always being safety and security and being the best functioning airport that keeps our cost per employment, you know, low and we're right in the middle even with this package and the refinance that's going to come back to us in 2022. We're still going to be right in the middle of where all the other airports are. So this doesn't like tip the scales to the point where our airport is no longer affordable to the average non-business traveling public. And those were some of the questions that I have asked of our legal advisors. I did share with all of you the questions that I asked and the answers that we got back. And after going through that process again, you know, not having had that opportunity the first time around to really see the budget and to understand the implications to our airport and to the city, I feel like they've done a thorough job in addressing that. So I'm comfortable with this moving forward tonight. The last thing I would say is at any time council can ask them to come back and give you regular updates of exactly what's happening with the progress of the project and not wait for milestones to occur. Council has that that right to ask the agency, as we do with any of the agencies, to come in and tell us what's going on. So, you know, lots of jobs in the meantime are are created for folks, both, you know, the construction jobs and then the permanent jobs that will will be part of that because we'll have more concessions that will be back in in the main terminal. But in general, I think this is important for the city. And when you look at what we're spending on this compared to what other U.S. airports are spending right now to do upgrades and expansions where, you know, we're right on target to be doing what we need to do to not only address the safety problem, but at the same time be able to address some of the the maintenance within the Great Hall that need to be done as part of this process. So thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Flynn, you're up next. Thank you, Madam President. One of the keys for me in moving this forward in the first place was the commitment from Manager General. What do we call an executive director is called manager of aviation. So Washington is commitment to to produce a public. Lessons learned report in a short term 90 to 120 days after that committee meeting because I was hesitant to move forward without a complete and public accounting that of of what had happened to the P-3. I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for pretty clearly outlining the situation at the airport right now. It's a mess. It's a mess. And the failure of the P three left it a mess. Of no vote on his contract is a vote to keep it a mess. And I believe we can't do that. I regret that we have to undertake it in the way we have. I regret that the P-3 failed, but we can't leave our kitchen renovation halfway done and the additions to our house, which are just the foundation. It simply has to be completed. And the way forward, I think, has been very transparently outlined by the airport management. Any member of this council could have had any number of of briefings, see the numbers, see the process. The reason that there are that there are milestones when they go out to 2023 was answered by airport staff in their memo back to us that that said because it's being designed in phase three, the design is not done . You can't establish milestones for for design that isn't yet done. Hensel Phelps Contractor Principal one Here is a CMG C, what they call CMG C Construction Management and Construction Manager, General Contractor. I'd say it's a very successful method under which Hensel Phelps will probably self perform very little of that $900 million, but they will oversee bid packages as the design is done. They will be competitively bid outwork our our construction community. A lot of companies that need work at disadvantage companies, minority women owned companies are going to get the opportunity to bid. The airlines are asking for this. And frankly, an airport that was designed for 50 million passengers with only 40% of them going through the terminal, is now dealing with 69 million passengers in 2019, 60% and more of whom are going through the terminal. We are over twice the design capacity. We have passengers over twice the design capacity of the gypsum terminal. It's simply a mess. If you were out there from 1995 until as I said last week, until 19 guys with box cutters changed our aviation world, you were out there in those opening years. You know what that terminal looked like. That's what it needs to be. Again, this gets us there. I'm comfortable with the with the contract now. And I wanted to thank Phil and his team for answering every question that council had on. I think it's been very transparent and I ask that that my colleagues support this contract. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President. I have a few quick points. You know, after 26 years, any project needs some significant maintenance work. And other airports like JFK have $10 billion in bonds underway. We're lucky that Dennis is in there and is a smaller price tag as it is, particularly since we haven't done any major renovations in that time other than the four of Project and Ferrovial obviously started. They commenced their construction in an interesting spot and when they exited, it made it difficult for us to accomplish the project, particularly what we said to the people this obviously before my time, but what we said to the people we were going to do and that was, as Councilmember Friend mentioned, people with box cutters. We want to make sure that security is is maintained in our airport. And our airport was designed before those box cutter folks made us realize that we needed additional security in our airports around the world. We have already outgrown our airport. As Councilmember Flynn said, we're the third busiest airport in the world in 2021, and we need to make sure the airport is ready for that continued growth because we're just going to get busier. And I also want to make a note that the airport has its own bonding authority as an enterprise of the city. So I know constituents have reached out about why don't we use that bond money for housing or transportation. Well, I agree. We need more investment in housing and transportation. We can't do it with airport funds. The bonds for the airport can only be used for the airport. And then I just want to say the last thing, you know, we're removing a third party from the driver's seat and placing the airport there. So as Councilmember Flynn also mentioned, this is no longer a P3. This means that we have an opportunity for additional oversight and an opportunity to hold Denver employees as an DEN leadership directly accountable. And of course, we'll be watching for praise for success or, you know, should the project go off track, you know, the appropriate countermeasures. So thank you. I will be voting yes. Thank you, Charles President. Thank you. Councilmember Hines, County Council Member Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I have given a lot of thought to this contract. I think it will probably be one of the biggest contracts that I vote on during my time in office. I don't remember working for Councilwoman Montero or Espinosa and then being having the ability to vote on $1,000,000,000 contract. So I feel a lot of weight on my shoulders. And I thought about it and I contemplated this. And my predecessor. Councilman Espinosa, was a no vote on the contract because some of the things that Councilman Ortega had mentioned, the change orders, we there wasn't transparency in the contract. There is no way to bring the contract forward to fruition unless we got it done. And it was on a third party who wasn't located in the United States after giving it thought about what's best for Denver and what's best for our travelers. I think it's important for one thing is we can't just say we're adding four more years to this. I've been asking people in my district when when will that contract, when will the airport be done? And they all think it's going to be done in four years. I think it needs to be clear that this will not be done until 2028, 2029, because I don't think that the average person in Denver even knows that timeframe. So I think we need to do a better job again to talk about the extent of this contract and how long it will push it out. I like the analogy of the councilman telling me about reports I live in an auction and if I were just to update my kitchen and not update my friend to it would work very well. So I think that the whole entire airport can use an update. I was able to use Southwest and I will say it was a great experience. I had an awesome experience. That whole entire new little area is it's welcoming, it's great and it's like Denver needs. So with that, I'll be supporting it. Me? Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And I'll go ahead and round out the the comments here before we vote on it. Ben is in my council district, too, and it is such a massive economic engine not only for the region, but really for Denver residents who work out there. And comments that my colleagues have made. I'm right along with those in favor because we need to address the security. We need to look at ongoing remodeling and maintenance that we might need. And then we also need to look at the growth that we're seeing across the nation with other airports, and we need to stay competitive with that as well. And so I will be voting in favor of this contract tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolutions 21, dash 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 15, 19. CDEBACA No. Sawyer Now. Torres. I. Black. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hi, i. Cashmere. No. Can each I. Ortega, I. Sandoval, i. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Three names. Ten eyes. Ten Eyes. Council Resolutions 21, 15, 16, 21, 15, 17, 21, 15, 18 and 21. 15, 19 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up for us. Councilmember Hines, go ahead with your comments on Council Resolutions 22, dash 0005.

LongBeachCC_09102019_19-0838

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving Resolution No. WD-1413, a resolution of the City of Long Beach Board of Water Commissioners establishing the rates and charges to be charged for water and sewer service and declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2019, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-19-0018). (A-10)

Motion carries. Thank you. And we have three budget votes tonight. That was the first. The second is item 18. Report from Financial Management Recommendation or clear ordinance approving resolution, establishing the rates and charges for water and sewer service and declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect on October 1st, 2019. Read and adopted as read. Thank you, Ms.. Control. Mislead. Please come forward. Thank you, Councilmember Mongo for clarifying because the word budget was not mentioned in that ordinance. 1718 does mention that this has to do with the water rates. And again, I think you have there are a number of violations of the Constitution and the Brown Act with passing this. The public did have a chance to register their protests and 1443 people did that. However, we find out that a lot of people didn't even get a notice. So that is a violation. The count was supposed to have been done by an independent person counting this. And that was not done. It was counted by the secretary for the water board and one of the deputy district attorneys who certainly has some skin in this game because. What you're doing is transferring $25 million from the water department. In 2019 and 2022, the general fund. And this is unconstitutional. Even though you can't measure m past, you can't change. The state constitution, which says a public utility is a nonprofit. You can't have surpluses. You can use the. Right. So that you collect the money that you collect for buying water, for fixing pipes, for even buying smart meters. But you can't have a surplus of $12 million a year and give it to the general fund. Again. I asked for an amendment of this. If you need money in the general fund or money to. If the $25 million that you're transferring to the general fund stays in the water department, and if it's not enough to buy the new smart meters or whatever they need, then I would suggest a rate increase of 2% to cover that. Don't take money out of the water department illegally. Thank you, Miss Cantrell. Miss Lee, please. So this is my speech from last week that I didn't realize was being cut in half as I stood here and got cut off half way. Taking money from the poor is wrong, and that's what we're doing with this water rate increase. You're not just hitting on the homeowners here. You're hitting on people who don't have it. You're going to get little kids who don't get a pair of shoes this month and their toes are crammed in because they don't have the money. Because you took it. You're going to take a box of cereal away from someone every month, and that's food for their children. So this is morally wrong. But moving on from that, before you do the final approval of the emergency ordinance in support of the water rate increase, you should look into whether the transfer of money from the water department to the General Fund violates the city charter. I'm not sure you can have surplus funds and at the same time have a budget shortfall. Those two things are in direct opposition water funds being held to transfer to the city general fund totaled $25 million for budget years 2019 and 2020, which, according to the budget charts posted online, amounts to about 10% of the annual water department budget. Additionally, the charter requires validation of the annual gross revenues of the water works by an external audit before making the transfer to the general fund. And I assume that would mean waiting till at least the care for audit has been done. I provide a detailed back up documentation on those numbers and on the city charter. Thank you. Thank you. There is a motion, a second council on Mango. Any comments? Vice managers? Any comments? Please cast your votes.

DenverCityCouncil_04152019_19-0349

A bill for an ordinance concerning designated consumption area setback requirements. Designated consumption areas will be permitted to operate at least 1000 feet from of a school, 500 feet of a Child Care Establishment, 500 feet of a alcohol or drug treatment facility; 500 feet of a city-owned recreation center or city-owned outdoor pool. Council member Black approved direct filing this item on 4-11-19.

813 ies Huntsville 19 0187 has passed. Councilwoman Black, will you please vote council bill 349 on the floor. Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 0349 be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Black, do you have a motion to amend? Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 0349 be amended in the following particulars on page one line three Strike Committee of Reference on page one. Line four Strikes, special issues, marijuana. And the amendment has been moved. Can I get a second and seconded? All right. Questions by a members of council about the amendment before jump in here. Just clarify what it does. Councilwoman, I take it you had a you wanted a clarification on asking for the clarify. Councilman Black, did you want to take that? The purpose of the amendment is to administratively correct the committee of reference. I direct filed this bill and it did not come out of committee and an error was made when someone made a change. But to put it into context, the Special Issues Marijuana Committee discussed distance requirements for social consumption areas at six different meetings. The proposed bill is presented on March 18th. It was not proposed to move forward on March 18th due to scheduling issues. But since no additional information had emerged, I was advised that it was appropriate to file the bill directly. All right. Any other questions or comments before we vote on the amendment? All right. Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. Black Eye. Brooks I. Espinosa. I. When I. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman. Hi. Can I hear Lopez? New Ortega. Hi assessment, Mr. President. Hi. I'm secretary. Please close voting in the results. 12 hours. 12 hours. Constable 19 0349 has been amended. Councilwoman Black, we now need a motion to pass as amended. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council be they'll 19 dash 030 to be ordered published as amended. It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for Council Bill 19 0349 is open. May we have the staff report comes with. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to remind everyone that tonight we're voting to publish the bill which requires seven votes. It's not necessary to deliberate tonight since it will be on final reading next week and it will require nine votes to pass next week. I scheduled the hearing for tonight to be considerate of fellow council members since we are expecting next week's meeting to be very long. In November of 2016, over 168,000 Denver voters approved the neighborhood supported social consumption pilot program. The purpose of the initiative was to provide opportunities for businesses, to work with neighborhoods, to create legal places for people, including tourists, to consume marijuana out of public view and to protect children from seeing and smelling consumption in parks, sidewalks, the 16th Street Mall and along our rivers. Other cities are also struggling with public consumption and creating laws to license places that are out of public view. Social consumption. Businesses have been legal in Colorado Springs, of all places since 2015, with no setbacks at all. The voter approved initiative included 1000 foot setbacks from schools, which is consistent with the federal drug free zone law, excise and licenses and their rulemaking process added 1000 foot back setbacks from daycares, rec centers and pools and treatment centers. The proponents of the initiative believe that this setbacks frustrate the intent of the law. In the two and a half years since it passed, there are only two businesses in operation and they are functioning without incidents. But there are many more people who we have heard from who want to open a business but cannot find a location. They report that the added distance requirements are preventing them from finding a location that has an available property, is in a desirable location and has neighborhood support. The voter approved initiative also called for the creation of a task force to examine the impacts of the social consumption program. The task force met five times in 2018 2018 and determined that the added setbacks are inhibiting prospective businesses from finding viable locations. The task force recommended that the added setbacks either be removed or that some sort of appeal process be adopted. The Council Special Issues Marijuana Committee considered the recommendations of the task force and discussed the issue at six different meetings and came to consensus on this very modest compromise, which is what this bill is. It maintains the 1000 foot setbacks from schools as was approved by voters and is consistent with the federal drug free zone law. It respects the rule making process that exercise and license engaged in by not eliminating the added setbacks, by simply reducing them to 500 feet. The 500 foot setbacks are more consistent with alcohol, but in reality are much more restrictive than alcohol. It is a very modest and reasonable compromise that might allow new businesses to open and serve the need for social consumption without resulting in a flood of applications. The proponents of the initiative are supporting it all. They, although they would prefer to completely eliminate the added setbacks, the Denver Post or the editorial board is in support of the 500 foot setbacks, as is the federal bid, the Colfax bid and others. The following protections for neighborhoods and children are already in place and will not change with this bill. They include a 1000 foot setback from schools. The fact that designated consumption areas cannot be visible to the public. There are strict advertising and signage rules. People must be 21 years or older to enter. They must have neighborhood support or non opposition to even apply. A public hearing is required. There can be no dual or poly consumption. They have to comply with the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. They cannot be in a residential zoned district and 54% of the city is owned. Residential, not including the area, cannot be on publicly owned property. There is a requirement for monitoring of this designated consumption area and sales of cannabis is not allowed. The intent of the voter approved initiative was to protect communities and children from seeing and smelling public can. Sumption by reducing the added setbacks. With this very modest proposal, some businesses will have the opportunity to open and provide that out of public use location. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. We have 28 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So what we're going to do to try and get through everyone as efficiently as possible is I'm going to call five people at a time when I call your name. If you could come relocate up to this front bench so that you're ready to jump right up to the microphone when your name is called to speak. So the first five people to come up to the front bench right now are Sara Woodson, Jude del Herrero, Aubrey Labbe Izzo, Jenni Leslie and Chris Hines and Sarah Woodson. You are up first. Okay. Thank you all so much for your time. My name is Sarah Watson and I own cushion canvases. It is a 420 friendly smoking paint class and people love the idea of it. In 16, when the amendment went through, I was super excited. I was like, Yeah, I'm going to get my license. This is going to be a breeze. And what I quickly realized was because of the thousand foot setback, especially with daycare centers, I was just having no luck at all. I actually had three landlords that were ready to go. I thought it was a great idea and just couldn't find a place. So I've been at a total halt, pretty much. I can't open a business. I know that, you know, one of the things is protecting the children in the community. But I will say that kids in Colorado, they know what weed smells like. They see it around all the time. And that's part of the reason, because there's no private place to smoke weed is what I feel. So I feel like set. Getting the setback in place is going to help open viable businesses. Also, it would still protect children because as you already know, it's not visible. And then finally, something that's important to me is that this is really the only opportunity for minorities to really enter into the cannabis space at this point, because social consumption has a low barrier as far as how much the application cost. Excuse me. So I mean, by allowing this to pass, that's going to be a huge thing for minorities, black and brown people, to be a part of a cannabis and a social consumption ancillary way. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, judo hero. Dude. Nope. All right. Aubrey lives, though. Hmm. Good evening again, Mr. President. And council members. My name is Aubrey. Life as I am in support of the compromise proposal. Compromise. I'm a Denver resident in Council and Wayne News District ten, a former owner of a business in Councilman Paul Lopez. District three, a former llama Lincoln Park board member, the grandparent of ten year old and two year old granddaughters, and a person who for over 13 years has given hundreds of hours in developing and presenting kids programs that educate kids and instill values like empathy and compassion at the Children's Museum of Denver, at Montessori and pre-K schools throughout Denver and for the last six years at Greenlee Elementary School in District three, protecting kids is absolutely my top priority. But if we don't provide places for people to consume, we're not protecting kids. We're allowing them to be exposed to open public consumption in parks and public places. It's important to note that I represented all of Lincoln Park in testimony in support of the coffee joint, the first licensed social consumption business at there, excise and license sharing not only as a coffee joint located in Lincoln Park, but on a reader say Look, now serves on all the Lincoln Park board of directors and as importantly for the neighborhood. There have been no issues with the coffee joint. When I served on the Social Consumption Advisory Committee as a neighborhood representative, we did not see any maps. A consequence was that we impose ownership restrictions and added the setback and added setbacks, continued to push marijuana businesses into oversaturated neighborhoods. As a neighborhood representative on the A300 Task Force, we examined maps and we heard from prospective business owners and it became very clear that the setbacks were too extreme. I believe the modest compromise the task force agreed on is respectful of the excise and license process. Thanks to size and license, many protections exist outside of distant requirements like neighborhood support and public hearings, and most neighborhoods are well protected with control over whether a business locates in their neighborhood. I respectfully ask that you please vote in favor of honoring the will of the voters. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jenny Leslie. Good evening. Unfortunately, my name is spelled incorrectly. It's Hannah. Lastly. We were not even close on that. I apologize. No problem. And I just want to make sure you didn't think I was somebody else. My name is Hannah Lasley, and I'm the co-founder and one of the executive directors of Smart, Colorado. Smart Colorado is based here in Denver, Colorado. And we formed after the passage of Amendment 64 to protect the public health and safety for Colorado kids. Sir, we respectfully request that the city council vote no against the reduction of setbacks by half from daycares, city owned rec centers, outdoor pools and alcohol and drug rehab centers. Here's why. According to my Denver card data, the majority of users of outdoor pools were kids over 45% excuse me. Over 45,000 kids visited Denver rec centers in 2018. Denver Rec Centers partner with federal food programs to feed our neediest in the summer, playing a crucial role as a safeguard for our children. In 2017, 31% of the statewide admissions to drug and treatment centers for marijuana abuse were under the age of 21. Finally, this is an important decision and impacted because the state is currently considering legislation that Governor Polis has already said he will sign. This bill will be an expansive bill that will set regulations for marijuana, social consumption, clubs. While we completely understand and respect that the City Council will have local control, the bill will allow a new opportunity for the City Council to consider setbacks from collapse. The business model from the House bill will be much more favorable for the marijuana industry to allow for a profitable social consumption business model. Please join Mayor Hancock and the following organizations in opposing the distant setbacks. Children's Hospital. Colorado. The Kemp Foundation. Illuminate. Colorado. The Colorado Children's Campaign. The Denver Partnership for Youth Success, whose membership includes Denver Public Schools. Denver Public Health. Denver Afterschool Alliance Rise Above Colorado. The Boys and Girls Club of Metro Denver. The Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Colorado chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Confluence Ministries. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Chris Haines, and I'm going to call the next five. If you could come up to the front bench. We have Jesse Paris, Jonathan Circus, Luke Neff for Atlas, William Changeless and Leslie to our Girl Ski. If you can, come on up. And Criss Angel. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Chris Hynes. I'm a District ten resident, which means I'm in councilman. Whose district? I'm here to talk. I don't want to violate any rules, but I want to talk about a project that I'm working on that's due on Election Day that involves a lot of outreach to voters. We've reached out to more than 23,000. We've made more than 23,000 voter contact attempts anyway. And so we've talked a lot about issues facing specifically District ten voters. I wanted to talk about the map of 410 with me. You probably already know what it is, just in case it starts with. I want to start with Cherry Creek. That neighborhood is, you know, just in general when I talk with people about this particular setback variance. People in Cherry Creek want weed illegal. It's just, you know, and this is one way to oppose the setback because they want no cannabis in the in the state at all. Unfortunately, the voters have voted. Well, not unfortunately. Fortunately, the voters have voted many times in favor of cannabis at the state and local level. And and but there's more to District ten. If we were to go north and to say Congress part the number one issue facing people in Congress park in in my outreach is what about our kids and our grandkids in parks that are within a few feet of people consuming or smoking marijuana. We want to we want to get the marijuana away from our kids and they are over overwhelmingly receptive to a place where people could go in private and consume. You know, if we were to go west of it, in the Capitol, in the uptown neighborhood, that's capital is more than 60% millennial. They are overwhelmingly in favor of cannabis, but they are a lot of renters and and a lot of lease agreements preclude them from consuming cannabis in their homes. Well, how can they legally consume? Well, if only there were social consumption facilities. Also, they have visitors that come from out of state and the out-of-state visitors don't know where to go either. And so this solves two issues for the Capitol and an Uptown residence. So just just to share a little bit about I was a little surprised that there was a survey that went out Friday night from the District ten office, mainly because there are a lot of people knocking doors and making phone calls. So I figured I would share some of the some of the the context that I've received and content context. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Who's up? No. Just Chris. All right. Jonathan Circus. Sorry. Nobody can get it right. Hi, my name is Jonathan CHERKIS. I'm also a District ten resident, which is nice to see. And I voted in favor of A300 when it came out three years ago. I served as governor policies kind of as outreach coordinator on his campaign for the governorship. And one of the things that we really noticed was that marijuana is not a losing issue. I think that's one of the big things that the governor policy was able to show was that this isn't the sort of big issue. That people necessarily. Are up in arms about. Colorado has led the nation in legalization, but Denver has sort of been the center of all of that. And so I want. Social consumption venues for maybe a different reason than other people, is that I want someone to be able to go, and I don't have to drink if I don't want to and I don't have to do all of the sort of things that are more dangerous or more harmful or more just unpleasant than what I want to do. I live in District ten, a 1000 District ten is the most the dense, most densely populated neighborhood in Colorado, which probably means it's also for here years, five states a thousand feet in District ten is very different than a thousand feet in District four or District two, which are much larger in terms of just geography. I know I've seen a map provided by the city or maybe just excise licenses. I'm not sure that showed where where social use places would be allowed. And I don't remember really anything in District ten or maybe very small little slivers. I just don't think that was the intent of the voters. Was to have this. Sort of pushed aside, moved out of the places where people live, where Chris said 60% millennial in Cap Hill, where in the city would be a better place for a social consumption area than in Cap Hill? I don't know. But they're not allowed there. They are pushed out by, I don't know, 18 feet or whatever the setback was. And so I think it's just really important that we sort of look at this as the voters voted for this three years ago. And we haven't. We have two places open and we've been arguing about the same things now for I'll give it two years. And so I think it just is really important that we sort of look at what the voters voted on and make the setbacks reflect the city. It's a neighborhood thing. So if the neighborhood doesn't want it within 500 feet, the neighborhood can decide that. But it's not the city's job to decide that a neighborhood couldn't possibly support this, given the setbacks. So I just think the set back requirements are overly restrictive and you super usurp the will of the voters. And I would just like to see a social use place in my neighborhood. Thank you. Next up, Luke. I'm going to let you say your last name. You had it right on the first one before Otto's nice, long Greek name. President. Members of the council. It is so nice to speak with you this evening. Thank you for sticking around this late to hear us. I'm looking for Otto Sun, the chief of staff and senior policy advisor at Sam Smart. Approaches to Marijuana. We're based in D.C.. We're a national organization fighting against commercialization of marijuana. And on this issue, particularly because we're concerned about the public health consequences, and I look at something like this, first of all, I live here in Colorado. My father in law actually is Pastor Michael Walker. Councilman Brooks, I know you know him well. You know his church. And, you know, in fact, he sent me a picture I can show you. You got your yard sign on his on his front lawn, but his church just opened a daycare. And when I look at the rules of this, it's reducing it from 1000 feet to 500 feet for anywhere where there would be a daycare. He wanted me to pass along the message that they really don't want a social consumption site within 500 feet of their daycare. And I think we have to think about those real examples of what the impact is going to be on the ground here in the city of Denver before we we consider moves like this. And really, you look at, you know, our state as a whole and you look at the pot industry and the way that this is going. You know, you hear this word, I've heard it thrown around a few times already, desirable locations. And the reason why we need to pass this is so that they can find more desirable locations. Well, what defines a desirable location? Well, we can look at this bill and we can get an idea. It's something that's closer to kids, closer to recreation centers and close, you know, so we're, you know, define desirable for me. I'm going to look at the bill and it's saying it needs to be closer to these places. I think they can find other locations that are, you know, a thousand feet from these various places where kids are. I don't think it's the job of city council. And I mean that respectfully, because you all obviously know the job better than I do. But I don't think it's the job of any member of elected, you know, an elected government to make it easier for a drug industry to make more money, to make it easier for drugs to be used. I think what you have to think about is your public health and the safety of your communities first. Not, you know, whether somebody can open up a social pot consumption site, you know, closer to a schools. I think you all have much bigger fish to fry. So, you know, we have to look at the dynamics of our state right now. Colorado is the number one state in the country for first time youth marijuana use for the last two years in a row. I just saw a few months ago, Cookie Monster was used as an advertisement for a cookie edible here in Colorado. So clearly our youth are being targeted by this industry. We saw it with big tobacco. We see it with many other drug industries. And so the pot industry has taken this playbook. They're using it over again. And now they're asking us, please, let's start reduce. It's only been six years since we legalized this and they're asking us to start reducing these limits already. What are we going to be considering a year from now? What will we be considering ten years from now? The more that this is normalized, the more that we give, give, give, the more they will take, take, take from our kids, our communities and the places, honestly, that are most vulnerable. So I urge you to please reject this today, and I thank you for your time and considering what I have to say. Have a great night. Thank you. Next up, William Auchincloss and I'm going to go. Close enough. It's Greek. My mother remarried. Good evening. Good afternoon. Thanks for staying late, like the man said. My name is William Chen Jealous. I'm chairman of the United States Marijuana Party. I'm a resident of Colorado and I'm a resident of Denver. Paul Lopez is District three. I'm here today to tell you about what it is for had had people living in hide housing. I no longer live in HUD housing. I used to live in Halcyon House downtown. I had to go outside my house to Medicaid or lose it. I got a ticket. In in alley for medicating in the alley. I had to pay it. Luckily, I have enough legal. Expertize that I played it down to 4 hours of community service. But we need places for people to go. There isn't a place that you can't go. I ride the busses all the time. People are getting on the busses. They smell like pot. They've been smoking like pot and bus stops. So it's all over town. It's not just the 16th Street Mall in the parks. It's everywhere. And people need a place to go. Thank you very much for your time. And please vote on this. Yes. Thank you. Next up, Leslie Tore Gorski and I'm going to call the next five up Larisa Boulevard, Melanie Rose Rogers, Liz Bukowski, Tom Downey and Nick Phillips, if you want to come up to the front bench. Hi. Thank you. My name is Leslie Trois Gorski. I'm a resident of Council District eight. I'm a mom. I'm a parent of three. Protecting kids, including my own, is a top priority. But without legal places for tourists, residents and patients to consume. Kids, including mine, are exposed to marijuana in public places like parks, especially near playgrounds, which happen to have a lot of trees around them. Stoners go for those as well as the public right away. 16th Street Mall. I was a task force member as a neighborhood representative of the Federal Boulevard bid and R.A. we examined maps and heard from prospective business owners, and it became very clear that the setbacks are too extreme. We have a lot of public housing around Federal Boulevard. We have the Sun Valley neighborhood. We have the Del Norte Veterans Apartments and other facilities where people live but cannot smoke inside. As a result, we have a lot of people smoking in our public right away, including near our schools. And so while I respect the the speakers who came before me to talk about keeping the weed away from children, this is exactly what we're trying to do. My hope is that we will be able to corral the weed usage away from where it currently is on the playgrounds near our Montessori school, because right now they're smoking openly and unashamedly right in front. And to get them to an out of sight and out of smell space 500 feet away, I think would be very beneficial to all in some people need safe, discreet and legal places to consume responsibly. Please honor the will of the voters by reducing these set back requirements from Parks, Rec centers and daycares. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Larissa Boulevard. Hi. Thank you. My name is Larissa Boulevard. I'm the executive director of the Cannabis Consumers Coalition and also on the board of Colorado Normal. As everybody's been testifying, consumers have very limited options to go consume cannabis, something that we voted for with with a majority. Obviously, there's public safety issues that everybody's concerned about, whether it's children. We have our own concerns about public safety right now. We are not able to educate cannabis consumers on consuming cannabis safely. Nor are we able to monitor. Intoxication. And a major public safety issue is that children are currently being exposed to public consumption pretty much everywhere in the city. It was actually pretty disappointing to hear Smart, Colorado testify that so many organizations and the mayors support exposing children to cannabis. It seems like they're using that argument to win a position when the unknown unintended consequences are going to be more children being exposed to cannabis use. I would like to know if they have data to support their allegations that exposing children to cannabis in parks and on. Sidewalks is safer. Than having people consume in inconspicuous. Licensed facilities. Another thing that I like to point out is that having these set backs would create more opportunity for. People of color to have businesses. We have a huge disparity here. In Colorado and in Denver, where we have a lack of minority business representation. In June, I'm actually going to be speaking at The Economist about this issue, and I would hope that I can speak on behalf of the city that we have forward thinking policies. At one point, Colorado and Denver were leaders in cannabis policy, and now we're not implementing the will of voters. And I don't think that we're making sound policy by using children as a as a scapegoat. When, you know, we need. To protect consumers as well and all parties involved. I ask that you support the. Will of voters, protect public safety, protect children's safety. And consumer safety by voting yes for these setbacks. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Melanie Rose Rogers. Hi City Council. My name is Melanie Rose Rogers and I'm in District nine in five points. I'm a homeowner and also a business owner and an influencer. And within the cannabis industry. My company is called Influential Acts. And we are about. Education, advocacy. And social responsibility in the cannabis space. And including hemp. I'm also a co-founder for Safe Access, Colorado. Safe Access, Colorado, as a part of Americans for Safe Access. We have over 100,000 members and we advocate for patients rights and access to cannabis and what influential. Acts and what I'm trying to do with. Safe access Colorado is really uplift the community, help educate. And right now, to the gentleman who said more bigger fish to fry, how about this opioid epidemic? How about people hooked on pharmaceutical drugs and this plan, as you know, with states and with facts and data. That, you know, with. States that have legalized, we see that number decrease of opioid deaths. This is very real in my life. I'm in my mid-thirties and this is the number one killer. Of my time. So I've dedicated myself to help educate the patient community as well as. Consumers on this plan and to really provide a resource. I believe that in 2019, especially. Here in Denver, Colorado, if you're sick with cancer, you need to find a group that you can actually talk to about. The cannabis plant. You shouldn't have to refer online, but with these setbacks and with no places to consume and no place to create an. Uplifting community, these people have no resources and no support. And so I really ask you to all vote in favor of a bright future for Denver. By doing this, we create opportunities for minority groups. To get involved in a cannabis industry. And I also believe that even in my neighborhood in five points. That we need to address the nursing homes and the elderly and make sure that they also know about this plan and they have access to it. And so I really encourage you to vote yes on this. I encourage you to really follow the will of the voters. And coming to these meetings at this time is very difficult. I've tried even last time. I signed up and I wasn't able to speak because there was only 30 minutes for a public hearing. So having so there's much more people that we represent and they aren't here. They haven't been able to come here. People wanted to sign up today. There's people sitting here that. Can't testify. Today. So I just really want you all. To please follow the will of the voters and give I mean, we're talking about 500 feet. 500 feet. Let us have a chance. To really build a community that we can be. Proud of and that I can actually give back to. The. Communities that we serve. I'd love to volunteer and do more on five. Points with, you know, some of the revenue definitely that would be generated in putting a viable business together that educates, that creates community. So please give this a chance. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Lizzie Koski. My name is Lizzie Koski. I've owned and lived in my home in Capitol Hill for five years. I voted in favor of social consumption in 2016. I have been to one of. The two social consumption businesses that are open. Currently. I went to the coffee joint and I. Actually really enjoyed it. Once I got inside, the staff were very helpful. Setting made me feel comfortable. And I felt very welcome. Unfortunately, due to its location and circumstances. That are outside of the business owners control, it is not a desirable location for social consumption. The area is located in a difficult to access. Industrial part of the. City. Even when I was using Google Maps, I had trouble, not trouble navigating the dead end roads and the chain linked fences that frequent this area. There are no sidewalks. There are no bike lanes in this area. The streets are poorly lit and the sounds of traffic from I 25 assertively ushered people inside the building, inside the businesses that exist there. There are few eyes and ears on the street. For these reasons, I have not returned to the coffee joint. It doesn't feel safe for me, especially if I'm alone, especially after dark. I voted in favor of the initiative so I would have a consumption place in my neighborhood, a place I could walk to safely with my friends or alone, a place I could hang out and meet other people. I did not expect to be pushed into an industrial corner of the city. However, these are the types of places that are eligible for social consumption today based on our current setbacks, when distance restrictions from daycares, rec centers and outdoor pools and substance use treatment facilities are reduced to 500 feet. Viable properties in appropriate areas open up where those neighbors want them. Please vote to reduce the. Setbacks, to honor the will of the voters. Without legal places for us to consume legal products. Kids are going to continually see and be exposed to marijuana consumption in public split public spaces like our parks. Thank you. Next up, Tom Downey. Good evening. My name is Tom Downey. I'm a proud resident of District eight with Councilman Herndon. I am here to support the bill and appreciate Councilwoman Kendra BLOCK and all of her efforts with the task force. I have three daughters that are in Denver public schools. Two, they're in high school now. So this is very personal for me. I was also a member of the task force and I'm a former staff member at Denver's Excise and Licenses. Back in private practice, I represent licensees on both sides, not just marijuana, but all regulated industries, including medical practices on both sides, those that are applying and those that are opposed to applications of all kinds. And I am here in strong support of this. I am not a marijuana advocate. I work with legislators, AGs, governors across the country on marijuana legislation. And my purpose is to rein this in and have it effective. I do not advocate for marijuana legalization on the personal side. I've never tried the stuff myself, but I have three daughters and it's very important to me, the world that they live in and the city that they live in, and the intent of the overly restrictive restrictions on this social consumption bill have had the opposite effect of what was intended. It's in the parks. It is at the parking lots. It's in it's on the 16th Street Mall. It is prevalent. And as a as a father, I'm tired of my children being exposed to it. That is very personal. These folks need a place to go. The efforts to curb it have not worked. This effort has not truly been made. That's on the personal side. On the legal side, first and foremost, this does undermine the will of the voters. And what is most important and hasn't been said is the plain language from the ballot initiative that was passed by the voters. It says the rules and regulations created by excise and licenses shall not frustrate the intent of the ordinance. It is clear in this that it is that if a business otherwise meets the requirements of the article, they should get the license. But the extra restrictions imposed by excise and licenses have gone far and above that, and we saw the impact of that from the task force. It has undermined what the plain language of the ballot initiative said. Finally, on the legal side, we have been through this before social consumption clubs for alcohol, otherwise known as restaurants. We went through this in 2012, rulemaking that pulled back some of the distance restrictions that were on that. We worked very carefully with all the folks that were involved neighborhood associations, licensees, businesses, council members, and in the end it went through and there has been zero increase in alcohol consumption, no impacts on schools or anyone else. That is the intent to protect with that. So thank you for your time and I appreciate encourage you to vote yes on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Nick Phillips and I'm going to call the next five, Stacey Lin, Joshua Capell, Adam Bruce, Shawn Coleman and David Wasserman. Go ahead. Hello. My name is Nick Phillips and I'm a Denver resident living in House District five in support of the reduction of the setbacks by Councilwoman Black. I'm a local activists and entrepreneur and voted yes when given the opportunity in November 2016. I spent several months at the beginning of 2017 attending the panel meetings alongside Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Black. Learned a lot and had aspired to be a leader in this industry. As an example to my family of how a venue like this could be operated responsibly. They're not exactly your cannabis fans, and I have a 14 year old half brother that I want to be a good elder brother to and a role model at the best I can. So with that being said, they're not huge Denver fans anymore. They've always been Rockies fans. And Opening Day was something that they always have done, but recently with out places for folks to publicly or to socially consume their cannabis, they're forced to illegally consume in public. And, you know, your mix of drunken fools at opening day is mixed with the smell of cannabis in the air. And it's not the best place for kids exactly anymore. So with that all being said, I hope that by reducing the setback that the city of Denver will see an increase in venues where folks can responsibly consume their cannabis and allow this program to find its full potential. So we may so that we may set a standard for the rest of the state. And. The nation as this flower continues to be less prohibited and different states. So yeah, thank you all for your time and for being here and for considering this. And I hope that you will reduce the setback. Thanks again. Thank you. Next up is Stacy Lynn. Hi. My name is Stacey Lynn. I'm the executive director of Cannabis City Foundation. We are a foundation that gives helps parents who have medically fragile or disabled children get safe access to medical cannabis treatment for their children. I am the mother of Jack Split, for whom I created the law, created Jack's law to allow children to have their medical cannabis at school. I started Accountability Foundation because I wanted children to have access to this very important medicine. But. The second half of that is that I am equally as passionate about making sure that children who are not medical patients do not have access to cannabis. So as such, I am kind of appalled that we didn't do this set reduction setback specifically for the children because as has been documented, thousands and thousands of children hang out at pools, they go to rec centers, they go to parks. Well, here's the deal. Cannabis consumers do not have setbacks. They can stand by the fence at the pool while the smoke wafts into the pool. They can cruise through the park. They can walk down the 16th Street mall smoking while my 14 year old son inhales it. However, we can create reasonable setbacks for businesses, and as such, I think that is the only way to protect children. It is the only thing that makes sense. We have legal consumption in this state and we have legal consumers. And if they have nowhere to consume, they will do it in front of our children. And I'm tired of it. I am a cannabis consumer. I would never do it in front of my child and I don't want anyone else doing it in front of my child and without. Perhaps we need a consumption center on the 6/16 Street Mall, not in an industrial park where no one is. No one's going to go to the unsafe industrial park to consume. They'll just stay on the 16th Street Mall. But what if they could walk four blocks away and consume out of everyone's face? I think we have to do this. There is no other solution we've been talking about in talking about it, and there just isn't. We all want cannabis off the street. How do you get it off the street? You put it in a closed, secure building that is highly regulated and monitored and out of sight of children. Not having a bunch of cannabis consumers hanging out at the park and at the pool, by the way, where that child can jump right out of the pool and go smoke with that consumer. They cannot do that at a concert, a consumption establishment. So I encourage you to please pass these reduce setbacks. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Joshua Bell. Thank you, President. Thank you, Counsel. My name is Josh Kaplan, one of the partners at the Sun, Cedarburg. You know, we've been working with counsel for about ten years now on cannabis regulation. And, you know, I think overall, I think he has had to give yourselves a pat on the back for for really taking this issue on and really putting in the thought to be a leader in the country when it comes to how do you responsibly regulate cannabis. Then after we drafted Amendment 64, you know, we were listening. How is this going to work? How is cannabis legalization going to work? What we kept hearing was there's a problem with people consuming cannabis in our streets on the 16th Street Mall, in our parks. And we we we asked, well, how do we fix this? You know, and what we did is we put together a draft initiative, 300, and we worked with a lot of different stakeholders in putting it together. And we put together a measure that we knew was very progressive because it hasn't been done before, but we did it in a very, very conservative way, and we gave the city an immense amount of power to create responsible regulations because we trusted we've worked with the city for a while. Looking back on that today, you know, and I have to applaud the city for putting so much thought into regulating where can where cannabis consumption can happen. But looking back on that today, it's clear that that we overregulated it that we did not fix the problem we went out to fix, which is providing places for people to use cannabis. You know, there's still hundreds of people ticketed each year in Denver for using cannabis in public. There's still reports of cannabis consumption all over our streets, in our parks. And so, you know, we're in favor of this bill to reduce the setback requirements and most in part because, you know, that's trying to ease the regulatory burden a little bit to actually allow a few businesses to open here. You know, today we have two businesses that are open. They're in inconvenient locations. And there's an overall we haven't figured out how do we fix this policy issue that we have, which is where do people consume cannabis. So, again, thank you for your time. Thank you for the thoughtfulness that you've put into this issue. And and I'd urge you to support this. And I will say, you know, as one of my final days, as one of the drafters of Initiative 300, you know, I do believe that these regulations frustrate the intent of the measure. And it's most evident because there's no place are very, very few places today where people can consume cannabis. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, Adam Rouse. Thank you, President. Thank you, Counsel. I appreciate you guys being here this evening. My name is Adam Bruce and I'm a resident in District four. Councilwoman Black, thank you so much for all your work on the special committee. I am the founder of Ganja Guru Yoga. It's a cannabis and yoga service, if you would, if you couldn't put that together in 2016, we did vote for initiative 300 to pass. The Denver voters had that as their will and their intention. And unfortunately, because of the restrictions, it's been nearly impossible to find a place to start a business and to be able to have a location to consume. I've worked with a few different real estate agents. I've worked with several different law firms to try to find a desirable location, as we might call it, or really any location to be able to host a cannabis and yoga class under, you know, this initiative. And it's been it's been really difficult. I mean, I think that the will of the voters is to obviously protect our children. It's to obviously protect our public who do not want to have cannabis in their faces. So I think that it's the responsibility of the council. It's the responsibility of the city, and it's the responsibility of the pioneers who are all sitting here in the industry to be responsible stewards of that. And I think that we have the ability to do it. I've worked in the yoga business for several years now. I understand the business model. It is certainly viable. We can look at the books of many different public yoga establishments and find that. So I think that there are certain concerns that the public does have and that the council probably has about, you know, reducing these setbacks. But in doing so, I think it would only give us these business owners and the citizens who voted this initiative in the opportunity to be responsible stewards. So I do think that, unfortunately, these restrictions did disturb the will of the voters. And I would ask you, as councilmen and women, to please vote in favor of this reduction of the setbacks. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Sean Coleman. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council Sean Coleman, 36 Solutions Public Affairs Consulting. I'm one of you a first time think your staff for the social equity workgroup they've convened this issue of making sure the communities who have been the most negatively impacted by the war on cannabis do not remain disenfranchized from the profits of the peace . It is a complex issue that has got systemic problems. It's got statutory problems, it's got capital access problems. This set back issue is one way to meaningfully trust that. And I want to talk about that because what you have in this question both and Josh Karp, one of the judges spoke to this briefly, is you have an opportunity to have about business viability that you can take this license and attach to an already viable business. And that's incredibly important, particularly in communities of color, lower income communities where the hospitality facilities and those communities are the extension of people's living rooms. It is the community meeting place. And it's important that these people have an opportunity together, because what we see in Colorado is and in Denver and frankly, unfortunately, in every state that legalize cannabis is a continued arrest disparity for people of color and people of lower economic economic status. So when we talk about public safety, that is another public safety risk, because when you dove into the numbers, particularly here in Colorado, what you see is something even more troubling is that even though you have a direst disparity, you don't have as sympathetic charging disparity, which means that people are being arrested and taken to taken downtown and then subsequently not charged. That means these are low level offenses, probably outdoor consumption. So what changing the set setback does is it gives the opportunity for businesses that are already viable, that already exist in people's neighborhoods, and have those businesses provide this service so that those customers, those consumers, those people who are otherwise simply being exercising their constitutionally, constitutionally protected right, but then being arrested for it and then subsequently not being charged, it removes that whole process by giving them a safe, legal place to engage in that activity. And it's also saying, as other speakers have mentioned, there is a state bill that is moving through a process that would address some of the issues that have been raised by your own staff in terms of the business viability. However, again, I want to encourage you to move forward with this proposal this evening, because it is this sit back issue that is really the barrier for existing business owners. And those are the people who have been left out of this, who have been disenfranchisement, profits of the piece and the communities who have been most negatively impacted. And it's about time that we gave those people an opportunity to participate in this industry. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, David Wasserman and then I'll call the next five, Frank Turk, Turk, Jawn Valdez, Michelle Walker, Amber Leong, Archer and Brian Ortega. If you want to come up to the front, go ahead. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I appreciate you guys time and staying here late on a monday. I'm in favor of reducing the setback. My name is David Wasserman. I'm the legislative liaison for the Southern Colorado Cannabis Council. My organization has been representing cannabis clubs since legalization. The Springs has licensed clubs right now. Denver doesn't. The Springs has licensed clubs, one of which was next to a daycare for quite some time. They do comedy there. They host poets, they have poker tournaments. They hold space for yoga in Colorado Springs of all places. They have more social consumption venues than Denver does. Right now, directly across the street from us, people are smoking cannabis in Lincoln Park and in Civic Center Park. I walked past that on my way here. I don't regularly see people drinking at City Park even though it's allowable. I'm assuming that they can go to any one of the hundreds of bars within walking distance, and that's why they aren't at the park. The same thing cannot be said for cannabis. There's no safe place to consume cannabis at the moment. Our tourism economy is booming, with 31.7 million people visiting the Mile High City in 2017. Many of those individuals are looking to consume cannabis during their stay here. They cannot legally smoke in their hotels, and they're forced to illicitly consume the cannabis in public and break the law or illicitly consume in their hotel rooms. I've heard this statement that there are more recreational dispensaries than Starbucks or McDonald's in Denver. There are many similarities between McDonald's, Starbucks and our current recreational dispensaries. And all three, you can purchase something. But while Starbucks and McDonald's allow you an environment where you can safely consume the product that you just purchased, Dispensary Center is out the door with no options. Many end up at the parks I was just speaking about. They cannot smoke in their hotels and they're forced to illicitly consume their cannabis in public or break the law. With that, I would just like to say that I'm in favor of lowering the limit. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Frank Turk. Hi. My name is Frank Turk. I live in the Five Points area. I work as a cannabis tour guide concierge. I think a lot of people on tours around town there. They have a great time with us, but they're always looking for an establishment to go to. There's not that many to go to. I refer them to a couple of places and they go to those places. But I think Denver's definitely missing out on a tourist dollar in an opportunity in history where they could be establishing these places. These places could be getting established. As we've been here, we've been doing it. This is the opportunity time for you guys. It's going to happen anywhere anyway, across the nation. Cannabis is totally healthy, it's nontoxic. It's awesome. It's better than alcohol. Alcohol is toxic. It causes problems, causes litter, causes smells. It causes all the all kinds of so we know we can compare. We can go online to Google, we can compare this stuff pretty easily. So this summer. Full alcohol is allowed at the parks this summer of me as I'm 48 years old. I don't really appreciate that. I grew up in an alcoholic home. My father was a heavy drinker, had a full bar downstairs. I started drinking a young age. Cannabis saved me at a young age as well when I found cannabis, thank goodness, because who knows what I'd be like right now if I'd be energetic and exercising the way I do now, looking at life positively the way I do now, and going about it the way I do now, especially with all the obstacles and things that have come at me in my journey to get to this point in my life where I'm at. I've been living here, like I said, for six years. I live on the East Coast where it's definitely is the East Coast. It's not legal yet there. It's definitely more stringent. So like I said, though, I think Denver is definitely missing out on the key opportunity in history to help these places create a commerce, create a place for people to come. We do now, like we said, cannabis is totally nontoxic, healthy, beautiful plant and needs to be free. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Valdez. Hello. My name's John Valdez. I'm the owner of High Yields, Cannabis Consulting, Valdez Investments and a licensed commercial real estate broker with great ray real estate. With the thousand foot setback, it makes it extremely difficult for my clients and myself to find any viable properties. I've had several clients that have left the industry or went to different states to to open up other businesses. I realize that there is 9000 eligible properties, but that is not there is not 9000 available properties. The properties that are available are in this area. Excuse me, I'm not a public speaker, so the large amount of them are not for lease, their existing businesses are not for sale. There are an open space country clubs, cemeteries, railroads and are not available to the cannabis industry. The current allowable locations are in industrial areas, undesirable and hard to access locations. A successful, thriving cannabis consumption club needs to be in an area where we have tourists. We have people like Rhino Low Union Station music venues like Bluebird, Ogden and Fillmore. If I cannot identify a location for my clients, this cannot go to licensing and it will be dead at that point. What you need for this to work is you need real estate, capital and labor force. We have the capital. We have the labor force. We do not have the real estate state. That's not a viable location. As an investor and a business owner, I would not invest in any of these locations. It will not work with the lack of tourism that you're going to have, the lack of foot traffic. There was a map. How can I grab an applicant? What we're looking at. You have talking to Mike from sorry. With the locations that we have on the map in the Green Zone, we're looking at in a very industrial areas off I-70 and then going down the 25 corridor towards Six Avenue. The areas that people are at are in the downtown area. This is the locations that will have a thriving cannabis consumption club for this to work. And these location retail events, short term or long term rental, cool workspace, food service, business partners, services like massage, acupuncture, yoga art classes and cooking classes and many others. I need to build to provide a atmosphere for 21 years older and over a professional networking opportunity, education classes in the industry and offer a safe place for consumption. I also am a parent. I look at this on a parent's side also. I take my daughters downtown to go shooting photography all the time. We have to skip Ali after Ali because people are smoking marijuana in the alleys, in the streets. So we skip the incredible art that my kids will not be able to see because of this. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. I appreciate it. And I'm a favorite. Please vote of all the people. Thank you. Next up, Michelle Walker. Michelle Walker. All right, Amber, let you say that. Thank you. My name is Amber Flanagan. I live at 1237 Jackson Street, District ten. Thank you all for your time, Councilman Black. Mr. President, for everything that you've done. I'm originally from Florida. The government there is moving at a snail's pace with medical marijuana. So I really appreciate everything you guys do and all the consideration and thought that you put into all of these rules and regulations. I support the new bill with the with the reduction of 500 feet in setbacks. This is a very important issue to me and a lot of my friends. The need for social consumption is apparent across the US. Public consumption is happening here, is happening everywhere. Jurisdictions all over the country and all over the world are starting to contemplate this issue. Where can people go to legally consume, especially tourists? I appeared before the task force a couple of times and gave a couple of public comments that I wanted to share with you all. The first was when I first came here with my little brother. We traveled across the country, got here, stayed in a motel six out by the airport. I am a consumer and my little brother is not. And while we were in our hotel that first night here in Denver, there was marijuana smoke wafting in to our room through the vents from the other rooms in the hotel. I asked the hotel management what they could do about this issue, and they said there really wasn't anything they could do, that it was out of their control at this point. So while I didn't care, I was bothered for it by it for my little brother on his behalf. Secondly, I have been to the coffee joint several times and big fan. I went there for a date not too long ago as I really don't consume a lot of alcohol. Neither did the gentleman who I met online. So we went to a coffee joint to meet up in a safe place in public. I do echoed the sentiments of the previous speakers that it is in an area that is difficult to go to at night and especially in an industrial area. It doesn't feel super safe to go there. But I went. I had a blast and was really grateful for the opportunity to go somewhere and consume cannabis just like you would alcohol in a bar. So I think that kind of puts a face on the cannabis consumer in ways that perhaps you guys hadn't thought of before. But also just wanted to raise one final point when asking you guys to approve this bill. We've heard a lot about affordable housing today. And recently you guys approved a retail marijuana tax hike and a lot of those funds from that tax to go to affordable housing here in Denver. So I think it's important that we consider that those people who are trying to help in those circumstances, a lot of them medical marijuana patients, may not be able to consume in their homes. So thank you all so much for your time. I would appreciate a vote in support of this bill. And thank you again. Thank you. Next up, Brian Ortega and I call the last three. If you could come up to the front, ask Marcus, Alissa, you four, and Alexis Armstrong. Good evening, members of the Council. Thank you for staying late. Allow me to testify. First off, I am a father. My name is Brian Ortega. I am on the board of Directors of Veterans for Natural Rights, a veteran founded organization with over 100 members, ambassadors and affiliates in the Denver area advocating for natural rights. I am also set to relocate to District five before May 7th. I've been a Colorado Colorado resident for over three years now. Cannabis has granted me many abilities I lost due to my military service. The setback is there's nowhere to consume legally. I'm a medical refugee and I live in a multi dwelling facility. I cannot legally medicate, nor can a lot of my brothers and sisters who reside in federal housing. Medicate legally. Most residents and tourists are forced outside of parks, streets and a multiple multitude of public spaces sure to have children looking to enjoy the outdoors, not cannabis smoke. This bill will create a safe place to consume for everyone. Cannabis has increased my mobility and allowed me to do things like leave my house, which led to things like physical therapy and the end of a ten year opioid dependency. In August 2017, I was accepted to the University of Colorado Boulder Math and Science Program. I would like to see social consumption allowed because I've come this far in my healing. With the current consumption laws, I can only imagine how much further I can go along with so many others if this passes. Let's exercise our natural right to consume in the public domain where excuse me, let us exercise our natural right to consume in the public domain where cannabis is already consumed illegally, and on responsibility on responsibly due to the current regulations. The cannabis community wants to do this responsibly and respectfully. The emphasis is protecting the children. There are not many places for people like me, a patient and a resident to legally consume, as well as for the tourists who visit our great city. Please vote to honor the will of the voters. Let's reduce the setbacks some more social consumption businesses can open, aiding in the responsible reintegration of cannabis. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, ask Marcus. Good evening, Mr. President, distinguished members of the Council. I'd like to thank you again for staying late. And thank you for allowing us to be the voices so that you can hear them from us. My name again is Eric Marcus. I'm the chief operating officer of the Grove Spaces. We are a cannabis, hospitality, entrepreneurship, and we are looking for venues that are compliant where we can provide our hospitality services to guests of the city of Denver as well as residents. You've heard from multiple people here, and hopefully you can see by the turnout that there are many people who would love to get into this industry and our businesses that want to support not only what the public is looking for and what people voted on in November of 2016. And ultimately, these are services that people desire for an entrepreneur like me and for the people in my firm. The current setbacks have really disallowed us finding viable locations that are in areas that are appealing. If I can't bring my own family members or my wife with me to enjoy some cannabis out in a well-regulated space, then we're basically forced out to the car, to the alley, behind the bar. And ultimately we're looking for safe spaces for everybody to be able to consume cannabis. I don't think anybody thinks or should think that exposing our children to cannabis is of any benefit. I would remind everybody that written into the legislation is a community approval requirement that if we are anywhere in a neighborhood where we can meet the other conditions to be able to be licensed, if the community says we can't be there. We're out. So we are looking for other locations as it is. So I am here in favor of the setback reduction. I would ask you all to please take it into consideration and let's. Realize the will of the voters here. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next up, Alissa, you've heard. Hi. Thank you, Mr. President. And Council. My name is Lisa Offer and I am the owner of Kayak Event Designs. We are a private event company that plans private invitation only and cannabis consumption friendly events. It is extremely difficult for us to do these events. We follow the same distance requirements as I A300 and operate under the same type of model only completely privately. We have a lot of venues that are private event venues that still cannot host cannabis events because they are just within that thousand foot requirement. Marijuana consumers need somewhere to go and socially consumed together. People need that community and be able to come together. And by allowing marijuana sales in the state and then nowhere for any tourists to go can consume is just forcing people to be criminals. I went to school for tourism and event management and Denver has been the example of tourism for the entire nation in our schools across the country. And as a when it comes to cannabis events, we are falling very far behind the rest of the country. So I ask you, please vote in favor of changing the set back restrictions. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Alexis Armstrong. Council members. President, thank you for your time this evening. My name is Alexis Armstrong. I'm a current resident in District ten, Denver's Uptown Neighborhood Representative News District. I've lived here for about four years now and voted in favor of Initiative 300 in 2016. And I'm just here to support the rest of the voters and ask you to please go along with what the voters requested in 2016 and change the requirement to 500 feet. This way we can keep our legal cannabis use away from children and we can have cannabis friendly establishments for tourists and visitors to consume. I myself have previously worked at a dispensary. I would say about 85% of the customers that. Come in are. Tourists. They're looking for somewhere to consume responsibly. And as the retail workers, we have to tell them we're sorry. You know, you just have to try to sneak it in your hotel room. Or take it to the. Park or, you know, wherever you think is the safest place to consume. Because currently there are not very many options. And when I was working. In the retail industry. There were none at all at that time. And I see it every day. And Cheesman Park in Congress. Park in Walsh Park, I walk my dog and there's people consuming all over the park. So we're just looking for somewhere. Safe to consume and we're asking you to please vote in favor. Of honoring the voters. To allow more possible locations to open. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Amanda Phillips. Good evening, everyone. My name is Amanda. I am the state director for minorities of Medical Marijuana. Thank you very much for your time. I do not live in Denver. I live in Aurora, so I do not have a someone to vote for here. But thank you very much for being here and representing Denver. So currently right now I am the president of minority medical marijuana. I'm currently on the board for Colorado Black Women of Political Action. I'm also on the board of Denver Normal. I represent people of color, women, disability people. Excuse me, I'm sorry, disability people as well as veterans and felons. And they would love to get involved in this industry. However, owning a dispensary has a high cost social equity, as well as owning a consumption space would be something where we can afford to get involved and we can afford to to have a business in this industry. Also to educate older the older community on hemp CBD as well as marijuana usage. They also would like to have some way to consume. They cannot do it in their retirement home. So they would like to have somewhere safe, somewhere, somewhere where someone can invite them so they can use it to help them as an alternative of off of opioid medication. I also look at this as something that minorities are this this operationally arrested and charged for our even fined for for using this is somewhere safe that it can be said they can somewhere safe they can use this so they don't be they won't be ticketed or citation for people of color and also lower income disenfranchized people also to being that this would if we do have social consumption if we can have it somewhere or allow public transportation. I have been to the coffee joint. I love them. They are a wonderful establishment. However, it is very hard via public transportation to access that, to engage and consume and medicate in a safe environment. So I'm just asking you on the behalf of people of color and your districts that would love to get into this industry, that is able to afford it and provide a safe place to consume for your constituents. So thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I don't. Did anyone say they were from a marijuana policy group, by any chance? Ashley, are you familiar with the employees? What study is it? Sorry. The Marijuana Demand and market study are from August of 2018. I. Okay. You could come up to the microphone to answer and introduce yourself for everybody watching on TV. Hi, I'm Ashley Kilroy, the director of Excise and Licenses. Yeah, so you're not familiar with that. And it was Marijuana Policy Project study. It is market size and demand for marijuana in Colorado. 2017 Market Update Prepared for the Colorado Department of Revenue by Marijuana Policy Group and the Lead School of Business at CU Boulder. Yeah, we might be that might be the one that. Adam Orenstein. Yes. Yeah. The reason I'm asking is. You know, I have something that was prepared for council. You know, it is a fake, you. Q And there was a lot of things here discussed tonight in the public comment that were are not touched in this f a q but are sort of reflected in this, in this, in this in this market study. And one of the things that I want to sort of confirm, do you have any sense about the size, the number of marijuana users, social users in in the city? There are non visitors, just actual residents. No, I don't know that off the top of my head unless Molly does. Okay. I mean, we were familiar with it when it came out, but I haven't looked at it lately. Because this is this is a statewide thing. But in their 189 metric tons are consumed by of marijuana, they're consumed by residents as opposed to 19 metric tons by visitors. But there are only are less than a million sort of marijuana users that are residents, while there are seven, six and a half million that are visitors. So there's you know, we have six times the amount of marijuana users that are actual visitors, but they're only consuming a 10th of the total marijuana that is being produced. So I'm trying to understand, should this policy address resident users of marijuana, you know, create acts, you know, improve access for resident users of marijuana? Or should the policy address the visiting use consumer of marijuana? Because what I hear is sort of two different things, right, which is we need to solve the problems in the neighborhood and that seems to cater to the resident. But the you know, where I think the market is, is catering to those people that don't have housing, even though it was very clear that people in subsidized housing, federally subsidized housing have no place to consume. But then again, if you're in a federally subsidized unit, do you have a lot of disposable income to now go to a high end facility that is there to cater to visitors? So, you know, is there where I'm going with this? Because I think there's mechanisms that we could use to address what I think is being asked for here in a way that could address both the rise, the low income resident user, and medicate her and and cultivate the market that is probably there with the visitor, but it's probably not with a sort of blanket. Let's just reduce the setback and let the market decide because the market will only cater to one and not the other. Or is there have you heard anything in your in your deliberations that says, oh, I'm a property owner and I very much would like to cater to the to the low the the the low income user because we heard a lot about alley use and other things. Yeah, great question. And I think we heard when we when we had our task force a little bit from everyone, I mean, including people who say they just want a place to go consume marijuana with like minded people. So more of just the social piece, but we didn't drill down far enough and to how could we meet the specific needs of those individuals? Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, you. Had one other question that might touch on that same thing. There were two gentleman, one by the name of John Valdez and the other one by Eric Marcus. One John says that he is on the acquisition side of, you know, properties. And our Eric says that he operates businesses. Do you have any sense about what it cost to transition an existing business over to what potentially something that would satisfy this are requirements if the property was viable? It's property to property. If you're going into a blank canvas, it's obviously going to be more expensive than going to something that's already established for like a nightclub or a restaurant or a bar or something. But is it a few hundred dollars? Is it tens of thousands of dollars? That a game that tells me a lot, right? Yeah. If you're asking the per square foot. Per square foot is what you're looking at. Yeah. You're between 25 and $50 per square foot on an average will cost more for certain types of businesses. It's hard to say if it's going to be a $500,000 build or if it's going to be hundred thousand dollars bill. It's per unit or per asset. Eric, do you have sense about what it would cost for you to go ground? I mean, you know, go into an existing space and make it viable for your operation? Well. Again, Councilman, it really does depend on the type of space, number one, and the square footage you're looking at and what the previous use was. My background is in traditional hospitality. I've been a chef for 28 years and counting, and if I were to go into an existing restaurant, I would have to buy out all the assets in place. I would be buying the license or going through a use review for a transfer of license, and there are any number of prohibitive hurdles to get past for our current model, because you cannot. Make and. Serve food that is produced in-house under the current regulations. Basically, we don't need a commercial kitchen anymore, but. We're looking at more core and shell spaces that we need to build out from the ground up, depending on the occupancy rates. And where we want to be is to be able to host groups or host to the public more than 100 people ideally, so that we can properly monetize the revenue stream and make it all worthwhile. It requires. Fire suppression. That in and of itself, if you're a landlord, can cost you upwards of $100,000, $150,000. So now we've. Created another hurdle for an entrepreneur to get past just to find a. Space where we can actually operate. Yeah. Thank you. For for for for being candid about that, because there was a lot of stories about how, you know, businesses could just convert and be this for my neighborhood. But that's a serious investment to sort of make that launch. And what worries me is if you're in a community that doesn't that caters to a whole bunch of clientele, this industry can only exist in a 21 and older. So you're basically then saying, I'm going to only serve a very narrow market, not all people in a neighborhood. And so I want I wanted that and I wanted that clear answer because I need to make it very clear that, again, there was a lot of convert comments that seemed well intentioned but don't necessarily speak to actually how much how much investment has to go in to make a successful operation, consumption operation, because you've got to have your own product to sell because you're not selling the marijuana in the process, correct? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. Hey, John or Eric, I appreciate Councilman Espinosa for calling you up. I can either one of you, because you both are speaking along similar lines and you're looking for investments. And John, since you're standing there, I was trying to write down everything you're saying. You're as we're talking about these locations, you're saying they're industrial areas, not accessible. You said for these to be successful, you need areas with a lot of traffic, tourist areas, location. Location is good for for consumption. And I say this in jest. Are you familiar with Colfax? I'm very familiar with Colfax, which in your district that we spoke earlier would be a great location for it. But the key is having available properties. There is 9000 properties, commercial properties in the Green Zone are in the working area, but that doesn't mean they're all available. You may have something that is leased. You have a landlord or an owner of a building that has a federally regulated loan. He cannot put a cannabis consumption product in there. You may have something that is not for sale or it's an existing business. So, so. So for those not familiar with District eight, I've got Yosemite, which is the border all the way to Colorado. And I'm looking at my map right now and I can say conservatively, because I'll go on the conservative side, 70% of Colfax is green. As I as I look at this right now, 70%. And you can sit down. You're that the question is is accessible right now and unless so when I hear that there aren't properties available, I would love for somebody to walk me Colfax, because I, I support this model. And my apologies, Mr. President, because I'm bleeding over into the comments that if if someone can explain to me how I hear that they're not accessible, but I look at this map, I see tremendous opportunities along the Colfax corridor with the 15 is the most RTD busiest traffic route. That's a great location. Thank, Mr. President. Can I say something on that? I'm good enough. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Just returned. And Councilman Flynn. That's famous person. I was expecting your question in an answer. So let me ask, is honey lastly still here? And I don't know if anyone else in the audience or perhaps Councilwoman Black, who is our legislative liaison, can talk a little bit more about House Bill 1230 and how that might change the business model. Honey, what is your understanding of what changes the legislature may hand to us that might change the game here? Thank you, Councilman Flynn. My understanding is that 1230 will allow for both a bring your own model similar to what initiated ordinance 300, but also a sale model of product on site. It will also. That's the biggest thing is it will allow for also mobile marijuana businesses to operate. Mobile, you mean like tour busses or. Mobile things. Like that. The language in the bill says mobile. I'm assuming it means it's on wheels. I was having a lot of nods of. Yes. Ah, yeah. Thank you. And again, Denver will have local control on on on how far they care to take what the state will do. I never would want to underestimate the ability of this council to make the right decisions for Denver. But those are those are the the biggest differences is that it will lead to greater expansion. And and our point at Smart, again, is that there will be a whole another time to really look at thoughtful analysis around setbacks and that perhaps waiting until 1230, which all indications are will pass. Governor Polis has come out and said he will sign it, that there is another opportunity to have this discussion with really even more of a bigger ramifications. Thank you. Is there any anyone else who testified who's familiar with 1239 can add to that perspective? Thank you. Mr. President. Councilman. Thank you. I think Henney covered most of the logistics of the bill fairly clearly. I just want to just really hone in on this concept, right. Because the concept of all of the state bill is that all commercial cannabis activity should be clearly licensed. Right. So in other words, in this, in a separate bill from 1230, the sunset bill, the Department of Regulates, the Media Marijuana Enforcement Division is also going to be getting injunctive relief ability. So in other words, so what we have now, of course, is because and I think, frankly, in some ways because of the sit back issue , you have unlicensed, unpermitted cannabis activity going on across the city. It is in many instances, clearly commercial. And the remedy for the people in the neighborhood is to call the police and then the police chase that person from one house to the next one garage to the next. And and then that just goes on like Whac-A-Mole forever. What you have when you have state licensure and again, the Denver City Council will have to go through process to opt into that state program. But once opted into that state program, whether there was a change between sales or not, what certainly would be the case is that now when someone notices some unlawful, unlicensed, unpermitted activity going on in their neighborhood of the community, they can call the marijuana force and division. Who could then call the court. Right. And courts have a much better way of keeping track of people, making sure they're not doing that again. Then police officers running around, they have better things to do than go chasing. Let me ask you this and I'm sorry, your name is again. My name is Shawn Coleman, 36 Solutions. Thank you. And I have heard and maybe you can verify some of the other folks here that in within the marijuana industry sector that there is some contention over this, there's some support, but there's some opposition. Is that in fact, the case? I'm seeing people shake their heads now. Okay. So, yeah. So I mean, I think, Mr. President, what I mean, I remember as a council member, I think maybe what you're thinking about and considering is that this license program at the state level, very similar to Denver, is question. Denver's DCA model is not an industry bill. It is a creates a license that is generally available. So obviously some folks would say, well, I've you know, I've been in this country for a long time. Why do now more people get an opportunity to be in the space? And I think the answer to that is because more people should be able. To ask you this and let me maybe a show of hands. Generally speaking, does the marijuana industry support 1230? Thank you. Thank you. Joshua Kappel. Cabal. And you said you were part of writing the initiative. Thank you. Growth? Correct. Okay. You made a statement that everything that I've looked at and I'm on the marijuana committee and everything I've looked at has persuaded me that the distance requirement that was added by Excel is not really the obstacle here, but it's the business model that is fairly flawed. And so when you said I think you made the statement that it's obvious that we are frustrating the intent of the ordinance because only two businesses have opened, but two businesses have opened in the 20 square miles of the city that still are eligible, according to our G.I.s, people with even with the 1000 foot restrictions on the other properties. And I'm being told that up to 30 entrepreneurs are just chomping at the bit to find locations in the additional 2.2 square miles that this pullback would add to the eligible area. And I find that to be somewhat incredible. So could you explain how you arrived at your conclusion that the distancing requirements he accelerated are what's frustrating this and not a business model that frankly, is is impractical in my view? Yes, that definitely when we drafted the measure, we we put in a thousand foot setback requirement and we gave the city council the ability to add whatever regulations they wanted. And we gave excise licensing, the ability to implement regulations that were necessary to enforce it. And so the additional setback requirements weren't necessary to enforce that. And thus what they did is they actually made it. So there's locations that are otherwise would be approved that the neighborhood supports, that the neighborhood wants them to be there and they can't get a license permit to operate because of the distance requirements. So that's one reason how it frustrates it. But what's so fascinating, what people don't understand is we actually this business model isn't as as financially lucrative as selling cannabis. Right. And so what we did is we made the distance requirements the same as selling cannabis. So out of all the places that you can operate, they've actually been already picked over by people who can sell cannabis. And so there's no additional spaces. You can have one of these businesses where you can also get a cannabis dispensary license. And so it is it's a misnomer to say that, you know, there's all this square footage. It's actually there's not that much square footage because all of that square footage has already been sort of gone through by people with a more viable financial model, which is selling cannabis. Right. All right. Thank you. I have one more. I actually. Kilroy And could you come up. And maybe explain to everybody and the viewing audience, why did you add these? Why, when the ordinance said a thousand feet from schools and said a thousand feet from schools only under what authority in the ordinance and I don't know if you need to call up the attorney who's not still just not here anymore. Oh. But until. You have a new. Attorney. So why you why you chose to add pools, rec centers and whatever else? So when we looked at the ordinance and it gave us rulemaking authority with regard to area restrictions, we looked at the intent of the ordinance. We had a lot. There were a lot of issues related to what we did. The area restrictions were just one small part of it. So when we got to the area restrictions, we looked at the intent of the ordinance and we saw what we believe. One of the attempts was to keep these facilities away from kids because they were 1000 feet from schools. We also looked at it. Another part of the ordinance said something about making sure that these businesses weren't viewable from a place where children congregate. Right. So but is that actually in the ordinance? It is in the ordinance. Okay. But the thousand feet from schools. That was an inference you made. Not a specific direction. Correct. Because schools are where children congregate. You inferred from that that other places where children congregate might also be banned under consideration as. Okay. Prohibited. Okay. Yeah. And so with that group we went through, not just that, not just on area restrictions, but we sort of looked at, oh, well, what are they doing in Oregon on other things? And what about bringing butane in these businesses, and what are we going to do about disposal? And we took stuff from what you guys had in your ordinances about disposal and kind of came up with a bunch of stuff. We had tons of options out on the table. We had a varied work group. We had CDP, Colorado Department of Public Health. The Deputy Director of Public Health, Karen McGowan, was on it. We had DPS on it. We had a couple of other youth organizations and community organizations. And that group speaking as a whole, you know, with some people disagreeing, believed that we should add additional area restrictions that would protect children. Okay. We also had some other people arguing for even more like area restrictions from schools and a couple of different ones. But in the end, the compromise was. And some argued for less as well. And some argued for less. You wrote us an email a couple of weeks ago indicating that the mayor is is supportive of keeping the thousand foot restrictions that excel at it, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Ms.. President. I believe that's all I have. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you. Mr. President. Is the gentleman who made the reference of church in the city? 1600 Gaylord. Here. No. Okay. Well, I just. I have the map. You're not in the zone. So this is for your edification. That's it. That's it, right? Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Let's see. I want to start with Ashley, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. Molly. You can come forward as well. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. So. I'm looking at this issue, trying to understand where the rules come in as it pertains to who's going to monitor the consumption. That would ensure that an operator doesn't become liable, very similar to, you know, our bars, where they're responsible for monitoring the consumption and not assuming that liability responsibility, if they allow someone to walk out the door stumbling and then get in a car and, you know, run somebody down or whatever the case may be. So help me understand how the rules address that particular issue with social consumption. Right. So what Josh and some of the other authors put in there that they should have some type of safe operations plan. And so then in our committee, we talked about what would that safe operations plan look like? And one of them was that we said in your safe operations plan, you have to provide some type of information that would tell us how you would monitor for overconsumption. We also talked about having universal carding, you know, and they would submit that that that that that operations plan telling us what they would do that goes through our process. And we would review that and say yes or no this is or is not a good plan for monitoring for overconsumption. But you're right, like the DRAM shop laws that apply to liquor don't apply in this case. But isn't this reliant on also the type of enforcement that we will have in place to ensure that that operation plan is going to be consistently applied? Yes. Okay. So I want to move on to concerns about the fact that people still can grow marijuana in their homes and how this potentially plays into the state law that's moving through the state legislature and what that might mean to either mobile consumption facilities or sales on premise. Can that sale? Come from marijuana grown anywhere or does it have to come from an existing facility that has had to follow all the rules and regulations? Can you speak to what your knowledge is of that and how how that sort of would apply here? Yeah, that is how you sort of interpreted it at the end is correct. Marijuana that you grow at home is for adult personal use. You can't sell it, you can't distribute it, you can't give it to someone for anything of value, but you can share it with your friends. So that type of marijuana would not get into the license system. What we were talking about, the hospitality bills that are at the state right now where smaller businesses like coffee shops or vape and play could start selling marijuana under one of these hospitality licenses. But they have to get the marijuana through a licensed business. And who monitors that? Pardon me? Who monitors where it's coming from? So just like what we do with everything that would be both the state and and our department, the media and our department, when we do inspections, if we see something along those lines, you know, that would be somewhere where we take action or if we get a tip that there's something going on illegally. Okay. And then just the issue of the concern that there are limited locations across the city. Is this something that you all have looked at very carefully? I know we've seen different maps sort of coming around. And I did look to see if any of the maps were on our largest star system and they're not. I know we had several of them, you know, in committee for discussion. I'm just curious, from the perspective of exercise in license about the availability of locations across the city that. Do not continue to saturate the same neighborhoods over and over. And Molly, can you speak to that a little bit more? Molly is much more familiar with the maps than I am. Okay. So, Molly, we do get you up here. Okay. So sorry. So can you just clarify the question? Yeah, I'm just trying to understand from your perspective the availability of locations across the city that would allow social consumption currently. I mean, what we're talking about is incorporating a place where people can go and really kind of folding it into existing businesses. I mean, that was my understanding of of what was originally proposed. But it doesn't mean that somebody couldn't like create their own type of business and then incorporate that into a new business. So it's not necessarily all existing types of right. And so and that is what we've seen the two businesses that are open are new businesses that were not in existence before. But we did do an analysis of existing businesses. And and we also looked at the type of businesses that were in the initiative. So places like yoga studios, coffee shops, salons, those types of things. And we found over 300 locations that are eligible of all businesses in the city. It was well in the over 10,000 businesses, but some of those, you know, might not be the type of business that would want this type of addition to their business. But in the type of business that would that was an initiative that was, you know, kind of advertised in the initiative. It was over 300 eligible locations. And it was up to those businesses to choose to incorporate. This. Marijuana model into their existing business. Right. So that they were eligible to come in and apply. Okay. So none of them have done that. We've only had two new applications that have created a business model that will allow people to come in. That's correct. Okay. I think that is the end of my questions. Thank you, Councilwoman or Ortega? Councilman Espinosa, I'm going to go to councilman in first because when you. Actually go, go. We had a lot of discussion about what's happening to our kids in our parks now, about the consumption of marijuana in our parks and wherever else in the public where people are having to go to smoke now rather than having a consumption cloth, you know, or location. When you had your committee, did you address this issue or was this an issue about public health and the effect on children. About and in our parks, in our you, our. Areas or near the rec centers and near the locations that we've been talking about? Yes, it was. And I think I wasn't at the meeting. I think at the meeting in November, Commander Henning said that public consumption, outdoor public consumption is down, it's decreasing. They've been doing a lot of education with the kids, and we've been doing all of our all of our youth prevention staff. So at least that's what DPD has said, that they're seeing public consumption decreasing in the parks. And how are they enforcing that? How are and how do they determine that? Oh, well, when they're out there, they're look, you know, they're out there doing patrol. And if they see people consuming, they will ticket. It's a non civil it's a non criminal violation. But and oftentimes they'll do warnings. But I think the first couple of years when we first legalized, we were really focused on warnings, warning warnings, education , handing the kids and adults a know the law cards and then after a couple of years, they transitioned more into ticketing. But I think, Molly, you were there at Henning's last presentation. I think he said public consumption tickets have dropped significantly. Okay. So the police are enforcing it. It's not park rangers or anyone like that. Yeah, I think park rangers have authority to enforce, but I haven't seen their numbers lately. And if we if we pass the 500 foot business, you know, will the smoking in our parks and rec centers, will that be discontinued? Will everybody go to these. Locations to smoke? Are we are we we still have some degree of a problem, in effect, on kids? Well, I think that those are some of the questions we're all struggling with. We don't know what we don't know. We don't know. You know, first kind of in the world, starting with this, we don't really know if that will change behavior by opening more marijuana consumption shops. I know Bob McDonald, the director of did he sent Councilman Flynn his analysis, the public health analysis on it. And he's probably the better person than I am to speak to public health and impacts on kids and and behavioral change. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Councilman to Councilman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Henny, could you come up again? I have a question for you. Thanks. You mentioned that the state deliberations down their law might give us a more options for social consumption. Is your group supporting the state legislation or opposed to it? Mark Colorado is opposed to the bill and if it passes and it came up and then it was up to Denver, whether we would implement it or not. Would your group support it or not? At at that point, I'm not sure really that the support or opposition is really relevant. The reason why Smart Colorado has always opposed is if I could step back just a moment now. The reason why we've always been opposed to these types of organizations or operations is because our interpretation of Amendment 64 was that the voters voted for personal consumption and it wasn't ever meant to be. And this is why the state has wrestled with this for six years, is there has not yet been a clear definition of what open and public consumption means. So that is why we have that's why we have maintained opposition to that bill. You had suggested that we perhaps delay until the seated whether the state legislature thing passes because it might give us more opportunities to have social consumption places. But you're saying that your group would oppose it no matter what, so that you would hope that there were wouldn't be no more social consumption places? Again, I don't know at this point without consulting with with our leadership team, if we would take an active role in lobbying you or asking you to to not do that. So I'm really not I'm really not able to to projections. Does it seem likely to you? Again, I think it depends on what the state model ends up looking like. Again, Denver has been the leader and we're just saying maybe this isn't the time to reconsider a setback. And as if the if the bill comes forward, then you'll have another opportunity as as a as the city to to make a good decision. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. A quick. Question, sir. Marijuana guru. Ashley. There you are. I didn't see you. I was like, Where did she go? I was, ah. Oh, yeah. Looks like there's quite a few marijuana girls and I'm risking asking that question in here. Ashley So I wanted to ask about the process with. Needs and desires are their needs and desires. Hearings and processes here and in place. And I know it's very similar as similar to dispensaries and things like that. Can you kind of walk us through that? Yes. Yes. Well, kind of on on social consumption first. Josh and his team put in something called that. They need evidence of community support before they even really file their application. So they have to talk to one neighborhood organization. It doesn't have to be unanimous, but just that there's someone out there that would agree to them, even just submitting their application. And then after they submit their application, we based. Did you know exactly on like what we do on liquor? Here's where the location is going to be. And we do just like with liquor, we go through and we vet and we make sure it meets all the distance restrictions and then if it does, well, set the neighborhood needs and desires hearing. I think we did it about the same. We sort of count blocks and do different things, but we might expand that here in there, we expanded one for Councilman Gilmore one time and then give the neighborhood notice and they come down and we have a hearing. City attorneys sort of represent the process and people like you will come and sort of represent the neighborhood and testify. Yeah. What about, like, what if council member doesn't show up? What if it's just community? Do they. Are they still parties of interest? Pardon me? Would they still be considered parties of interest? So the detailed rules about who are parties and interests, it always is an R.A. and then it depends on the different type of license types. And then like a business owner and one license type, it might be a commander of a district. But like what we'll do, and I think I've mentioned it to a lot of you guys and I know I have with you, Paul or Councilman Lopez, if you've got a community that doesn't know or is unsure of these rules, we are happy to kind of walk them through that. The city attorney's office has been gracious enough to help sort of train people if they're not sure what they need to do in a hearing. In the dispensary model, a party of interest is a councilmember. I think so. Is that we? Yeah. Yeah. Does that carry into this one? Pardon me? Does that does that not apply to this particular license? Let me let Angel answer that. It's different. Did it change from. Does it change from those the dispensary licenses to this. Good morning. Members of Council Antrel Bagger. I work at the Denver City Attorney's Office. I was looking up your other question. Sorry, why you ask this question. So for your question about whether city council, a city council member would be a party of interest in these hearings, they would be we refer back to the same rules for all of the same reasons. That's what I wanted to ask. And, you know and I know I don't want to go into comments, Mr. President, but I just wanted to confirm that that was still the case here, despite what the you know, the reduction in the proposed reduction in. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Joshua, can I ask you a couple questions? So, first off, I think the initiated ordinance did a lot of good things to sort of make sure that it got community support. I think it was well intended and well written. I think it probably gave us a little too much latitude. But thank you for that as well. But in there, it said that there's designated conservation areas shall not require specific zoning permits and shall be permitted in any zone lot where underlying business or event is permitted. That one always sort of bothered me, right? Which is that, you know, wherever, you know, we're not going to put a zoning threshold, you know, to to this. But I'll be honest, I see that as a potential way forward. Are you familiar with the Denver, right? Yeah. Blueprint Denver. A planning update that's under consideration right now. I haven't read the 2041. Okay. There are six vision elements in that that sort of really shift the paradigm that we you know, the lens that we view land use decisions going forward and sort of trying to take a more equitable point of view on, on on our decision making. Hopefully, the reason why I'm bringing that up is I think I think a surgical placement of, of, of, of potential locations would benefit both the community and those businesses that pursue these opportunities, because they could they could make the case with the community, make the case with their bankers, and and then move forward in a way that doesn't create a whole area that ability granted on a sort of zone lot by zone lot basis. And so I think through zoning might be a way to to sort of so a way to to determine what of these industries that are out there are compatible by by you know, there's different business cases that they're throw out there that are already considered in that. They've already looked at that and said these are compatible businesses where we could actually work with exercise and license with our planning department and create a tool that would grant. Councilman, I just want make sure that we're still on questions about what on the hearing at hand. Since he's not familiar with Denver. Right. I feel like you have to go in a little bit more detail on on how we get here. But ultimately, would you relax this? Would you be okay with relaxing this prohibition in the original zoning? I mean, in the original initiative were so that this council could actually create it, you know, potentially use a different avenue whereby you could grant licensure to properties that are well below these thresholds if, if, if other zoning of other conditions are met. Yeah. The the intent of that section was actually to decrease the costs of opening the business. You know, so a yoga studio or a barber shop could just apply for a permit without going without having to update their building code and bring it to the the 2017 IBC or whatever it is in Denver is currently on. So it's actually a way to to make this more accessible. Now, if if, you know, if we could get accomplished through zoning the true intent of the initiative, which is to have places where people can consume cannabis and that are outside of, you know, outside of public finance. You know, we'd be very supportive of changing hours, you know, of creating some special seed up process or some other process for businesses within, you know, that are close to these sensitive use districts. How that actually works, I don't know. Well, I think I think I think you and others nailed it. And I wrote it when you spoke, actually. Um, and so the question is about there are always this concern that there's too much public consumption already going on in places where it's not legal. And this would create this avenue for us to sort of address that concern. So do you think that we could we could. We could. Do you think we could come up with a series of. Do you think we could come up with some sort of structure whereby we could ask that question and answer that question? How does this resolve how how does your business resolve public consumption concerns in this area that is being put it mean established? And if we could answer that question, we basically made the case for why this business should go there. I definitely that's possible. That's what we try to do by having these businesses work with the neighbor. You know, that was who we wanted the gatekeepers to be as these neighborhood organizations. And the problem that we have now is you have the neighborhood support and you still can't operate. And so there's another mechanism that's like more scalpel. Like, you know, we'd be very supportive of it, you know. Hit the nail on the head, right? Which is this is why when Cindy came and called and made her case, I was like, yes, we should have an exception for you. If you have that level of support, there should be a mechanism whereby we can grant that exception. We don't. And it was and that's why we didn't put in arbitrary set back requirements to start with. That's why we only had the 1000 foot from the school because that was federal law. You know, we didn't want to upset the federal government if we put that one arbitrary set back in. But all the other ones really made no sense to us because it was actually about working with the community. And if the community would rather have a place where people can consume cannabis, that's right next to the park, you know, as opposed at the park, then that's the community's choice. And that's what our intent was, was, was really have these businesses rooted deep in the community and that just can't be accomplished when there's these arbitrary setbacks. And so that's why I'm asking. I mean, I wanted to bring it back to where we're going with our zoning code because we had more arbitrary approach initially when we started doing grow operations and other things. And we got a lot of unintended outcomes in communities that we had to address subsequently. Here's our chance to sort of we're now on that concept. We go back in that direction and hope for the best, or do we actually look at what language we're putting forward and maybe figure out with you how we might actually sort of proactively engage the community and get that buy in and then make that a condition for and I know you don't want to do that because you make it sound like that's cost prohibitive. But I almost think that these business operators would welcome that because it's better than no option at all. But you don't want that option. And, you know, actually, I read the 2020 Denver vision, but I haven't read the 2040. So I think I'll just get back to you on the you know what I see. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega, you back up? Yes. So along those lines, I like the fact that, you know, looking at this approach. That sort of gets away from looking at the same neighborhoods where we already have the growth facilities and many of the the retail stores for both medical and recreational marijuana. But I wanted to ask you a question, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. I should have had you stay there. I wanted to ask about the compliance with the Clean Air Act, because I understand the bill moving through. The Legislature is asking for an exemption for vaping from the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. So the bill, as it was written, would comply with the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. Correct. Initiative 300. Correct. It complies with with the Colorado. Okay. And then I just wanted to ask about. So if, you know, we have a lot of people that that are involved in this process who may also have some of the stores that may want to look at a different model where they can for move their product into a different social consumption model, if you will. And and I just wanted to ask the question about if we lax the rules from what was created in in the regulations from 1000 feet to 500 feet, what that means for down the road wanting to use this move. If council moves to to change this, to then say, well, you did it for social consumption. We now would like to see that change made to stores to grow facilities. Is is that something that has been talked about? Is that something that would be a desire of some of the clients that you have worked with? It's not something that I've had discussions about, you know. You know, 500 feet. Now, I think we can change all of the regulations. You know, our intent is, you know, it's always has been like, you know, the the current set back requirements have created saturated neighborhoods with cannabis businesses. This loosens and, you know, so it provides more more spaces for a less lucrative model. Now, if the state passes their law. I think the city council has another chance to do it. We'll have we'll probably have another opportunity to look and see how they want businesses that sell cars that sell cannabis for on site consumption to be zoned and regulated. But would you see? This, opening the door for the same facilities to be able to sell. So if we create this particular model that allows people to bring in. I mean, it already exists. We're just talking about reducing the the the distancing that these operations would be expecting to also incorporate sales into the same locations. And I don't know. I don't think I'm in a position to sort of speculate about that. I think ultimately it's going to be a choice for the council, you know, in terms of if these you know, of how that of how state law interacts, you know, and if these businesses will be asking for on site sales. Okay, Councilwoman, I think we would have to increase the number of licensed establishments for that to occur. I don't know that that's that's the case, because we're talking about social consumption, because this bill is being brought forward under the social consumption model, which is different from our licensed facilities that are seed the sale. And I would ask our our folks for exercise and license if they could weigh in on that particular point, because I think that's an important clarification. And I'll just I don't think this measure and I'll just say allows for onsite consumption. You're not onto the consumption for onsite sales. So it's going to require an act of, you know, this body to, you know, create the rules around consumption with ons, with onsite sales. So, Ashley, would you mind coming forward so we can. Okay, Molly, we've been tracking this. I think it's important to have some clarification. So if the bill passed that the state we in Denver would have to we would take some would take a legislative action to create the license for both for hospitality and sales. So if one if we wanted to start allowing the hospitality and sales locations, we would have to create that license and it would come before you all. And then also along those lines to Councilman Espinosa's point, we would have to consider and do some analysis of what that would do to the cap and lease locations that allow for sale. So right now there is a cap on locations that allow for sales of marijuana. So we would have to consider if we want to make that one cap or separate caps for places that allow for sales and consumption. So those would all be things that would have to occur, conversations that would have to occur. And then my other just last comment is that if the bill passed, the state would still have some rulemaking that we would want to see how some of that plays out as well. So just a clarification. I have a copy of the bill right here, and it wasn't clear to me if this is isolated to the hospitality industry, does that mean hotels are B and B, restaurants? How how broad is that in terms of the definition of hospitality? I don't it's not defined in there right now. I don't I think and I think we would have some local authority to define it if we wanted to narrow it in some way. But it's not it's not narrowed in the bill, I don't believe. Okay. And just one last question. In in your opinion, in having followed this particular state, Bill, does what what do you see as the impact of us adopting this tonight in isolation of what happens with that state legislation? I mean, I think there's a there's a lot of moving factors here. So it's hard to say what you know, to speculate on what might happen. But I think I mean, well, the conference around one of the questions when we talk about local authority will have to and if it is decided that this is a license that we would have in Denver, one of those questions, as it was during the task force that we did in 2017, one of those questions is obviously setbacks. Okay. And just one last piece. So that all is focused around social consumption as well, correct. I mean, the sales, the the three things that it does, the mobile consumption facilities, the minimum sales that would define what the amounts are that could be available. And then the exemption for vaping. Their consumption licenses. Yeah. Okay. There are consumption models. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman. Councilman Flynn, you back up? Yes. Just a really quick question. Based on what I've been hearing, Molly, could you stay there and relieve Ashley from having to come up? I don't see anything in and maybe I'm just because I've missed it in any of our regulations that require setbacks of these facilities from one another. Can social consumption licensee licensed locations be within a thousand feet of each other? They can. Okay. Could they? They could be next door to each other. They can. There's no set back between consumption and consumption. And there's no set back between a consumption area and a store that sells. Have to spend it. Okay. And I may have gotten a fact wrong about the bill so that ultimately I want to clarify. And is there. Is that true for marijuana centers and dispensaries, or is that not true? Marijuana centers and stores cannot be within 1000 feet of another marijuana. Okay. Actually, we didn't. And we didn't import that. Prohibition into the Israel. Okay, now. Thank you. That that makes sense because opening up these additional areas would not be very fruitful if if one location could block out a bunch of others. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. But we have a legal clarification to get on the record. To Councilman Ortega's point. The question was how does the US or the council passing this restriction affect the state? There is a provision in the current state bill that says that anything in that draft state bill, if it does pass, it doesn't affect the enforcement of an ordinance that's already been passed by a municipality. So it would not affect the enforcement of either. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 19 0349 is closed. We are going to go into comments, but I will remind council members that this is just for publication. We will this will be back for final where we will need nine votes next week. So I will ask that everyone keep your comments if you're going to make them today concise, because I'm guessing that we will also deliberate this again in a week. Councilwoman Black, would you like to go first? Mike. Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe we won't need to deliberate next week's spending so many hours talking about it tonight. Thank you all for being here. Very impressive and passionate public comment. I think you really made the point about what is the issue here. I did want to clarify on the state bill. Councilman Flynn, I already provided you with those answers. I know our attorney has. I did give everyone an FAA cue. And just to be certain, Kristen Crawford and Troy Bratton checked my answers. The state bill will leave us with the same proximity issues we have now. It just creates this same obsession. It has a public consumption option that is bring your own. And it has the tasting room option, which is if you had a dispensary, you could opt to get a license for that if the city decides to opt into that. But the bring your own model, which is what we're talking about here tonight, that is would be made illegal by the state, but we would still have to have these exact same discussions. So if you want to talk about it in six months or a year, we can sit here again for 5 hours and talk about it. But we're going to be talking about the very same thing. So I encourage you to read the answer on this. Q. And I'd like to say that a lot of us have spent a lot of time on this. This is a really, really modest compromise. We are respecting the work that excise and licenses did. We are not eliminating that. The requirements for those of you who who think the reason there aren't any is because it's a viable it's not a viable business model. I guess you think all these people aren't being truthful? I believe them when they say the five feet would help. I'm sure they would love it if we reduced them down to what the voters did approve. But if you think the business model is the problem, then you should vote for this because then the distance requirements don't make a bit of difference. I would also like to point out that we were talking about protecting kids. We heard a lot about the protections that do exist. Again, there's a list of them in this FAA queue, but it does protect neighborhoods. Eric, I can't remember your last name, but your first name is Eric. And if the neighborhood doesn't want it, they won't support it. And all of us council people can go to the public hearing and oppose it. There are so many protections in place and in the bill itself it says that the consumption cannot be viewable to kids. It does not say that the building cannot be viewable to kids, but it can't say on the outside what's going on inside. There are restrictions about signage and advertising. So. Again, it's a very, very modest compromise, and I hope that everyone will support it again. We need seven votes tonight. Next week it'll be on final reading. We have a very long night next week also. So I hope you'll support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman by Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. And I almost did utter the words that Councilman Black read into the record. Listen, when this first when we first started regulating this industry, I started out very nervously, very gingerly and and took some very, you know, very conservative stands on it. And a lot of us did. We didn't know how to regulate it. But over time and time is always good proof. You realize that this industry is not like alcohol. It's not like some of these other industries. And we had a problem with with with problematic liquor stores and predatory nature of them in our in our neighborhoods . Much like what L.A. went through, you know, over over overconcentration in poor communities of color. Right. And so I put these protections in place. These are my amendments. And I fought for them. I find myself in a very different situation because now I'm traveling with with with the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and presenting with Brownies and Cheetos, by the way, to other local governments and other local officials, saying you need to regulate this in a way that is fair, in a way that is responsible. A fair and responsible regulation. That's what's needed. And you have to involve stakeholders and community. And, you know, I understand. I understand. And I don't want to I don't want folks to feel, you know, I understand that that that folks still feel very nervous about this. And we do have to approach everything with caution. We do have to make sure that it's out of the hands of our young people. From what I hear, I think that's there's there's I don't hear any anything contrary to that. And I am going to support this. I am going to support this move forward, because I know that we even power the public in general, especially through community and through creating a public process, a needs and desires, hearing where community members can participate. Community leaders can participate. And elected officials like your council members can participate. I tell you, where where we still have trouble is with the alcohol industry, we're not parties of interest. So we're actually doing this the right way. But and my and my, my, my desire was, let's do this the right way. So that 80 years of of outdated laws that the liquor industry actually wrote themselves on the state level can learn. And this is one of those steps. So I you know, I know we're going to be considering this later and deliberating. And I just figured I'd just do it right now because you all are here in the chambers and we're here till 9:00. So having said that, thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate everyone being here, and particularly for listening to our very long question and answer session, which included a lot of masked comments that were hidden as questions. So you all have been very patient. I am not passionate about marijuana. I don't think it's the most important issue facing the city. I don't believe it's totally healthy. I don't believe it's harmless, and I don't believe it's the cause of our amazing economy. I don't think it's the cure to all illnesses. I also don't think it's the end of the world and that it's destroying our city and that it's destroying our state. I simply want to take a practical approach to making the rules. That is my only goal. And, you know, I will tell you, I'm not happy sitting up here. This to me, we have so many huge challenges facing our city and the time we have spent on this with the level of homelessness and transportation crises in our city, frankly offends me. So I'm struggling. But I'm going to talk about two issues that influence my vote tonight. First, do I think that the rules adopted by excise and license are legal? I speak only for myself. I do not speak for the city. I'm not the city's attorney, but I do not believe they are legal. There were a few terms thrown out by our department head and what gave them the authority to make this rule ? They talked about the intent of the ordinance. Let's be very clear. Nothing in the ordinance gives the department any authority to clarify the intent. It gives them authority to do two things. To administer and enforce. That's it. The term that was thrown out about protecting where children congregate. Let me just read to you that language. It says The permit holder shall ensure that any outside smoking of cannabis occurring at the street level is not visible from a public right of way or a place where children congregate. Nothing in that sentence relates to defining that as a power of the department. Nothing in that sentence relates to indoor use. It's about outdoor. Use. So I guess the question is how do we end up with rules that are about interpreting the intent of the ordinance that go beyond administering and enforcing? I don't believe it's responsible. I mean, and I will just translate for you. We heard some testimony today talking about frustrating the intent of the ordinance. And that testimony was in part from several attorneys. That is code for we think we might sue you because we think you violated the terms of this ordinance. I don't think it's responsible to leave the city vulnerable to a lawsuit to litigate this. Right. I personally think that any distance requirement beyond what was in the ordinance is probably not legal. But if everyone has agreed not to sue, if we go to 500 feet, I'm going to support this tonight because I frankly want us to move on to the real issues in the city. So the other thing I would just want to clarify is in terms of whether we would just immediately have, you know, sales situations, there are these this ordinance added pools and recreation centers. There is no pool or recreation center reference anywhere else in the marijuana code. So we not only invented new distance requirements, we invented new locations. There are other places children congregate. They congregated ice cream shops, they congregated churches. They congregate in all different. My son congregates in trees along the right of way. So I just I really I think that the I am disappointed in the in in preciseness with which the authority of the department was described by this testimony tonight. It did not accurately refer to what the ordinance says about the authority of the department. So for me, that's a significant thing. But let's just imagine, let's imagine that there was no legal issue. Then what's the policy analysis? I am practical. If there is evidence that these distance requirements concretely impact youth marijuana usage. I want to know it and I want to legislate based on it. So I did my own research and I looked at what are the influencing factors on youth usage of marijuana? And it's tough news, folks, if it were as easy as distance requirements. Boy, my job as a parent would be a lot easier. The number one thing related to me is marijuana usage. Is parental time and parental persuasion. I have a ten year old kid and my least favorite thing in the world is talking to him about drugs. But I do it anyway, and I'm sure Bumpy and I still need lots of help in how to do it better because there's not a lot of curriculum about this in our schools or in our world and how to do this as a parent. Also, to talk to my son about suicide. And that may not seem like it's related, but it is because youth and our commission in the city have named their top three issues, and one of them is mental health. And if we don't think kids are turning to substances because they feel isolated and parents aren't talking to them about the risks of suicide, because we think if they don't see suicide and they don't talk about suicide, they won't commit suicide. Well, it's no cure for marijuana than it is if they don't see it. It doesn't mean we don't have to talk to them. And I don't want parents to think that we've protected their kids from marijuana by a thousand feet versus 500. The only thing that can protect kids from marijuana is having these conversations, and there are studies that document it. I'm not going to cite them all for you. But let me ask about alcohol availability. What do we know about that? Iceland did a pretty big transformation in youth alcohol usage, and it had nothing, nothing zip to do with reducing alcohol locations. It had to do with doubling the amount of time you spent with parents and doubling the amount of free activities that gave them natural highs. That's what they did. They didn't create distance requirements and eliminate alcohol. They did this much harder, much harder things. And if we're serious about it, that's what we need to do, too. What about young kids? For young kids, the number one risk factor for marijuana and drug use is parental risk factors, abuse, neglect, those things. That is hard work, folks. That's how we prevent use of substances among young kids. And what about all kids, older kids, peer use and attitude? Number one, influencing factor. I actually found one study that looked hard at whether reducing retail access of alcohol had any impact on youth drinking. Guess what? It did not. Enforcement and ticketing was was correlated, right? The more you ticketed youth for alcohol use. But reducing retail establishment access had no impact on youth usage. So we have to do the hard work. And I would have loved to spend 4 hours talking about any one of these topics. That to me is evidence based legislation. Evidence based legislation takes facts and it says, how do we translate those facts into protection for our kids? There is no evidence whatsoever that kids are at risk from an activity happening inside a building that they can't see at a thousand feet, at 500 feet or next door, which right now the sales locations are for rec centers and ice cream shops and pools. And this only came out because of these new regulations that, in my opinion, violate the ordinance. So with that, you can tell I will be voting yes on this compromise in the hopes of saving the city wasted resources, litigating, frankly, such a. Minuscule difference of distance. So thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to my colleagues for I know what our sincere opinions on the other side. But hopefully we can base our decisions tonight on evidence. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. The fact that we have only two licensed businesses open now with 20 square miles of the city. tOe to toe. Square miles of the city. Eligible tells me that the distance and that's what the additional distances added by Excel tells me that that is not the reason that this isn't successful. I believe it's a flawed business model. I thought it was goofy when we voted on it and that was kind of odd. The reduction in 500 feet in my district, according to the maps that our guys people supplied to me, would open up eight additional business locations. They are. Subway. GNC Nutrition. Sally. Beauty Supply. T-Mobile. Sprint. Colorado Credit Union. Never Nails and King Soopers. None of which I venture to say. Even though the initiative supposedly was based on overlaying on existing businesses for some of the reasons we explored. That's the reason we only have two. Not because we took out 2.2 square miles that this will restore. What I think we're dealing with here is as a junk vehicle, a car that has a blown engine, and we're trying to fix it by washing a windshield and putting air in the tires. When the solution is, I believe, to waiting until 1230 passes and opens up new opportunities, which I think would be more successful to allow on site sales because BYOB into a hair salon really wasn't going to be a profitable venture for people. I think the legislature's about to hand as something that would would would be a little more have more chance at success. And yes, we'd have to deal with the same distance requirements. But again, 20 square miles of the city, we only have two. And I'm being told that 30 people are just waiting for those other 2.2 square miles to open up. It just doesn't it just doesn't sound reasonable. I think we're we're fixing the wrong thing with this this initiative passed by seven percentage points in the city. It passed citywide. And I'm committed to finding a way to make it work. But in my district, it failed by 14 percentage points. That was a swing of 21 percentage points. So I need to make sure that that my voters interests are represented and that it's fairly regulated. And so I would I'm going to vote no on this tonight. And I would even entertain if there's an appetite for it, entertain a postponement until the legislature gives us more tools that we could build into this and make it work the way the way everybody wants it to. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, gentlemen. Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Councilman Flynn, if you make that motion, I'll second that. The. The. I will be supporting this going forward tonight, but I am very much on the fence. My district, northwest Denver, voted overwhelmingly in support of the Initiative 300. Probably put it over the line, to be honest with you. But, you know, I don't I won't make it easy if it was hard for you to read between the lines in my in my questioning. What I was suggesting is that we relax the distance requirements, but on the condition that they deliver improved environmental the improved environment process mean promised. Sorry, I'm going to say this all over again. So I want to be very clear. I was suggesting that we relax the distance requirements, but on the condition that they deliver the improved environment promise and serve all income levels. That's it. Plain and simple. You know, I think that's the right thing. And so relaxing them carte blanche does not do that. It will serve the market. And that market is not all income levels. But if we can build the tools that do that, I'm all there. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So, first of all, I just want to share with you all that I have an amendment that I was planning to bring forward tonight. I'm going to wait and look to bring it forward on final. And what it would basically do is say that that's why nothing in the passage of this bill tonight or on final reading would in any way indicate the position of this council that we would lax the rules for stores or growth facilities from the thousand feet to the 500 feet. So I will look to bring that forward. I am planning to abstain tonight because I wanted to try to understand when the state is planning to take action on that bill. I think the fact that we're going to be doing this twice is is a little goofy. Rather than trying to do it all at once so that we would have the ability to deal with both sales as well as people being able to to bring their own to whatever business model makes sense. I think the the point of sale piece probably makes better sense as a business model than people bringing their own to an existing business model and sort of share some of the comments that were made by Councilman Flynn. And I've asked the question of some of the folks that I met with in the marijuana industry about why we haven't seen more applications than the two that have come forward. And and so without belaboring that point, I'm going to abstain tonight. I will look to bringing that amendment forward on final. I think postponing the bill would make sense, but I don't see that we have the votes here tonight for for that to move forward until we have the state legislation passed. But again, I think just being able to do this once is what makes the best sense rather than, you know, doing this now and then coming back as soon as the legislation passes and then doing it all over again. So thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Herndon. Yes, Mr. President. This is on publication, so I'm going to vote yes for publication and I'll just reserve my comments for final consideration next week. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman, consider you back in. Yes, sir, I am. Mr. President, I have another comment. Go ahead. Thank you. Just two quick things. Several folks have stated tonight that there have only been two applications and that is not accurate. We didn't have testimony about it tonight, but we had extensive testimony at committee. There was a third application that was denied based on distance. So I just want to make sure that the record is clear that there in fact was a denial based on distance, that they were not they had community approval, they had the site and they were less than a thousand feet, but more than 500 feet. So there is at least one applicant who would be directly impacted. So that counters the claim that this would not help any businesses. Secondly, I just want to remind folks of the testimony we had from the city attorney's office that stated that any regulations that we pass are protected and grandfathered under the state statute that's being proposed . And that secondly, if indeed we needed to add a piece, we could simply add any pieces we would not need to re debate these pieces. And I see the city attorney, the legislative counsel, nodding her head. So with that, I just wanted to clarify the record before folks vote. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can you seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call uncountable 19 dash 0349. Black. Brooks. I. Espinosa. I. Flynn no Gilmore. I. Herndon, I. Cashman Carnage I. Lopez, I knew no Ortega. Abstain assessment i. Mr. President. Hi, I'm Secretary. Please close the voting and notes results. Tonight, two nays, one abstention. Tonight, two nays, one abstention. Council Bill 19 0349 has been ordered published as amended on Monday, April 22nd. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 302, approving and accepting comprehensive Plan 2040 as the city's comprehensive plan for the city and county of Denver and a required public hearing on towns Bill 303 Approving and Accepting

LongBeachCC_05102016_16-0365

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal code by amending Subsections 21.54.120.B.2 and 21.54.130.A, and Table 54-1 of Chapter 21.54, all relating to billboards, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

And moving on to hearing item number two. I don't believe an oath is required for this hearing as well. Madam Clerk. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and declare ordinance. Amending Chapter 21.54 of the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the regulation of billboards. Read the first time and lead over for the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading and accept categorical exemption for the project , which finds that the proposed code amendment is categorically exempt from the provisions of secure underclass. Five. Minor alterations in land use limitations citywide. Thank you. And turn this over to the city attorney. Mayor Garcia, members of the city council. This will be a short staff report. As you know, this item was here last week on May 3rd, primarily to discuss amending the billboard ordinance to allow, in certain instances the use of Caltrans credit in certain landscaped freeway areas. We had extensive council discussion and public comment on that and the consensus the vote among council was to approve that amendment to the ordinance as part of the motion to approve those changes. There was an additional item that was added. And that would be to put a 50 foot. Limit height limit on billboards that are. Adjacent to freeways. That was not the type of change that we could make on the floor. So we did make the change. It essentially involved a change to the table in the billboard ordinance to indicate a height limitation of 50 feet. So the entire ordinance is back. For first reading. That concludes our staff report. Thank you. Without having to go ahead and go to public comments on this hearing, please. Members of the public want to speak. Please come forward. Mayor and council members. My name is Ben Rockwell. I live at 75 West Street here in Long Beach. I would like to say that many billboards in fact, most billboards distract the drivers attention while they're driving, making unsafe for those other people that are riding as passengers in public transit vehicles or otherwise, and making it dangerous for other drivers on the road when these people are distracted and cannot have their own attention on their driving, their destination and what the traffic conditions are ahead. I would like to see as few billboards as possible on our freeways and definitely not the bright electronic billboards as they are an extreme distraction. I want to save lives, not let them get diminished. Thank you. It doesn't make sense. Hi, Laurie Angell. I live at 458 East Platt Street and I was involved pretty much in the first go round at the Billboard ordinance. It was extremely difficult, contentious billboard ordinance. It took a lot of discussion, a lot of public was involved. The billboard people were involved. There were a lot of very difficult issues that were discussed, and one of them had to do with billboards, digital billboards on our landscape freeways. And I thought we had all come to an agreement that that is something that we did not want to have, mainly because what we have in terms of landscaping along the freeways was pretty nice and we didn't want to interfere with that. So the brightness of these billboards is an issue. But then also that effort did win the city an award, a hard fought award, because it was such a difficult thing to come to an agreement about. Now, we're being led to believe that this minor change in this ordinance is is minor, indeed, when in fact, what it's doing is opening up the door to allow digital billboards to be in a place exactly where we did not want them to be. And then also, if you take a look at a table in the item, it says that they can be 500 feet apart. Now, staff will tell you, well, that's just not going to happen because, you know, of the land uses and ownership and this and that. Well, once you open the door, you could possibly have digital billboards every 500 feet down the road. It might not happen for five or ten or 15 years, but eventually you may really regret that you're passing this besides the fact that they use an incredible amount of energy, they use so much energy and generate so much heat that it requires air conditioning. So in terms of being the green Long Beach and we tout the fact that we're energy efficient and we're responsible to the environment, I think it's a terrible idea if they're generating money, that should be for the city that should be spoken about here. But I haven't heard it spoken about. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Chuck Fowler, North Long Beach. I might point out, as my gentleman did, that in the first go round of the ordinance that currently exists, it was stated by the various proponents of billboards that billboards are not distracting to drivers. If they're not distracting, why have them? You know, it doesn't seem to make sense. I want to point out, too, that the height restriction that was proposed earlier in the last reading is actually an increase in the height. Currently, the ordinance calls for 40 feet, no more than 40 feet high. Now it's being led to up to 50 feet and even higher than that if there are sound walls nearby. I would really want to see that go back down to the 40 feet and one of even more restrictions. Currently, you know, the current ordinance, again, was fought very hard to get. And now we're. Kind of tweaking it a little bit and it's going to create some problems. So please reconsider. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. And Cantrell. And I will repeat some of the things that I wrote to you in a letter. They've been addressed by other people today. Electric billboards are distracting. And if you take your eyes off the road to look at them. Studies show that it is at least 2 seconds that your eyes are off the road. In that 2 seconds, the person in front of you can slam to a halt and you can run into them. I think that putting distractions like this on the freeways is counter to what we were trying to do. When we tell people, Don't use your phone, don't text, don't put on makeup, don't shave while you're driving. And then. We put up electric billboards, as has been stated. It also takes energy. And as I understand it, we're making a deal that we can take the old billboards in the neighborhoods off the streets so that we can put them on the freeways. I don't see why we have to make a deal. Take those billboards off the streets and keep them off the freeways also. Thank you. Next week replace. Tom Stout live in Wrigley Information File. I agree. You know, all we're doing is exchanging one form of light for another one that you see. I mean, if you get all these billboards along the freeways like people are talking about, you know, it's going to look like the Las Vegas strip. You could probably see it from the piece, the space station and a few more years if things go the way they are. So exchanging, it's not a good idea if you're going to make some money. There's probably better ways you could make it than, you know, sort of putting in signs that nobody really wants. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I like to make up a point about my brief hiatus. I get a normal fan of the city council and haven't been here for a long period of time. I don't know if I was really missed because I tended to be a thorn in the side of the city council. But I just wanted to say that and said my time was productive. I've been writing movie reviews for the L.A. Times and I strongly recommend The Jungle Story. It's a static, wonderful film. Having said all that, I'd like to talk a little bit about billboards, which I'm here for first. The remark that we're somehow distracting from the beautiful landscape of the freeway with the billboard remains to be seen. I see very little. A beautiful note of the scenes to be seen around the billboards. Second, the billboards a work of genius. Some of them belong in art galleries. They they tend to be very beautiful for the most part. And third. And most importantly, billboards. Generate revenue for the city. You know, it increases sales. That's why I have them. It's good for the city. It's good for commerce. Another point to be made is that. The notion that Las Vegas is somehow worse. Worse off with billboards is it is not true. Las Vegas and Tokyo are noted for their billboards. The lighting in particular, and really quite beautiful. The lights are meant to be beautifying and not distracting. And my last point is this all the complaints about billboards, it's been it's been presenting a distraction. Well, it is a distraction just because it's so good. People are attentive and want to see billboards. And furthermore. You know, Bill, boy, I work hard. I want to I want to emphasize and they do increase revenue. And the last point to be made is that they're not deleterious. They serve a productive function. They inform like the story of a haiku poem, an insight set in a few words, a few lights, a major comment on commerce and what should be bought. Thank you, sir. See no other public comment. We'll go back to the council. Councilmember Richardson. I made my comments last week, but I just wanted to say congratulations to the whole team on the recognition from the American Planning Association. So this is this is tremendous work and I look forward to the second reading. Thanks. Councilwoman Mongo. I just wanted to ask the staff to reiterate how many billboards will be taken down. Amy Burdick, Director of Development Services. Answer that question. But I believe it's 138. I think it was over 100 for sure. Council member, mayor and Council City Manager Pat West is correct. We do expect 138 billboards to be removed with the ordinance change specifically from one company. We do have potentially another application which would remove another 38 billboards in a different location on a different freeway. 176 billboards, I think, is a remarkable accomplishment for us with this tiny change. And I'm really proud that you brought it to us. I think that it's a great thing. And I know that someone made a comment about find another way to make revenue. This is not a revenue generator for the city. This is a way to remove blight from neighborhoods. And if you take a few moments to look at last week's council meeting, I think that was Bodak did an excellent job showing us the locations in our parks and in our neighborhoods where people lived with that blight before. And I think that this is a great thing. Thank you, Amy, for working so hard on this. And thank you to your team. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion in a second by Councilmember Richardson and Councilman Mongo. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. We have a consent calendar. There's a motion and a second public comment on consent. Seeing nonmembers. Please go ahead and cast your vote. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Gonzales.

DenverCityCouncil_12202021_21-1444

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for security personnel services in City facilities, excluding Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for $25 million and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, for security personnel services in City facilities (GENRL-202161226-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Kniech called this item out at the 12-13-21 meeting for a one-week postponement to 12-20-21.

Thank you. I'll do a recap under resolutions. Council member Hines has called out Resolution 1438 for a vote and Resolution 1444 for comments under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Councilmember Black has called out Bill 1475 for a vote and under pending, no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen. Thank you. Council member Hines, please go ahead with your comments on resolution one four, four, four. Thank you. Council President. This is I guess I should have made sure this is a resolution for the contract at the for security. Of course. Now, I can't find it in an account. And this is the Securitas contract, correct? Okay, great. I want to thank Securitas and Safety and general services and so many people for for working through this. It appears that there was a bit of a miscommunication in the process. I want to thank Councilmember Ngige for delaying this vote for a week. Securitas has sent a correction letter to two current employees and that has helped fix any of the potential miscommunication. And and I just want to thank Securitas and SEIU because they are now partnering in the worker hiring and retention process, which has really helped really helped with the retention. Now that you know that they're working arm in arm, there is a memorandum of understanding as well. And I want to thank again thank everyone involved for working with that. I also want to thank Dan as well for for helping facilitate the conversation and bringing people together. I don't see Dan here tonight necessarily, but but I do want to make sure that the airport also gets some recognition and credit. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. See, no one else in the queue will go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screen? All right. It looks like we've got it there. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Resolution 1438 on the floor for adoption?

DenverCityCouncil_04202015_15-0190

Amends Section 54-44 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to permit the operation of bicycles on the designated transit way of the 16th Street pedestrian and transit mall on Saturdays. a) Presentation. b) Fifteen (15) minutes of public comment on proposal. Two minutes per speaker and equal opportunity for opposing perspectives as determined by the Committee Chair. Individuals wishing to speak must sign up in the Council conference room (3rd Floor, City & County Building, Rm. 391) between 10:00 am and 10:15 am. The order of speakers is determined by the Committee Chair. c) Discussion/Action. (INFRASTRUCTURE AND CULTURE) Amends section 54-44 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to permit the operation of bicycles on the designated transit way of the 16th Street pedestrian and transit mall on Saturdays. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-8-15.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance that allows bicycles to be on the downtown mall on Saturdays as well as Sundays. And I at first had some concerns because of my own personal circumstances. I am one of the few people who has been unlucky enough to be leveled by a bicycle. When I was on the sidewalk, I mean, I went splat everywhere. Sunglasses, damaged, bleeding. I mean, I know how it is to to be hit by a bicycle. And so I just wanted to be to get a question answered from the police department as to how they intend to enforce having no bicycles on the sidewalks and what they do anticipate happening. Good evening. We have officers assigned to the 16th Street Mall to enforce violations such as riding on the sidewalk. And our position is that we we try to educate people with regards to what's permissible or not, but we enforce and cite for obvious violations. If we have somebody that's behaving egregiously, recklessly and not willing to cooperate, or if we get complaints in a particular area on the mall, on the sidewalk area where we get repeated offenses. But our objective is to partner with Downtown Dare and partnership the ambassadors and the officers that we have work in fixed posts and routine patrol on the mall, ma'am, to educate and then take enforcement action when the need arises. So on a case by case basis, they could very well be cited if they, for example, if they're from out of town and they're not, they rent a bike and that are where the procedure and we contact them and they're cooperative and then we can get them back into the traffic lane where they should be. And that's more of a election release type of situation. If we have an individual that isn't cooperative, is well aware of what the ordinance is and refuses to comply with our requests, then they're more they're more likely to be cited. But we take that very seriously. Ma'am. I appreciate that. Commander, please know that speaking from a pedestrian standpoint, I don't want to see those bicycles on the sidewalk. It brings a terrible memories. And I don't want somebody else going through what I went through. Yes, ma'am. Commander, introduce yourself for the record. Sorry. My name is Tony Lopez. I'm the Denver District Six commander. I apologize. There's a lot to offer. Yes, Councilman Brooks. Yes? Just just a comment. No need to stand up here, Commander Lopez. Appreciate your service. I just wanted to mention. Well, first of all, I'm so excited to have your support councilwoman fights on this bill. I, I just want to mention that this is something that we can do on the 16th Street Mall. This is an exciting deal. We're open up the 16th Street Mall to ride bikes in the transit lanes and not on the sidewalk. And we're really excited about this. The several neighbors, all generations are excited about this. But there was some fear around, you know, how do we make sure people follow the rules? And so we will be putting up signs of public works and downtown have a partnership. And, you know, District six police officers will be looking for this. So we will make sure that enforcement will be happening. But this is a good thing for the city and county of Denver. We have one of the Marshall fellows that I mentioned is from Copenhagen. So I know she's excited about this opportunity as well. But this is this is really good for the city and I'm excited and and hopefully we'll see more biking opportunities in the city and kind of a thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. All right. We had one more bill that was called out, brought to my attention, 197 called out by Councilwoman Monteiro. What would you like for us to do with this? I just want to make a comment. Go right ahead. Thank you. So, council bill 197, it's on bills for introduction. But this is a bill that that we're that works with 38th and Bleecker Street Sidewalk Project. And many of the folks in this area, especially around 38th and Black Street, are really excited. What it does is the nutshell in a nutshell, it's $2 million in federally funded projects. Dr. COG Second commitment via our TD Regional Transportation District. It creates new sidewalks from 35th to 40th on Lake Street on the southeast side of the street. And RTD is doing the other side concurrently. So it helps to improve pedestrian safety and connectivity in the area where there were no where there were no sidewalks. There'll be new street lighting along Blake Street. New dedicated bike lanes will be installed from 35th to 40th. There'll be painted bike lanes. 20 new bike parking spaces around the future. 38 and Blake Street Light Rail Commuter Rail Station. So I just bring this up because a portion of them are in Council District nine in the River North neighborhood. So thank you so much to all of our partners and especially to public works for all of your hard work on this. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. All right. See no other bills call out. We are ready for the black boots. All of the bills reduction are ordered published. Councilman Nevett, will you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage in a block? Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move. That the following bills all series of.

DenverCityCouncil_07202020_20-0569

A resolution approving the Mayor’s appointment to the Board of Public Health and Environment. Approves the Mayoral appointment of Jennifer Jaskolka to the Board of Public Health and Environment for a term effective immediately and expiring on 12-31-24, or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this item by consent on 6-23-20.

Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Next up, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Well, I guess that's old language. Look at it on your own screens, everybody. But Councilmember Herndon, would you please put Council Resolution 569 on the floor for adoption, please? Yes, Madam President, I move that council resolution 200569 be adopted. Thank you. Can we get a second? I can. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman Swire, questions or comments by members of council council members say to Baucus. Thank you, Madam President. Just bringing this one back up, because last week we were asking some questions and nobody was here to respond. And I have the same question of. How was this member recruited. And how many applicants applied for this role? And so if Romanians here would love to know the answers. Romaine is definitely here. I provided you all with a presentation earlier today. Given the number of items on your agenda. Would you prefer that I just respond to questions, or would you like me to go through the whole presentation? I would really just like the answers to the questions. Okay. Is that agreeable with all members of council? Mm hmm. Yep. That'll work. Okay. The question was, how was she recruited? She self applied for the board. There were ten applicants. All ten applicants were reviewed by senior staff at the Department of Public Health. She was by far the most qualified of all of the applicants that we received. She expressed an interest in serving. I think today you received as well her statement of interest outlining why she feels that she can bring value to the board. And what are the qualification requirements for this board? There are no specific qualifications for this board other than. Members must serve five years. No business or professional group may constitute a majority of the board, and at least one member of the board must be a nonprofessional who is not in public employment. And so if there are no qualification requirements for this board, how is it determined that this person was the most qualified? As we looked at the composition of the board and reviewed what the various and sundry skill sets that the current members brought to the table, this was one area that the board and senior staff felt was lacking. And what was that area? Her legal expertize in health and safety. And was the corporate representation of Excel. Was that discussed as potentially not something we would want on this board? No, it was not discussed. We don't discriminate against individuals by virtue of their employers. We look at the individual and what are the characteristics that they bring to a board that enhances the board, can assist the board. As you know, this board is required to hear appeals on decisions made by the department. They also engage in rulemaking and they also advise the department on policy. Correct. Very familiar with that board. In fact, I'm curious having one of the or the most polluted zip code in America right here in our backyard. I'm wondering if it's ever been an interest of the board to have representation of the community from from that zip code. I can't speak to that. It has never been raised during my tenure here. Thank you very much. That's it for my questions and oh, actually, real quick. How does the public get a hold of the applications that were submitted? They can submit a court request. And do they do that to you or who would they do that for? For boards and commissions. That goes through our communications department. Thank you very much. They requests. Then they asked that mayor staff respond whether or not they have any information. Awesome. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. We have Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. And congratulations. Oh, sorry. I raised my hand again accidentally. There. So I just. Just. If we can have comments now, too, that. Would be okay. I actually talked to her today just to reach out and have a conversation about her qualifications. And it was a really interesting conversation, and I very much appreciated the opportunity to chat with her directly. So what? When know? I think one of the. Questions that really was important to me to be answered was, you know, if you're a corporate exile attorney, what are what are your qualifications for this board? And what was a fantastic answer was, I am not a corporate exile attorney. So that was hugely eye opening to me, because that is one of the things that was really brought to my email by constituents as a major concern. So Ms. just is not a corporate exile attorney. What she actually does. At Excel. Is she is one of the attorneys that that manages the safety the the community safety piece. So she does all of the policy for Excell, for all of their staff safety and for Excell for like corporate. So and she works on their pandemic responses and pandemic response teams. And and her whole focus. Is on staff, health and safety. So I actually think she is uniquely qualified and would be a fantastic asset for this board. And I was very glad that I had the opportunity to have this in-person conversation with her today. And, you know, I went into it not knowing what to expect and sort of expecting to have a difficult conversation with someone, you know, just sort of wondering what it was going to look like. And by the end of the conversation, I said to her, you know, here you are a person who is trying to benefit your benefit, our community. You're trying to volunteer your time. You're trying to do something wonderful for our community. You are clearly. Qualified. You are working very hard and we should be grateful to you. And instead we are putting you, making you jump through hoops in order to work for free and spend your free time to serve our community. And I am. So sorry for that. So, you know, I just want to put that out there. I think it's really important that we need to remember that these are people who are working for free, volunteering their time and doing something great for our community. And, you know, this is one of those situations. And so I just wanted to say that and I think that I. Will personally be supporting her tonight. And I think that this as we have these conversations. In the future, this is something that we need to. Remember. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, we have Councilman Torres up. Thank you, Madam President. Okay. And you did, Romain. Thank you for that. Like Councilman Sawyer, I was able to chat with the applicant briefly today, and one of my bigger questions was why this forward as opposed to one that might be associated in the future with the Office of Sustainability? Given excelling, as Councilman Sawyer detailed the specific background of Jennifer, that became clear why she was interested in this board. What are the things that remain I'd appreciate receiving as we start to see nominations as well as appointments for boards and commissions are the boards diversity matrix. We had those as any chair C.P and even a commission for the Latino community. For the African-American community, they saw the diversity matrix. And so while they may not have prescribed kind of categories to fill all of our commissions, they should be still trying to achieve parity with gender representation for racial and ethnic communities at the very least. And so I'll be asking those questions as we start to see some of those folks come through. If folks don't have those ready to go, I'm sure HRC can help them by showing them what they do. Councilwoman Torres, we are very mindful of the need for diverse boards and commissions. We expect that all of our boards and commissions, whenever possible, have a diverse make up on this board alone. We have Hispanics, African-Americans. If Jennifer is confirmed, she brings a middle Eastern background that is also very helpful. Whether it's gender, whether it's oftentimes due geographically, we can't because they're Denver residents. However, we do strive to ensure that all of our boards are diverse and representative of our city and county of Denver. Thanks for my. Thank you. Councilman and remain councilwoman. Can each. Thank you, Madam President. And I think I failed to congratulate you after my last or my last comment, so my apologies. So I think it is good that we're educating folks and asking questions. And I just wanted to share why I am going to be abstaining tonight on this particular vote. I think that there is many of our boards are kind of more advisory and they help to highlight and elevate issues. They don't actually have actual rulemaking authority, but this is one that does rulemaking and it does actually hearing of appeals. So for me, that brings it up to a higher level of scrutiny, scrutiny in terms of who serves on it, first of all. And then secondly, I just want to say that, you know, I think I want to be really careful. I think attorneys having every every person, every entity out there deserves to be represented. And it's an attorney's job not to represent their own personal views, but to represent those of their client and to be their zealous advocate. And and I respect that. And I don't hold any attorney accountable for the personal or political or professional views of their clients. So I have no doubt that any reputable attorney who's licensed is going to be able to do their job in a in a different role or outside their job and consider it objectively. So I and I am as equally impressed as my colleagues with some of the backgrounds of this particular applicant. The challenge I have is that there is a deep concern about the appearance of conflict, of interest for the appearance of propriety. And I think that what's really important for me in this confirmation is to say, can someone who comes before this board, for example, with an air quality complaint, feel like they're getting a fair hearing when one of the members might be in an organization that's challenging air quality rules or complaints in other settings? Is there? You know, I believe workplace safety, while not the like we don't think of that, is the core of his role. When they are inspecting restaurants and doing some of that work. Worker safety is implicated, right, in making sure that there aren't wet spots that people slip on. So I do think that there are aspects of restaurant inspections and other pieces of the job that have to do with worker safety. And there are pieces in the history of this applicant about minimizing or limiting the accountability for those worker injuries. And so my concern is that there could be the appearance, right, of perhaps not having public health at the forefront because of that background. And so that is really challenging. That's not about this individual and it's not about whether or not she could be fair. I think what for example, with judges, we don't have them simultaneously hearing appeals and making decisions while also representing a client in potentially related settings. So, you know, we with boards and commissions that when they're hearing appeals like this, they are almost sitting as judges. And so I do feel like it's higher. I failed to be able to connect with some of the references, including the applicant herself that I intended to talk to today. And so because I was unable to kind of satisfy that concern about the appearance of impropriety, not impropriety, the appearance of a potential conflict of interest with the goals and the mission of which is to hold folks accountable to the highest standards and to protect worker safety and to protect air quality. I just am unable to to vote on this affirmatively tonight. I wish that there were more hours in the day and fewer issues on her agenda, but I was not able to get through those phone calls. She only contacted me today. Unfortunately, I was I was booked solid, so I'm going to have to abstain today. Again, I have the deepest respect for this applicant's background passion, but this board, in my opinion, does require a little more scrutiny. And I just was not able to complete that, and I take responsibility for that. But I can't in good conscience, forward a nomination that I have some serious questions about. So again, based solely on that professional appearance that we might have from future folks who might have to appear before that board. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca, we have you back up. Thank you, Madam President. Just another quick question that came to mind after Councilman Torres talked about the rubric, the potential rubric, so that we could understand what boards and commissions need or have. As far as. Diversity. Romain, can you tell me how the public is supposed to really understand boards being representative or not? Is there a rubric that's public facing? How do we how do we get that that information? Because when we when we look it up, sometimes if they're populated, there's a list of people, but not too much information on how long they've been on the board, what area of expertize they fall under or represent on the board. So can you help us understand that piece of very important public information? There are over 130 boards and commissions in the city and county of Denver. Each one of them is unique in terms of the number of members, the terms whether or not individuals are eligible for appointment reappointment. Some are prescriptive. Most you're not. We strive to ensure that the information provided on the websites of each of these boards and commissions is maintained and is accurate. Agencies have undertaken the challenge to ensure that that information is available. When we provide information not only to staff but also to the mayor, we do, in fact, cite what the diverse nature of a board or commission is. We can certainly ask that staff liaison when they're updating their boards and commissions website can reflect that similarly. So. So it's not reflected currently, is what you're saying? No, it is not reflected currently other than internally. And when you guys are recruiting, what communication do you have with council districts? We do not reach out specifically to council members. Oftentimes we will, for example, if we're looking for a member to serve on a board or commission, and the legislative intent is that it be from a specific council district, we will reach out to that council member. But we tend to reach out to the entire city as a whole. And and how do you do that to the entire city? We do it in a number of ways. We post on the individual websites of the boards and commissions. We post it on our own website. Often times there are listservs of individuals who have expressed interest in serving. We send out emails when I say we, I'm talking with regard to in conjunction with staff liaisons to boards and commissions. pre-COVID, I spent a great deal of time talking to a variety of leadership organizations with regard to educating them and informing them of the process for applying for boards and commissions. And so when possible, we would I personally would love to speak to whoever the staff liaison is that's putting this outward information on our website. I think that we like to think of ourselves as a sophisticated city, and there are cities that are doing this much better than Denver. And I would like to recommend some ways or best practices that I've seen other cities implement that I think that the public here in Denver deserves. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman CdeBaca or I'm sorry you were on the screen. Councilwoman Torres, do you have your hand raised? Thank you. Just wanted to offer in a row Romaine paints, I think, a more general picture of the chaos. I think that can often underlie a lot of boards and commissions as stuff to a number of them in the past. Reaching out to the individual departments is often the work and finding out do you have vacancies? Are you recruiting? h.R. Has ten commissions and an advisory board and they recruit at different times. They are looking for different folks and their outreach methods are different. So it would be ideal if 130 boards and commissions were pipeline through a single public notification process or something like that. And maybe that, you know, that could be built at that at some point. But right now relies on probably 130 different staff liaisons in some cases who work directly with those those bodies. So I share can someone see who's interested in the public access points, which can be difficult if you're going to individual departments and public liaisons. But I also recognize remains got a handful. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Torres. And thank you, Ramon, for for joining us. See no other questions or hands raised by my colleagues. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. IBAKA No. Part. All right. When? I mean. I. Hines. I. Cashin. I. Can each abstain. Sustainable. I. So I. I. Torres, I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. One nay. One abstentions. And at. Thank you. One nay, one abstention and ten ions. Council Resolution 569 has been adopted. Madame Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Resolution 654 on the floor for adoption?

DenverCityCouncil_06162014_14-0398

A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to allow fresh produce and cottage food sales as a home occupation. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE ) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow fresh produce and cottage food sales as a home occupation. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-14.

Yes, Madam President, I put Council Bill 398 on the floor and be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved. The second day of the public hearing for Council Bill 398 is open. Councilwoman Kennish, before I ask for the staff report. Would you like to put your amendment on the floor so that speakers may address the proposed amendment? Thank you. Madam President, I move that Council Bill 398, the amended in the following particulars on page two, line one, strike section five and insert a new Section five to read as follows. Section five The above changes to the Denver Zoning Code are reflected more fully in a document filed with the Denver City Clerk on June 13 , 2014 as City Council Clerk Filing Number 14 Dash 502. Translation When changes are made to our Denver zoning code, the ordinance language that council adopts is fairly barebones. We simply refer to a separate document that is filed with the clerk's office. For my colleagues, this is really similar to how we adopt contracts. The contract itself isn't in the ordinance. It just references a filing with the clerk's office. And so this amendment, the way that we make a change, is we change that document filed with the clerk's office. So what I am proposing is the new document that's filed with the clerk's office that's filing 502 will basically change the start time for residential sales in the ordinance that we're about to hear about from 7 a.m. and replace it with 8 a.m.. So the only thing that is being changed is the proposed time that sales would allow to begin, and that will be all reflected if you are in your council documents in the city's legislative system. You can see that change in the clerk filing. It's not going to be visible in the bill itself because the bill will only refer to the clerk filing number. So that's just to kind of orient you in where and how this is working. But the the the the outcome of the vote would be to change the hours to begin at 8 a.m. instead of seven. Thank you, Madam President. Okay. Thank you, Councilman CORNISH. Councilmembers will vote on that amendment at the conclusion of the speakers, in case any speaker wants to comment on that. So you can hold your comments until then. Okay. I have a. Point of order, madam. Madam President, may I. May I ask if one of my colleagues might want to second the amendment? It is seconded. I'm sorry. That is seconded on the screen. I guess we're ready for the staff report. Great. Good evening, Madam President. And City Council. My name is Sarah Showalter. I'm a senior planner with the city's Department of Community Planning and Development. And I will give a quick staff presentation on the proposed ordinance tonight. As I think you all know, this is sponsored by a councilwoman, Robin Kmiec, and we also have co-sponsors, Susan Shepherd and Councilman Albus Brooks. We've also had great community support for this ordinance from the Mayor's Sustainable Food Policy Council, as well as the liberal Denver Regional Collaborative. From the purpose of the amendment before you tonight is essentially to allow Denver residents to sell fresh produce and a very limited range of cottage foods from their home. This would help align Denver's regulations with the State of Colorado Cottage Food Act, which passed in 2012. There's some great city goals and policies already in place that this would help implement, including the Mayor's 2020 sustainability goals would also help expand access to healthy, locally grown and affordable foods in Denver, as well as help build community by promoting neighbor to neighbor interactions. I'm a very quick summary here of the process that we've been through with this proposed amendment to the code beginning in very early 2014. Lots of meetings with registered neighborhood organizations are no's throughout the city, over 20 of them. We've also done informational updates to our planning board and City Council's Luti committee. Then we had a required public hearing before a planning board on May 7th, as well as a meeting in front of the committee on May 13th. We had a first reading by City Council on May 19th, and then of course, we're here tonight for a public hearing. And as was mentioned earlier, we will have a continuation of this public hearing on July four. With full notice for that for the rhinos. We have heard from 13 RINO's that have voted and taken a position on this proposed ordinance. Of the 13 that we heard from, ten voted to support it and three were opposed. Of the ten who voted to support two had recommendations and there actually the same recommendations for both of the organizations. One is to have a review of this home occupation one year after it's gone into effect. And that's something that the council sponsor, Councilwoman Kennedy, has already committed to do and bring back to council one year after it's been in effect. Another recommendation was to extend the starting time in the morning, so it's not quite as early. The recommendation was 10 a.m. There was a floor amendment that you just heard tonight to change the starting time from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. in response to that community input. So before I walk through the proposed changes, and that's part of this ordinance, just a very quick summary of what you can do in the code today. There's already a wide range of home occupations allowed in our residential zone districts throughout the city. That includes things like hair salons, offices. If you have a lawyer, an accounting office thing out of their home, child care, these are clearly incidental to the primary use of the residence and are specifically designed to have limitations on them to ensure that they don't detract from the quality of our neighborhoods. There are also a lot of provisions in our code already for being able to grow produce throughout the city, including at your home, and also some options already for being able to sell food that you might grow as a resident. For example, you could sell at a farmer's market, but currently today in the code, no provision to sell from your home. So the proposed change is kind of categorized into three different areas. The first one is to add a new home occupation that's called fresh produce and cottage foods sales. This would be subject to the same limitations as all of the other home occupations, and that does include obtaining a zoning permit for $20 in order to operate this there. This proposed home occupation would be allowed in all of the zoned districts and residential zoned districts in the city, except for two zone districts, the SFX and IRIS districts. These are districts that have historically been designed in their intent. Expressly in the code is to limit the number of home occupations in them, every other residential district. And the code today allows for 15 home occupations and these two districts only allow for four. So definitely intent there to keep them restricted in terms of home occupations. This map shows where those districts are. It's a very limited geographic area of the city, just some small areas in the southwest corner of Denver. The second change is to add some definitions of the code. So one would be to clearly define what this home occupation is. The second is to define cottage foods, and the definition essentially links right back to the Colorado Cottage Food Act, the state legislation. We've also included in the definition that our own, the City Department of Environmental Health, has the ability to take foods off the list if they feel that one of them were to become hazardous, or they had a concern about that. And we've also, specifically in the definition, made it clear that this doesn't include any marijuana or marijuana infused food products. And then the final category of change is to add some limitations that are specific to this home occupation. So one that we talked about earlier is the hours of sales which are being proposed tonight with the amendment to be 8 a.m. until dusk. Another is because sales could occur outdoors. There would be limitations on that. If you're selling outdoors, you have to use temporary, movable furniture, no permanent structure, and any visible evidence would have to be removed outside of the hours of operation. So essentially every evening, if you were setting up every day, you'd have to bring the furniture, an umbrella that you were using inside. And then, of course, all of the other home occupation limitations would apply to this, which include you can't have any employees who live off site and one very small window or a wall sign for street frontage. All of our proposed tax amendments to the Denver zoning code are reviewed against three basic criteria. One is consistency with the city's adopted plans and policies. This proposal. Mosul fulfills two different policies that we find in our comprehensive plan. 2001, under the category of land use, is about having flexible and accommodating land use regulations to allow future land use needs, such as home based businesses. And the second is allowing for a diverse range of uses in our neighborhoods, including home based businesses. And as I mentioned earlier, it also helps to fulfill the mayor's 2020 sustainability goal. And there's one specifically related to increasing the amount of food produced in Colorado, in Denver. And in terms of process, I did want to document that planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this ordinance to city council at their May 7th public hearing. They also asked Council to consider the possibility of allowing this home occupation and all zone districts, even the assets you affix in high zone districts. Council's Luti committee discussed that recommendation at their May 13th meeting, but decided not to make any recommended changes to this tax amendment. And we do find a staff that all of the criteria have been met and recommend approval. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Kanis, you had wanted to make a brief explanation at the beginning of this presentation. Go ahead. Thank you. Madam President, first of all, I wanted to identify we also have before us the Denver Environmental Health Department. Should there be any questions during the question and answer period regarding health or safety issues? Councilwoman Shepherd and myself will also be available during the question and answer period. Should there be any questions for us as sponsors that can't be handled by the staff? And lastly, for the public, I wanted to clarify why it is the Council won't be voting tonight. We have had numerous notices that Sarah described in the staff report, and so thousands of emails have gone out to the registered neighborhood organizations when the draft proposal was created, when the hearing occurred at planning board, when we set this public hearing as a council, we had notice of that in numerous newsletters of members of this council on neighborhood papers. But there is one email list to register neighborhood organizations where the email did not go out at the 21 days prior. That is the custom of the Council. The law varies on whether it needs to be ten or 15 days, but it's our view as sponsors that it's critical that we provide that advanced notice with that particular list as required in our in our policies. So that is why we won't be taking a vote today to ensure that folks who may not have gotten notice because they subscribe only to that list get a chance to testify. So we wanted to clarify that for my colleagues and for the public as to why we are going to be doing this in two parts. Just to be safe, to make sure anyone who wanted to be here has a chance to hear about it. Thank you, Madam President. Okay, we have 13 speakers, and I'm going to call you up five at a time so that you come and sit in the front pews and be on deck for getting up to speed things along. Remember that if you testify this evening, you will not be able to testify at the continuation of the hearing. I'm going to call up Shannon Spurlock, Dana miller, Saffron Bennett's her. Is it special? Molly Hansen and Candice Orlando. And call up first, Shannon Spurlock. And I'll be speaking with Dana miller jointly. We don't usually do that. You get 3 minutes and she gets 3 minutes. You want to take 3 minutes together? Yeah. Okay. Yes. Shoot. Hello, everyone. My name is Dana miller and this is Shannon Spurlock. We're the co-chairs of the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. And we're really, really glad and excited to be here. And thank you so much for the opportunity to talk about this passionate and wonderful possible change for Denver. I live at 1421, Jasmine and I live in Denver, so I would like number one for her to have all of the people in the room that are here for support to please raise your carrots. Here we go. Thank you very much. Okay. And another thing I'd like to talk a little bit about and then Shannon's going to talk about the PFC. But my vision of Denver is one that looks a little bit like this. So I don't know if you remember that Kenny B did this beautiful poster for the Denver County Fair that has Denver completely replete with with food growing everywhere all over the place. We've got food growing off of rooftops and in gardens and in school gardens and on public property. And there's food that's being grown and shared and. Eaten and sold all over the place. That is the vision that we have for Denver and as a resilient, beautiful food, a gorgeous place. So that's the big image, the big vision. And to partner with you all and making that a reality for Denver. So thank you. Minute 46. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of Council. My name is Shannon and my address is 3166 West 35th Avenue, Denver. And as co-chair of the Food Policy Council, Dana and I have been working collectively with members of council for just around two years now to identify policy priorities that were really relevant to residents of the city and county of Denver. And when that came out, was increasing food access by allowing people to grow and sell their own food. We think this can be pivotal for members for neighborhoods throughout Denver, allowing to grow their own food, meet members of their community through the sales of the food, help increase healthy food access and provide economic development community opportunity. We hope you'll support this. And if we can answer any questions, please let us know. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well done. I'd like to call up Saffron Bennett Spurlock. Oh, good. I thank you, Madam Chair, and members of Council. My name is Saffron. I live in the Highlands neighborhood and I go to the Logan School in Denver. For a while. I have loved gardening and for a long time my family has had a garden. This year, when I heard about this new idea, I was really excited because it sounded fun and for a long time I wanted to have my own stand. I think it's a good idea because you can build a stronger community, earn money from home, and learn about gardening and business. I will be selling to friends and neighbors from Small Stand My Neighborhood. I really hope this law passes because I think it's a very good idea. Thank you. That was excellent. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Spurlock finished. Spurlock. I would like to call up now. Candidate No. Molly Hansen. Hello. My name is Molly Hansen, Madam Chair and members of the Council, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak again. My name is Molly Hanson. I live at 1315 Vine in Denver. I also work at Jefferson County Public Health as a health policy analyst working on healthy eating, active living strategies. So in my role both at Jefferson County Public Health and as a private citizen, I work to increase access to healthy, safe and locally grown food for all individuals and families, regardless of income, age and address. I want to thank Council for your work to increase access to healthy families, communities, environments, for example, your great work to create infrastructure to ensure families can walk and cycle to important uses like schools, parks and businesses. I urge Council to consider amending the zoning code to allow for retail of fresh. And cut produce. And cottage food produced by growers on residentially zoned properties. It seems like this is an important step with your healthy community work by allowing the sale of residentially grown produce either by growers or neighbors or at community gardens, Denver will foster access to healthy, affordable food. They'll also work to decrease hunger in low income communities where food deserts exist. In Jefferson County, two communities have enacted similar zoning codes. I had the pleasure of speaking with the city of Wheat Ridge today to ask them about their similar zoning code. UPDATE. What they said to me was there were very positive impacts in the community when they did the similar zoning code update in 2011. This zoning code update allows produce stands to sell locally grown products such as raw vegetables, fruits and herbs. The city staff said that they've had no complaints on record. It has supported the local community, it has supported connections in the community, and there has been really no negative impacts on the character of the neighborhoods. I also had the opportunity to speak to local growers in Wheat Ridge as the live well wheat rich coordinator. Consistently, I heard that this new provision has allowed market gardens and farmers markets and produce stands to connect growers to one another, to create opportunities to increase and grow local economic sectors in neighborhoods, and to really improve the overall image of Wheat Ridge as an urban or suburban environment that supports local food systems. I think as a resident, I'm passionate about bringing this additional zoning code amendment to Denver, and we thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Ms.. Hanson. Candace Orlando. Good evening, Madam Chair, and members of Council. My name is Candice Orlando. I live at 2921. My short place in Val Verde, near neighborhood. I am the executive director, co-founder and farmer of Permaculture Community Farms, and I'm so excited to be here today, to be a part of this beautiful community and to pass this bill that will lead the way to many, many, many places that will focus on localizing food. We are where the future here it is right now. So let's vote for goodness here. I want to talk about community as some of you guys know. We started six years. As a neighborhood, supported. Agriculture. And so people would buy shares in the beginning of the season and we would grow food. On different plots throughout Denver where people pick up their food. We have two locations, one in the Sunnyside neighborhood and one in the La alma Lincoln Park neighborhood. And the connections that are made there are amazing. People get to know each other. They come. They talk about, you know, recipes that they can make. With the food, how much kale. Can we really use? And more kale and more kale. And then they talk about how to use the kale. So community is really built in these stands and talking. About food and growing food. It really is powerful and amazing and people that wouldn't normally get to know each other, get to know each other. So I would just urge you to pass this bill. I'm really excited about it. And thank you for letting me speak. Thank you, Miss Orlando. I'm going to call up Deborah Nealon. And as she's coming up, I'd like to ask Blake, Angelo, Maya, Bella, Celine Duran and Court and Noel, muchas say. So that matches it back up to the front pew to get ready. All right. Debra Nealon, go right ahead. Madam President, council members, my name is Debra Neeley. I live. In the Sloan's Lake neighborhood. At 26th 46 Raleigh Street. I have a double lot in the. City, 6400 square feet. I have a small bungalow house on there and the rest of it is edible landscaping. It's very tastefully done, though. It's beautiful. I have culinary herbs and medicinal herbs. And I also have a lot of vegetables. Growing everywhere and of a greenhouse chickens and bees. I think basically my passion is absolutely growing food. It's just I can't get enough of it. The other reason. I do this is to feed. My family and friends healthy, organic food. I'm very much passionate about eating well, and unfortunately it is an addiction. The only drawback. To this is. That while I'm saving money, not buying high priced. Produce at the. Grocery store, it still does cost quite a bit to do this. So I'd really like to recoup some of that money by selling produce on my property. I'm not planning on having a grocery store. I just want to let the neighbors. Know that this is what. I do and I'd like to offer. This produce to them. I'm going to rely on word of mouth, maybe use next tor.com. They're going to plan on, you know, having a big affair. You know, just come on by and get some produce. I've lived in Denver since 1977, and I'm very, very proud. Of the progress that this city has. Made in all these years, how vibrant and progressive it is. And I'd like to tip my farmer's hat off to you all for considering this. Residential bill sales ordinance and in the name of empowering our citizens to be more self-sufficient and to thrive. Thank you all for considering this. Thank you, Ms.. Nealon. Blake Angelo. Madam Chair, members of the Council, thank you for having this public hearing today. My address is 501 South Cherry Street, number 580. Today I speak as an individual and a small business owner, but over the last four years, I've had the chance to work in part with Colorado State University and the extension service focused on urban agriculture through my combined private business and my work with CSU. I've worked with over 200 farmers and food entrepreneurs. Many of these farmers are struggling to make a living. That's not unique to farming by any means, but 40 to 50% of their costs go to labor, including a large portion of which to marketing their produce, to removing the produce from the place that it grows to sell. This is an opportunity to improve the profitability of these limited income businesses, to help support the individuals who are innovating with farms on their property. Sometimes they even are prohibited from starting farms because of the cost of marketing their produce or distributing it to people who are interested in purchasing. I've also had the experience of working with a number of cities and also the State Office of Economic Development, who see food systems as inherent community and economic development. Within food systems. We see innovation both in terms of food production, new methods under glass cultivation, tower gardens, and also manufactured food products that are stimulating a new portion of our economy, both locally and as a state we are. We also see community and economic development for historically, economically isolated, isolated or disenfranchized individuals. These have included veterans, inner city youth, people transitioning from prison, and others who have found a way to both be personally empowered and economically empowered through a livelihood in the food system . Lastly, I have recently completed my Master's in public health, and I'd like to speak a little bit to the ability of local foods to be part of the solution towards the growing obesity, diabetes and chronic disease epidemics of our current society. While this local food bill is certainly not a comprehensive solution to those problems, it is a step in the right direction. It is an opportunity for you all and us all as a community to take forward looking steps to start to reverse the tide. Lastly, I'd like to thank the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council, of which I was an ex-officio member and of which I have watched consistently as they've engaged community and they've developed best practice research, looking both across Colorado and across the nation to put together these recommendations for you all today. I'd like to thank you for your time and support this bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Angelo. Maya. Ba ba ba ba ba ba. I might be a I'm with liberation sequence gardens. And I said on the Sustainable Food Policy Council. I actually live at 5301 West 51st Ave, and I just moved out of the Clayton neighborhood, 2500 East 33rd Avenue, where I do a lot of my work with that live well community. My partner and I have been building street sidewalk level gardens there and opening up this experiment of what it is to engage community in this really radical way. And it's been fun and it's been crazy and I am so excited that we have this opportunity to see what's possible next. And I guess there's a lot of reasons I support this zoning amendment, but the main thing is I come at it from the social capital piece of what it is to especially in communities where you have real estate is changing and you've got old timers that have been there for decades and decades and decades. And we we have a halfway house just down the street and a new Buddhist temple. And what is it? What does it look like on the street sidewalk level with those members of the community? And when we first started doing this gardening project three years ago, unless you knew each other, everybody was in their sort of bubble . And now there is a place where we can kind of come together. And food is proving to be a pretty accessible platform for folks to talk about solutions for a 21st century ready community. A real quick story. The Grow House is an organization up in Elyria, Swansea, and I've been taking an herb class with mostly Latina ladies . It's in Spanish, which is great because I don't know any Spanish and I'm learning how to speak Spanish. And we are also helping them build a garden over in the whole neighborhood. And we've been shoveling manure and woodchips and sweating and the kids came out and we have this great intergenerational build and the dialog between the women and we've had some great professional support in these gardens, but we're getting these women to learn how to grow herbs, to make tinctures, to help with asthma in their family or digestive issues. And as they're learning how to incorporate these things into their own life. Making some and sharing it with their neighbors. And honestly, 20, even 20 bucks a week extra is huge. It's huge. And and they're so motivated and they're so excited. And I feel really honored to be a part of a learning community with these women. And what's possible in the next couple of years is really, really exciting. So thank you so much for considering this amendment and see it make it stand. Thank you, Ms.. Celine. And please pronounce your name for me. My name is Celine Dion. Cool. I'm here. Thank you, Madam Councilwoman. I'm here with liberation sequence gardens to testify. Recently moved to the Denver area from Phenix, Arizona. And actually before that, what's more important is that I grew up, my. Father was a director of. The International Hunger Program. So growing up throughout my life, issues of hunger all over the world have always been extremely important to me. Getting to see different programs like the Heifer Project Act in different countries around the world. Just the simple act of putting a calf or a go into an impoverished community that cannot sustain itself due to lack of funds, due to lack of a million things. Water, all sorts of things has really impacted just the importance of giving people a chance to sustain themselves, to give their families a chance to feel pride in being able to provide just the simple things, even for children to be able to sell things that they produce. It's very important because it gives a sense of accountability and pride. So that's why I'm here, to help support this wonderful building, already amazing place, which is Denver, Colorado. Thank you. Thank you very much, Noel. Is it that can as she's coming up I'd like to call Jaclyn Chaves Sundari Kraft Angelo Cantor. A tour. To the front pew thank you for your patience. Go right ahead. Mismatches avec Marquez attack melchizedek. My name is Noel Melchizedek. I live at 1627 East Asbury Avenue 80210. So I'm a Denver resident and I also work for Livewell, Colorado as the Denver Regional Coordinator and I facilitate the live of Denver Regional Collaborative. So little Colorado educating inspires adults and children to eat healthier and be more active. Because I'll call it when when people make healthier choices, that makes all of Colorado healthier in and of itself. We also have a community investment strategy. And in Denver alone, over the course of nine years, we have funded six current and previous community coalitions for a total of $6.5 million. And we've touched 18 neighborhoods in the city of Denver so far. My role is as facilitating the Denver Regional Collaborative means that not only are we supporting this ordinance and hope to see it pass, but we're really thinking about what's next. So I know concerns have arisen about safe produce handling, what classes are there available, how can residents learn that this is even possible, how to apply and how to be in compliance? And I want to let you know that in addition to the $6.5 million of what Colorado has already invested in the city and county of Denver through these community coalitions, we're absolutely on board to help support implementation activities, to coordinate classes in these neighborhoods and across the city, and to let residents know how to grow organic or however they'd like best practices. We've partnered with a Sustainable Food Policy Council, CSU extension and others to bring these resources into the neighborhoods. And we're absolutely open to more ideas of how to reach out across the city to provide these different types of classes. So the Colorado and the Denver Regional Collaborative looks forward to supporting implementation activities after this ordinance passes, and we thank you for your support. Thank you very much. Mr. Market. Mrdak Jaclyn Sheaves shares my name. Right. You said it right. Okay, good. Hi, everyone. My name is Jaclyn. She was the name of it 1011 Colorado Boulevard in District ten. Thank you, Madam President, and council members, for having me here today as a strong supporter of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment to allow residential sales of agricultural products in Denver. As a Denver constituent, a novice, very novice gardener, educator at the State Health Department and previous member of the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council, I value the role that locally grown healthy food plays in promoting health, fostering food security, connecting community, stimulating the economy, and protecting the environment. In 2011, my husband and I moved back to Denver from a five year stint in Atlanta. On our moving day, we met our neighbor Harvey, a gentleman in his sixties who had been here for 50 years with his wife Lila, in the Berkeley neighborhood. He greeted us with much. Both from his own garden and started a friendship where we looked out for each other, not only exchanging produce, but talking about each other's day from our front porches, something I had never done with a neighbor before. When our dog ran away, Harry returned him to us. And when the weather got cold, we brought them soup. It all started with a vegetable exchange. Recent data shows fruit and vegetable consumption has declined significantly over the last three decades. Fewer than half Americans report eating five or more servings of fruits or vegetables and five or more days per week. Yet increased fruit and vegetable consumption has been shown to decrease the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke. So more needs to be done to accomplish to improve the food environment, such as access, availability and affordability of fruits and vegetables. I was shocked at how much my husband and I saved every month and our grocery budget from going to King Soopers to buy produce to growing it ourselves. I ended up with way more tomatoes and squash than I ever wanted and needed something to do with it. But I knew with the zoning code I had nothing to do. Selling it to someone was not something I could do at the time. I recently learned from my friend in Atlanta the landscape of a home on a quarter to a half acre lot receiving full sunlight can grow enough vegetables and fruit to provide for family members with 5x14 servings a day for an entire year. Underserved neighborhoods like Westwood are taking advantage of this. These benefits with organizations like Rear Vision International helping residents grow their own backyard gardens to feed their families healthy food and expand the local food system. By allowing for the sale of agricultural products from residential sites, people in every low income community can be encouraged to plant their own backyard gardens, not only for their personal consumption, but to generate supplemental income so they don't have to rely on the dollar menu at McDonald's to feed their families. This has been one of the biggest complaints I have gotten as health educator in obesity prevention. I cannot afford fruits and vegetables. It's too expensive. According to National Gardening Association estimates, a well-maintained food garden can yield an estimated half pound of fresh produce per square foot, yielding a $500 return on average when considering a typical gardener's investment and the market price of produce. In this economy, any chance for families to make a little extra income is a good thing. And with the security measures that we added, buyers will be protected as only whole uncut produce. Produce will be allowed to be sold. Presidents of the zoning code has accused Ms.. Chiefs, your time is up. Thank you very much. Sundari Craft. Thank you, Madam President. And members for you and members of council. My name is Sandra Elizabeth Kraft. I own property at 4461 on a court in the Berkeley neighborhood, although my family has recently moved half a mile west into Wheat Ridge. I am the founding co-chair of the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council, as well as the owner of Heirloom Gardens and the founder of the of Sustainable Food, Denver. You've heard other people tonight. Talk to you about other cities that have successfully implemented similar ordinances. They've talked to you about the economic impact for families of an ordinance like this. And they've talked to you about the impact on food access and food justice. And so I don't want to duplicate their efforts. Instead, what I'd like to talk to you about is a broader picture of what an ordinance like this would mean for the overall culture of Denver, both for people who are living within Denver. And for the way that. Denver is perceived by those who live outside of our city. In the past several years, Denver has taken a number of very impressive steps in the areas of sustainability and specifically in sustainable food policy. In 2010, you passed a new zoning code that had a number of important and very helpful urban agricultural. Provisions. In it. In 2011. You passed the WHO. Producing Animals ordinance. Thank you very much, which was a huge victory for sustainable food in Denver. The city has adopted some great policies and that's due in large part to great work by city staff and great work by city council. And these policies have been implemented very sensibly. But what these policies really are addressing is the production of food. They don't talk about what happens to the food after it is produced. And so this element of residential sales is really an important part of completing this whole picture of sustainable food in Denver. And as someone who has been active. In sustainable. Food policy issues in Denver over the past several years. I can tell you that to me. This ordinance what this ordinance does is the the big thing that was missing for me. This we have great policies in so many different areas. This is what I wanted this last piece. And I can't promise that I will never bother you again for anything. But I can tell you that really and truly what this ordinance does really goes a long way towards completing the picture for sustainable food in Denver. It is very important and I'm very proud of the work that has been done and very excited to see this pass in Denver. So please vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Craft, Jill Lowcountry or local tour. Hello. My name is Jill Logan. Tori and I'm a resident of the City Park West neighborhood. I live at 2145 East 16th Avenue, and I'm here to testify in favor of the proposed amendment. You heard earlier during the staff. Report that the amendment is consistent. With Denver's comprehensive plan and with the mayor's sustainability plan. It also directly supports your own community health improvement plan, which focuses on healthy eating and active active living as a priority area and set specific objectives for increasing access to healthy food in underserved areas, and also for increasing the number of areas that support active physical activity. Currently, the USDA estimates that at least one sixth of Denver's population lives in a food desert. This lack of access to neighborhood grocery stores is especially burdensome to people who can't drive, either because of income or age or disability. And so. The. Beauty of this proposed amendment is that it would allow people to access healthy, fresh food simply by walking around their own neighborhoods. Research has shown that people who are able to incorporate walking into their daily activities, such as shopping for food, are more likely to achieve their recommended 30, 30 minutes of daily physical activity. And so the great thing is you can encourage both healthy eating and active living with this one change to the zoning code. Finally, I wanted to say that I agree with the Denver Post editorial that questioned why residential food sales were ever outlawed in the first place. I personally don't have a lot of time to grow my own vegetables, but I love the idea of being able to pay my neighbor and share in the produce that they grow. And frankly, it seems a little silly that it's illegal to do that right now. So I encourage you to pass the proposed amendment and thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Miss Logan. Tori, Council Councilmember. Note to members you can ask questions now of the speakers if you like, but please hold your comments until they we close the public hearing at the next June 4th, July 14th meeting. Are there questions for council Councilwoman? CORNISH Thank you, Madam President. One question we did not have here today, but was in the packets that folks received from our constituents, was just a little bit about the safety of food in terms of the kinds of food on the list. So I was wondering if environmental health could take just a moment to speak to the foods that are allowed and why they're allowed and why we feel confident as a city in terms of public health. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of City Council. My name is Bob McDonald. I'm the director of Public Health Inspections and Environmental Health. I'm sorry you don't have a carrot with me this afternoon. Yeah, that's tomato in my briefcase, but it was smashed, so I'm afraid that leaves me empty handed. But I can certainly address any food safety concerns you might have. I guess I'll start out by saying that my counterparts and our counterparts at the State Health Department did their work here. These are truly low risk foods, foods that that really, quite honestly, isn't anything taking place here other than the sales transaction that doesn't already take place. You know, these are low risk foods that that neighbor share that coworkers bring into the office that people can already share. Denver citizens can bring these foods to farmers markets and sell it. And if they sell it uncut, it's not even regulated. Now, sometimes they asked with this type of bill being that it's exempt because it's low risk foods, it's exempt from Denver's food safety laws sometimes ask, would we be able to respond to a concern if there was one? We certainly can not under chapter 23 Denver's Food Safety Regulations, but under Chapter 24, which is titled the General Health and Sanitation Laws for the City of Denver, which would allow the Department of Environmental Health to address any health concern on public or private land of any type. Now, having said that, I don't anticipate any. I've been in contact with my counterpart, the director of the State Consumer Protection Division, and I've spoken with his members and my counterparts up in the Larimer County and Boulder County, Jefferson County. And I believe, as previous speaker mentioned, that they haven't had any concerns and I haven't heard of any concerns either. So with that said, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. That's all. Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Watson. I have a couple questions for you. There's another group of folks I mean, this managing health risks, you know, the safety. I think Bob is kind of addressed. But there's another concern of, you know, furniture and and things kind of crowding people's space. And, you know, my my neighbor has this couch out there. He's selling. He's got his table. What kind of how was this bill put together in kind of mitigating some of those issues? Sure. So we actually because we knew that would be a concern. And it's so important to keep the visible impact of a home occupation like this to a minimum. Worked with our neighborhood inspection services. That would be the folks actually out in the field inspecting and making sure there's compliance with the regulations, help craft the right language so that they feel like they have what they need. And so what that includes is very specific language that first of all, you can only have temporary movable furniture. So as soon as you have something that you've actually mounted to the ground and has to kind of stay in place, you're violating the code. There's also a requirement that you have to bring whatever physical evidence you have inside whenever you're not in permitted operating hours. So what's on the floor tonight would be eight a am to dusk. So any time beyond those hours you would not be able to leave anything out in your yard. We've also crafted the language to talk about temporary outdoor furniture. So something they felt pretty comfortable that something they they already deal with when people are trying to kind of store indoor furniture outside or on a porch. It's a similar type of issue where things like a couch, for example, wouldn't be allowed. Yeah. Tell me about signage. Sure. How is that limited? So signage for all home occupations, including this proposed one tonight, is limited to for most properties, it'd be one signs, basically one per street frontage. So we had a corner lot with two street frontage, you potentially up to four. Most would be one sign. It can be no greater than 100 square inches. So very small. It has to be flat non-illuminated a non animated and it has to be affixed to the house so it can be like on the wall or window so you can't have a sign out towards the street or, you know, on a tree in your front yard or anything like that. Okay. And this is a 100 square inches. How big is that? Ten by ten by ten inches or in the spot? Even a foot by foot. So. Okay. Right. Okay. In my last question, and this is a little bit bigger, maybe you can help out with some technical aspects of this. How pervasive is this around the United States? How many municipalities have actually put this ordinance in place? You know, you may not know the actual number, but just I think it's good for the public to know that they never. Not the first. Sure. And also, you know, a little bit of how some best practices that you've seen in your studies. Have we kind of crafted our language here? Sure. Yeah. You are correct that I cannot tell you the exact number of communities that have this kind of law on the books. But we looked at about ten in total, and that included pretty large cities, some medium sized. So just to give you an example of kind of the range, we're looking at cities like Cleveland and Kansas City, Portland and Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia. So quite a range to choose from, which is great because as you noted, we're able to then look at their ordinances and best practices to help shape ours. So some of the things that you see in our bill, including, for example, limitations on the hours of operation. We saw that and a lot of other bills. Most of them actually. I think it's interesting. We're starting very early, like six or 7 a.m. for those who did limit it. And another thing that I would note is we were able to actually contact one of those cities. They're planning staff. It was in Portland and they have had there I'm not going to remember the exact number of years, but it's been significant, I think maybe 2 to 3 years that they've had this law on the books. And they said not only have they had a fair number of people actually doing residential sales of produce for them, it's specifically produced, but they've had a lot of people participating and so far, no complaints at all. Hmm. Thank you for the questions. Okay, Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I know that there's there's been great testimony tonight, but there's actually not been anybody speaking against. But I'm sure there may be people in the television audience that are really concerned with one big question, and that is the fact that we have legalized the sale of recreational marijuana and maybe worried that brownies or something like that might be sold, you know, by people who are attempting to be innocuous. Tell us how that is going to be handled. Sure. Yeah, it's a it's an important issue. I just want to be clear that selling marijuana from your home would be a criminal offense. And so I think the there's several areas in the city that you can be investigated against. So the first would be the Denver police would be involved because it is a criminal law that you'd be breaking. The second would be not being in compliance with our excise and license requirements. So anybody who's selling recreational marijuana has to have a very specific license to do that. If you are selling without one, whether it's from your home or on the street or in a makeshift commercial stand that you made yourself, whatever it is you are not licensed, you are in violation and can also be found and be fined and have other issues for that violation. And then a third category of our regulations that you would be found to have noncompliance with is the zoning code itself. Again, the zoning code makes it very clear that you wouldn't be able to sell marijuana of any type, including infused into products like brownies as part of this. And I would also like to note that the Denver Police Department and my department that does neighborhood inspections and ensures the zoning code is being met as well as exercise and license, are already well coordinated on how to enforce marijuana issues. We already have people violating our recreational marijuana laws and folks that deal with compliance. And all of those departments with the Denver police being heavily involved have worked out the protocol that they use when these issues come up. So we have that infrastructure in place. But just clarify for me, if a neighbor thinks that another neighbor is selling something that might have marijuana in it. You have to speak into your. Oh, I'm sorry. So if a neighbor thinks another neighbor is selling marijuana illegally, what do they do? Just make it clear. Sure. Call 311 right away. And there will be a basically Denver police reports to any investigation that involves marijuana. And then they can also bring in neighborhood inspections and excise and license as needed. But they can call the police as well. They could. Yes, you could also call the police. In particular of children. Yes. And yeah, especially if you are concerned, you know, the children are that somebody is actually has a product that's not safe. You know, definitely call the police. Thank you. Okay, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President. If you could stay there for a moment, Sarah. Sure. Can you address whether or not people are able to grow any of this produce in the public? Right of way? Yeah. That's governed by public works, which is not my department. So I don't know all the details about. I do know they have regulations about how tall any type of plant can be, whether it's food producing or not. But in general, yes, you can have food producing food in the right of way. Okay. And I have one question for one of our speakers, and this is for Saffron Spurlock. Saffron. I didn't mean to scare you, but would you. Come up so I can ask you a question? Oh, it's the lady over there. So if. You can go back to the. Microphone there. She was looking around for who was asking the question. Stand on the bench, you. Know? You know, so. So my first question for you, Saffron, is there, how would you encourage other young people to participate in gardening with their family members, with their neighbors? All right. Tell some of my friends about it and let them know that it's a good idea. I mean. Great. Yeah. So what can you tell us? What it is that you're growing or you plan to grow in your garden? Well, I have onions, I have some radishes, I have lettuce, and I have carrots and. Beans. And then some other things and tomatoes. All right. I might have to come over and buy some for me once they're all grown. All right. Thank you for coming and testifying. Hopefully, this is encouraging more young people to participate as well. You're welcome. Councilman Brown. Thank you. Madam President, is molly is still in the room, mali. I think it sounds like she had to step out. She's not. Here anymore. Okay, well, maybe one of you can answer the question because she said that she wanted to allow the sale of uncut produce. I'm not familiar with that term. I can clarify that. It's a good question. It's a term that's used a lot to describe. What we're basically talking about is you can cut fruit from or vegetables from the vine, but then you need to sell them whole. So our zoning language uses the same word, meaning that if you want to sell your tomatoes, you can't have actually taken a knife and cut them into pieces. So you're selling and in this case, you have to be selling, whether it's fruit or vegetables whole. And that's because of food safety issues. So an example is a lot is the listeria outbreak with the cantaloupe that happened a couple of years ago. A lot of it was spreading. That is that it was on the skin of the cantaloupes. If you haven't properly washed it and then you cut it with a knife, that actually brings the contamination into the fruit. So by not cutting the produce before it's sold, that helps to ensure that it becomes the buyer's responsibility to wash the produce appropriately before it's cut. Right. That's interesting. I did not know that. Thank you. And Madam President, if I may, because I know we cannot take positions tonight because this is a zoning matter. But I would like to thank everyone for coming down. It's rare that we get 13 speakers that are so positive. I just. You have no idea. And Blake, thank you. The only male to speak tonight. And finally, I hope you don't mind if we call you the Carrot Caucus. Is that. All right? Great. Thank you, Madam President. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Brown. I have just one one question. I don't think anybody addressed this. I understand the sign. You currently have that 1000 inches. Is there any other kinds of limitations on the advertising you can do, such as next door or local newspapers or any or any kind of other? Is there any kind of limitation on their advertising? There's not. The limitations are meant to address the visible impacts on the neighborhood. So it just addresses the visible signage, but it does not address social media or Internet or other ways of advertising. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. I see no other questions. Councilmembers. We're not going to vote on the proposed amendment to change the time at which sales could begin from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.. And I was wondering if there would be comments by members of Council on that amendment. It is on the floor and seconded. And I see, Councilwoman Sheppard, you would like to make a comment on the amendment? Well, I just wanted to make a general comment, because I'm not going to be here on final. We can't. We can't. I had another question by another council person. It's you can't comment because it's an open. And hearing it's a zoning question. People know, why am I going? Well, you can let people know why you're not going to be here. So you can't comment on that. Well, I just wanted to thank everyone for their testimony today. And it was really good and thoughtful and moving. And I just want to let the public know that I am very happy to co-sponsor this bill. But unfortunately, because of the mix up with the dates, I'm not going to be here on July 14th for a final reading. And I just want to make sure that you guys know that. But I'm very disappointed that I'm going to miss it. Okay. Thank you. All right. So do we have comments on the proposed amendment? Councilwoman Kennish. Thank you, Madam President. I have you saw in the presentation that we did outreach to more than 23 RINO's directly, and that included two trips to the inner neighborhood cooperation, which is our citywide registered neighborhood organization. And we really did sincerely ask for their feedback and their input on this, as well as answering questions. I've said before from this dais that it's never my approach to governing, that you count to seven and then stop discussing something. And so even though we had support from more registered neighborhood organizations than we had opposition, even though we had many members of council in support, because as a text amendment, we are allowed to take a position on this. You know, beforehand, unlike a map amendment, I still wanted to take that input very seriously. And so one of the things that we heard was from the inner neighborhood cooperation, which is our city wide, our No. Seven felt a little early, and we went ahead and discussed that along with the folks who do this, some folks who grow food and some folks who want to. And we asked, is there some space for compromise here to help folks know that they were heard? And I was very pleased that folks said, you know, it's important for us to be able to harvest in the morning and get food, you know, may be sold before you go to work or before you go to soccer practice on a Saturday because, you know, things will turn the summer. Tomatoes get skunky if they get in the sun after they're ripe. So 10:00 was a little too late. But there was this willingness to move to say, you know what, if this will help folks and communities and neighborhoods feel better about this, we're willing to to move just a little bit. And so so that was the origin of this amendment was an attempt to say, that's good feedback that you've given us, folks who do this and believe that it's important, not that everyone on every block will be doing this, it'll probably be a very small number. But for that small number, it's important. So our co-sponsors today, we discussed this and felt that it was a really good compromise. There was no particular timing for the neighborhood organizations who share this concern to go back and vote on it formally. So I'm not here with their endorsement that yes, eight is right. But we did informally share the information with folks and folks were appreciative of our willingness to hear their feedback. So so that's the origin of this amendment. I would encourage my council members to support it in the in the spirit of working with our neighborhoods and in the spirit of keeping the business opportunity working for those who are interested, i think it's a good balance to move it to. 8 a.m. So that's the amendment before you and I would ask my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Councilwoman. And I see no other comments. So, Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll? Can each layman Hi. LOPEZ All right. Montero. Nevitt Hi. Ortega I rob. Shepherd I. Crooks I. Brown I. Fox I. Lopez Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the. Results. Always 12 eyes. The amendment to the ordinance is a text amendment. The amendment to the amendment is passed. I think is what we're saying. Councilwoman, please. We need a motion to continue the public hearing and to postpone final consideration to Monday, July 14th. Thank you, Madam President. I move that the public hearing on Council Bill 398 as amended, be continued and final consideration postponed to Monday, July 14th, 2014. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Are there any comments and seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call. Can each high layman Lopez Monteiro Nevitt? Never know. What. They're voting on. The polls, the public hearings. I'll take a guess, I guess. Hi, Rob. Hi, Chip. I Brooks. Brown. I fight. I got a president. I. Madam Secretary, close voting. Announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The public hearing is postponed until July 14th, and I have no announcements to make. So see no other business for this body. This meeting is adjourned. Denver 87. Your city, your source. Denver eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community. Your city, your source.

DenverCityCouncil_06262017_17-0613

A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance 902 Series of 1995 by modifying the legal description of the area covered by structure for preservation located at 1940-1946 West 33rd Avenue. Amends an individual Denver landmark designation by reducing the size of the landmark boundary area for property located at 1940-1946 West 33rd Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-6-17.

Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must director comments. The council members as a whole please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council 613 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bills 613 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. And second it the public hearing for Council 613 is open. May we have the staff report? Caroline for you. Good. Good evening. This is for the amendment of a designation of a property at 1942, 1946, West 33rd Avenue is in Council District one and it is highlighted here in yellow. So the address is 1942, 1946, West 33rd Avenue. This is come came forward from the owner. It's a general location is at the corner of Tahoe in 33rd Avenue and the current zoning is max five. It's in the blueprint area of change. And so far on this, the entire yellow area is what is the existing Denver landmark. And they are looking to reduce it down to the red dashed area. This is a picture of the existing historic building. And on the right side is an empty parking lot that is part of the landmark designation application or part of the part of the existing landmark. So it was initially there was a mixed use residential apartment and grocery store that was constructed in 1892, and it's this highlighted there by the purple. This is a 1905 based map. Then the adjacent apartment building was constructed in 1895, and that is the existing Denver landmark. In about the 1980s, the mixed use building was demolished and condemned. And then in 1995, the lots that are noted in the lower map lots one, two, three and four highlighted in red were designated as a Denver landmark as a whole. And then in 2004, a non contributing garage was constructed. In 2015, the Landmark Preservation Commission approved a zone wide amendment that split the lot. And then in 2016, they approved the demolition of a non contributing garage. So they are currently looking to amend the boundary to remove the west portion of the property from the Denver landmarks. So Landmark Preservation Staff and the commission met all of the commission notices to the registered neighborhood organizations, notified and put signs up on the property for the Landmark Preservation Public Hearing. According to Chapter 30, any procedures to amend or rescind a designation are slightly different than the other designation. It goes to the Landmark Preservation Commission and typically they can terminate, change or recommend that it's forwarded for anything that is amendment. It shall be sent to you for your consideration regardless of the Preservation Commission recommendation. But it does have to follow the standard Chapter 30 dash for procedures and it needs to maintain its historic and physical integrity. Meet one designation criteria in two or more of the following categories history, architecture and geography. And it still needs to relate to a historic context or theme in Denver history. So when this property was reviewed both by staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission, we looked at the existing building and then the attached carriage house. As it was noted in the original designation, that particular apartment building retains its design materials, workmanship, location, setting and feeling, which are the aspects of integrity that you look at to determine if a property retains its physical integrity. And then we looked at the associated vacant or empty lot, which is noted by the purple. That's where the lot is located now. It used to hold a mixed use commercial building that took up basically the entire lot. It has been that building was the one that was demolished in the 1980s. So the vacant lot that's associated with the historic building retains its location. But because it's a vacant lot, it does not maintain its design materials, workmanship, setting, feeling or association. So the lot itself that's being looked to split off does not retain its physical or historic integrity. The 1995 landmark designation when it went through originally was determined to have significance under history with direct and substantial associations with particular persons and under architecture for distinguishing architectural characteristics. The Landmark Preservation Commission looked and found that the existing apartment building was still associated with Lina C Seacole, who was the original owner. He constructed both the 1892 mixed use building that was demolished, as well as the 1895 existing apartment building. He owned it until about 1919, when it was sold to Frank De Rose in sort of an it was part of Little Italy at the time. Based on the original 1995 designation, it discussed that there were rumored associations with the Mafia, but there was never anything that substantiated that. The vacant lot which used to hold the historic building is no longer associated with Cole or Rose as it is a demolished building. And there is. Since there is no integrity in the vacant lot, it can no longer convey its historical associations with either Little Italy, the beginning of the Highlands area, or either of the two members , Cole or DeRose, who were associated with the buildings. Under architecture, which is what it was looked at in 1995. The existing building was called the Victorian Eclectic Style. The building itself still retains good integrity. It still has the Tuscan columns and the swag at the top, and so it still retains its association with its particular style, the vacant lot, because it was the building was demolished in the 1980s. It no longer retains integrity to convey any architectural style. Historic context in theme was added to the Denver ordinance in 2012. So the 1995 designation does not really address whether it meets Denver's historic context or themes. And so what that called for in the 2012 amendment of the ordinance is to compare it to other structures and that it still retains its physical integrity. So the new boundary designation application does address that, that the existing building is still related to a 19th century apartment rentals in the area, that it reflects the growth of the Highlands and Denver during its early boom years. But that vacant lot, since it does not contain or does not retain integrity, does not relate to or convey a historic theme in Denver's history. We did not receive any written public comments, and there were no public comments at the Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing. The Landmark Preservation Commission found that the apartment building itself retains integrity, but the vacant lot did not. They found that it still met the history criteria as associated with persons who had influence in society, but the vacant lot did not. They found that the existing apartment building still reflected the architectural style and type for which it was originally designated. But the vacant lot that is now partially parking and a picket fence no longer has any architectural style. And they found that the apartment building related to the themes and context in Denver history, but the lot did not . They voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the amendment of the boundary of the structure for preservation. Great. Complete. All right. We have four speakers this evening. I'm going to call you to the front. Please. Please come on to the front bench. Hmm. Andre Cove. Lillian. I'm sorry. David Burton. Weinstein Hall and Timbers. Please come to the front. So clearly you had your first 3 minutes. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Counsel, I am going on. My name is Andre Kwan. I'm a representative of the applicant and owner of the building, Elmer Weinstein Hall Jr. I'm going to let him talk a little bit more in depth about. About the situation and about his experience. But just to give you just to clarify a few things. This is not in this building is not an historic district. It is an individual landmark that actually the owner and applicant, Mr. Stein Hall, stood before city council and applied for in 1995. He is the one who is now asking that that that the boundaries be amended to this individual landmark. And I think all that I think a of them take it from there. All right. Thank you, sir. David. David, you have to go in order. I'm sorry. David Burton. My name is David Burton, 2899 North Spear Boulevard. I am a representative of Weinstein Hall as well, the owner. As Andre said, the building originally was built in 1895, and when landmarked the building as a city of Denver landmark in 1995 , when he landmarked the property, he didn't realize he was landmarking the entire zone lot. Subsequently, in the past two years we have separated the zone lot and the parcel. So there is a vacant lot. That's a separate assessor parcel and a separate zone lot. And then there's a building, an apartment building that retains its original historic character. So our processes amending that individual city of Denver landmark to only include the building and not the vacant parcel. With nothing on it. So from my from my point of view, the building is being preserved and will be preserved as a city of Denver landmark. And the city of Denver should not have a vacant. Parcel as an individual. Landmark. So that's why we choose to amend the boundary. All right. Thank you, Mr. Burton. All right. Mr. Weinstein. All. Hello. I am the owner, Weinstein Hall. I go by wine. And I did designate this property historical in 1995. I believe I've kept up his integrity as far as, uh, uh, I've applied, you know, for tax credits for all the work that I've done in prior years, which took a fortune, by the way. And then, uh, I've maintained the historical upgrades and will continue to maintain the historical upgrades throughout time. Uh. And I hope you approve the Boundary Amendment, basically. Thank you, Mr. Tunnell. Thank you. And lastly, we have Tim Bowers Borst. Good evening, counsel. My name is Tim Burst. Where's normal phonetics? Somewhere in the middle or. And I live in the Highland neighborhood in Denver. I chair the Planning and Community Development Committee for Highland United Neighbors Inc, that R.A. that covers the Highland neighborhood. And I'm here to speak in opposition to this adjustment of the boundaries. Our committee voted on this earlier this month. We didn't come to this decision readily. We didn't come to it quickly. Rather, we looked around the Highland neighborhood and looked at the massive changes that continue to go on in our neighborhood. Since part of our neighborhood is an area of change. We're getting lots of change. What we recognize over the last two or three years is a pattern where we have either landmarked properties that have been subdivided or we have landmark eligible properties slated for demolition where the neighborhood has gone to the to the landowner, usually with help of our councilman, and have discussed means of saving the buildings. And we've been successful in saving a couple of buildings. But the success is a mixed success. The buildings are still there, but the context has changed. And what happened in the first of two was that when the property was saved, it was renovated, it was sold, and then the property was subdivided. And so without any neighborhood, say, neighborhood control, certainly no landmark input. New new construction was added on what had been a large corner lot. And it's it's out of context with what's around it. It's it has no the new construction has no relationship to the existing. And so we're not looking for new buildings to be historical replications by any stretch. In fact, we would oppose that. But we are looking for things that that relate to the to the buildings around us. And we've seen a second one where we negotiated to allow two new houses and an 82 to be added to the property to save the existing house and existing house and was painted, which it wouldn't have been if it had been landmarks. But all these were agreements by not landmarking something. So to have this new situation, which is highly unusual in the city of Denver, to have subdivided property and then to take off of the landmark to take landmark designation off of a parcel of the property leaves us in the same position that we've been seeing in other situations . So there's no protection, there's no input from the Landmark Commission to suggest how to do things a little bit more appropriately. So, see, my time is up. Thank you. Hope you'll think about opposing us. All right. This concludes our speakers this evening. Questions by members of council. Councilman Espinosa And just one quick question from LPC staff or CPD staff. There was a mention of. There's my note that this was an individual landmark. And if I recall, sort of based on prior conversations, there was some I don't know if it's actual or just lay terms that individual landmarks are more significant somehow or have a higher sort of, uh. I don't know. Let's put words in my mouth in this case, you know, Overland Park districts. There, I mean, they're they're all designated they all go through the design review process the same. But individual landmarks are oftentimes seen as more significant because it's a single property that was deemed to be highly significant on its own to be designated. Whereas when you're looking at an entire historic district, not every building within that district would be eligible for individual landmarking. So you could see it that an individual is slightly more significant. Great. Thank you. That's that's my understanding. Thank you. All right. Councilman Espinosa. Anything else? Okay. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. Kara, could. Could you explain? I don't think you were here in 95, but how did a vacant lot that at least now the assessor shows as a separate parcel? How did that get included in the designation in the first place? If there's nothing on it. The building was torn down in the early eighties. This is 1995. How'd that happen? So we don't have the record of that. We have some supposition. So it was one parcel and historic. Split since then. Yes. So it's been split. And so that was done in 2015. I'm sorry to have to go back to the site. I believe in 2015 it was that the zone lot was split. So typically within nationwide preservation policy in an urban area, the entire parcel is what is landmarked if it is historically associated with the building because there were two there had been historically two buildings that were associated with each other. That's my belief. Likely why it was landmarked as a whole. Even though the building was no longer there. So the building was no longer there. But they did. When the building was demolished, they took the bricks from that building and made a garden that was associated with sort of that apartment building. And so in that sense, they were kind of associated at the time, although it wasn't a historic building that was still standing. Let me clarify then, because you used two terms that mean different things. I make sure I understand a zone lot is different than a lot. So you're saying at the time of designation it was a single lot or a single zone. So single zone lot. Sorry. Okay. But they were separate parcels at the time. I believe it was the same parcel. I would have to go back and check on that. But I believe it was the same parcel. It was the same owner of all of it. Thank you. Actually, since the owner is sitting here, maybe I could better directed him. Wayne, could you come up and address that? If you recall. When I when I designated a lot. I was actually trying to designate the actual building. Right. And had no idea that I was designating the whole, you know, the whole encumbered lot. However, yeah, like Kara said, some of the bricks that were from from the building that fell down, we had made a garden and, you know, there was little brick pathways and stuff, you know, and actually in remembrance of the Garden, I actually did a mural of a garden that, you know, that replicates a garden anyway to try to, you know, preserve what I could or do what I could and. But basically that's what I went through in 95. That is, I thought it was a special building and I did get the historical designation. And, you know, actually, I was hoping to get grants, but I never got those right. But, uh, you know, I, I basically, you know, I, I got the designation, I've followed the rules, and I've kept the integrity of the building. Okay. Thank you, Carrie. One more question, then. Do is there any other example in the city of where we've designated as a Denver landmark, a vacant property? Not that I'm aware of. There are. Oftentimes, a house will be on multiple lots and lots and lots, but multiple lots. And so say it'll be like a corner house. And they will have intentionally, historically have landscaped yards that have always been associated with that. So there are cases where that is one landmark, but the land itself is considered part of the property because it's intricately connected to the house itself, because someone chose to buy a bigger lot, keep it landscaped. It was integral to the the use of the property, perhaps in the in the in the time period in question. Yes. Okay. And if I. One more question, Mr. President, for the gentleman from Tim, was it. Yeah, from honey. Are you suggesting that we should retain the landmark status of this vacant parcel, essentially, for the purpose of preventing it from being built upon? No, in a way other than that is in character with the neighborhood. Or would you would would honey like to see it built on in a way that is consistent with what used to be there or with the rest of the neighborhood? Or what exactly is the purpose for opposing this? We'd like to see some design review by folks. Who are landmark. By the neighborhood, and by the landmark commission who can take into account impacts of what new construction would look like there relative to the historic apartment building. Okay. So what it looks like exactly. We don't have any. Right. Sorry, but you don't want it to look like some cubist architect on psychotropic drugs. Developed it like we see elsewhere in the city. Your words. Thank you. Okay. Sorry to tread on Councilman Cashman's turf. Thank you, Mr. President. Chief Counsel, we're flying off the rails tonight. All right, let's see. Councilman Cashman, you're in. And I got my question answered. Okay, that's good. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Back to the lots. So we talked a little bit about what the lots were possibly, but now they're separated. And could the vacant lot be sold to a different owner? How they're set up now. I mean, it could be landmark preservation. It does not have any purview over the selling of any property. So they could sell it as a whole. I suppose they could sell it as a separate zone lot. That's not something that landmark has a purview over. But that they're separated enough right now that you could have a different owner on the part that's landmarked, that has the building than the part that's landmarked. And so we could end up with a lot that's landmarked with nothing on it. And that's what they own. Yes, I believe so. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. All right, Councilman Clark, Councilman Espinosa, back up. I was going to try to avoid getting in the weeds on these things. But the zone lot has sort of is the earth is is separate or part of the irrespective of the parcels. You know, you can you can have a parcel that's on a different on an extended zone line. But so this is a question they brought up and I didn't want to bring it up now. But since you brought Kyle, can you speak to the the are there exceptions? I mean, what are are there any provisions in the main street zone? Is it Main Street or what is the max? Max seem to see Max relative to existing buildings on zone lots. Are there exceptions that are are given because of the existing buildings? Well, when Kyle doesn't want to answer a question, who did he say it is? Is that not. Is that not germane to this conversation? I mean, canwe. Okay. You want him to restate, rephrase the question? Yeah. The reason why sort of the challenge is, is that. I think we're getting confused by the zone lot split. Whether that was one lot or two lots didn't preclude development or sale of the land. It could have been developed at any point in time. As a matter of fact, it was developed in 2004 with the garage structure. And so there's you know, and so it just is how does the zone land split even play into any of this if it doesn't? Well, that I defer to Kerry. I don't think that there's any anything about the zone lot that the landmark ordinance addresses, you know. Yeah. So you just it was five. It's still five, correct? That's correct. Thank you. Thank you, Kyle. All right, Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask the applicant, Mr. Steinle, if you can come to the microphone, please. Can you just tell us what you plan to do with that corner lot if this goes through? I'm not absolutely sure right now. Uh, I might possibly build a house. I live. I live on the property right now. So you could build up to a five story building. I'm not going to build a five storey no, no. I don't envision any monstrous building. In fact, you know, I would never I don't think I'd even exceed, you know, three stories at the very most. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I just have. Yeah. Councilman Espinosa, I just had one question for Mr. Steinhoff. So when did you realize you said you didn't intend to include this parcel? When did you realize that it was included in. Excuse me? That happened probably, what, back a few years ago. When? When we were doing the you know, we were looking at splitting. And then found out that the designation still included the whole entire lot. And I was never aware of that when I got it done. They just put a plaque in front of my building and I thought it was just a building. I had no idea that it included the whole entire. So as a time you went to LPC in 2004, you didn't realize that that was encumbered? Not at all. In fact, I never had any backlash for building those garages ever. Right. Because it went through the design review process. Yeah, I did. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. No other questions. I actually have a question for Mr. Spurs from Honey. I notice that I could not find a letter from honey in the packet. Now, you may have made a decision after we brought it through committee that the ludie committee that you had. Dated on Friday the 23rd, and. Oh, you have all received an email of that last Friday. Okay. That's right. Okay. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers and the public hearing from counsel. Bill 613 is now closed. Comments from members of Council Counsel. Councilman Espinosa. So this came to us without much debate because it's not a matter for LPC to even opine on and in. But they did mention sort of in passing at the end of their conversation about oh well this will this mean that this can't come before us. And the member acknowledged that that would be the case. And and that's really the crux of of the matter here, is there's development rights there. They they've been there. They remain it's just a matter of whether this goes through design review or not. And quite frankly, you know, that is been the lack of design review has been one of the sort of hallmark concerns of residents in all of northwest Denver, particularly an area like this that is is essentially it's got significant value to this city. It's desirable because of its sort of character, its past and its present in. And LPC has proven very capable at mixing new with the old and and and our design community has been less so. And I think if you read the Highland United Neighbors letter and you saw the three examples that they gave you with the illustrations, you would see that, yeah, you don't get the best outcomes when you just create a use by right situation adjacent to a landmark property. There's a reason why we defined areas around there, and in this case, the whole reason to sort of remove this, I mean, to go through this process is to remove a property from that little additional step, which the applicant himself has already been through once before. Actually, twice before he had to do it through for the construction of the garage and for the demolition of the garage. So LPC is is really capable and cognizant that change happens and it needs to happen and it will happen in a thriving city. So design review is more about how these buildings relate. And most of the communities that have design reviews sort of really genuinely benefit from that. And so I won't read the letter, but I do appreciate the letter that came from the R.A. and its committee. I hope, I hope my colleagues have seen it all. Otherwise I will go through it because it's got some really, really illustrative, illustrative examples of why this is important, to actually have this little bit of oversight in the process, especially on such an important Main Street commercial corridor as Tyrone. But so, you know, to to quote, it says, we are concerned about that without design review, the new structure could have impacts similar to those cited. And that's the three examples that were given and are in your packet. It is important to note and this is still quoting is important to note that maintaining landmark status in this pardon property is not taking the property rights. The entire property was landmarked by the property owner originally to protect the property. Not allowing the property owner to carve out and remove a portion of the property from the existing landmark. Protection does not change the property rights that currently exist. So so you know they go on to say we urge council to reject this request to remove landmark designation from the vacant portion of this property, landmark property to remove landmark protection. And this is key I added that from a portion of this property would set a precedent for other landmark Denver landmark properties citywide that have open space remaining. So just because it's vacant doesn't mean it does. It's not important to set up the context for that building now and in the future. I mean, it was an individually landmark building because it meant that threshold. So design review it to. And many architects has nothing to fear and is a wonderful asset to many of the communities that have skilled reviewers. And landmarked districts have proven capable of better integrating new with the old where needed. And it is needed here in northwest Denver. I will be voting against this area modification and urge my colleagues to do this to see. Likewise. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in and explain my vote before I do. I think the argument that's been raised about design review in Landmark Review is an important one in terms of the context. And I recognize that. I think the changing nature of our neighborhoods is a huge concern for communities, and it's one that I share. I guess I am worried about a different precedent. I have voted for several designations on this Council for Homes that I thought met the criteria. But some of my colleagues disagreed and felt that because of the economic impact and because of the economic concerns on the owners, they were not comfortable designating. And so those designations failed and those homes were lost. And so I you know, I can think of at least two homes that I voted to preserve, that my colleagues disagreed in part because it would limit the owners ability to economically recover their their needed costs. And then there are other homes that maybe have never come forward, because as much as I appreciate that some architects don't fear Landmark, I have gotten a number of constituent concerns. That Landmark is not easy and that it can be very difficult. And it is it is one of the reasons that gives people pause about designating. It's why so many of these compromise solutions involve not designating but someone coming up with a side agreement because there is a concern. And so here's my concern about the precedent, is that if we say no to what you know, our you know what, on its surface looks like a fairly common sense. Why have a parking lot designated? I am very concerned about the odds of future homes being saved and I think it will make it that much harder. If we had a context where we were saving the homes, then I would move on to the bottom of the of the context. But we're not even saving homes right now. And I think these economic arguments are used from folks who, you know, in their in their weighing of the factors have voted against it. So so I, I do feel concerned that saying no will give future owners pause about being able to do this. And I want homes saved. Right. Or properties I shouldn't say property. They're not all homes. Some of them are. This is apartment buildings. Some of them are businesses. But so so with great due respect to the concern about context, I think it's really important to make it as easy and to make it as appealing as possible to save the historic structures. And so I'm weighing it in that regard, and I'm going to vote for this amendment today on that basis. So I just want to explain that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman. Now thank you for you know, this is seems to be a situation a design review for this property. And and what you're planning on doing with the property is seem like a just a perfect recipe for our development agreement with the neighborhood. I've seen those work very well. This specifies what's going to happen with the property and there's a participation in it and it fits in well with the neighborhood. So I sure would encourage you to consider that with the neighborhood and let them be participate in the design and and your plans and and move forward and help develop the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. No, and I'm actually glad you said that. You know, it seems like the crux of the argument now is is about review. And I'm a little surprised that we haven't maybe we have had the conversation, but this is the first time I'm having the conversation. And. We're not in Question Time, we're in communist time. So I guess I have a rhetorical question, but people can shake their heads if not. But have we had a conversation over the neighborhood getting a review of the potential property? Okay. Well, I think. Just just go ahead, man. I'm president. I might as well go ahead and break my. I'd just like to comment what she said when, you know, it does, you know, doing this historical designation. I didn't think it'd be such a stranglehold and it has been. Yeah. You know, in some parts I've I've, you know, I've, I've abided by everything there is to do with it structurally and try to maintain its integrity I guess. And I'm just saying that would you, would you, would you be amenable to a development agreement with the neighborhood? Well, we already went to Hueneme before we even came here. I know for for the future development of that piece of the property. I'm just curious if you've had that conversation. We haven't actually up personally. No. Let me let me just finish my comments. I appreciate it. I appreciate you coming forward. I guess I guess, you know, my comments are very close to councilman news. And in many of my neighborhoods, this has been an issue. A development agreement has been something that we could bring both sides together. And it seems like something that's ripe for this situation. Unfortunately, I wish we could have a lot of time to talk about this and see if we could get this hammered out before the vote. So I just wanted to say that I think it's incredibly important, especially in interesting I've never I don't know if we've ever had a amendment to a landmark area that wasn't exactly a building. So I'm struggling with this a little bit. But, um. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I just. I want to say that this island is the home of the largest landmark district in the city, and Tim has been a member of PCD for over 30 years and has had numerous of these conversations and have led to wonderful outcomes for Northwest Denver. But that is only when it's essentially a part of the process. In our blanket zone districts, and you've heard me say this time and time again, that process is cut out. There is no requirement and it's purely voluntary to have good public input or any sort of professional design review. And so we don't we don't have a conservation overlay like Curtis Park does for the entire area. We don't have designer, if you like, Cherry Creek. You know, we have these little bits and pieces of of our history that remain. And this is one that was voluntarily protected. It has been through LPC several times to, you know, to to to the benefit of the owner. He even stated that he received tax credits as a benefit of this designation. And so when when there is public involvement here and a willful commitment to that ultimate, you know, this little bit of follow through is not too much to ask because that's the only way you get that level of experience that that this community has invested in, in its in its leadership and in its outcomes. Get people to that table to have that conversation. Hey, this is what we want to do. It's four stories tall. It's mixed use or all residential. It looks like this. You know, what do you think? We think this and I think the LPC values that input from the community. It's nice to have it, but if we don't have it, I can show you and I think I've driven many council my colleagues around areas of my district that do not have even this level of scrutiny and what goes on there. And so why would you strip this community from this little bit of input when all you have to do is say, note your existing development rights and requirements remain just like they have been since 1995. For the last 22 years. You know. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I was actually talking about South City Park and the sprouts there and the development agreement that the community came up with the developer there, which is it was a big deal in 2012. But seeing no other comments by members of council Madam Secretary and Anita. Okay. There it is. Is there. Madam Secretary. Rocco Espinosa. No. Flynn, I. Gillmor. I Cashman. I can each. New. Ortega? No. Black eye, Clark. All right. Mr. President. I please close. Very nice results. Nine eyes to. Nine eyes to two nays. Counsel 613 has passed due to 4th of July holiday. Council next meeting will be July 10th, 1217. How a safe holiday. There's no other business before this body. Thank you.

DenverCityCouncil_12092019_19-1156

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2220 Blake Street in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone a portion of the property located at 2220 Blake Street from R-MU-30 with waivers and conditions to C-MX-5 (residential, multi-unit in the former chapter 59 zoning code to urban center, mixed use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-29-19.

Okay. So Sandoval was also a no. So, Madam Secretary, you are close to voting in those results. 11 is 11 nay is constable. 1155 has been defeated. All right, Councilman Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 1156 on the floor? Absolutely. I move that council bill 19, dash 1156 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council bill 1156 is open. May we have the staff report? Certainly. Good evening, council. I'm Brandon Shaver presenting official map amendment application four 2220 Blake Street rezoning from r m 30 with waivers and conditions to see him x five The subject property is located in Council District nine within the five points neighborhood. The request is for CMCs five, which is urban center neighborhood context mixed use five storeys maximum height. The subject property is currently a restaurant with just over 9300 square feet and land area and is requesting the rezoning to allow for more flexibility in signage. Existing zoning on the site is AMI 30 with waivers and conditions. I'll get to that in the next slide. This is surrounded by more AMI 30 with waivers and conditions as well as x five ncm x eight, both with billboard use overlays. So AMI 30 is a primarily residential district which allows for higher density multi-unit as well as consumer retail and service uses. The waivers on the site are for uses that require special review, open space, setbacks in height. There is also a condition that requires two affordable housing units. But this has been satisfied with the construction of the multi-unit building which was constructed in 2005. There is also a party wall agreement with the neighboring property, which requires a ten foot setback for solar access if the subject property is ever redeveloped. As to not block views from the condo building, which has windows built to the side interior property line, current land use of the subject property is commercial retail in the form of a restaurant adjacent land uses include more commercial retail, office, parking, multi-unit, residential and entertainment cultural uses that cause field. The subject. Property is also a contributing structure within the Ball Park Historic District. Therefore, any additions or alterations to the structure would require special review by the Landmark Preservation Commission. It is highly unlikely that the Commission would ever approve demolition of the structure and any additions will require consent from the registered neighborhood organizations. One here is the Reno Arts District. The photos to the right give you a sense of the building foreman's skill in the area. There are a number of single and two story historic warehouses and commercial structures interspersed with multi-unit residential buildings of up to six stories in height. This table is side by side comparison of the existing zoned district versus the proposed, and you can see they're fairly similar. So speaking to the process, informational notice of this application was sent out in early May and CPD received a revised submittal in July. Planning Board Notice was sent out on October 1st and the board voted unanimously to move the application forward at their October 16th meeting. It was again moved forward unanimously at the Luti committee on October 29th. The property was properly noticed and as a present, three letters of opposition have been received from residents in the condo development south of the subject property. These letters are concerns that the proposed zoning could result in a five storey building that would block sunlight access. And as I said previously, the current zoning already allows for 65 feet and the party wall agreement is in place to provide a side interior setback should the subject property ever undergo redevelopment or have an addition. And also to that point, I think a couple of these letters spoke to why CPD didn't want to pursue a waiver at this site. And the reason that we did not go forward with a waiver is because a waiver is essentially a rezoning and we do not rezone to districts that are former Chapter 59, which this is now under the criteria, starting with consistency with adopted plans. These four plans impact the subject property. This rezoning is consistent with a number of strategies and Plan 2040, including using urban design to contribute to economic viability and supporting the creation and expansion and economic viability of Denver food businesses and encouraging mixed use communities. More detail and discussion of consistency with these goals can be found in the staff report. Moving to Blueprint Denver The subject property is mapped as a downtown context. It is important to note that the boundaries of context have limited flexibility as long as it furthers blueprint. Denver's strategies and the intent of the context map. The plan states that neighborhood context should be consistent across an area and not very at the parcel level. Therefore, as a number of surrounding properties have an urban center neighborhood context, this request is consistent with the blueprint context map. The future place for the subject property is a high residential area. These places have a high mix of uses throughout contained buildings with high lot coverage and give high priority to pedestrians and then future street types. Both 22nd and Blake Streets are downtown arterials. The subject property is part of the growth strategy as it is within a high residential area in a downtown or urban center neighborhood context. These areas are expected to take on 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment by 2040. Moving to the northeast downtown neighborhood. The plan, which was adopted in 2011, recommendations from this plan include creating mixed use areas that place high importance on pedestrian access and promoting the use of design elements that link buildings to the street environment. The request for a mixed five is consistent with these recommendations and the future land use and maximum building heights identified in this plan. Lastly, the downtown area plan recommends that this area transform into a dense, vibrant, mixed use district that is highly activated by pedestrians. So the requested zone district is consistent with these goals as well. Staff also finds that the requested rezoning meets to the next two criteria, as it will result in the uniformity of district regulations and will further public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans and fostering the creation of a pedestrian friendly mixed use area. Near high capacity transit. This rezoning is justified. As the city adopted the Denver zoning code in 2010 and the property retained old code zoning. The proposed rezoning is also consistent with the urban center neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and the CMC's purpose and intent statements. So at that, CPD recommends approval based on planning. All review criteria have been met. Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Lee Driscoll. Good evening and thank you very much for your time. I am Lee Driscoll, the applicant. I want to thank the both city council and the City Planning Department for helping me through this process, which is very interesting and complex and helped me learned a lot about the comprehensive plans. Anyway, I really just wanted to be available for any questions and if there are any to answer them. Thank you. Thank you very much. And next up, Jesse Paris. Good evening. Members of council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is just LaShawn Paris. And I ran for city council where a large almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running to be the next mayor in 2023. And I'll represent for Denver homeless out loud black stars and more self defense positive actually commit for social change, universal African People's Organization as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High. No, I was against this initially because I thought it was going to be another rezoning for more property that people cannot afford to live in. But if it's just an expansion to a restaurant, I think I'm willing to work with that. I just want to know what's going to be here exactly and how high of stories it is going to be, because I heard something about it could build up to five stories. I would like some clarification about that. And then also, if there was a traffic study done in this area, because the traffic is already bad enough in this area and this area is pretty trashed at night and it gets blamed on the on house neighbor. So I would like to know what exactly is going to be expanded with this restaurant. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item? Councilman CdeBaca Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. DRISCOLL Would you mind answering that question of what is the plan for this area? It seems like it's just for signage, but I would. Certainly. Would you like me to face council? No. First question. Our application is purely. Submitted for the purpose of being able to be more flexible on the signage. Maybe there are variances to this signage in all the surrounding blocks except for ours, which has the perverse effect of making the block look dark and scary at night and and defeats many of the purposes of all the floor plans that are cited here to make the neighborhood safer, more vibrant, more mixed use to to help connect Rhino and LoDo and all of those things. We the. The irony is that we have we did on the property. We sold it in 2015. We took back a 40 year lease. We believe strongly that having a better signage will attract more people to the block. And I've been supported by all the other neighborhood, all the other businesses who would like to do the same, but they don't have the time and energy to invest in doing this. I am lucky to have. I was also encouraged by the city planners to take the zoning approach so that we could set a precedent that would make it possible for other businesses on our block. We are very lucky. We have a very strong brand, which is the Cherry Cricket, but two businesses, the restaurant directly across the street from us has failed three times. There's a of excellent pizza location just to the south of us that does well but could do much better in my view, if they had signage that was consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. So that's really our goal. The. The irony of the whole thing is that the more successful we are, the less likely that the properties ever to be developed because we will keep our lease for the next 35 years. So it will stay exactly as it is. If we have our way. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. For CPD plan. Thank you. So you said if something were to get built there in the future, it has a ten foot setback. Correct? What? How close to the property line is the nearest I is an apartment building or a condo building close? It's a condo building. And they're both buildings are built to the property lines. Okay. So there they have no setback strength. A new building would be ten, ten feet away. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I just have trouble with giving an entitlement that's not being asked for. I mean, as opposed to making an exception in the other direction and just giving the sign waiver. Even though it violates an internal policy of CPD, it just doesn't make sense to me. Well, here you go. Here's. Here's three extra stories that you haven't asked for. Well, I wouldn't see it as quite entitlement change. The current zoning allows for 65 feet. Is that right? And the proposed zoning is 70 feet in maximum height. Okay, great. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval. Yes, thank you. Can you talk to me about the ballpark? Historic district. So what are the design guidelines and standards for that? I'm not familiar with that one as much. I'm not quite as familiar either, other than any project that goes through that in that district has to go through a design review from the Preservation Commission. Do you buy time to know if this is a contributing structure? That is a contributing structure. Demolition is impossible. Probably wouldn't happen. Correct. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for councilmen 1156 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. When I first heard that this was regarding the cricket, I thought I was asleep at the wheel. I'm glad to know that the Cherry Cricket not in Cherry Creek is is the particular property in question and that the Cherry Creek Cherry Cricket will continue as a. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Any other comments? Right. Seeing no other comments. I'll just add my thank you to staff for all your hard work in putting this all together. I think this clearly meets the criteria and I will be voting yes. Madam Secretary, roll call. Thank you for your patience. Black CdeBaca I Gilmore I Herndon High Hines I. Cashman can each. Sandoval, I. Sawyer Ortega. Mr. President. Did we get Torres? Torres. I'm sorry, I. Sorry. And I'm an I. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting and not the results. And then. You have a nice. 11 eyes counterpart. 1156 has passed. On Monday, December 16, the Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1259, designating the Tilden School for Teaching Health Historic District as a district for preservation. A 30 minute courtesy public hearing on Council 1176 amending Chapter 48 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding Article nine entitled Fee

DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0380

A proclamation designating May 15 through May 21 as “Public Works Week in Denver” and congratulating the Denver Public Works Department’s twelve employees of the year for 2016.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I have proclamation number 16 0380 designating May 15th through May 21st as public works week in Denver and congratulating the Denver Public Works Department's 12 Employees of the Year for 2016. Whereas, in celebrating the American Public Works Association's 2016 theme of public works always there, we recognize that public work Denver Public works through its 1100 employees, consistently delivers safe, high quality, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. WHEREAS, Denver Public Works employees are integral to our residents everyday lives delivering services that include street sweeping, recycling and refuse collection, pothole repairs, street paving and mobility programs supported by top notch vehicle and equipment technicians. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works enhances the quality of life in our city by managing and maintaining public infrastructure, including streets, alleys, drainage ways, sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings, signage and on street parking, as well as contracting procurement, capturing and permitting programs that meet the needs of the public. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works continues to make a significant make significant contributions to our city's built environment, managing the planning, design and construction of public infrastructure and new transportation options that help people get around town with greater ease. And. Whereas, as our city grows, Denver Public Works will work to accommodate more people with a strategic plan that focuses on smart growth and making Denver more sustainable, multimodal, attractive, resilient and transparent. And. Whereas, the Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2015 for their entitlements. And they are. Stephanie Reed Capital Projects Management. Irma Montour Finance and Administration. Desi Apodaca Fleet Management. Nathan Nguyen Fleet Management. Thomas Aveda Right of way enforcement permitting. Ryan Crum Right of Way Services. Brandon Lawrence Policy Planning and Sustainability. Rodney Frescas Solid Waste Management. Robert Page Street. David Hermosillo. Transportation and Mobility. Alex Snaith. Wastewater Management Admin. And Daniel Pacheco Wastewater Wastewater Management APS. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council designates the week of May 15th through May 21st, 2016, as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulates the Denver Public Works 2015 Employees of the Year for their outstanding contributions to the Department and City. Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attack a test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and the copies hereof before added to Denver Public Works and the 12 Public Works employees listed above. Thank you. Councilman. Clerk, your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the proclamation. 380 be adopted. Then move in second. Comments, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Public Works is an amazing department within the city because of the breadth and depth of everything that they do that affects all of our citizens on an everyday basis. I mean, as we're reading through this and we're talking about everything from potholes to trash collection to mobility and transportation, and they do such an amazing job, so much so that that, you know, we don't even notice most of it. And that's that's the hard part is they're out there working really hard. And when they do a really good job, nobody notices that anything's wrong. And we have a great program, even with potholes when they're reported. I was just talking to people recently about, you know, when you report a pothole, our crews get out there and and repair it very quickly. So this is just a fantastic department that we have that does a phenomenal job in our city, especially with all the freeze thaw cycles that we have and and the cost of beating up of our infrastructure. So I just want you guys to know how much we appreciate what you do and especially to our All-Stars. Who are the employees of the year? That's a big, big department with 1100 employees. And so to rise to the top of that, to be employees of the year is no small accomplishment. So I just want to say congratulations, and I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this proclamation tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a very brief thank you. Public works keeps our city safe, clean and livable. And I think mostly they respond to complaints and not very many people probably say thank you. So I'm here to say thank you for all you do. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank Councilman Clark for bringing this forward and congratulate the 12 honorees, the 12 employees of the year. And I know that you all are reflective of the work that is done by your colleagues day in and day out, and you make us all very proud. So thank you for the work that you do every day. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Herndon. I also wanted to convey my thanks to public. Works and. Public works employees. You know, as a city council person, you get calls from constituents, from from different stakeholders. And I've always very aware that city employees get calls from everyone. They it's not one wheelhouse that they work with in the field, calls from all of the council offices, from constituents, from different stakeholders. And then you also have, you know, the different agencies within the city that you need to work with and partner. And so. Just wanted to say a very. Sincere thank you and that public works staff have actually come out and driven around the district with me to actually see firsthand. Some troublesome. Spots. And they get it addressed as quickly as they can. And so. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to join the waterfall. And thank you for our public works department. You do so much in responding to. I think what I would say is the majority of our calls. And they do it with pride. I have the honor to have actually been with a lot of our crews in the paving ops division going out there, some of the hottest days that are out there. They're out there doing it. They're out there working and they do the purposefully in the in July. So imagine a 100 degree day or high 90 degree day and pouring asphalt that's over 200 degrees. And you know, combine that and that makes for a hard that makes for a really hard day and everybody in this city wants their street paved and they want it now. And so that's that's the you know, that's the kind of work that our public servants do. And these are true public servants, and we honor them that way. And I'm glad we called them out in the in the proclamation. I'm glad we do this proclamation every year doing this. But it's more like public works. 24 seven. Right. So if there was a proclamation to do that every single day, I bet you Jolan would be reading it every single day if that's what it took. So. Thank you. Thank you, John, for that. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clarke. You know, the public works department really takes care of the bones of our city, and they do not get any credit at all. And and just to piggyback off of what Councilman Lopez was saying, they redid York two years ago and York I don't know when's the last time York had been redone, but a lot of people kept emailing our office and we just said, you know, it's going to get redone, it's going to get redone, you know, whatever year was. And we would ask that you bring these folks who are out here slaving in this hot sun, a nice cold drink, and just say thank you . And we had. It was amazing. We had about 40, 50, 60 folks come in, you know, bring in drinks and say and just thank you. And the crew said, you know, we never no one ever says thank you. So we don't even know what to do here. And so it's just more to encourage us as we see any kind of public works individual out in our streets serving just to say thank you for for what they do and how they serve this city, because they're the ones that make it beautiful and make it great. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I'm I'm new here. So I get to see a different side than I had for the last 30 some years that I've been here. And so I just wanted to thank I don't see her in the audience. And Cassius, if you're here, District one constituent, thank you for being the liaison, because I know I've challenged public works many times since I've been here. And you've handled it well. Very well. It's a public works. Again, thank you for the work that you're doing. But I'm going to push. I would love to see us do more arterials, so I'd love to see you out there doing even more work than you already are. So I want to have a bigger thank you next year for all the arterial work. So, Mr. Mayor, let's get that in the budget because our arterials definitely need the attention. So thanks public works for the work you're doing because your reach is vast in your your staff is huge. But for the most part, we live in a very, very safe city thanks to the work that you guys are doing. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman new. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to just congratulate the department as well and two things that that have come up recently. You know, the cost of construction has gone skyrocketing here in Denver. And you look at public works and they are affected more than any other department, just about because of all the building materials they have to to purchase and to pave our streets and whatever. So for them to do the job they're doing and doing a good job with limited resource or reduced resources from a budget standpoint is phenomenal. So we need to recognize they're also we're looking to the future with transit and Kristi Fagan. Joe and her staff are doing a great job and we're looking forward to seeing that first transit installation implementation on Colfax and the bus rapid transit and and seeing transit develop in the city. So congratulations to the department and everyone in it. And great job. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just didn't want the opportunity to go by to thank the members of the public works. Y'all are the best partners that I've ever had. And constituent services. And you've saved my bacon more than once, I'll tell you. And your responsiveness has been so great. And a lot of times I get to take the credit for. But I try always to say no. That's the men and women of the Public Works Department who got out there and got out there right away when people were having issues that public works can help with. And I can't thank you enough for all you've done in the five years that I've been here. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Any other comments? 380. Say non, ma'am. Secretarial call. Clerk Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi. LOPEZ All right. New, huh? Ortega Susman. Brooks, Black Eye. Mr. President, hi. Councilman Nu. I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. Those have only announced results. 11 Ice. Ice three has been adopted. Excuse me, Councilman Clark, is there someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation? Yes, Mr. President, I'd like to invite up George Delaney and Nancy Cunard. Good evening, members of council. I'm George Delaney, chief operating officer for Denver Public Works and Deputy Manager. I want to thank you for the proclamation. And probably more importantly, I want to thank you for your expressions of appreciation for our staff. And they do work very hard. They work very hard every day. And for them to know that you appreciate the work that they do is very meaningful. We're dealing public works, like most departments in the city are dealing with a very rapidly growing city and the demands that that puts upon our people. We have high expectations of ourselves and we know the citizens and you all have high expectations of us. One of the things I wanted to point out to you, I don't know how many of you are familiar with this, but this is a plan that we put out every year. It's called the Smart Plan, and this is our work plan that says here's what we're going to try to accomplish in the coming 12 months. And it's a document that we. Use to guide our work, but it's also a document that we can hold ourselves accountable to. And you can hold us accountable, too, because we do a report card on this every year. At the end of the year so that we can show how we're measuring up. So that's that's one of the ways that we are trying to adapt, trying to change, and trying to take on the challenges that we face in our department. We've also been working very hard with our employees on employee engagement, trying to the more and more pressure that's on you, the more hard work that you have to do . The employees, their effectiveness, their efficiencies, it becomes very demanding. And we want our employees to be engaged to enjoy what they do and to come to a safe and hazard free workplace. So those that employee engagement initiative we've embarked upon is very critical to both manager Josie and the rest of us. So, you know, Councilman Clark listed there are 12 employees of the end of the year. It's important to note that these employees of the year are selected by their peers. And so they are typically an employee who is an employee of the quarter and then were selected of the Final Four to be employees of the year by their peers. And I think that makes it even more relevant and more appreciated by our employees. So if I could have we have. A couple two here tonight. We have Stephanie Reid's here and Nate when but we also. Have a lot of other public works employees. Would you please stand to be recognized? You're the ones who do all the work. Todd. Thank you very much. For this honor. Thank you for the proclamation. And we will we plan to continue to serve you and meet your needs, as well as the citizens of. Denver in the years to come. Thanks. You. Thank you, Councilman Clark, for bringing that forward. All right. We've got one more proclamation. 381 sponsored by Councilman Lopez. Will you please read proclamation 381? Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation Council Proclamation 381 series of 2016 recognizing May 19th as World Hepatitis Mean Hepatitis D Hepatitis Testing Day in July 28th as World Hepatitis Day. Whereas May 19th is National Hepatitis Testing Day in July 28th is World Hepatitis Day. Hepatitis C is recognized as the most common blood borne viral infection in the United States. And. Whereas, Hepatitis C has infected an estimated 70,000 Coloradans, as many as 3.5 million American residents, nearly one in every 50 persons and more than 130 people worldwide. And it is the leading cause of cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver transplants in the United States. And. Whereas, as many as 1700 hepatitis C related deaths occur annually in the United States, these rates are expected to peak between the years 2030 and 2035 at 36,000 deaths per year, making hepatitis C one of the top preventable causes of

DenverCityCouncil_06202016_16-0314

Rezones multiple addresses at the Broadway Station area (800-1000 blocks South Broadway, 301 West Mississippi Avenue, 700 South Santa Fe Drive, 925 South Santa Fe Drive, 711 South Cherokee Street, 501 West Ohio Avenue, 510 West Tennessee Avenue, and 99 West Kentucky Avenue) from T-MU-30 with waivers and conditions, UO-1 to C-MX-16, C-MX-12, C-MS-12, and C-RX-8 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones multiple addresses at the Broadway Station area (800-1000 blocks South Broadway, 301 West Mississippi Avenue, 700 South Santa Fe Drive, 925 South Santa Fe Drive, 711 South Cherokee Street, 501 West Ohio Avenue, 510 West Tennessee Avenue, and 99 West Kentucky Avenue) from T-MU-30 with waivers and conditions, UO-1 to C-MX-16, C-MX-12, C-MS-12, and C-RX-8 in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-27-16.

At the confluence of the Baker and Ashmore Park neighborhoods. But we can see that it's it's really bringing together a lot of different neighborhoods in the hub of this transit oriented area of our city. Zooming in a bit to the location, we can see that the site is located at the I 25 and Broadway station area. And just to orient you a little bit, we can see that it's bound by I-25, the interstate at the north south Broadway at the East Mississippi Avenue at the South, and the Santa Fe Platte River Drive couplet generally at the West. And our site is split by a number of manmade, as well as natural barriers, including the consolidated mainline in the South Platte River. And we can see Vanderbilt Park East and Vanderbilt Park West just to the west of our subject site. There are both dedicated city parks and the subject site. The station itself is served by five light rail lines and multiple different high frequency bus lines as well. So to the request, the property is a 58.5 acres and it is largely vacant. Former Industrial. This is the area that we often think of as the former Gates redevelopment site at the Gates factory. It does include today one small auto service structure in the northeast corner of the site as well as the RTD station. So that includes the bus bays, the station platform itself, as well as surface parking. And the entirety of the site is currently owned by four property owners. So our Broadway station partners, which is a private development entity as well as the city and county of Denver and these four property owners are requesting a rezoning to facilitate redevelopment within the framework of the Denver Zoning Code to facilitate transit oriented development. So the request before you was to rezone from 10 to 30 waivers in conditions you are one to the forward zoned districts as seen here. And just to let you know, the current zoned district does include the yellow one adult use overlay and it is not proposed to retain that overlay coming into the Denver zoning code. And currently there are no adult uses on the subject site. And just a reminder tonight that the approval of a rezoning is not the approval of a specific development concept. So now on to existing context. First zoning so we can see that our site is HTML 30 waivers and conditions and tenure. 30 is a former Chapter 59 zone district generally mapped around station areas. It includes a maximum of 5 to 1 and height of 220 feet. And it's important to note that the waivers and conditions that apply to the site do not apply to the entirety of the site. They are concentrated within certain sub areas. So the waivers for parcel five, parcel five is that little portion outlined in yellow to the west of the river, waivers for that particular site way out, certain uses highly limited for that piece of property specifically. And then for Parcel six, which is the parcel located generally right around the I-25 and Broadway station area, that's the portion owned by RTD. There's a number of different waivers and conditions, all generally getting to the same intent that for private development to occur on that subject site, a waiver, the reduction of parking spaces essentially is waived out through a number of different mechanisms and a different process is specified for sharing parking across the GDP area. Additionally, conditions are attached to the subject site. An important one is that an infrastructure master plan is also required as part of the zoning, along with a general development plan . So something to see as we go forward. I now looking to the surrounding context to the north of I-25. We can see some see Amex 16 and see Amex eight zoning, and that's the IMX 16. Zoning was just approved by this body in March of this year. We can see a number of different old codes in districts as well as Denver zoning code zone districts generally mixed use in contexts surrounding the property. And to the south of Mississippi, we can see that the tme 30 waivers and conditions that was mapped on or subject site in 2003 also does extend to the south of Mississippi and CPD is exploring with the property owners throughout this entire TI and the 30 waivers and conditions area to bring all of that property into the Denver zoning code. And we can see OSA zoning located to the West where there's two dedicated city parks are located now in two existing contexts for the GDP and the Urban Design Standards and guidelines. The Cherokee redevelopment of the former Gates factory GDP was approved for the subject site in 2005. So again, a requirement of the TMU 30 with waivers in condition zoning and coterminous for the same boundary. We see urban design standards and guidelines that are intended to facilitate redevelopment over time. But we do understand today that the majority of the site was not developed under this general development plan or these urban design standards and guidelines. So as you'll see, moving into the 25 and Broadway stationary plan, we do see specific recommendations to review these various layers of regulations that exist on the site, streamline where possible, and ensure that they're implementing our adopted plans. So as such, we do anticipate that the general development plan will be repealed and the Urban Design Standards and guidelines have been substantially amended and restated. Recently recommended approval by our Denver Planning Board just last week. So we're not going to be talking about these two tools as we move forward tonight. It's now on to the view plane. We can see that the Washington excuse me, Washington Park view plane applies to the subject site. Originating, of course, in Washington. And estimating maximum building heights of 111 to 169 feet across the subject site, which, of course, these will fall below the maximum building heights requested for the zone districts. So ultimately, the Washington Park View plane will regulate building heights across the subject site. It's now looking to land use. We can see that our site is largely vacant. Its former industrial and the small outdoor service. The structure there, we can see in purple in the northeast corner of the site and we see a mixture of industrial and mixed use uses, specifically industrials concentrated to the southwest portion of the site as well as mixed use continuing on the Broadway corridor. Now on to building form and scale. We can see some images of the vacant property and the one remaining structure, as well as the station area itself, the platform, the light rail flyover and the surface parking lots. And then the photos in the lower right hand corner are the vacant properties to the west of the Consolidated Mainline and west of the South Platte River. Now looking to the foreman scale, we can see generally low to mid rise buildings located around the subject site and then moving into more auto oriented industrial and flex spaces to the south and the west. So now in terms of process, the following ten registered neighborhood organizations have been notified throughout the process. And we did actually receive 37 letters of support. This has not been updated and they are all included in your staff report packet. A notice of receipt of application was sent on February 17th, 2016 to register neighborhood organizations and City Council. Notice of the Planning Board public hearing was sent on March 21st, 2016 to Arnaud's, as well as notification signage posted on the Property Planning Board did vote unanimously to recommend approval on April six, 2016 and the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee move the bill forward on April 27th. And of course here we are tonight at City Council and Arnault's have been properly notified as well as signage posted on the property. So in terms of the review criteria, we will move on to consistency with adopted plans. And there are three adopted plans that apply to the subject site, the first of which is comprehensive plan 2000. And we did find that the rezoning is consistent with the strategy seen here and comprehensive plan 2000, which is of course adopted now six years ago, actually does call out the Gates site as a significant transit oriented development redevelopment opportunity. Next on to Blueprint Denver, our land use and transportation plan. We can see that the subject site is called out with two land use concepts. The first is that sort of bright pink fuchsia color, which is transit oriented development, which recommends compact mid to high density mix of uses, high pedestrian orientation and friendliness, as well as high multimodal access and a reduced emphasis on auto parking. And then to the west of the South Platte River, we can see that pink color, a lighter pink color, is called out as mixed use. And these are subject sites that are recommended for a mix of employment and residential uses next within buildings, but also within larger areas and the entirety of our subjects that is called out as an area change. So areas where the city of Denver recommends channeling the most growth and redevelopment to benefit the city as a whole. Next onto the I-25 and Broadway station area plan, which was recently adopted by this body in April. You will recall that the station area plan recommends encouraging a variety of uses to activate the station area. And again, seeing the reinforcement of the concept land use categories from Blueprint Denver. Next. The plan also recommends in terms of building heights, incorporating higher densities near the station with overall building heights ranging from 8 to 16 storeys across the subject site. Ultimately, though, being regulated by the Washington Park Viewpoint. We do find that the rezoning request will also result in the uniformity of district regulations. By bringing all these properties into the Denver zoning code, additionally facilitating redevelopment within the framework of the zoning code across properties owned by multiple entities over a long period of time . We also find that the rezoning will further the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. And in terms of justifying circumstances, we can look to a number as articulated in your application and your staff report. So the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing, and we can look to specific change circumstances. The first being that adopted plans over for now almost the last 20 years have recommended redevelopment of this particular area and recognize the evolving character all the way back to comprehensive plan 2000 reinforced through the adoption of the Strategic Plan in 1216, 2014, and now the 25 and Broadway stationary plan. And of course, we're given this a finer grain analysis through the 25 and Broadway stationary plan that sets much more specific guidance than we have been given before in the past. We also see that redevelopment in the area is signaling an evolution in the environs. So redevelopment occurring at the Denver Design District to the north along with the south Broadway corridor. Additionally, the sale of the former Gates factory to a private entity opens up new redevelopment opportunities for this particular site. And the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code has introduced new tools to implement adopted plans that we would not have had available to us at the time of the TMU 30 with waivers and conditions rezoning in 2003. Specifically, the design recommendations that are coming forth from the 25 and Broadway stationary plan are not implemented by the existing zoning on the site as articulated in your staff report. Now looking to excuse me. Consistency of neighborhood. Context to a district purpose and intent. As articulated in your staff report, we do see that it is appropriate to resume the site within the urban center and neighborhood context as well as the zone district purpose statements that are stated for the Max AMS and our zone districts, as well as the specific intent statements where we see specific guidance both in terms of building heights from the stationary plan as well as the transportation context. So based upon our review of the five criteria, we find that the rezoning meets all five and recommend approval. And property owners are here this evening from RTD as well as Broadway station partners. Should you have any questions for them? Thank you. Thank you. Right. So first up, we have Kate Iverson. 3 minutes. Welcome. Kate Everson, artist Todd, manager in the Archduke's Planning Department. I'm here to answer any questions. No comments. Thank you. Our final speakers. Lisa Angel. I'm pronouncing that right. Hello. Good evening. My name is Lisa Ingle. Address of use is 1821 Blake Street 3c80202i represent Broadway Station Partners as the development project manager and local owners representative. We want to thank you for your time tonight. Of course, we're excited to bring forward the rezoning of this important underutilized and contaminated land. We recognize the significance of the property to the city and its citizens and look forward to bringing it back into productive use. We are already cleaning the site, as I think we've mentioned to a few of you and see quality development that the city and its neighbors will be proud of moving forward. Over the past year, we have worked closely with the city and county of Denver, the I-25 and Broadway Station Area Plan, which was adopted through council back in April. We also convened back in November of 2015 a steering committee made up of neighborhood representatives. We called that the B stack. We met four times over the past several months, along with two additional public meetings, and the team was on hand to answer questions as well as get input into the vision of the of the project itself. As a result, tonight, we have letters of support from each of the participating neighborhood organizations. You have a summary of the public outreach on your desk, along with each of those letters of support. And we're here tonight to seek your approval on the rezoning application. And the rest of the team is here as well to answer questions, if you have any. Thank you, Mr. Singh. Thank you. Questions for members of Council. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. I have a couple of questions. Let me start first with Lisa. If you wouldn't mind coming to the front. And it might be helpful to have all our speakers that were just here for questions in French just in case they have. Come on down. So. I would like to ask what kind of discussions have taken place with the city related to proximity to rail? As you know, we have cargo shipments that travel through this corridor and we have had a working committee that has been meeting to talk about rail safety and also as it relates to new development. And just curious to know what those discussions have entailed that would ensure that item number three, which says we're addressing health, safety and welfare, that we're in fact, doing that and. Okay. I understand. You mean you're clearly probably not at that level of detail, but, I mean, I want to know, has the conversation come up? What you know, what has that consisted of? Sure. I think it was really brought to our attention by you when we met to to have these initial discussions on the zoning. There has been some some minor discussions with the city staff around this, but we haven't really gotten to that level of detail since we are still really in the visioning phase and not the implementation phase. But it's obviously good to keep on the on the radar. So as the representative of the development team, can you tell me if they will be looking at creating a special district, if they will be requesting tax increment financing, what are the additional approvals that will need to be coming back before this body for this project to to develop as it's envisioned? Sure. There currently is a special district. We have a metro district on the actually there's three districts. One is an operating district. There will, in fact, be a public finance component of this that we are seeking. We are in current negotiations with Dura and we will, of course, be back in front of each and every one of you for briefings and discussions on that package as well. We're hoping that that will be finalized towards the end of this year. And part of that discussion will include affordable housing, I'm assuming that is correct. Part of the TIFF conversation. I know you've been engaged in some conversations with on that topic as well. We have. When will we know what that package entails? Sure. Right now, the the current affordable housing requirement remains with the land. As you noted, we are in negotiations with OED at this time. We are closing in on an agreement. We hope to have something finalized by the end of potentially this week, at which point in time we will look to make rounds back through city council and give some additional briefings and information as well. Thank you. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Ryan, could you talk to me a little bit about the the parking waivers and how that works? Sure. The sites that were actually rezonings. I remember if you read I don't know if you were here when we adopted the. The stationary plan. Mm hmm. Okay. I had a lot of concern about the references to locating transit parking far near, but not necessarily at the station, which is the words that are used in your staff report. So there are currently 1200 and 1250 parking spaces for RTD I 25 Broadway. Under this zoning, where do we expect the transit parking will go? That's a great question. So there's actually very little change in the way that parking is treated for transit operations between the current zoning and the proposed zoning. So the site that's up right now, I don't know if you can see it, but the waivers for Parcel six, that's the area that's owned by RTD, generally around the I-25 and Broadway station. Those waivers relate specifically to private development that would occur on the parking related seating and the property related to parking. So in former Chapter 59, just like the Denver zoning code, transit users themselves don't have minimum parking requirements. Understanding that these stations can occur throughout the city of Denver depending on the context. And so the zoning today that is proposed is really a framework to facilitate redevelopment over the time, but doesn't require that parking is removed, just like the current zoning does not compel that parking stay. So then what does that mean, though, from kind of the plan perspective in the policy guidance that we see? So we've seen policy guidance now for the past 20 years that recommend balancing the importance of multimodal access to the station as well as placemaking with continued operations as a larger and having a larger aspect, I guess, of park and ride function is of course the station was constructed as the former end of the line in 1994 and we've definitely seen transit facilities expand since then. So the context has shifted and we're seeing the realization of that planned direction come to light. RTD has expressed an interest in maintaining the parking that they currently control. Definitely over the long term, as well as the station area plan does reinforce that. However, recommending that given the urban center context that's contemplated for this site, that surface parking is not the appropriate context moving forward and structured parking would be more appropriate. I agree with that. Kate, can I ask you a few questions? Of course I can. You care, Kate. Kate and I used to work together at RTD. It's nice to see you again. Good to see you, too. Tell me, since our TED reconfigured the Alameda station and has the there's now housing there and and we don't actually have parking there anymore to speak of. Do you do you know and if you don't, that's okay, because no reason you would expect this question. But what how has that affected the boardings and the lightings on light rail? And has it changed the mix of them, if you know? So boardings decreased when we closed the parking at that station. Of course, that station was also under construction and jerky was a gigantic mess for a period of time. What we've seen is, you know, we do run boards every three months or we check boardings and lightings every three months. So the residential project at that station has been fully that it was fully leased this winter. We don't have those numbers yet. We have seen, as it has leased up, that boardings at that station have continued to rise. It's one of the few stations in the system where they are continuing to rise. They are, however, below the level that they were when we initially closed it. So I don't think I think the verdict is out in terms of what that what kinds of conclusions we can draw from that. Okay. Do you know if any of the folks who used to park at Alameda, which is just is too hop, skip and a jump from I-25 Broadway. Do you know if they've has that increase the pressure on I-25 and Broadway parking? Because I know that's pretty heavily utilized. You know, I 25 and Broadway has always been heavily utilized. And we don't track individual usage in a way that we could tell you that when somebody stops parking at one station, they go to a different. But you don't. Know. When you closed Alameda did did I 25 Broadway become even more crowded or you don't know. You know it is it's risen steadily. We haven't seen it. It went, you know, down here and up here. We haven't seen a direct correlation like that. Okay. And finally, from what Ryan said, can you confirm that it's Artie's intent that the parking there remain at the at the level it is now, whether it's configured in structure or whether it's dispersed over different locations? My my interest is in seeing that that the station platform, the train platform is is conveniently walkable by regional commuters who choose to park there, remembering that this is a this is a regional commuting station, not a neighborhood station. Understood. Yes. I mean, at this time, that is the intent. We recognize it's an important station. It's one that we have a high commuter usage. That parking in general is a very difficult is a is a complex issue. It's something that will actually be going to our board in a study session in the end of July. I believe so. Okay. Very good. Thank you. That's all. Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem for the owners. Representative, couple of questions. Can you can you talk to me about what the current brownfields situation is on on the property? And is there any anticipation of any need to limit users because of that? Or will will it be wide open? Sure. When we bought the property, we only had 13 acres clean at this point in time. Santa Fe has been fully cleaned as well as our so the triangle parcel. I don't know if you guys have an exhibit on your screen that you can see sort of the triangle parcel against Vanderbilt Park West. We also have no action, determination letters on a portion of Broadway running north, south and sort of to the center line of the Broadway parcel. But the remainder of Broadway is is still contaminated. The needs call for requirements to clean two commercial standards, not residential. So there will be some limiting uses. But based on the way parking and retail will be placed on the site, we'll be able to do residential above. There will be ongoing cleanup and portions of this property, you know, for for a certain period of time and then throughout the end of this year and ongoing. So we saw a little bit of a road ahead of us, but we're well underway. Sure. Thank you. As far as how substantial is the site grade from Broadway down to Santa Fe? I'm sorry, could you repeat that again? How substantial is substantial is the grading of the site. I know it's lower down towards the river, but how substantial is that a story? Two stories, three story difference, do you know? We haven't done full topography studies, but it's about a story and a half, as you hear from the rail. And the way to really look at this is sort of from the rail to the Santa Fe to to the Platte River Drive and Santa Fe Road. As that grade sort of falls away, you know, will be changing the grade of the site as we improve. However, you know, it's around a half a story story somewhere in there. I don't have the exact I could sure defer to a team. Remember who's here. If you'd like an exact answer. No, that's fine. Thank you. Yes. Yes, that's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Brooks. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Ryan, I have a question for you and Steve now. Please be listening. This is this is more this is more of a oh, they just took my screen off. This is more of a question on the relation of the 16 story buildings to the single family homes. Sure. So I had I had the. Maybe you can pull it up. The the correlation between that 16 stories and the single family. And I just want to talk real quick. That's a a dramatic drop from the 16 to the five. Do you see that? The five, the tan area to the south of Tennessee? Yeah, right on Broadway. Mm hmm. And does that go right into single family homes? I might not be looking at the exact same area that we're looking. So we're talking to the east of east. So you can see that the building heights recommended for the area between the castle and Broadway. That's 12 stories. Yeah. And again, calibrated by the Washington Park View plane. So an actual building heights, as you're closer to Broadway, will be around 110 feet. So more on the eight stories. But to answer your other question, we do not see any single family homes located between the intervening alley between Lincoln and Broadway. We see single family homes located on Lincoln. So we have a good block separation for single family ones as well as the Broadway corridor, which is two blocks. Yes. I mean, you're two blocks away. Okay. And this was a community process that you all work with neighborhoods for support. Do you have any complaints from any of the single family neighbors? No. What we heard through the stationary planning process is that maintaining the Washington Park Plain was of utmost importance. So the building heights map that you see in the plan and then we are implementing today through the rezoning is roughly calibrated to that building heights. But overall, throughout the process, there was, I think, an expectation that this is the area, if anywhere in the city of Denver, that high density toddy blocks that mixed uses and an intensity that truly catalyzes the development of the station belongs here. So we didn't hear great concerns over building heights, those specifically to the west of Broadway. Okay, great. Yeah. And I'm specifically talking about exposition to East Center Avenue on on Broadway to Lincoln. Okay. So we're talking to the north of the interstate. Yeah. Okay. And those building heights there where we see it, right along the interstate and then five along the South Broadway corridor, we did reinforce Building Heights recommendations from the Alameda Station Area plan adopted in 2009. So those recommendations were carried forward. No change there. Okay. All right. Were Mr. Nowlin, myself, we're working on another part of the city. And there were some concerns. And they wanted to know where has this precedent been set in other locations. And so, obviously, Mr. Clark said in the precedent over here. So thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Right, Councilman Espinoza? Well, actually, Councilman Kinney did not ask a question earlier. Do you guys do you mind? You go ahead and then we'll go to Espinoza. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to do. I don't know if Councilman Espinoza got one on this round yet, so I'm happy to let him go ahead with my spot. Oh, sorry. I apologize. No, it's. Dropping busy everywhere all over this field. No worries. It's a busy night, Mr. President. Councilman Espinoza. Oh, no, it's okay. My. My reputation is. Is. Yeah, I'm already chimed in, and. It's, like, burned into my screen right here to burn. Actually, I wasn't going to say anything until I heard comments, so I would have questions both to Ryan and to RTD. On to Councilman Brooks. QUESTION So what is the in maybe you had it in the presentation. I missed it. What is the what is the zoning on the north side of I-25 between Broadway and Lincoln? Okay. So we really get back to that slide. Okay. If you're seeing the same image, I am. Great. So this map was actually produced just before the approval of the rezoning for the parcel that we have actually called the Sliver Parcel currently owned by our TD. You would have seen this back in March. So if you can see just to the north of that yellow boundary, which is our rezoning boundary, we can see some see max eight in that kind of pink translucent color and then the area. So I was really concerned with I was just asking about that you ams three in the YouTube so that half of this is UMass three and then we have a ride away which is, which does separate protected districts from non-protected districts, correct. Right. That is an intervening alley. And that's everything that you're seeing now is to the east of Broadway. And just to be clear, the only the boundary that is outlined in yellow is proposed for rezoning today. Okay. Um, interesting. Okay. And then now the question for RTD, since we were talking about boardings, do you have data? And it doesn't need to be presented here, but maybe you could shoot it to my office about the historical data, about the boardings at Broadway station. Do you have information about where those riders are coming from and where they're going? You know, how many are boarding there and going in the core versus going down to to to Greenwood Village or something like that. So what I could tell you, the way that we the way that we collect data, we do license plate utilization surveys, I think we do them on only an annual basis. I'm not positive I can check. So that will show us where people who are parking are originating. If somebody got there by foot, by bike, if they got dropped off, if they transferred from a bus. Typically throughout the system, we see that only about 20% of our ridership actually comes from park and rides. We don't have a way to track where those people are coming from and going to. So we have in one instance prior actually to Alameda Station done a person by person survey. So we have a single snapshot in time, but we don't have that system wide and we don't have that station. Well, actually, I'm only I'm glad you have that information on the cars, the vehicles, because that's actually the only part I'm concerned about. Right. Which is the huge amount of land area to accommodate those cars, to just sort of sit there, roast all day. So if you if you can put shoot in my office, whatever historical data you have about where those cars originate. And if you I guess you don't have any way of correlate correlating the driver or whoever's in that vehicle where they go. But it would be interesting on where they're coming, how they're where they're coming from to Broadway station. Absolutely. I can get you that. All right. Thank you. That was it. No further questions. Councilman Ortega. Do you want to go first? Okay. Okay. So I have a couple of questions about infrastructure. And first, I want to know if the three acre park, Vanderbilt Park East is going to remain on the east side of Santa Fe. And. Will it also be used as detention for storm storm drainage? Vanderbilt Park East is a designated park and we are not seeking to change that. So yes, it will stay effectively a park throughout the entirety of this development vision. As far as detention, we are seeking to use the northern end of the park for some small amount of detention, but the majority of the detention will be housed along Santa Fe on private property and we will be improving that park. As you know, it's sort of a vacant dirt lot right now. So were you all connecting pipe into drainage that would go into the South Platte River? That is correct. We have an outfall that is planned and if you'd like a little more detailed information, Laura Loretta is also here who did the engineering for that. But yeah, the intent is to have drainage coming from Broadway under the under the rails into our private property where it will be detained and then outfall into the river. Okay. So now I want to talk about the road that she has to approve that would allow access to the site from traffic going southbound on Santa Fe. Mm hmm. Where is that at in the discussions with CDOT? And are they going to require a traffic study that looks at the traffic flow and what that might do to backing up traffic on this already congested corridor? We have begun discussions with see that we have sort of a preliminary, if you want to call it, sort of a verbal preliminary approval. We have to go through the the process, of course. Yes, we are looking at a traffic impact study. We have some results back from that. And Laurel kind of deferred to you if we need to a little bit more in detail. But yes. Yes. So we are looking to put the bridge there and we'll have to do a traffic study for that. And that will be both pedestrian and car. That's correct. Multimodal. So bike, pedestrian, vehicular. I thought I read in one of the documents that there will be some credits available based on infrastructure improvements that are put onto the site. Was I making this up with something else that I was reading over the weekend on the for. What type of credits? I don't remember if it was infrastructure. I was looking through the documents, trying to see if that was part of this one. And we're going to consult I'm not familiar with with this have it so far. Okay. Good evening. Jill Jennings Gold at Community Planning and Development in the agreement that you'll be talking about next. We have agreed if there is detention that is put within Vanderbilt Park East, in order for them to do that and get credit for open space, we'll give them 50% credit and not the full credit for improving that park . Okay. That's what it was. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Okay. Um. Looks like the trio. I mean, she disappeared. Every time I defer, I disappear. All right. Go for it. Councilman Cohen. Each. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague because she asked a couple of my questions about affordable housing. So it was great to hear. I do just have to comment really quickly that it's a little funny to be talking about the Gates project with Fred Bells having a little historical, historical moment. But anyway, he's not here for this project anymore. I want to pick up where Councilwoman Ortega left off with the open space question. So I think that I think I just got the answer, so. The GDP has a requirement for open space. How much of it is being satisfied with the park? Correct. So the existing general development plan, the Cherokee Gates redevelopment concept, had a 10% open space requirement. But of course, the concepts that we're looking at now going forward proposes a different open space configuration, as well as different tools to specifically secure that open space. So we're talking about Vanderbilt Park East specifically. Well, I've. Actually my follow up question was going to be that to the extent are there other open spaces planned within within the development areas? So that was so I'll just throw them out. So so that that was one question. The question that comes from that then is is this zoning appropriate for the whole site, even if it includes some of those open spaces? So pocket parks and things like that, even I understand they may not be dedicated because they may be maintained by the Met District or something, but do we not carve out zoning for those things? We just we just kind of plop them in the middle of this bigger zoned district, and that's okay and that's fine. So those that's the line of questions that I had. So. Okay. So first question. Are there other open spaces proposed on the site? So the tool that we are using going forward to secure open space across the site is an infrastructure master plan. And just to recall, there is one existing on the site today. So the general development plan that was approved in 2005 for the site. Thank you. This is a much larger version than my tiny copy recommended. The future location of aggregated open spaces as well as the location of smaller open spaces throughout the entirety of the site as redevelopment occurred. So not all of the open spaces were fully sort of locked in and articulated in the GDP at the time. And the infrastructure master plan then provided an additional layer of specificity and detail. And then secured by development agreement. So lots of lots of things trying to all achieve the same purpose. So what we're doing going forward is the infrastructure master plan is the method to secure the 10% open space. So there are open spaces that are fully credited. So they are given entirely out of private property owned by Broadway station partners. Open spaces that are partially credited. So that is the portion of, for example, Vanderbilt Park East where there will be stormwater. So the infrastructure master plan lays out an open space framework that is responsive to the I-25 and Broadway stationary plan and provides greater connections than what we would have seen in the general development plan that currently exists on the site. So then when it comes to. Yes. So the total open space credit that is provided is 3.72 acres, if you're interested, and the open space required by 10% of the net area. So the area minus the right of ways is 3.33 acres, so exceeding the 10%. And then to the question of how we would typically implement these things. So you're correct that certain open spaces will be managed by the Metro District, and there is an expectation that a portion will be given to the city when the specific site plans are developed and the exact boundaries are known, which is part of what we struggled with when considering rezoning options that did it make sense to rezone a portion of property to say the OCA or the OSP zoned district without knowing the specific boundaries to the point of a legal description to exactly where that would occur. So to answer your question, no. The OSA or OSP zoned districts are not proposed for the subject site, but the infrastructure master plan and then the development agreements that give specificity allow our development reviewers during the site development planning process to specifically allocate and review open spaces based upon these criteria. Okay. And then just to follow up questions, which is that so it's okay that there's open space within this dense zoning district for. Yes, it is. It's an allowed use. It is a. Permitted. Yes. Okay. I didn't want to have any situation whereby the zoning is for closing the open space. And then my my question probably for the the owner's representative is just having come back from New York City and, you know, 16 stories, you know, we're getting into some density that is you know, we're talking about when you're in some of the outer boroughs, they're dog park. Are you working on a dog park? Because, you know, I think it's it's really critical. So given that given this zoning, you need all kinds of infrastructure and that's one of them. So we heard very strongly from the community and council that Joel and really just of the dog park, I was not put up to this question, by the way, by Councilman Clark. So so as long as you don't mind calling it the Clark Park, I think we can accommodate a dog park on this on this site. Now, seriously, though, it is our intent to incorporate and build a dog park, and that is written into the parameters of the development agreement for open space. And I know we're all laughing about it, and it sounds like just an amenity, but the truth is that you end up with conflicts in the other open spaces if you don't plan for it. And this kind of dense. It just requires it. So thank you. I appreciate that. I think that's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? Town Council Bill 4314 actually. Okay. Constable 314. Hearing is closed. It's time for comments, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. And I did not put my colleague up to the dog park question. I was grinning from ear to ear when it was asked to, but I did I did not put her up to that. This is, you know, a site that we've been talking a lot about in the just a year since the new class of us came on. An area that is exciting for all of Denver is also really exciting for the community that I represent and is really at the heart of the community that I represent. This has been a really long time coming. This community has sat and watched this site and dreamed of what it could be. As we you know, I was I was writing down during the staff report that six years ago a plan called about eagerly awaiting redevelopment of this site. And it's so exciting now through Broadway stationary plan and now to be taking the step to be continuing to take steps. And I just hope that we are able to do this and achieve this and actually start seeing dirt being moved around. Because I think that that's what the community is is waiting for and longing for, because we've been down this road before. And and and they're ready for things to start coming out of the ground. So I'm excited that we have this here tonight. I just wanted to say a couple of things. You know, my West Watch Park Neighborhood Association is one of the most active neighborhood associations on the planet, as my colleagues have seen, with their turnout at a lot of different issues, whether they are specific to my district recently or not. And and in your report, you can see and this is the neighborhood councilman Brooks was talking about, are they okay being this close to this kind of density? And they had a 12 to 0 vote and sent no one here tonight to to to even you know, I think when we had the stationary plan, they had a unanimous vote of support and then set five people to say, we support this unanimously, but here's here's what we're still worried about. So they're very active and they're very engaged. And so the fact that they have provided the support and strong support from all the neighborhood associations, but specifically from West VI to that conversation, is proof. I think that one, this community process has been successful, that everyone from our team with the city to the property owners has really engaged very deeply with these communities, with these neighborhood associations, and worked very closely with them on every little detail, from sound mitigation to light mitigation to dog parks, to fit in everyone's hopes and dreams , and to a piece of property that this community really feels like they own in a lot of ways. And so I'm thrilled to see this and to see this just, you know, pack it full of very strong support from all of the neighborhoods, saying, okay, let's let's go do this thing, let's start building something. I also think that, you know, when I was on the campaign trail and with the city that's growing as quickly as we are, density and growth is always this red hot issue. And across the board, when I talk to people at doors, when they said, you know, we have to protect our historic neighborhoods, Baker West, Rochford, Platte Park Overland, Ruby Hill, Ashmore Park and these traditional single family residents. When I would ask, okay, well, if eight or 10,000 or however many people are coming to Denver, where should we put them so that we can protect our neighborhoods? And everybody would turn and point to this piece of property and say, that's the perfect place. There are two train stations within a rock throw of each other between Alameda and Broadway, and there is a big brownfield, ugly site that is not bringing value to us and to our community. Let's build it there. This is the right place. This is, as I've said before, and I stole this from other people. But this is midtown for Denver. You know, it's not the DTC, it's not downtown. It's that happy place right in the middle that is urban but surrounded by single family. And I think that I'm really excited to see this. I really hope that my colleagues up here will support this tonight so that we can take one more step in a process that will continue to have a bunch more steps before we can actually see something come out of the ground. But this is an important next step to continue moving us towards that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask that in the final design of Clarke's Bark Park, that we might include a just a small separate area for hairless varieties. I think that's. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Susan. All right. We still have two public hearings to go. All right, Madam Secretary, let's roll call on the moment. Black eye. Brooks. I Clark. I mean, I. Espinosa. I. When I. Gilmore. I. Cashman. I can each. I knew Ortega I. Susman, I. Mr. President. Hi. Police closed the voting in a civil. War vise. 12 eyes council bill 314 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put resolution 370? Those postpone on the floor for adoption. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 370 be adopted. All right. Thank you. We have a motion in a second. Councilman Clark, did you want to. Comment on this one. I don't have any comments on this. Thank you. Okay. Seeing that there's no other comments on this one, can we have a roll call, Madam Secretary, on Council Resolution 370 black. Hi, Brooks. CLARK. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Hi. Cashman. Hi. Can each. New. Ortega. My assessment, Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Tonight's. Ten is resolution three. 70 has passed. Councilman Espinoza, will you please put Council Bill 319 on the floor for final passage? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 319 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second is Flynn right? The public hearing for Accountable 319 is open and we have the staff report. Curt Upton, welcome. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. Good evening. Council Members. Curt Upton Committee Plans, Planning and Development. Tonight we have the first of three items relating to regulatory changes to implement the 61st in a stationary plan. This is a large private property owner initiated rezoning moving property from former chapter 59 mixed use CMU ten with waivers and conditions . CMU 20 with waivers and conditions and CB 30 with waivers and conditions. And the urban overlay one which is the adult use overlay to the new Denver zoning code with a variety of mixed use districts. So as we all know, this is Council District 11, near 61st and Pioneer Boulevard. This gives you a sense of the scale. This is just east of the 61st and penner light rail stop. It's a vacant land again just to the east of the 61st. And Penn Station is just south of 64th Avenue and west of Tower Road.

BostonCC_12012021_2021-0967

On the order, referred on September 15, 2021, Docket 30967, regarding the Civilian Review Board Nomination, the committee submitted a report recommending that the enclosed nine names appointment to Civilian Review Board.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Dockets 1213 through 1218 will be placed on file. We will now move on to reports of committees. Madam Clerk, could you please read docket 0967 Docket 0967? The Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice, to which is referred on September 15th, 2021. Docket number 0967 or order regarding civilian review nominations, submits a report recommending that the enclosed nine names be forwarded to the mayor for consideration of the appointment to the Civilian Review Board. Thank you so much. The Chair recognizes Councilor Campbell, Chair of Public Safety and Criminal Justice. Councilor Campbell, you have the floor. Thank you. Good. I'm not on. Oh, there we go. Thank you, Carrie. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Madam Clerk. The Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice held a working session on this docket on Friday, November 19th. I want to thank my colleagues for participating during that working session, including Councilors McCarthy, Flaherty, Arroyo, Flynn, Brady, Sobhi, George and also Councilors O'Malley, Baker, Bach, Brayden, Edwards, Flaherty, SLB, George for providing nominations and letters in writing. As a reminder, the legislation charges the city council with nominating three people for each of the three seats that the mayor will fill with. Let me just say that again. As a reminder, the OPA legislation charges the city council was nominating three people that the mayor will then appoint. I'm sorry, nominating nine people that the mayor will then appoint from the city council decided to proceed with an open process, allowing folks in the public to actually provide an application to submit a nomination through this portal. And I want to thank Councilor O'Malley and your team, as well as central staff for helping us set that up and to make it making it really easy for folks to apply. We on July 21st, 2021, the city council opened that process in that portal. It ran from September from then to September 20th. The city council received 81 eligible applications. We actually received more than that, but only 81 were eligible. And the Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice held a working session on Friday, November 19th. And I just want to thank the public. A lot of folks took time out of their busy schedules to actually apply for position to serve their community. This is a, um, incredibly response, an incredibly important role for the city of Boston. And so I want to thank all those who put forth their names based on the recommendations from all of you and based on the conversation at the working session and based on the letters you submitted, we actually were able to come up with consensus, to come up with nine names to submit to the mayor for appointment. And so I'm recommending as chair of the Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice, those nine nominees. The names are in the reports. But I will say for the record, Mona Connolly, Caspar Maria Del Rico and Hernandez, Luis Lopez, Zachary Lyon, Carrie Mayes, Tara Register, Shonda Smart and Benjamin Thompson. And I also want to thank Michelle Goldberg, Allie, my lovely chief of staff, for all of your work in this whole process. Appreciate each and every one of you. And one thing I will add is we're submitting nine names to be ultimately appointed by the mayor, which is, of course, her responsibility. One thing that did come up during the working session that I think is really important when she chooses three of these folks to nominate, to actually let the council know what her decision making was so that we can report that back to folks who were not selected and hopefully they still stay engaged in the process. And if seats open up again, they can reapply and possibly be considered to fill in seats if someone is ineligible. Thank you. And Councilor Mally, I'm sure, will say a few words as well. Thank you. Thank you. The chair recognizes Councilor O'Malley. Counsel O'Malley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I will be brief. It's been well explained by my dear colleague and friend, the Chair of the Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety. As we know, the open ordinance passed a year ago this month by this body. The ordinance involves two oversight entities, an internal affairs oversight panel, which is responsible for reviewing completed BPD Internal Affairs investigations, as well as the CRB, the Civilian Review Board, which is responsible for reviewing and investigating certain complaints against the BPD and its employees. Now, under the ordinance, as has been said, the mayor will appoint three members from a pool of nine nominees submitted by the city council. Now, the language of the ordinance does not dictate the process by which the City Council must submit its nominations. In fact, it is around June, I think, where I was contacted in my capacity as President Pro Tempore. I could have simply suggested nine names. We could have looked at having every district councilor come up with a name. But in close consultation with the Chair of Public Safety, we put together, I think, as robust and transparent and open a process as humanly available. Not only did we have an online portal, but we made sure that language access was at the forefront. It was translate. The application was translated into Chinese, Cape Verde and Creole, Haitian Creole speaking Spanish and Vietnamese. We had a very open process. I know all of us made a real concerted effort to reach out to our networks, to try to get more folks involved. And the result was not only 80 plus candidates, 80 plus really qualified candidates. The hardest part of this process was trying to winnow that field down to nine. So, again, hats off to the the chair. She really made sure that we took what I think was another good blueprint as it relates to the the Community Preservation Act sort of way of funneling names. But this was as great a process as we've seen, so I'm really looking forward to see what happens. And thank you all for your great interest in this important work. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilor O'Malley. Councilor Campbell seeks acceptance of the committee report and recommends that the enclosed nine names before add it to the mayor for consideration of appointment to the Civilian Review Board. All those in favor please indicate by saying i. I. Any oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. We will now move on to matters recently heard for possible action. Madam Clerk, could you please read Docket 12 zero five? Certainly. Docket 1205 message an order authorizing the city of Boston to accept an extended amount of $8 million in the form of agreeing to water by the United States Department of the Treasury to be administered by the city.

DenverCityCouncil_08212017_17-0751

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4060 North Elati Street in Globeville. Rezones property at 4060 North Elati Street from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-12 (industrial to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-11-17.

Yes, Mr. President. I move. The Council will 751 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. I'm sorry. 1/2. Yeah. Okay. It has been moved in second in the public hearing for council. 751 is now open. Andrew up. Can we have a staff report? Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the council Andrew Webb here from CPD to present on this proposed rezoning of a property at 46 North LRT Street from the EIA. Zoning. Bureau to overlay to CRL. This request is in Council District three. It's in the southwest quadrant of the Globeville neighborhood near the 41st and Fox, soon to open RTD station properties about just under three quarters of an acre. It's right at the intersection of LRT and 41st and currently has a small office building in a parking lot. Surrounding zoning is primarily the same as the subject site with the UO to overlay. Although as you can see on the map here, there have been quite a few rezonings in recent months and years to mixed use zones , implementing some of the adopted plans for this area, including a S.R. X Zone M's, their main street mixed use zone and SIMEX zone district, ranging from maximum heights of 8 to 20 storeys. The land uses in the area are primarily industrial, commercial and residential, with the bulk of the residential to the east in the student housing development for our area campus students and then to the to the west of the subject site is more of a mix of industrial, commercial and vacant land uses. As you get closer to the station, this area often gives you a feel for the scale of development in the area. As you can see, currently, most development is ranges from 1 to 3 stories, with the exception, of course, of the old Regency Hotel Tower there on the right hand side of the photo, you can also see the the rail line going through and the pedestrian bridge over to the Sunnyside neighborhood. These photos show the subject's sight from L.A. Street. As you can see, it is a small office and parking lot. The top photo here is the site directly to the north of the subject's site. It was resumed last year to the same zone district, S.R. 12. And the bottom photo shows a vacant lot directly across the street from the subject's site. The top photo here shows another commercial structure across the street from the subject's site. And then finally, a mostly unused parking lot to the south with the Regency, the old former Regency Hotel tower, and there in the background. So the current zoning, the air zone is a light industrial zone district does not allow new residential uses. The you oh two overlay does allow billboard uses subject to spacing and location and other limitations in the Denver zoning code. So this is a request to the S.R. X 12 Zone District that's urban center neighborhood context residential mixed use with a maximum height of 12 stories. The Zone District promotes pedestrian scale development with a shopfront building forms buildings built up at the street with pedestrian entrances and active street level uses aimed at creating a walkable district. In terms of the process so far. Informational notice went out on March 15th to register neighborhood organizations, the city councilors and other stakeholders in the area. Planning Board held a hearing on June 21st and recommended approval of this proposed rezoning of the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee met on July 11th and also recommended approval. We have not received public comment about this request. As you can see on this list, there are quite a few RINO's who who do consider this subject state to be within their boundaries and all have been notified of this proposal. As you're aware, the Council two to adopt a zone change must find that it's consistent with these five criteria from the Denver zoning code. With regard to the first consistency with adopted plans, there are four plans that impact the subject site Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Blueprint, Denver, and then also the 41st and Fox Station Area Plan and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. So with regard to the comprehensive plan, the proposed year 12 zone, further several comprehensive planning policies including encouraging more density near transit nodes, promoting infill development in an area that has been identified for increased density and new uses. Blueprint Denver identifies the subject site for urban residential and identifies areas to the west of L.A. Street for transit oriented development. Closer to the station, Urban Residential is aimed at higher density, primarily residential uses with complementary commercial uses. The entire area here of Globeville is designated as an area of change. The 41st and Fox Station Area Plan also identified the subject site for urban residential uses with more commercial, more intensive commercial mixed uses. Further to the west, closer to the rail station, the Globeville Neighborhood Plan adopted more recently to reinforce the 41st and Fox station area playing recommendations for urban residential land uses at this location also highlighted it as an area of change. And then finally, that plan also established or made recommended building heights for the area. And this request for 12 stories is consistent with the recommendations of the 41st and FOX Plan. With regard to the other criteria, this request request will result in a uniform application of building form, use and design regulations for the S.R. X 12 Zone District. It will further the public welfare by enabling redevelopment over time of this industrial area into a walkable, mixed use district, thereby implementing adopted land use plans and policies and staff agrees with the the applicant's proposed justifying circumstance. There have been quite a few changes in this area already as the opening date for the G line station approaches and the adopted plans in this area made multiple recommendations for infrastructure improvements, many of which have been accomplished, including several pedestrian and bike infrastructure improvements in the area. Finally, staff finds that this proposal is consistent with the surrounding urban center neighborhood context, and with that, CPD recommends approval based on a finding that the review criteria had been met. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have. All right. Thank you, Andrew, that we have three speakers tonight for this bill, and I'm going to call them all up to the. You say so. Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm going to call the three speakers up to the front here. Patricia. Patricia Guillet. Gillette. Sekou and an Elizabeth. Patricia, your. First. Good evening. Thank you for having me this evening. My name is Patricia Gillette. I am the vice president of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, located at 46 North L.A. Street. My home address for the record is 6600 Zing Street in Arvada. I am the applicant. We are the applicant. We are a membership organization. Governed by a board of directors. And we are asking for the zoning change as a pro-active move to meet changes in our neighborhood. We have no immediate plans or or short term plans to redevelop this area, but we're looking to match the rezoning that has happened directly to the north of us and across both LRT and Fox Street from our location. Thank you, Mr.. I appreciate it. Sekou. Yes, it. Uh. My name is Chairman Sekou, and I'm an organizer and founder of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Who are servicing poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. Resident of Denver for 67 years. Born and raised in the five points. And and thoroughly immersed in the culture, population and future development of generations here and coming. We support this rezoning. For a couple of reasons. One. Now the general floor. You already got the votes to pass it. There's nothing I can say that would deter you from doing what you're doing. So this is pretty much a done deal. And I doubt very seriously if I'm going to tell you anything new that you ain't already heard, especially for the folks who's been there for a while. And that is this. After the zoning change goes down. Everybody's hands off. There's no monitoring of the project after that because as long as it comes within the guidelines of the 22 plan and Gupta will develop. It goes down and nobody takes a second glance at it because you got so much stuff to deal with. You don't do no oversight whatsoever unless there's a complaint from the citizens. And because you know that they're not that well organized. And of course, you just say, hey, it's not on me. Some assistance to do. But there is a moral authority that we have because as they go about doing this mixed use thing and developing housing and they have this little category called affordable housing, it's housing that poor people can afford. Was gay passed away because he nobody's looking at that piece because according to the guidelines, as long as there's affordable and there's been no adjustment or data being brought forth in terms of who your client areas base, you end up with a city looking like boulder and over pencil and paper you gentrify the neighborhood and it becomes white only like apartments. 72% white now used to be 95% black. Yeah. Yeah. Mm hmm. So these what you call the fun unattended consequences or in fact, intended consequences because of what you do. See. So our question is, how do you sleep at night knowing that what you do is a rippling effect, not only happens in global, but that ripple effect is starting to happen in the five points. Then it goes Montebello, then it go to Park Hill, then go to Green Valley Ranch, and then all of a sudden you have a white supremacist society with white privilege and white boys making money on taxpayers money cycle. So your time is up. I'm close with this. Your time is up. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. All right. And Elizabeth. I appreciate the opportunity to just comment in favor of this zoning. I'm in Elizabeth at East 50th in Washington, in Globeville. And a little bit related to what Chairman Shaker was just saying. Is a. Vigilance that I think is favorable for the neighborhood. If you look at the justifications of how it aligns with the plans, there's into a is the sentence. The new zoning we seek will allow for quick, intelligent and reasonable growth in the area to help spur other elements of the neighborhood to also grow. So I just want to support this and put a spotlight on the organism of economy in Globeville and that the transit oriented development is an opportunity for very creative, very responsible, very egalitarian enrichment and revitalization in the neighborhoods where actually helping the accessible opportunities and entry into the diverse, diversified economy that mixed use can bring can be part of the solution for people being able to sustain multi-generational abilities to stay in place in their neighborhoods. So I support this partly because the people that are involved have been very sensitive to the neighborhoods. I know the area because of it being a project cure, drop up, drop off site, a volunteer site for dropping off for many years. And I used to be a courier for a couple of years picking up the hospital supplies, etc. And so I know the area very well and I think that the connectivity conversations around this are very good. I think there has been sensitivity to the plans in some of these conversations, but I would say let's stay vigilant as we do rezoning changes. I do feel like this is a gap in the continuity of getting from the from the ideal to the actual and that we need to all work together from within the neighborhoods in the council to really when we get to the nuts and bolts and the designs and what it feels like to bring in the more stories and that kind of a thing, to really make sure that we're doing the advocacy from as policymakers and his constituents and neighbors to really make these be organically neighborhood. Friendly. Developments. So there's a lot of work to do, and I think this is a really great step in revitalization. And I'm glad there's some legacy industry protections going on with these, too, because I think in the neighborhoods, a lot of people really do like some of the legacy industries that have been there for many generations. So hopefully this will be a shoo in. Thank you, Miss Elizabeth. Now questions for members of council. Mr. Let I'm ask you to come up. I have a question for you. You just had an Elizabeth who was in the neighborhood speaking on behalf of this. Can you talk a little bit about the outreach you do to the stakeholders and the community. According to under recommendations from the zoning meeting that we had early on? I've sent out emails and letters to every neighborhood organization that was listed. We met with our immediate neighborhood. I have not to date heard any. Who did you meet with? Who did I meet with? You said immediate neighborhood. Yeah. Our property to the north. Okay. And our properties to the west. I did not meet with the new ones to the north west. It's a medicinal. Okay. Recreational pot shop. In. And just about your. Your plans for this. You all are responding to the movement of zoning changes that is happening in the in the in the context of this neighborhood. But there is no plans for your organization to to sell, to grow, to. I mean, I'm just trying to understand a little bit. Right. We are responding to the changes within the neighborhood. Our board of directors, which are made up about 52 members. Trucking companies and allied companies have instructed us to look at a five, ten and 20 year plan for our organization. And as part of that, the zoning came up. We have no intention. We have no current plans for redeveloping. We have no capacity to to redevelop. To be very honest with you, there may be sales down the road. That's part of the reason that we're rezoning to match the neighborhood so that if somebody wanted to come in and match parcels to the immediate north, that would make our property a little more attractive for sales down the road. But we have no immediate plans for any of that. Okay. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to first ask Andrew if you would come to the microphone. Notwithstanding the answers to the questions that we just heard. But as we are seeing more and more properties in this neighborhood being resold to very, very high densities, and we will see an incredible increase in traffic in and out of this area. What specific conversations has CPD been involved in related to that intersection of 38th Avenue, Fox I, 25 and Park Avenue. Well, thank you, Mr. President. Councilmember Ortega, I appreciate the opportunity to answer that. I can't speak to specific conversations about that exact intersection, but I can tell you that the KPD in general is very aware of the volume of zone changes that have been coming in here in recent years, especially since the the Globeville plan kind of reaffirmed the station area plan in 2014. There have been, as you know, some some improvements made, some bike and pedestrian improvements that have recommended by those plans that have already been made. The CPD and Public Works and other partner agencies are actually in the sort of the beginning stages right now of a next step study that would look at as the as these zone changes occur, what would be, you know, and especially as actual development requests come in, what would be an appropriate sort of large scale response to to making sure that the infrastructure in this area can handle that. I should say that that the zone changes are not individual development approvals. So any development that comes in would have to go through review. And it's possible that traffic engineers and and other reviewers of those plans at Site Plan Review would require some off site mitigation of traffic issues and that sort of thing as well. So it's something that's being looked at from from multiple angles. So just to be clear, is, is that something that's being looked at, being done in a comprehensive manner that is taking into consideration the volume of density and traffic? That is. That has the potential to be in this area that is still way over tax. That interchange, that intersection. Yes, I think I can say that that when when CPD and partner agencies look at this, they will be looking at that whole kind of sort of semi-circular area across, you know, east of the tracks and and south of the of the highway interchange. And and looking at all of the land use entitlements that have been made and and calculating the the potential traffic and pedestrian and other needs for the area and looking at a holistic solution to. So are there. Conversations being had with the property owners who have come in and rezone the properties, letting them know that there's going to be. Some expectation for them to be part of. That solution, since they're going to be helping create part of the. The headache that we're going to be. Dealing with, because I don't want to wait until it is so oversaturated. That the expectation is the taxpayers. Have to fix the problem, not the people who are building and developing. In the area creating this challenge. And I can't speak to two previous rezoning applications, and I think a lot of the rezoning applications have been similar to this one in that they are sort of are being made by owners at an early stage who do not expect to actually be the developers themselves as these areas redevelop. So those discussions would likely be had more with some kind of end stage property owners or developers who are ready to actually come in for site plan approval. But but certainly at the point at which people are coming in for individual development approvals, I would expect any any reviewer who is looking at those plans to make them aware that there may be maybe needs for mitigation of traffic issues. Yeah, I think it's important that at the earliest stages of them having any connection to CPD, those conversations need to begin rather than waiting until somebody has rezoning their property and gets ready to submit their, you know, their detailed plans for for redevelopment that they learn about it at that point. I think it's important to start having that conversation upfront as as the department, you know, defines what that looks like. And it would be helpful for, you know, this body to understand what those solutions are going to look like so that, you know, maybe it's a presentation to our land use committee, but to keep doing these rezonings without knowing clearly that that's being addressed is a little concerning because, you know, I know somebody has put pencil to paper and they're not only looking at this intersection, they're also looking at 44th Avenue, which I advised we should not be doing, because what that means is you're going to put traffic through Globeville that that should not be traveling through Globeville to councilwoman. You're you're in commerce, and I know where you're going on that. And I just want you to reserve the effort for comments and go in and then I'm going the same place. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Well, actually, this these are questions, but they're related. What does the Globeville plan that that over that speaks to this long district I mean this rezoning say specifically about and I apologize for not knowing this about the Fox Street interchange in the 44th ingress and egress to this site doesn't speak to how this level of growth should be accommodated. I'm sure it talks about the TOD, but you know, it should be talking about these other ingress and egress points as well. It does indeed look at the limited ingress and egress points in the area and it makes some recommendations for hypothetical approaches to solving that. Councilmember Ortega mentioned 44, and I think that does come up as a as a possibility in the plan as something that should be potentially studied. But the plan does not, to the best of my knowledge, make specific recommendations. It did recommend some bike ped improvements that were pretty obvious. And those were made relatively recently. You know, and, and the bike pad improvements on Inka are wonderful. Do you know what the grades are right now for both of the mean for the the 38th and Fox intersection. I'm sorry. Their grades? Yeah. The intersection in terms of level of service. Yeah, I do not. Before. Before we get another rezoning in Globeville, can you make sure to. To sort of be prepared with that for ludi? And if you get it, I'm sure it's available, you know, can you email that even between now and then? I'd be more than happy to do that. And then. This seems to be an industrial system in an industrial association, so that would be an office use sort of thing. If there were a change of use but no actual new storefront building, I mean, certain changes of uses would be allowed, correct? That is correct. Although the current zoning would not allow residential uses. So. But it would allow continued office and commercial and industrial uses. Okay. Do you think it's ironic, though, a majority of the industrial uses are not permitted in the X12. Some are in a limited capacity. And I think I answered your question incorrectly. So the new zoning, the proposed new zoning this year, X12, would allow limited office and commercial uses, but it is more focused on on residential uses. But the existing office use could of course could of course continue. Is that. But that's because it is a conforming use for that zone. That is correct, yes. Yeah. But industrial, certainly a majority of industrial uses for that would not conform to our X12. That is correct, yes. No further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilor Flower. Thank, Mr. President. Andrew, in the staff report, it was mentioned that I think there were ten registered neighborhood organizations that are covered by this area, and no comment was received from any of them at the time the report was written. Has there been any? It's hard for me to believe that as active as the neighborhood is, that there wasn't a comment received from out. We you know, they have received several notices of upcoming meetings. You know, the originally the original application planning board meeting, Landers, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and tonight's hearing. And we have not received comment from any of the neighbors. Okay. Thank you. That's almost asking. Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. Flaying. Councilman Cashman. Okay. Great. All right. This concludes my experience and all the questions are council bill hearing for Council 751 is now closed. Comments by members of council. You know, I'll sort of because this is my district. This is again on the on the technical piece of this. This. You know, is consistent and congruent with everything that we need to improve for city council. Obviously, you hear a lot of issues here on city council because we're seeing what's starting to be the reality on the ground here and what I call Fox Island. It is an island that is disconnected from for many reasons, but there are not neighborhoods that exactly go up to Fox on that. Why? That's why you're not going to have a lot of people commenting on this. You have a one way in, one way out transportation system of cars. You do have a light rail coming in, which is good. But you got to look at the number of. Rezonings that we have have had in the neighborhood. And what that's going to do for traffic and it's just going to the whole system is going to fail if we're not thinking about infrastructure along with redevelopment. And so for the the person the the group of folks who are asking for a rezoning, I'll tell you right now that this entire area is going to have a transportation network and it's going to have a transportation network that those who own property will be paying into and getting assessed for that transportation network. Because we as the city and the taxpayers can no longer afford to pay for that solution. And the the growth is is so much at this point that, I mean, we're going to see an epic failure for this for this area. So for me, that's just I'm just serving notice on everyone who's coming before us and getting a rezoning. By law, you can come before us and get this rezoning because it matches up with what our criteria is. But you have to know going forward where we're headed to the to the community conversation that we've for you. You actually had an Elizabeth who's very active in the community support this because she was a part of the planning process to approve zoning, to set the zoning standard. And the frustration that we hear from the community is why are you approving these zoning? And what folks don't understand is we have a process. We have a community process that was just approved in 2014, the Globeville area, Swansea, a plan which neighbors spoke into how they wanted to see their neighborhood address. And this. It's congruent and consistent with what that plan is. And so we as city council officials need to support that. But we also need to support a larger plan like this transportation network, affordable housing plans that you're going to see coming forth on 30th and Blake, things like that to make sure that we can rightsize it for our community. So transit plan is coming. Be prepared. I'm going to support this because it's consistent with what the community members spoke and what they want to see in their neighborhood. I typically do not like to see a rezoning without a plan, you know, and this seems as if you all are evaluating your land for future use of the sale. And I don't like to see that. But you have the legal right to do that before this body. And so but I just wanted to serve notice, let folks know we're doing a transportation plan. Councilman Espinosa. There was not. Maybe you can clarify it. Feel free to chime in to clarify. But it seemed that you spoke of maybe a possible. Sort of mechanism whereby the future of redevelopment in this area might actually contribute into the infrastructure needs of that area. I know that we've had a preliminary discussion about some potential metropolitan district, but it was very for a very finite portion of this area, not as all inclusive as this area needs. Are we is there. I wonder I mean, I'm just curious if. There's I don't think I don't think that there's a proposal that's ready for primetime right now. But all of the individuals who are parcels that are significantly impacting the area and causing a transportation need will be paying into, you know, this fee. We don't know how it's going to look just yet. Okay. But but I think it's something that Ortega was talking about and she's had ideas about the the administration and CPD is working on some things. And I definitely have some ideas on what to do. And I think we need to come together and figure out what that it is. That's that's good. That's good to know. I'd like to know more about it as this is adjacent to my district. But and because there's also been a concern of mine on several of these rezonings going back two years about the sort of what's what's happening. I do want to thank Sekou for for bringing up some of some very salient points, though, because because I am trying to grapple with the displacement issue in Northwest Denver and to you'd be naive to think that it would be any different in this part of Globeville. You know, right now it'll be in a series of spaces until a developer starts to move and be on a transformative project. Certainly the land use and the zoning is in place for something transformative. The planning is in place for something transformative. The infrastructure is lagging behind. But I'm pretty sure that once there's reinvestment in the area, you will see that subsequent reinvestment in infrastructure. And one thing that happens is if we took the demographic makeup of the area today and you saw somebody strikes that match and development starts to go commensurate with what is planned, the demographics will radically change. And if we if we if we. So there's two things here that I just want to comment on that are related to this rezoning and all previous rezonings and subsequent rezonings that are all involved with this, this Globeville plan and the tio de station area plan for 41st and Fox, which is if we don't get on top of the infrastructure, we will squander this tod opportunity of this area will remain in stasis when it actually is. You've got way too much potential. There's too much vision there that shouldn't be ignored. But if we don't actually figure out a better way than anything we've done to date and anything we are talking about right now on how to address displacement and gentrification, we will fail Denver as a city in both of both Globeville and Sunnyside. My side of the railroad tracks here offer tremendous opportunity for both to address, mean to catalyze new development, make maximum impact from a tod, and do so in a way that not only addresses displacement in the area, but actually can capture families that are being displaced from other parts of northwest Denver, north and west Denver, I should say. And so I'm just saying that because I've said similar comments in past Globeville rezonings. The comments tonight sort of spurred my own sort of. I mean feelings. With that said, it's you know, it'll be it's purely consistent with the plan. But I think the city needs has a big role to play on the future of Globeville as a as a as a sort of beacon for what could be redevelopment rather than redevelopment as as usual. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Castro. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to add my voice to the the infrastructure piece as well. You know, we since we've been passing rezoning after rezoning in this area and every time at least Councilman Ortega will bring up what are we doing about the transportation system? And we get this vague. Well, we're will look at it. And as things come online, we'll look at it. And, you know, and I think I've reached my limit of of approving these. I'm inclined that to not pick on this particular development. But I think past that, I've reached my limit to the point where it may be part of the neighborhood plan, but I'm looking at our reviewer review criteria and I can't, with a straight face, believe that without some assurance that there is. I'm going to need to see on paper CPD's plans, contingency plans for how to address transportation in this area. Or I can't, in all honesty, say that this is furthering public health, safety and welfare. Because I'm looking at the maps of what land is left. And I'd be interested to see where you folks think you're going to go to build this transportation system that, you know, we've got parcels that are come look to me. I expect to see some three to twenties and so on. Yet in this plan, and that may be just what this area needs if there's an infrastructure plan that makes sense. I'm just not seeing it there. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Castor and Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to say to Mr. Gillette, your your application is cut up in the middle of a bigger picture discussion that we started having about this area. You know, I think your particular site meets the criteria, as I think Councilman Brooks said earlier. But it is part of a conversation that we have not been privy to in terms of how we're working to solve what is going to be a huge infrastructure nightmare if we don't get out in front of it in terms of not only the traffic, but the drainage issue is equally as vital to ensure that we address because we already have flooding problems in this area, that 38th Avenue underpass, it it has trapped cars in there on many occasions when it when it rains. And so and part of that water from from the west side of I-25 flows through the pipes down into Globeville and is in part some of the reason that Globeville floods besides water that comes out of the, you know, the riverbank just south of 38th Avenue. So while we have the opportunity to be addressing infrastructure, we need to make sure that we're talking about drainage as well as transportation. And I would just caution that we not be talking about 44th Avenue being part of the ingress egress for this Fox Street area, because there's no way with everything else that will be happening with I-70, with National West, or with the reconstruction of Washington Street, with everything else that's happening in the Reno area to put even more traffic into that Globeville neighborhood. So we need to look at other solutions besides how we fix that intersection and look at other connectivity answers to how we solve this problem. So I look forward to either being part of ongoing conversations or seeing whatever is in the discussion stages with CPD to look at how we address this before we have any more applications from this area come forward. So I have no problem supporting this one tonight, but I am anxious to see that we're making some headway in addressing this problem. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And I can promise you there are more on the way, and they will hear this same speech and I hope with a little bit more concrete of a plan of moving forward. It's been moved in. Seconded. Madam Secretary Rocha. Black. Clerk Espinosa. I. Flynn. All right. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. I think you missed a couple of that. Madam Secretary. Mr. President. I. You know, you guys know our SEC. Madam Secretary is very fast on that. We get everyone. We just listen to people. Yes. All right. 11 eyes. Council Bill 71 is passed. Okay. Next up, councilman, clerk, will you please put Councilperson 52 on the floor?

DenverCityCouncil_10132014_14-0856

A proclamation celebrating Colorado Cities & Towns Week with the Colorado Municipal League and Recognizing Denver's dedicated employees.

I would be happy to. Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation number 14 0856 is celebrating Colorado Communities and Towns Week with the Colorado Municipal League recognizing Denver's dedicated employees. Whereas the Colorado Municipal League has declared October 20th through 26 the first ever Colorado Cities and Towns Week. Whereas many of you have seen the Colorado Municipal League's video on Channel eight Cities and Towns program highlighting how improvements in our communities happen. And. WHEREAS, Designation of this week is intended to showcase all that cities and towns and their elected leaders and employees do to ensure the well managed, safe, attractive and livable communities continue to thrive across Colorado. And. Whereas, the success of cities and towns ultimately comes down to the hard work of many employees, some of whom have devoted several years, if not their entire working life, to ensure that their neighbors, families and fellow citizens benefit from everything it takes from basic municipal services to emergency protection and sound fiscal practices. And. Whereas, Denver has a total of 13,610 employees, which includes 2385 uniformed police and fire employees. And. WHEREAS, so many of these Denver employees have extensive years of service that this proclamation cannot list them all by name. But council recognizes and thanks the more than 125 with 35 or more years of service, over 250 with 30 to 35 years of service, and over 550 with 25 to 30 years of service and almost 1100 with 20 to 25 years of service. So you can see why we didn't want to bring them all here tonight. Whereas City Council heartily thinks all city and county of Denver employees for their dedication, hard work and service to make Denver the great place to live, work and play that it is now therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that the Council hereby recognizes October 23, 26 as Colorado Cities and Towns Week. Thanks many employees who daily take care of so many basic needs of the city, from mowing the parks to being prepared to provide emergency services, to managing the financial transactions, and encourages Denver residents to thank each city employee. Section two that the Clerk of the City and County of Denver show attesting to fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit copies to Mayor Michael Hancock and the Colorado Municipal League. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Your motion to adopt. I move for the adoption of proclamation. 856 is in and has been moved in seconded comments from members of the Council. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors of this proclamation. Many of you have attended from time to time some of the various events that the Colorado Municipal League sponsors. They do extensive training, especially for many of the newly elected local government leaders, to ensure that they understand their fiduciary responsibilities and understand a variety of things like zoning and land use, and they're just ongoing. We putting on different training programs that are extremely helpful and beneficial to elected officials, not only newly elected, but I know I've sat through some of the different discussions about fracking and what that means. That's a big topic for some of our neighboring communities, more so than it is for Denver. But just to have that knowledge and understanding is really important. How many of you have actually seen the Cities and Towns video that's done on Channel eight? You may want to see. That is very interesting because it helps the general public understand how their taxpayer their taxpayer dollars are utilized in delivering the the host of city services that local government provides to the citizenry. We have someone here that will address us in just a little bit. Many of you know Sam Elliott, who is the executive director of Cmll. And I just want to highlight in mention that one of the things that Cmll is working with us on is moving forward a proclamation that is going to the National League of Cities conference in November that will be working with many other cities to address the safe transport of hazardous materials on rail and and more specifically, a lot of the crude oil. I don't know if you saw the business Denver Business Journal article a couple of weeks ago that talked about the increase in the transport of crude oil because we have so much more domestic drilling that's happening in the United States . And as a result of that, we have seen various incidents that have occurred in different cities. And so this is an important issue that Cmll has sort of taken taken a lead role in, along with some of our other counterparts in different cities, to move that forward and make sure that the rule changes that are moving through the Federal Railroad Administration understands that there's strong local community support to make sure those changes happen. So with that, I will just encourage the passage of this proclamation. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega Council. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm so happy to see Sam moment here. I think if you looked up and dictionary Colorado Municipal League, you ought to see the picture of Sam Mamet. He is the icon of this organization and I am going to be attending the next National League of Cities Convention, I guess, in a couple of weeks with and I'm very much looking forward to it and very much looking forward to the conversations about the sharing economy, which we're working on. And of course, many cities are throughout the United States. I look forward to sharing it with my other fellow city council people and look forward to a wonderful experience at the conference. Good to see you, Mr. Moment. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Sheppard. Thank you. I would definitely like to certainly compliment Sameh and his leadership for the wonderful Colorado Municipal League and the wonderful resource that is for folks not only on this dais, but all around the state. But I actually want to say a few comments on the other part of this proclamation, and that is recognizing the 13,600 people that work for the city and county of Denver, so many of whom are unsung heroes and, you know, make the wheels of the city grind and probably don't receive thanks often enough. And I see a few of you in the audience there. So and then I'm hoping a few more are watching on television. So certainly on behalf of District one and Northwest Denver, I would like to thank all of you so much for the hard work and dedication that you do on a daily basis to make this city functioning and be well managed and to move forward. I know that, you know, often when we on this dais hear from elected officials, it's not often from people who are happy about something. It's usually from folks that, you know, have a concern or an issue and a complaint. And a lot of that gets directed at our city employees. So I don't want, you know, your I don't want you to go home at the end of the day thinking, you know, gosh, everyone's mad at me all the time and we're just not doing good enough. You guys are doing a great job. Thank you for all your hard work. Please relay these sentiments to your fellow coworkers when you get in the office tomorrow. Thank you so much. Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard, Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. Certainly, our city employees are extremely important, and I thank each and every one of them for the work they do. I also want to comment on the other portion of this this proclamation, because it's always important, as you look past for the work that you've done in government, people that have been with you a long time have a special place in your heart. And there is nobody in this chambers that I have worked longer with than Sam Mamet. He was. Front and center voice always for cities and how he was for cities at the state legislature. And now it's great to run into him constantly here at the city level. It just seems as if it brings everything together. Sam, to have you here tonight. Thanks for being here. Thank you, Councilwoman Fides. Councilman, I take it that okay if I go down and guess what, Councilman Brown? Oh, thank you, Mr. President. Well, thank you, Councilwoman Fox, for your comments about our good, dear friend, Sam Mamet. There's no one here that loves city government more than Sam Mamet. And that is why two years ago at the annual meeting, I nominated him to run for my seat. And maybe you're going to make an announcement tonight and when you come to the podium. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Ortega. No pressure. So there were two things I failed to mention. You have a brochure on your desk and it has the simple pin on it. So provide you information on the various services that Cmll provides to local cities and towns. I also wanted to mention that one of our very own David Broadwell, came from the Colorado Municipal League, and we've been very blessed that he continues to be one of our key players that participates in the Policy Committee during the legislative session and helps us look at the various issues that Denver is weighing in on that are moving through the state legislative process. I serve on that on the CML board and have thoroughly enjoyed my interface with counterparts from different jurisdictions. But the work that is done by the incredible staff from Cmll is extremely beneficial to especially many of the cities that don't have their own city attorneys and the resources to ensure that they are taking a thorough look at so many of these issues that move through the legislature that could have a very direct impact on their communities. So I just want to say thank you to David for his work on behalf of the city directly with Cmll and to the very competent staff at Cmll and again to all of our city employees. We wanted to list all the names, but we would have been here all night just reading through them. So this is just our way of supporting this new cities and towns week recognition of city employees for all the work they do. And I just want to say just a big thank you to our employees as well. Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comments from members of Council Team? None. Madam Secretary. Raquel Ortega, Rob Shepherd, Sussman Brooks. All right. I thought I can eat. I Laman Lopez. Monteiro, I Nevitt. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Councilman Brown. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and not the results. 3939 836 has been adopted, Councilwoman Ortega. Is there anyone in the audience you'd like to bring up to receive the proclamation? I can't see him behind the podium. That's blocking my view of him. But we've got Sam there in the audience, who's the executive director of the Colorado Municipal League. Sam, would you like to come up and make a few comments? After Councilman Brown's comments. I'm not sure if I want to get drafted. It's one thing to say that at the CMO conference, it's another thing to say it on Channel eight. I have no interest in being grist for my own mill and. But I'm flattered. Anyway, good evening, honorable members of this council. I appreciate very much the resolution. The cities and towns week that the league is sponsoring coming up shortly. We've got over 30 cities and towns across the state that are very actively engaged in helping to promote this. And I certainly appreciate Denver's engagement. We're very lucky to have one of your colleagues, council member Ortega, on our board of directors, and we appreciate that very much. I do agree with Council member Sheppard on her comments about city employees. They are for all of us who serve in cities and towns across the state our greatest assets and at the risk of embarrassing one who I'd like to mention from Denver who will be very upset with me but I'm going to do it anyway, is your own Gretchen Williams, who of course, is retiring at the end of the year and I have valued her leadership. I think she represents a level of excellence in public service. Having served the council here for so many years on the staff and is just representative of the kinds of people that we all get a chance to interact with day in and day out. And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge Gretchen's service on this occasion when we're talking about the great employees for our communities across the state. I appreciate your leadership. I've been traveling around the state the last two months or so with regional meetings and visiting with all kinds of cities and towns across the state. But it's just great to be here with my own city council and and to be with all of you and celebrate this week. So I want to thank you very much, Debbie, for doing this. And I want to thank you all for your support for this week and for the Municipal League. And just for the record, I am not a candidate for anything except going home so I can see my wife and have dinner with her. But I thank you very much, and it's a pleasure to be with you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for bringing that forward. We are on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, could you please read the resolutions? Business Development 812 Resolution. Peru. The Mayor's Appointments. The West Colfax Business Improvement District from Safety and Well-Being 811 Resolution approving the Mayor's Appointment of the Denver Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Commission.

SeattleCityCouncil_05112020_CB 119785

AN ORDINANCE relating to funding for housing and community development programs; adopting The City of Seattle 2020 Annual Action Plan to the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; authorizing acceptance of grant funds from that department for programs and activities included in the Annual Action Plan; amending Ordinance 126000 which adopted the 2020 Budget, by modifying appropriations to various departments and budget control levels in the 2020 Adopted Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

Will the clerk please read the short title of the bill? Even to the right? Agenda Item three Council Bill 119 785 relating to funding for housing and community development programs. Adopting the City of Seattle 2020 Annual Action Plan to the 2018 through 2020 consolidated a Plan for Housing and Community Development and upgrades in its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban. I thank you so much. I will move to pass on 19785. Is there a second second? It's been moved and seconded to pass Council Bill 119785. Councilmember Mosqueda I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to you to address the bill first. Thank you very much. Madam President, this bill adopts the annual action plan, which details how the city will spend its annual entitlements of four federal grants. The Community Development BLOCK grant, the housing opportunities for people with AIDS or Hoplite. The Emergency Solutions Grant DSG and the Home Investment Partnership Program. Madam President, I do have an amendment. Would you like me to move the amendment so we can discuss the amendment before I talk about the rest of the legislation? Sure if you'd like to address the bill as amended, I have no problem doing that. So why don't you go ahead and make your motion and we'll do it that way. Thank you very much. Madam President, I move to amend Council Bill 119785 attachment one by substituting version two for version one a second. Second. It's been moved and seconded to amend Attachment one by substituting it for version two. Customer Mosqueda Please feel free to address the substitute version. Thank you very much, Madam President. Council colleagues. Digital Recall. Last Monday, we held a public hearing on the bill. A draft of this plan, based on our best estimates for how much funding we would receive in the 2020 adopted budget was heard in the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee in December of 2019. The amended version in front of you now reflects that we received notice of the actual grant amounts, so council has put forward the adopted version for your consideration. This includes the final plan for submittal to the Federal Housing and Urban Development, or HUD Department. One small technical piece that is included in this amended version is that the plan that was originally transmitted has been updated by the executive. We have the proposed substitute in front of us for consideration, which reflects the latest information on the grants and the projects they support. This plan includes $25 million worth of funds to support people in Seattle, including 3.4 million to provide emergency shelter operations and case management to move people into permanent housing. 7.8 million to provide housing for persons living with AIDS and their families. 1 million to improve fire safety and the housing authority. And 6.4 million for affordable housing preservation and deployment. 2.8 million for small business stabilization. While most of these funds were included in the 2020 budget, this plan reflects that we've received more grant funding than expected . These funds were added to the Affordable Housing Program and the Small Business Stabilization Program Stabilization Fund. I appreciate the Council's participation in the public hearing last week, and the amended version in front of you reflects these changes that I just described. Okay. Thank you so much. Councilmember Mesquite. It looks like we have a question or comment from considerable, please. Thank you. A comment. I just really want to extend my thanks to the bill's sponsor, Catherine Mosqueda, as well as the Office of Housing for including additional funds, $1.8 million in funds for capital financing related to the rehabilitation of 34 units of affordable rental housing for low income households in the neighborhood. This is housing that is owned and operated by DDA, and that's a neighborhood development association. And this is really critical funding for their ability to continue to manage the affordable housing in their portfolio. So thank you. Great. Any other comments or questions on the proposed substitute? CNN. Let's go ahead and vote on the the adoption of the substitute. So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute to attachment one? Strauss. Hi. Herbold. I. Suarez, I. Lewis, I. Morales. I. Macheda. I. Peterson. I. So once. I. President Gonzales. I. Nine in favor and opposed. Thank you so much. The motion carries and the substitute to attachment one is adopted. Are there any further comments on the bill as amended? Let me check with let me check with other folks because you're the prime sponsor, so you get the last word. Is there anyone other than Katherine was Dana, who has a comment on the bill before I hand it over to her? Anything in here in hearing, please? Thank you, Madam President. I just want to say thank you to all the central staff and department staff and especially the Office of Housing and our own central staff. And a huge effort, a note of appreciation for Aaron House, who is in my office as well, who's been tracking this issue and working closely with the departments to make sure that we move forward. This is a critical piece of legislation for us to advance, and being able to do so remotely has meant that we needed to work closely with council colleagues to make sure that you all knew what was in the bill and the urgency of passing it and during this time so that we can respond to the crisis and also do general good governance. So thank you for allowing us to include it for today's vote. And again, thanks to Aaron House for her work on this great new consumer mosquito. Really appreciate it. And your work and your staff's work and couple of central staffs work on this issue. Okay. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill as amended. Strauss. Hi. Herbal. Her goal. I. Whereas I. Lewis, I. Morales. I macheda. I. Peterson. I. The one. I. President Gonzalez. I. Now I am in favor and unopposed. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it in an effort to produce a fix my signature to the legislation. Madam President. Yes, I was nervous and not thinking Sage Perich, who did a huge amount of work on this and was lead on the bill for us. So thank you to our chief of staff for her work on this. Apologies. And thanks again for letting me just chime in and add that piece. Thank you. Will the clerk please read item four into the record?

DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-1016

A proclamation recommending full funding and permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund

Thank you. Councilman Cashman, seeing no other announcements. We're going to move on. There are no presentations and there are no communications. We do have a couple of proclamations this evening. Councilwoman Gilmore, I'm going to go to you first. Will you please read Proclamation 1016? Yes, Mr. President. Whereas the Land and Water Conservation Fund LW CRF was established by Congress in 1965. The ACT designated that a portion of receipts from offshore oil and gas leases be placed into a fund annually for state and local conservation, as well as for the protection of parks, forest and wildlife areas. And. WHEREAS, in fiscal year 2018, LW, CRF received 425 million. The program is divided into two distinct funding streams straight state grants and federal acquisition funds. And. WHEREAS, in Colorado, LW, CRF has provided more than 268 million in funding from LW CRF and has leveraged more than 147 million for local government and state park outdoor recreational investments in Colorado. Whereas in Colorado. LW CRF has protected more than 10,000 acres of public lands valued by sportsmen and women since 2011. This land helps support helped support Colorado's economy by bringing in 28 billion in consumer spending and 229,000 direct jobs for tourism and outdoor recreation. And. WHEREAS, preparation for natural disasters in Colorado is essential and money from LW CRF is used to prevent and natural disasters like fires and floods. And. WHEREAS, in Colorado, agriculture is important to the economy and our Western heritage and lw CRF is essential in protecting agricultural land. Whereas, for over 50 years, LW X, LW C.F. has played a critical role in providing funding for conserving national parks and forests, rivers, farms and ranches, fish and wildlife, sport and recreation, access and trails, and has additionally provided funding to conserve state and local parks and facilities throughout Colorado and the nation and should therefore be fully funded . Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver hereby recommends full funding and permanent. Reauthorization. For the Land and Water Conservation Fund and encourages the Colorado Congressional Delegation to support full funding and permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. Your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 18 dash 1016 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to co-sponsor this proclamation with my colleagues. And, you know, Councilwoman Kenney each had brought this forward to me. And I have a long history working with the Land and Water. Conservation Fund, and. It has never been fully funded. The reauthorization comes up periodically, but. We need to make sure that. We're asking our congressional delegation to fully fund it, to keep it reauthorized, and so that we can realize these funds from offshore. Drilling will come back. Landside. And make sure that we have these important resources to. Protect our environment and all of the different items that I had listed. Thank you, President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, for taking a lead on this. Given your personal experience, I think it's very fitting. You know, it seems like one of these routine things that oh, of course, things that are good do good things and they expire. They will get reauthorized. Well, that's just not the federal government we are operating under right now. And so I think it's critical. It is a bipartisan program. It has gotten lots of support historically. I think both of our senators, both Senator Gardner and Senator Bennett, both support it. But it's important for us to kind of use our collective voices, especially in the West, where openly and is so important to us, to make sure that Congress hears the importance of reauthorizing it and it doesn't get lost in political battles. So I would ask anyone who's listening, who believes in our open space and and the public lands that we have support from these programs with, to please reach out to your congressional representatives and let them know how important, even whitehouse.gov, you can email and let them know the importance of reauthorizing the program. Thank you so much. Thank you. So you know their comments, Madame Secretary, roll call. Gilmore I, Herndon High Cashman. Kenny Lopez. All right. New Ortega Assessment. Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 12 Eyes 12 eyes proclamation. 1016 has been adopted. Custom. Gilmore Is there anyone you'd like to invite up to receive the proclamation? Yes. President Clark, I'd like to invite Bow. KIC was with Conservation. Colorado to the podium, please. Thank you so much. Appreciate you receiving Conservation Colorado. I'm honored to be here. You have the organization tonight. I believe that's programs like Clinton Water Conservation Fund that have touched just about every American in this country and especially in the state of Colorado. And it requires constituents and businesses and people of all kind advocating for this program to be the priority in the halls of Congress in Washington. D.C., including. Proclamations like this by the city of Denver. So thank you very much.

DenverCityCouncil_06282021_21-0516

A bill for an ordinance to amend Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to the Denver Zoning Code and to amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code. Amends the Denver Zoning Code by making numerous changes to correct, clarify, and make minor substantive changes to all articles of the code as part of regular code maintenance and upkeep. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-4-21.

I yes. Council President. I move that council vote 21 zero 516 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Again, I think. And I want to clarify the motion. Councilman Hines. We need to have it be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. It hasn't been amended yet. So I'm I think that's next. I don't I don't think we have to put it on for consideration before we can amend it. Amend it. But I don't think that I don't know. Just a parliamentarian question. I suppose we can go ahead and bring our council secretary Makhija up into the queue. Do you want to go ahead and address that? Members of Council Makhija here. I have placed this to be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended as it was amended at our previous meeting and it has not been voted on. That amendment did pass at our last meeting, so we are going to want to place this on the floor as amended at this meeting , whether the next amendment passes or not. Wonderful. Thank you. Council secretary and for the recollection of the last meeting. So I apologize. I move the counsel bill 21.0516 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. Second. Thank you. You've got the motion and we have the second. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 20 120516 be amended in the following particulars on page to line 29 strike subsection two of this ordinance and replaced with subsections two and three of this section two on page four. Line three add a new subsection three that reads as follows And please bear with me. Number three notwithstanding subsection one of this, Section two, if requested by an applicant, a formal site development plan application submitted under 12 .4.3 of the Denver Zoning Code may be processed to completion under the provisions of the 2018 Denver Zoning Code, including the amendments found in clerk filed numbers 2018 0204 2018 0414 2018 Dash 0532 2019 0046 2019 0058 2019 0075 in 2020 0090 and the Corrections Parentheses Together The November 12, 2020 Denver Zoning Code Parentheses If a site development concept plan application was filed with CPD between September one, 2019 and February ten, 2021, and the application proposed a specific use type no longer listed in the use and parking tables of the March 31, 2021 Denver's Zoning Code, a formal site development plan application process under the provisions of November 12, 2020. Denver's zoning code pursuant to this Section 2.3, shall be subject to the following requirements. One If the formal site development planning application has not received approval by the Development Review Committee on or before 4:30 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, May 1st, 2023. The application shall be void once a formal site development planning application becomes void. All new site development plan applications will be processed under the Denver Zoning Code. Then, in effect, no extensions of time will be granted to the site. Development plan must meet all the standards and requirements of the November 12, 2020. Denver's Zoning Code and an applicant may not substitute standards and requirements of the November 12, 2020 Denver Zoning Code, with those set forth in any subsequent amendments to the Denver Zoning Code three a formal site development plan approved under the provisions of November 12, 2020. Denver's zoning code, if requested by an applicant, may be modified or amended applying the November 12, 2020. Denver's Zoning Code. If the application for a modification or amendment is approved by 4:30 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, May 1st, 2023. Any application for modification or amendment to such formal site development plan approved under the provisions of the November 12, 2020 Denver Zoning Code that does not receive approval by May one, 2023, must comply with the Denver Zoning Code. Then, in effect, according to section 12 .3.7 of the Denver Zoning Code, no extensions of time will be granted. My apologies to the translator. No worries. I think we got it. Thank you for slowing down a little bit on it. And again, we have I think you it has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, would you like to explain the amendment before we open up the hearing? Yes, ma'am. The purpose of this amendment is to allow certain projects to be processed under the version of the Denver zoning code prior to the enactment of the group Living Amendment to the Code. Specifically, this amendment applies to projects meeting two criteria. The project submitted a site development concept plan between September 1st, 2019 and February ten, 2021, and the project proposed a use that was no longer listed in the Denver zoning codes used in parking tables after enactment of the group Living Amendments to the Code. All right. Well, thank you, Councilmember Herndon. The required public hearing for Council Bill 516 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both Council Bill 516 and the amendment. After the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each and may we get a staff report. Hi. This is Tina Axelrod. I need to share my screen. And there it is. Started. Hey. Good evening, everyone. My name is Tina Axelrod and the sending administrator and I sit in the city's community planning and Development Department to dove into the substance of the Council bill in front of you, which is the 2021 bundle of Denver zoning code text amendments. I'll be speaking briefly about what this project is and give a very brief summary of certain high. High visibility amendments. Talk about our community outreach and the public comments we have received. Go through the review criteria analysis that we apply to our text, amendments to the zoning code, and then share CPD's recommendation for your action tonight. This is part of a regular cycle of code maintenance that we do to the Denver zoning code. This code is a complex animal, as you just heard in that description, and it must be regularly updated and maintained. To that end, CPD brings forward on its own initiative a bundle of text amendments on a regular 2 to 3 year cycle. And the focus of that bundle is typically to correct, clarify and update the zoning rules. Most of the bundle text changes that are before you this evening come from firsthand experiences with administering the code by CPD, planning, permitting and inspection staffs. We also gather input on any potential conflicts with other city agencies or issues with enforcement and administration. And certainly we hear from our customers on a regular basis too, on what's working or not working, what's clear or not clear in our code. And that's what we seek to address in this bundle of tax changes. The 2021 bundle includes nearly 170 proposed changes that generally fall into four categories. First is the correction of miscellaneous publication errors. These are very low hanging fruit and typically are non substantive. Those are the typos, the errors in the outline, summary numbering and formatting. A second bucket of changes were changes relating to our assigned code. Again, primarily corrections and clarifications to existing provisions. Though I'll walk through some minor policy changes as well. As many of you know, our sign code is a harks back to A to many decades ago and it's challenging to keep up with current business practices, but that's what we try to do in this bundle. And then probably the largest category of changes that you'll see in the 2021 bundle really were changes identified by our residential review staff as really critical or necessary for improved day to day administration. A lot of clarifications, corrections and minor changes. And when I say residential review, this is the world of one and two family dwellings. Anything with three or more dwelling units inside the structure is actually considered commercial and goes to our commercial review teams or productive teams. So you'll see a lot of these one or two family changes. And then there's always the catch all bucket of changes that have been identified as high priority, primarily again aimed at clarification and ease of administration of this of this code. So I wanted to take a few moments just to spotlight some key bundle items that have garnered attention through public comments or questions that we've received. As you can see here, it's a relatively short list that I'll take a little time to walk through it. Everyone is interested in anything that has to do with accessory dwelling units and the city of Denver, and the bundle does include some changes. We have to distinguish between changes to what we have as a separate building form or set of building and development standards for a detached structure on a lot that could contain an accessory dwelling unit and use and then a different set of requirements that hone in on just the operation of an accessory dwelling unit use. So first, I'm going to talk about the building porch changes. What you'll see in the bundle are a set of changes, again, mostly directed from customers and clients on what was working or not working, what was very complex to understand what seemed to be working at cross-purposes within the code. And the first one was a requirement that made the side interior setbacks for certain detached eighties structures in small neighborhoods larger than what was actually required for the main house. And this change just brings those setback requirements in line so you can build your detached structure at the same distance from your sidelines as the main house. The second is that there was a criteria that said if you're building a taller, detached structure in your rear yard and it was likely to contain the detached accessory dwelling unit use that you had to push that structure to the southernmost side step back line that was originally intended to address a speculative possible impact on so their access. But as we've learned through the years of administering that standard, it didn't really succeed in its original intent. There would still be shadows if it were so that a portion of the structure touched the southernmost line. Then if it were centered in the lots and that the leading the standard just allows greater flexibility and siting and we still have controls over the overall bulk as it sits close to those sidelines. And I'll show a little bit more on this one in just a moment. And then in terms of controlling the scale of a detached accessory dwelling unit building, there's really no changes in the current allowance. But we did have some conflicting standards that needed some cleanup and clarification. So at the end of that effort, we deleted one standard that seemed to address how large the actual unit can be inside the detached structure and kept three others that controlled for the same outcome. It was one too many and it led to endless. Conflicts of standards within the code and confusion among our architect and other developer clients. This is an illustration of that first change I highlighted regarding just changing the minimum size setbacks so it would match what you can, where you can put your main house on these particularly smaller, narrower lots. So in the middle you can see what's being proposed with the change. You can you can go to three feet just like the primary dwelling unit, as opposed to having to push it in an additional two feet. And then on the right is where you can put a garage that is generally a same or larger footprint that can actually go a lot lines, a lot line. So again, we just wanted to match those two allowances that seem to make the most sense. And then in terms of the change regarding whether you have to push the structure to the southernmost line, we took a look at this. We took a look at a lot of cases to look at the resulting form. And what we saw is with the current requirements, often where we're getting these odd, ugly shaped reforms in an effort to meet meet the standard, which said push it to the southernmost limit and in order to get the maximum space within the structure for an upper story. We might get something that looks like a wedding cake step in. And what we're suggesting now is just a little more flexibility to move the structure side to side. It ends up actually being further away from the neighboring property with this change, then without it and we get a more regularly shaped and habitable space under the resulting building envelope. As I mentioned, there's another distinct set of ADU restrictions in the zoning code that just addressed the use, whether it's inside a detached structure or inside the main house. And here's where we had to make some changes. We had a very impractical maximum limit on the size of an ADU unit when it was located inside the house. And this was a legacy of how we regulated accessory uses of any variety. So your home office or your. Whatever your other. I can't think of any other assets or uses now inside the home, but typically it'd be like a home business. We had this general rule that capped it at 20% of whatever the primary dwelling unit size was or 300 square feet. When you're talking about an actual habitable living space of an independent dwelling unit, 300 square feet is very small. So what we've changed is to try it again. It has to be secondary to the size of the main unit. So no more than 75% of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit or 864 square feet, whichever is greater. And that really brings an inside the house, Adu, to the same maximum limits on the scale of the use that we allow currently for an ADU use and a detached structure. So your basement adu use can now be essentially the same size as if you built it in a detached structure. There's a couple other cleanups that get really technical but are listed below. I'm going to keep going here. The other main topic where a more substantive policy change was made was in the parking provision and requirements for affordable housing projects in the city of Denver. These parking ratios and buy ratio, I mean, the formula for figuring out the number of spaces, given the number of units of affordable housing, haven't been revisited in over 12 years . In the meantime, we have a lot more experience with actually seeing affordable housing projects built not just in the city of Denver, but all up and down the front range. So in wanting to keep up to date, we also had the fortune of having two different studies released in the last months of 2020 that looked at the very question of how much parking was appropriate for affordable housing. And those studies both provided data on the on two critical points the overall car ownership of households living in these very affordable housing units, and also the parking demand generated by the project in total for parking on site. Looking at those studies, looking at our own experience inside the city of Denver, we wanted to take the opportunity during this bundle to bring our parking ratios into alignment with the 21st century and the recent development history. So the changes are an update to the alternative parking ratio for very affordable units. And that ratio, again, yields the number of parking spaces per dwelling unit. And then a second change that would update the 20% reduction of required of of required parking when the developer chooses to build the affordable units on site per our linkage fee current linkage fee ordinance. So the table summarizes the change. The first one again, currently we have in the main street zone districts only and there the change proposed was to broaden this allowance to all zone districts applies when you're providing housing instead of 40% ami again based on experience in those studies, we've increased the range of this particular reduction to reach housing that provides units to households at 60% AMI and below. And here's the section of change in the alternative ratio went from point to five parking spaces per unit 2.10 per unit. So this is a reduction in the minimum required parking that a developer may choose to use. It still requires some parking. It doesn't take it entirely away. And most of that parking is intended to serve employees, service providers and then capture the very low car usage rates by residents. And then the second change was primarily an expansion of the applicability of a 20% parking reduction from just being from being applied in all zoned districts except the Main Street to now including the Main Street zones and the proposed change. And again, this is just for the onsite build alternative choice. We gave a 20% reduction that has not changed at all in the bundle. Oops. And then that another bucket of of multiple changes in this text amendment package was those fine updates that referred to and generally just reflecting current sign trends and practices and needing to clean up and catch up with where our business customers in the city were headed with their sign designs. So all the pictures on the side here are now signs that we see everywhere that weren't clearly allowed under the Denver zoning code. And now with the changes generally, these are all types of water signs temporary when signs cannot be signs, menu board signs that were not clearly addressed or allowed or were just outright prohibited that have now been changed and clearly allowed. That's what all these words say, essentially. And then just obviously there were a lot more minor policy changes and clarifications and corrections that you'll see in the red lines. Just looking at a few across the remaining articles, I've listed them here. None of these are probably earth shattering in most people's view, but again, addressed a gap or a need for clarification. Like How do I assign a building form? This whole code is supposed to be form based. What if I have an existing structure? What building form do I choose? And now we actually put into the code what we've been practicing up the code for 11 years now. Gee, you know, shading devices are a hot item on buildings. Now we get vertical and horizontal things that people are calling shading devices and are they allowed to encroach into the sides or front or rear setbacks? We've clarified that because we're seeing a lot of things that were never, never addressed. Yeah, we were missing some standards and industrials out of things that we didn't have any standards for accessory buildings. Well, that was a real surprise to many of our industrial customers. So we've added those back in our Use Limitations article. We did make some changes to short term rentals. Again, just putting more clearly into the code, what we've been telling our customers over the past five, six years with short term rentals and a critical one was that the licensing ordinance stated that a short term rental must occur in a dwelling unit as defined by the Denver zoning code. But the Denver zoning code didn't say that, so now it does. And then finally we looked at opportunities for process streamlining to help our customers and where we saw some justification. And one place where we did remove what we call a zoning permit with informational notice process was for offenses that are more than four or six feet height, depending on where they're located on the lot. And that was based on a study that showed that the vast majority of those requests were were granted. And with no comments raised or comments that were generally not even on point to to what was being asked for, for input. And then everyone loves carriage lots in Denver. They're those weird interior block lots. We had a lot of rules and interpretations and clarifications that were off the books. We put them on the books now for help with transparency for those lucky folks who own a piece of or an entire carriage lot in Denver. This slide just summarizes the schedule and public outreach. We did go to IMC ZAP Committee. We had office hours. We did a slew of information items. We had several opportunities to comment on drafts that were released publicly. The planning board did have its hearing on April 21st and recommended approval of the entire bundle package. We went through Luti. We're here today and if all goes well, the bundle revised code will become effective on July 1st. We did receive comments. Generally, they fell into, again, a few critical areas of interest to the community. Those changes I described to the ADOS garnered a lot of comments and all unanimously, unanimously in support of the bundle changes. Where things diverged was most of our commentators wanted more revisions. That is this. That is the scope of an upcoming planning services project. And we're just not in the scope of a bundle to go much further than we did in the interest of clarification and corrections, as opposed to major policy changes on the affordable housing parking changes that I described. Again, we received overwhelming support. There was one brief letter in your packet signed by 72 different Denver area affordable housing advocates, nonprofits and businesses. We got separate letters of support from the state dollars agency. Of course, internally host is very supportive of the change, as is Dora. And then there were some changes in the code that I did not get into deeply. That just clarified some general rules that we have been applying consistently over the last few years on what you can build on a settlement that was too small for a duplex, but big enough for a single unit structure or too small to host a structure with the ADU unit. What could you do? There was a lot of pushback and give and take between customers, and we just needed to get this very clear on paper. This captures a current policy, doesn't say it will never change. Would we have an upcoming ADU project? This could change, but we just cemented the current policy which says if your lot is too small for a duplex or you're lots too small for a detached adu structure per the current code, you cannot build those structures on such small lot. And then we got a slew of comments and mostly questions about changes to our set back exceptions. Again, most of our changes were not substantive, but we did reorganize, rename, clarify, and those were those types of comments were answered by staff. Each and every one. Okay. Well, before you now you have to consider whether there's this whole bundle of text amendments meets our review criteria that city council has to hold it up against in terms of making amendments to the Denver zoning code. These are all found in the Denver zoning code section 12 .4. 11. We have, of course, the all important consistency with adopted plan. So does this bundle represent a path forward that's consistent with our adopted comprehensive plan to 2040? As explained in more detail to staff, report STEP did find that the bundle represents principles and advance the goals of that comprehensive plan, including working across multiple agencies on some of those changes, such as the parking for affordable housing, some of those substantive changes certainly further adopted goals regarding around affordable housing, and then just overall providing greater clarity and predictability of zoning standards help sustain and grow Denver's neighborhood businesses. It helps to know the rules. Blueprint. Emperor has an explicit policy and strategy that states to that insurers. The Denver Zoning Code continues to respond to the needs of the city while remaining modern and flexible, and the checklists of further policies, we believe, are advanced by both the substantive and non substantive changes of the bundle. We do have to hold up all text amendments to for consistency or at least no impediment to the equity goals of blue print. Denver and a bundle like this that provides greater clarity and fixes errors in the city's existing zoning rules. This has a mostly neutral impact on furthering these equity goals that neither impedes but also probably does not on a scale, substantially advance those equity goals. But where we did get into substance as opposed to the majority of corrections and clarifications, certainly the changes addressing affordable housing and ADU use met some of those equity concepts by expanding opportunities for more flexible, affordable housing, citywide enabling providers to increase the range of affordable housing offered and allow more opportunities for use as an alternative housing type. So in some CPD staff finds that the proposed bundle of texts amendment is consistent with adopted plans. Secondly, it will further the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Denver, primarily by providing that transparency, clarity and predictability in these substantial rules that govern land development in the city. And by removing or at least chipping away at some of those regulatory barriers to planned and desired private enterprise and redevelopment. And then thirdly, these bundle amendments will result in uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. They will be applied equally and uniformly to similar buildings and land uses within each of the zone districts. Accordingly, CPD staff recommends and respectfully request the City Council to adopt and approve this text amendment. With that. I'm happy to take questions. All right. Well, thank you very much, Tina, for the great presentation. And tonight, counsel hasn't received any written testimony on Council Bill 516. And we have eight individuals signed up to speak this evening. And our first speaker is Mary Coddington. Go ahead, please, Mary. That evening council, I'm Mary Coddington. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative in favor of the adoption of the text amendments. And I'll keep my comments brief this evening. As you well know, our housing supply is not meeting the current housing demand in either the overall quantity or at the price points that are needed . And as a community, we have to use every tool available to us to manage our resources and ensure they're reaching as many people as possible. And by having enshrined parking minimums that overshoot the actual need for parking money thrown away that could be used to house more people or improve the critical wraparound services that are needed for low income and very low income residents. The proposed parking changes allow affordable housing developers the opportunity to build what's needed. Several in D.C. members not only operate in transit rich Denver neighborhoods, but also in places further away from great transit access. And they recognize that properties that aren't near public transit options will need more parking, even if it's above the minimum required by the code. And the mission based housing providers are in the business of serving their residents and pursuing the best possible outcomes for those residents. And they're motivated to develop their properties in ways that are supportive, whether that means a few more parking spots or slightly fewer. So that flexibility is really, really important. And just lastly, I would like to thank RTD as well as SHOP works in Seattle for their research into this issue and CPD for being really responsive to the changing needs in the city and to you council members for your work to make sure that the policies continue to evolve and meet our changing needs. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mary. Our next speaker this evening is Christian Pritchard. Go ahead, please. Good evening, council members. My name is Christian Pritchett with Blue Line Development for Affordable Housing developer based out of Missoula, Montana. I'm here to speak in support of the text amendment, specifically the changes to the parking ratios required for affordable housing as it's currently written. Denver zoning code requires a high degree of variability in parking ratios for affordable housing, ranging from zero spaces per unit in some downtown zone districts up to 1.25 in other areas in the city. Some of those zone districts allow for reductions to parking and others don't. That high degree of variability creates a lot of inconsistency on the viability of affordable housing developments across these swing districts when housing would be an otherwise allowable use. Denver's alternative ratios have not been updated in the past 12 years, and in that time, the cost of development has skyrocketed. In their most recent estimates, Denver's Department of Housing Stability estimates the funding gap of each unit of affordable housing is roughly $37,000, which translates to about the cost of a single parking space in an operating garage. This is this is money that we're spending on parking when we could otherwise be creating housing with those dollars. And a good example of this is the charity's house development, which is a 36 unit affordable housing project that would be owned by a community outreach service center in Denver. This project is ready to go with investors, ready to sign on the dotted line and put $5.7 million of private equity into this element by housing formerly homeless individuals. Under the current zoning code, we are required to provide 23 spaces of parking, even though our research shows that we need less than four spaces at this development. So we would urge you to pass this text amendment tonight so that projects like this can get done and and this project would start construction and be under development next month if this were to pass today. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Ross Burt. Good evening, counsel. Thank you so much for your time this evening. My name is Brian Ross for I'm the executive director of Housing Colorado and I'm a Denver resident. I live in Park Hill. Housing. Colorado believes that safe, stable and healthy communities are built upon the foundation of housing. We're a nonprofit membership organization working with the housing community to educate and advocate for the building and preservation of housing for low to moderate income Coloradans housing. Colorado is a unified voice of nearly 300 organizations and 6000 individuals across the state who represent diverse housing interests. I'd like to highlight tonight the letter of support that is included in your packet, which demonstrates the overwhelming support across the affordable housing industry that has come out in favor of a change to the parking requirements for supportive housing in Denver. The list includes the Denver Housing Authority, Volunteers of America, the Delores Project, Enterprise Community Partners, Colorado Maker, Housing Partners, and many more, including Housing Colorado. Many of these organizations have experience seeking to develop affordable housing in Denver. That doesn't make it past the vision stage because of the high parking requirements needed. Parking that RTD and Fox Total Shop Works report their reports demonstrate is unneeded and unutilized once it's built. This part of the Denver code, specifically the section with alternative ratios, has not been updated in over 12 years. Housing needs, transportation options and parking demand all shifted since then. To me, this proposal is much more than simply building more affordable housing units. But it will ensure that projects can be built, can build beautiful spaces in which individuals and families can heal and grow healthier. This change to the Denver code might allow for a courtyard to be built, for more staff positions to be filled, all in the hope of giving people the tools and resources they need to move toward stability. Parking continues to remain a significant barrier to the creation of more affordable housing in Denver, and ensuring that our unhoused neighbors have housing options that are affordable and attainable is important. I hope you will vote in favor of the text amendment bundle and the parking shifts for housing targeted at those making the least amount of money in our city. Thank you for considering this change to parking requirements to ensure the zoning code has consistency across the city and better needs meets what is truly needed so we can ensure the building to build as much housing as possible here in Denver. I appreciate your consideration of this change. Thank you, Brian. Our next speaker this evening is Lindsey Sentance. And you're going to have to unmute, Lindy. I'm. Wendy sent in, and my city of residence is Arvada. I served as vice president of program operations for Volunteers of America or VOA. And I'm glad to speak in favor of this amendment or portion of this text amendment. Well, view is statewide. Most of our housing and services are within the city of Denver, where we provide human services of many kinds, including food insecurity and emergency shelter and much more affordable housing, though, is a major aspect of our work, both nationally and in. Colorado Valley is one of the largest nonprofit providers of affordable housing. Quality, affordable housing. We currently operate 25 affordable housing communities across the state. Ten properties, just over 800 units are in the city of Denver. I'm passionate about housing and especially for the lowest income people and those without homes. Our people deserve a safe and dignified and accessible housing. It's highly unusual for very low income people and those who are homeless to pay for a car, much less the ongoing cost of vehicle ownership. VOA has a Denver project currently in the planning stages, and we're very excited about it. A reduction in the parking requirements would allow us at that location to build more units. We could also include a small green space, and then the children would be out on the playground and. Instead of looking at an empty parking lot. VOA, for one, has the bandwidth and the vision to have at least one affordable housing project in the pipeline on an ongoing basis. We just broke ground on one for seniors in Fort Collins and we just leased up one in Durango, a new one, if we're to have any hope of meeting the need in Denver for a decent place for everyone to live. We need projects coming in, coming online at a regular pace. And parking is important only when someone has or plans to have a car. But housing is essential for everyone. Please vote in favor of the amendment and or the bubble. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jennifer Cloud. Thank you, city council for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I'm the vice president of housing development at the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. And you've been hearing the technical numbers, parking demand and parking utilization rates from the last few speakers. And I echo all of those sentiments. I just wanted to take a moment tonight to share a real life example of why this vote truly matters. I want to share the story of Katie, who lived a remarkable life. She was presidential appointee to the Small Business Administration and organized events around the world, meeting dignitaries and celebrities publicly. Katie functioned at the highest levels of government, but privately she struggled with a substance use disorder. And after suffering a traumatic brain injury while on a work assignment, Katie was no longer able to keep her job, and her life began to fall apart when she lost the support of her family and her marriage fell apart. Katie had no place to go. She said, I lived in 24 places in 24 months. But then she had a turning point thanks to housing that met her needs. Katie moved into one of six properties that provided safe, stable housing so she could focus for energy on her recovery. Today, Katie is thriving in permanent supportive housing at one of the coalition's apartment homes and is giving back to her community. Katie runs a peer to peer support network for people experiencing homelessness and mentors her neighbors and sponsors. Other struggling others who are struggling to recover from substance use and behavioral health issues. Housing is the basis for every member of our community to thrive, and Katie is just one of many examples of individuals who have turned their lives around by gaining stability through housing first. Many of our homeless residents like Katie don't have a car when they move into an apartment. Most folks need a house first before other pieces of their lives can fall into place. Folks are moving into our buildings, are exiting homelessness. And I know you have the data, but I'm here to tell you anecdotally, they simply don't have cars at the rate that market rate. Residents have cars. In my role as the VP of Housing Development at CCH, I worked incredibly hard to make finance to make the financing work at the lowest AMI affordable housing developments. And it's not without challenge. This change would truly open up opportunities for more housing by alleviating the need to build high levels of parking that just sit empty on our properties. So I urge you to support this text amendment bundle and the standardization of parking for affordable housing that's within it . Thank you so much for your time. Have a good night. Thank you, Jennifer. Our next speaker is Kinsey Hastert. Go ahead. Good evening. Thank you. Council President Gilmore. My name is Kinsey Hastert, and I am the state and local policy director for Enterprise Community Partners. I am a Denver resident, but I'm here tonight to voice Enterprise's support for the 2021 Text Amendment bundle, and particularly provisions to make parking minimums for development of affordable housing consistent across the city . Enterprise works nationally and here in Denver to increase the supply of high quality, affordable housing, advance racial equity, and build resilience and upward mobility. We do so through advocacy, place based programmatic engagement and capital investments. Given Enterprise's national scope. I wanted to briefly share how this update is in line with some other models around the country. A 2018 report from my National Enterprise colleagues examined proven local strategies for expanding the supply of affordable homes and addressing cost challenges. These included reducing or even eliminating parking requirements. This has proven particularly effective in cities similar to Denver, with transit rich areas where large amounts of parking are just not necessary and where land values are prohibitively high. For instance, New York City offers both density and parking incentives through its modernize, zoning rules and the adoption of an inclusionary housing program which lowers costs and reduce barriers to the construction of affordable and senior housing, in part by reducing parking requirements throughout the city. Seattle City Council approved legislation to provide developers with more flexibility in deciding how much parking to include in areas with frequent transit, in turn enabling the city to reduce parking requirements for rental and income restricted housing, among other benefits. And in 2016, Washington, D.C. undertook efforts to reduce parking minimums, lessening requirements for multi-family housing development, and cutting parking minimums, perhaps for mixed use developments near metro streetcars or bus lines. And while access to and reliance on public transit is a consideration for many cities, others seek to simplify or eliminate requirements entirely. Portland has gone through iterations to eventually eliminate residential parking requirements, including one step that specifically Waze waived excuse me parking minimums for projects providing affordable housing. And just last month, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to remove parking minimums for new commercial and residential buildings to help reduce the cost of housing development. These are just some of the models from across the country, and we urge Denver to be another by eliminating inconsistencies in parking requirements for buildings up to 60% nationwide. As you've heard, this will better meet the needs of residents and really will go a long way toward helping new affordable units that are so desperately needed by residents to come online. Thank you for your time and hope you'll support the text amendment bundle this evening. Thank you. Our next speaker is Casey Slade. Hi, I'm Cassie Slayton. I'm one of the principal owners for with Foxtel Transmission Group. And we work all around the state, including Amnesty County of Denver. Our firm partnered with Shop Works Architecture to research parking demands on a variety of affordable housing types across the front range, front range to determine whether the current code requirements are warranted or if these parking requirements are too high. Based on our anecdotal evidence, we identified several properties that included supportive housing across the city, setting recommendations from hosts to ensure we included all of the most appropriate properties. To explore parking ratios. We surveyed 19 properties with an average am I between 30 and 50%? Our findings surprised even the members of our team. And below and I will list some of the key takeaways of this reporting. One bedroom housing in Denver, which is 30% or less. Am I roughly 88.8% of residents own a car? This equates to one vehicle for 12 units. For all of the affordable housing properties that we studied. Up to 60%. Am I 50%? Am I? The average vehicle ownership was 29% of residents, which equates to one vehicle per six units. The current code requires an average of one parking space for two units, which is 3 to 6 times more than the actual parking demand that we found in our study. We also found that the data showed that the properties, proximity to quality, walking and biking facilities as well as transit services deeply impacted the vehicle ownership. Luckily, RTD was actually selling the same thing at the same time that we were able to look at their city as well. And our findings mirrored what they were finding for low income housing. The 19 properties have been built in the last six years and they had a total of 883 parking spaces. The study found that only 461 of those spaces were utilized. This means that there was a surplus of two 422 spaces. Right now, a parking space costs on average about $22,000 per space. If you equate this out with the 422 unused spaces, that's about $9.28 million that was spent on unused parking. If that money was applied towards supportive housing, we could have had an entirely separate 40 unit apartment building. I believe that the point one parking ratio included in this tax amendment bundle would more than meet the need of the residents and the staff that work at affordable housing buildings. And I'm in favor of the tax code. I'm happy to elaborate. If you have any questions on the data. If you need a copy of the report, I can make it available for you. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Our last speaker this evening is Laura Rosberg. Hello. Thank you. Council President Gilmore. I'm Reverend Laura Rutherford. I'm a resident of Denver. I currently work at CHOP Works Architecture, but before that, I worked at the Delores Project, a homeless shelter and supportive housing development here in Denver. I just wanted to say, as somebody who's done a lot of work on this, I'm around if y'all have any questions. Last week I visited Sanderson Apartments, a supportive housing development, and I counted five cars out of the 30 spots that they had to build. And so I encourage you to vote yes. I thank you all for considering this. And I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you. All right. Very good. Thank you to all of our speakers for joining us this evening. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 516 or the amendment. And I see we've got Councilmember Hines, you're up first. Thank you. Council President. I have a question about the affordable housing buildings. Do they ever move back to market rate once they've been constructed or are they forever affordable housing? Very good question. We've got our. Folks here tonight. And I believe we had Joel Jennings Golic or Kyle Dalton here to answer any questions. Councilwoman, we also have some folks. From coast here. Um. I believe I see Angie Nelson and Megan Yost here, so I. Think folks would be best to answer the question. On some members. This is Meghan Young. I can weigh in on this particular question. So when we contribute, get financing to a supportive housing project in particular, but affordable housing in general, the minimum length of affordability on a covenant that's reported is 60 years. Very often it is the case of some of these buildings to restrict them for 99 years. So for an extremely long period of time, we will be holding these affordability restrictions. And that on non intergovernmental agreement D3 projects where they are restricted in perpetuity. Got it. Okay. That's that's great news. I mean, I was trying to figure out why there might be parking requirements at all. And I was thinking perhaps they would go from affordable back to market rate and that would make the the. That the property more difficult to to to use if it has point one space. The only other question that I have is I did the city consider eliminating parking minimums entirely? I'm going to I'm going to say let me go on camera there. Generally, we were prepared to go take that leap yet. We have a separate project on expanding affordability in the city that's ongoing. This was in direct response to the data we had at that time, though, as you've heard in testimony, we have a number of tier cities that have taken this point further and either eliminated parking or of course, we have certain urban contexts in the city that do not have minimum parking requirements. So we've dabbled in that already in Denver for different reasons. But at this point, with the bundle trying to contain the bundle to sort of us a smaller spectrum of clarifications, updating where we had strong policy support and clear public policy support for changes. We felt this was grounded in those studies and was something we could bring forward. I don't know that we would have necessarily had the same backing for a bundle to bring forward a total elimination. Yeah. I think downtown core D.C. does not have any parking minimums. And as of July 19th, this body gets to decide if Golden Triangle abolishes its parking minimums. So we also have the 38th and Billy Blake Station area now at zero through an overlay. So there's a number of places. Yeah. At the point one seems to be really low and almost we're just almost there. So that's that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. And thank you, council president for all our thanks for all you do. Thank you. Council president. All right. Right on. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Up next, we have Councilwoman Sawyer. Instead I'm president to find out what wanted to ask about some of the since your zoning administrator wanted to ask him about some of the expanded decision making power that's included in this text amendment. For those I mean, administrators, can you just kind of talk me through what is what's expanding here? There really is no expansion of the zoning administrator authority that's contained in this particular ordinance. There is another ordinance coming up on July 12th that does provide expanded authority for the zoning administrator on temporary uses. So I just want to make sure we're not confusing the two bills that are out there. Okay. So in the bundle. And again, I. Don't I if there was something specific you saw, I appreciate a heads up, but generally what you see in. Terms of. Zoning administrator authority in red lines in the funding amendment is authority that already exists, but it's now being clarified and codified on the face of the code. So the zoning administrator always had the final word on determinations and decisions of how the code applied to a specific property. You can see in the code that we've made it clear that when it comes to defining a zone lot, which is the development site for a particular project, the zoning administrator has the final word on determining that. And that's always been the practice. And if anyone has an issue with that, there is there's a variety of appeals that could be taken or a reconsideration. So that's now clearly on the face of the code, trying to think of the other ones in the bundle. There was a determination that was clarified. When somebody is doing repairs and maintenance on their structure, whether they've crossed a line into voluntary demolition, which would make that structure and any changes have to fully comply with the code, that's sort of where that line is. When you have a structure that doesn't fully meet the code, it sits in a setback, for example, when you're doing substantial work. At a certain point, we call that voluntary demolition, even though you're not bringing the whole house down and you have to fully comply. So it was in the bundle is some clarification on my ability to look at a case by case scenario of where someone says, I'm not voluntarily demolishing it, I'm just doing some basic repair of replace and it's not. So we just put it out there very clearly. The zoning administrator will have the final say and can take into consideration your arguments, but will determine with what side of the line it falls on. I'm trying to think of the other 170 changes where there might be some clarity over zoning administrator authority. I think I got a question sort of out of record here about whether there were some changes that shook City Council Authority and gave it to the zoning administrator in this bundle. And I can say now that is not the case in this ordinance. Tina, thank you. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I don't want you to have to go on and on about not go 372 pages. So that's great. I guess my question to that is, what is a what are the sort of appeal opportunities that a resident has if, you know, you as zoning administrator in your role makes a determination and it's something that they just agree with. There is always an. Avenue for appeal from a final zoning decision made by an administrative official. So that would be me and any of the staff doing plan, review and making decisions every day in applying this code. And that is called an administrative appeal. And the code clearly speaks to it in Article 12 and those appeals where you're essentially saying, no, you're wrong. And and I'd like somebody to decide whether you were right or wrong. Go to the Board of Adjustment. And that is distinct and very different from the variance case that also goes to the board. The criteria simply whether the board finds the administrative official aired in their application of the code to a particular in a particular decision. Okay. So the so is there no so there's no other criteria that they look at. The only decision is of the Board of Adjustments and an appeal is based on whether they believe you or not. You as zoning administrator, that your decision is on an administrator was incorrect. Correct. Using they step into my shoes essentially and and apply the code is and there's a presumption that the administrative official was correct in applying the code. And to overcome that presumption. And appellant needs to show by a preponderance of evidence that that. That that decision was deemed an error and that the code was misapplied. Okay. So how much would that cost someone who's a resident who disagrees with the zoning administrator's decision? I can't tell you exactly off the top of my head, because it's it's all governed by the Board of adjustment and they have their own fee schedule. I've got to get it somewhere in the hundred to 200 to 300 mark. Somewhere around there. I really don't know. I do. Most people do, you know. Most people do. They show up with an attorney that they also hirers. There are other areas. What does that look like? It varies. We've had all flavors of appellants show up with or without counsel. You know, we don't get that many in a year. It's less than a handful in any given year. Okay. And why do you know by any chance? And if you don't, this is it's totally fine. But I'm just curious how many decisions get overturned in that appeals process. In my own personal experience as zoning administrator over the last five years now. Yeah, five years. There's probably been a handful of appeals and I don't recall that any were where any of the staff or administrative decisions were overturned. And that's to the best of my recollection. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Really appreciate that information. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Sawyer, we have Councilman Flynn up. Thank you, Madam President. Tina or anyone else can answer this also. But with regard to affordable housing, our redefining that it looks like we're defining that in the draft here. As dwelling units are constructed under an affordable housing agreement to provide income restricted units under an agreement with the city, so that there's actually a a covenant of sorts that that guarantees are available, that these would be rented to people. I think if I read in the presentation correctly 60% and below or what was the other ones, 40% below, something like that. Is that the case? Well, actually, we don't have a definition of affordable housing in the zoning code and in those provisions, but we would expect evidence from the applicant of some variety and and most notably would be some kind of deed restricted or proposal for deed restricted units like the kind that Megan talked about. But I could imagine maybe there's other avenues by which you could build affordable housing that doesn't have city participation, for example, that would still qualify for the parking reduction. I got the cue from Annalise turning on her video to let her speak a little bit more to that point from a definitely a more educated perspective than I can provide. So anyways, talk from our planning services that. Might be helpful. I'm looking at the presentation here on my other screen and we're we're all zoned districts. The proposal is 60% of our mind blow would be just one parking space for every ten units is the way I'm reading that. So that's why I need to know what is the definition of affordable housing to which this would apply. The reason I'm asking, frankly, is that right across Sanderson Gulch from the Sanderson Apartments, there is a and a market rate apartment complex that nevertheless rents units for very affordable pricing. And I'm wondering if that were built today, if this would apply, because the fact is that there's 114 units in Orchard Glen and they are routinely so parked up that it spills out onto Mexico Avenue and has caused a significant parking problems on the street. And so they don't seem to have the same ratio of some of our actual income restricted projects like Sanderson, which is housing for the chronically homeless population which which doesn't have they don't have vehicles. Generally. I can't speak to the particulars of that case, but generally speaking, the definition or the applicability is within the table of the Parkin section. And so it is we would need proof that those units are being rented to folks earning less than 60% of the area median income. If we were not able to provide that proof, then they would not be eligible for that parking reduction there. So they would still if somebody were just going to build an apartment complex and they can't just come in and say this is going to be affordable housing, I want to just build one parking spot for every ten units that wouldn't fly. They would actually need to provide what it sounds like. They would actually have to enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city to restrict those units to 60% and below. I one piece to just clarifies that it might not necessarily be an affordable housing agreement with the city. There might be some other form of deed, restriction or covenants. There's plenty of affordable income, restricted units throughout the city where the city is not a partner in regulating that. But there's some other entities, but it's the one you have to say, I'm providing affordable housing and therefore I get this lower parking ratio does need to meet the affordability threshold. And this is different than what you know, what rents you choose to lease your older property for. Because I do with the household income of the renters, we need to know that it's the renters who qualify, not your rent. Right? Right. Okay. Megan, Megan's kind of popping her head up to I don't know if you had anything more to add, Megan, on what affordable housing evidence would look like. Yes. I just wanted to make a note that there are Section three properties that are that are not city funded. The Section eight properties that are not city funded but do carry deed restrictions associated with them. So I just wanted to say that the world of restrictions is not just city funded or city participating, but to the extent that the city is participating in those projects, there will be a covenant or deed restriction on those properties. Okay. So to qualify for this reduction, there would have to be some sort of enforceable mechanism, either an affordable housing agreement or some kind of deed restriction, something running with the land. And I just want to make sure that we're not opening up the door to somebody, just coming in, say, I'm building up. These are going to be affordable. I promise. You know, and then I have a situation like I have on Mexico Avenue. No, that's not what this is about. Okay. Thank you. That gives me a little more comfort. Appreciate. All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And not seeing any other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on the amendment. Council member Kimmich. Thank you. Council President I just wanted to thank all of our speakers who came to engage in those who gave comments through the process and also to the staff. I was considering whether I. Should file a. Bill like this for some pieces on the parking and affordable housing. I didn't know about all the issues with the 82 design, but I'm very pleased to see some of those because I know that the barriers for that product and for that approach are really mounting in some areas that really, like the West area with the West Renaissance Collaborative pilot, are really struggling to just kind of overcome the code issues. So thank you for a really common sense package of changes. I heard from one project so far that unfortunately did not receive tax credits in the last round, but folks are looking at that site for other things and may be able to do up to 20 additional units than they would have without these changes on parking. That is, you know, we don't have a lot of game changers in housing. It's just expensive and hard, it feels like. But anything that can change the game to the tune of 20 homes means a lot. And that may not be possible for every site. But I hope for those that it can that this will be, you know, changing the game and housing more people. So I'm really excited to support the package and hope my colleagues do the same. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Kimmich. And likewise, I want to thank the staff and our public speakers tonight and not seen any other hands raised for comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. Herndon. I. I. Cashman. I. Can I? Sawyer, I. Or else I. What? I. See the. I. For I. When I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results, please. 11 nine. 11 ays Council Bill 20 1-0516 has been amended. Madam Secretary, Roll Call on Council Bill 21, Dash 0516 as amended. Black. I. Peter Barca. I can't. What? All right. When? I. Herndon. I. I. Cashman. I. Can I? Sawyer, I. All. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 11 911 I's Council Bill 20 1-0516 has passed as amended. Thank you, everybody, for joining us for that second public hearing. And now we're on to our third.

LongBeachCC_10062020_20-0926

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal code by adding Chapter 21.65, relating to Interim Motel/Hotel Conversions, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

Motion carries. Club, would you please? Item 45 Please. Report from Development Services recommendation or declare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to interim motel hotel conversions read and adopted as read citywide. When we got this item. There is public comment on this item. Said John King. 3 minutes starts now. But. Oh, yes, I think everybody everybody let me speak. I'm in support of this because I know some in the community are against this and in their community. But this is a great site because it's on the busy intersection of Long Beach, where the homeless is already using Motel six four years to live in. With their families. Some of them are students and vets that go to the vet V.A. next door and to the college. And they also use Cal. I mean, the O.C. transit busses and Long Beach busses. So it's the best site to put the homeless facility that you're looking at to do it. It's not in anybody's neighborhood with a lot of homes or anything. And so the negative. Comments people make about the homeless will not be there. And most people today don't even know. A lot of the homeless is already using the Motel six for temporary housing. So I hope that you pass this because we need it. And our homeless problem is only growing. And with the shortages isn't getting worse. Thanks to our fires that we have me now and people are losing towns and cities and their homes is not being replaced. So I hope you do pass it and keep up the good work. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment. Thank you. And you accountable. Vice Mayor Andrews, this is Councilman Price. I have a comment. I just wanted to clarify that this particular item that we're voting on tonight has really nothing to do with the Motel six project, which is a county project and not a city project. Yes. This is Tom. That is correct. We have a motion which. You have? Some of. It is. The sun has. Thank you. Greg, could you please go for the vote? District one. By. District. Okay. By District four. By District five. By District six. By District seven. I District eight. But District nine. Oh. Motion carries.

LongBeachCC_08082017_17-0613

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation, including the petitions, into the record, conclude the public hearing, and request the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the Long Beach Municipal Code, to expand Preferential Parking District “U” as recommended by the City Traffic Engineer. (District 4)

Okay. Thank you. And we're going to go on to the next hearing. Hearing to report from Public Works recommendation to receive supporting documentation, including the petitions into the record, conclude the public hearing and request the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the Long Beach Municipal Code to expand preferential parking district. You as recommended by the City Traffic Engineer District for. Okay. Mr. City Manager. When introduce this. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. The staff report will be given by Shaun Crombie, our deputy director of Public Works and our city engineer. Good evening, Honorable Mayor Council. Item two seeks to move forward. Preferential Parking District to the district lies on Los Santos Drive between Garfield Street and Chatwin Avenue. The district has been requested or petitioned by the residents and meets all of the conditions necessary to qualify for implementation of preferential parking district. This requested action tonight also includes the possibility of moving forward with an expansion. Preferential purchasing districts should not cause overflow of parking to impact the neighboring streets. Five neighboring streets are included within this approval. If an impact were to overflow into those streets, the residents on the streets can petition for preferential parking district. And if the required conditions are met, it would allow for a streamlined and more streamlined process to move forward with that expansion. That concludes staff report. I'm available for answers questions. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this hearing? Seeing none. We'll take it. We'll close the hearing. Take it back behind the real council members who are not. Thank you. Thank you to staff for putting this item together and we fully support it. I'm one of the many. Cal State Long Beach impacted areas of Los Altos. And the attachment to this item shows a petition with unanimous support that says it all. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brice. I have no additional comments. Thank you. Seeing no further public comment. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. So we have a third hearing. So we set up for that or take it now.

DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0750

A letter dated July 19, 2018, notifying of the Departments of Finance’s intent to enter into a certificates of participation lease purchase transaction in a par amount not to exceed $129,000,000, the proceeds of which will be used to fund the Colorado Convention Center Expansion Project.

Thanks, Brian. Appreciate it. All right. We are concluding with that portion of the presentation. We do have two communications from the Department of Finance. Madam Secretary, please read them. Dear Counsel. President, in keeping with the provisions of Section 20, Dash 93 of the Denver revised Mr. Code, the DRC, I'm hereby notifying you of the Department of Finance and Intent to enter into a certificates of participation lease purchase transaction, an apartment not to exceed 129 million, the proceeds of which will be used to fund the Colorado Convention Center Expansion Project. Under the financing structure, the city will enter into a lease purchase agreement with the leasing trust and lease into the Trust a portion of the Colorado Convention Center, which will lease back and continue to occupy without interruption. The trustee on behalf of the leasing trust will execute and deliver Series 28 certificates of participation in a par amount not to exceed 129 million. The requirement that the city pay the annual rental lease payments for the 2018 certificates does not constitute an obligation of the city for which it was levy, taxes or apply as general resources beyond the current fiscal year. The 2018 certificates do not constitute general obligation indebtedness of the city and are not multi-year financial obligations of the city. The requirement that the city make the lease payments constitutes a currently budgeted expenditure of the city, payable only if funds are appropriated by the city council each year. Company attachment contains a more detailed description of the financing as required by section 2093 and B of the DRC. Sincerely, Brendan J. Hanlon, Manager of Finance. Dear Council President. In keeping with the provisions of Section 20, Dash 93 of the Denver Revised Mexico DRC, I'm hereby notifying you of the Department of Finances Intent to issue City and

DenverCityCouncil_06082020_20-0231

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Downtown Denver Events, Inc. to operate the skating rink and beer garden at Skyline Park in Council District 9. Approves an agreement with Downtown Denver Events, Inc. through 2-28-22 to operate the skating rink and beer garden at Skyline Park in Council District 9 (PARKS-202053400-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-15-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-10-20.

Thank you, Councilmember. All right, Madam Secretary, the next item on our screens and Councilmember Flynn. This one we need to put on the floor. So will you please put Council Resolution 231 on the floor? Yes, I move that council resolution 20 dash to 31 be adopted. Thank you very much. It's been moved. Can I get a second? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. This one was called out by Councilmember CdeBaca. You wanna go first? Yes. I wanted to encourage my colleagues to challenge DPR, not to put this kind of agreement in front of us. Next year there is a short fuze on this agreement. Skyline Park is our downtown park. That is often a space where a lot of our unhoused individuals congregate. And we have a partnership here in Denver called the Downtown Denver Partnership, which is very anti homeless and very much behind criminalizing poverty. They have taken the initiative to activate this park without this going to an RFP and creating equal access for other members of the community, other community organizations to have access over deciding what happens at this park. It's a problem. This is a public park that is essentially operated by a private organization that prioritizes business interests. So we have a skating ring and a beer garden that is going into this park and has gone into this park year after year without being open to the public to decide what should go into this park. And so I am a no on this tonight. I understand that they need to program for this year. And so I'm just challenging you all to recognize that private entities are our. This is exactly why we're introducing our other charter change with Park Hill Golf Course, because there's a way for us to maintain ownership and still relinquish all control to the private sector to run our things. And this is not an appropriate way for us to use our park, especially when community organizations have such significant challenges when trying to activate their local parks. So I'm a no on this tonight. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President, because we have so many people who aren't typically engaged in city council. I want to also bring to your attention this is a little bit of the education that Councilmember CdeBaca was talking about. Our job, one of our core jobs in city council is land use and planning and the relationship between land use and how to get to and from it. So basically we have a committee called Ludy and that stands for land use, transportation infrastructure and inner urban core. It is tough to get around. However, you choose to get around by car, by foot. And and so as a city, we are prioritizing where we're rethinking the way we get around our city. We have the opportunity we have the the the potential to totally reshape. So 70 right now, 73% of Denver workers commute to and from their job by single occupant vehicle. And particularly downtown, we have options because RTD may come back soon in full shape. You know, RTD, it's a hub and spoke model, but it's hub is downtown. And I talked a lot about in my campaign because mobility is more difficult for me because I use a wheelchair to get around. I talked about how we all need the freedom to get from A to B, regardless how we choose to get there. So why am I bringing all this up with Skyline Park? I would say I am frustrated with Skyline Park because the vendors that would be activated by this contract constantly and consistently use the bike lane and the sidewalk to park their vehicles. And and so I have talked a lot about how we need to ensure that we have access, that we all need access to get from A to B. We should all have the freedom to get from A to B. By foot. By a wheelchair. By bike. And so I, I, I hope that if this were to be approved, that we would strongly consider ways for vendors to get their their stuff to and from wherever they're vending without having to. To have cyclists and pedestrians constantly dodge parked vehicles on the sidewalk or in the bike lane or have cyclists go into traffic. That's the whole point of protect the bike lane is to keep cars where they are and keep bikes in a in a safer place. So because we're talking about this contract and I see almost every time I go by Skyline Park, I see vehicles parked in the bike lane or in the sidewalk. I wanted to call that out. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Roll call on this item. CDEBACA No black eye. For an. Eye. Gilmore I can't. Hi. Cashman I can each. Ortega y Sandoval. Sawyer, I. Torres, I Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. You have a nice one day. 11 days, one day. Council Resolution 231 has been adopted. That concludes the audience to be called out. We are almost to the end of our business. Thank you very much for your patience and for sticking around. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published councilmembers remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item up for a separate vote. Councilmember Flynn, will you please for the proclamations, the proclamation and resolutions for adoption, and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?

LongBeachCC_08252020_20-0677

Recommendation to request that the Special Order issued on January 16, 2020 become a permanent policy change for the Long Beach Police Department.

Did you want to turn over to the police department? I would if the cheeses available to comment specifically on what the special orders are. And then I will comment as to why the Budget Oversight Committee have brought this item forward. I mean, I'm sorry, the public safety committee. I'm missing my committee. Mr.. Mr.. Potter, can I the Chief prepared there to give some comments? Yes, he is. Chief Lunar. Chief and you might be muted. For people cheap lunar. Can you hear me? Hello? Yes, we can hear you. All right. Thank you, mayor and council members. Special orders affect our entire department. They're issued when we have an immediate or an urgent need to make an adjustment to policy or procedure. Special orders remain in place for revisions to current or the development of policies or take place. Our special orders are reviewed and signed by the Chief. Of Police. And eventually are archived in our Long Beach PD policy manual. While special orders are in place, a number of things continue to take place related to the special order. This includes revisions and adjustments to the order and or policy language, consultation and review as necessary by the City Attorney and human resources, as well as meeting confers with the impacted labor unions. And this includes employee feedback as well. Again, the special orders allow PD to make immediate adjustments during the formalized policy creation process. All employees must follow special orders as if they are policy. They're required to comply with rules and provisions in our department manual. So this came from a special order related to use of force, I believe this item from the Public Safety Committee and that is under development process to be archived in Long Beach PD Manual. This concludes my report and I can answer any. Questions you may have. I'll go back to Councilmember Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for that presentation on behalf of the Department. As was stated earlier this year, the Long Beach Police Department took significant steps to address issues around uses of force, the duty to intervene, de-escalation, and a number of other policies to improve their policing approach. These have been implemented throughout through a special order and are not currently included in the Police Department Operational Manual. However, these policies are currently in effect as a result of the special order. In this light, the Public Safety Committee recommends that the city manager work with our police department to implement these policies as permanent policy changes and add these to the Policy and Operations Manual. These are significant changes that will have a positive impact for every resident in the city as we develop and continue to refine our policing approach and methodology. I urge the Council to support this motion. Thank you. Councilman Orson. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you. Staff for the report. I certainly support this, but I would ask a follow up question. To Deputy Chief or Assistant Chief English to please outline what the special orders actually do. You know, these are specifically related to use of force and the legal. Authority to. Use force. I think these are very important, but also discussed to authorized training, negligent discharge of duty to intervene, de-escalation. These are all very, very important. I think topics that that are that are fundamental in our discourse and the fact that these special orders were put in place on January 16th of 2020 this year, I think is is noteworthy. And so could you please just outline the changes and what prompted the changes in the use of force policy? Special special orders related to use of force. That's that's fluid and ongoing. And what we do is we evaluate best practices, community input, legislative changes and things that are need an immediate course correction. A special order allows us to do that. For example, with you mention the use of force policy. In January of 2019, we issued. A special order that impacted our use of force policy because we needed to make sure that we. Had language. And definitions in our policy that were clear to our employees and to the community, and also describe the levels of force that were allowed by officers that can be anywhere from a control to a lethal force. In January of 2020, we issued our special order that based on and I talked a little bit about this at the Public Safety Committee meeting based on input from PERC, the Police Executive Research Foundation. And we added a reverence for human life at the heart of all of our use of force. This is where we added the definitions and the mandates for de-escalation. Duty to intervene, medical attention, and some of the other issues related to lethal force. Earlier this year, we issued a special order suspending the use of a credit restraint. We have an immediate need to address that issue. So we issued the special order and also a special order with some definitions and some clarification for no knock warrants . And so the special orders exist for us to address things that require. That immediate. Course correction for the police department. I hope that answers your question. I think it does. Thank you. And I appreciate that. Our police department is actually moving and. Has been moving to address these important. Policies within the department. I hope we can continue. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Vice Mayor Andrews. I know. No comment. Councilor Pearce. It's about that can get off me. I just wanted to say I appreciate the movement. I look forward to future conversations and glad to see that we're making some progress. Thank you. Councilor Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I want to echo that. I wasn't sure what this was a couple of weeks ago when we discussed it. I'm glad to see the back up materials here. I do remember this now when this when this came out. I want to make sure that the public understands what it means. These steps do make sense. I wasn't aware that we didn't have some of these on the books, but I think having this as a permanent policy, things like no knock warrants and you know, these are issues where the public really wants those things. So thanks to the Public Safety Committee for bringing this to the council. And I think we need to make sure that our policies, particularly sensitive policies, are displayed on the city website so people can know where the city of Long Beach stands on on some of these issues. So a good start. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any public comment? I'm sorry. Councilmember Price. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And I appreciate the comments from my council colleague. You know, one of the interesting things, as we've gone through this process and try to start the conversation and we're doing it on a citywide level, a council level and a committee levels are multiple committees. I'm sure we're trying to think about reforms and best practices that we can adopt. One, I will say, having started the process and going through the process, our police department has been really, really receptive to looking into and researching every issue. I know that I've brought to them and I know the same with my committee colleagues who brought items, everything we've brought forth. There's never been a no way that won't work. It's always been, well, that could work. Let us look into it. But more often than not, and I was really surprised, I have to admit, more often than not, the ideas that we have researched and are quickly bringing to the table at every public safety committee meeting, our police department has already research and implemented in some form. I'm not saying there's not a lot more work to do. There is, but I'm just saying that I was very much myself unaware of all of the different things that they are doing already. As part of this national conversation, at least beginning the implementation of several of the different reform methods and research information that we're getting now getting a hold of as members of the public. So I just wanted to acknowledge that with our police department. Things like bystander ship policies, for example, which I know is one that we're we're talking about currently in public safety. They've done a lot of great work. And in my response to a suggestion that they work with Georgetown University on a program they have there that freedom municipalities like are they were more than willing to reach out and start that conversation to enhance what they're currently doing. But I just want to acknowledge that there are a lot of things that I myself was unaware of. And I agree with Councilman Richardson. I think the policies are on the Web, but they're a little bit challenging to find. So if we can figure out how to showcase them a little bit better and make it more user friendly for people to access. You know, people don't know what they don't know. And so there's a lot of assumptions made. And if people are making assumptions about what we're not doing and we are doing it, then perhaps we're not doing a very good job of telling people what we're doing. So with that, I just want to thank the police department for the presentation. Thank you. Let's go do public comment. And I'm. I'm sorry. 1/2. Katherine Pierce, if you're another comment. I'm sorry about that. It's fine. I wanted to. It was good to hear Councilmember Pryce recognize. I think the fact that our PD does make changes, but either the council is not notified or the public is not notified. And I know that we're going to have many more conversations about not only PD use of force, but just the protocols in general . And the biggest thing that we can do for our constituents, for the residents in our city, is be transparent and open and be able to have information that's accessible to everybody. And so I wanted to just go on the record one more time of saying that I wholeheartedly support that notion. So thank you. Thank you. Let's do public comment. There are no public comments for this item. Okay. Okay. And let's go ahead and take a vote, please. District one, i. District two. I. District three. High District for. High. District five. I. District six. My District seven. I strict a strict nine. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. We have two items that are I know we can into contracts. And so I want to turn it over to the city manager to do EMS nine and 11. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we have a presentation by Dana Anderson on the item number 11. We're really excited to be in front of you tonight with some significant contracts in front of you for our employees. These are responsible contracts. They also have some significant savings and givebacks from our employees who recognize the seriousness of the financial issues that we have been facing. And they help us meet the $11 million goal set in the budget. And we will be bringing, hopefully, other contracts to you very soon on September 8th.

LongBeachCC_03202018_18-0260

Recommendation to request City Council to: (1) receive supporting documentation into the record and conduct a public hearing on two appeals of the Board of Harbor Commissioners' certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project filed pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.21.507 by Phillips Steel Company and Superior Electrical Advertising; and (2) adopt resolution denying the appeals and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners' certification of the Final EIR for the Project.

And then we'll go into the into the regular agenda, as we always do. And so with that, I do want to begin with our first hearing that we will be hearing this evening, which will which is the hearing related to our the Board of Harbor Commissioners action. And around the port, it's hearing number three. If you can please read this Madam Clerk. Report from. Harbor. Commission recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and conduct a public hearing on two appeals of the Harbor Commissioners Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the. Pier B. On Dock. Rail Support Facility Project. And adopt a resolution denying the. Appeals. Thank you very much. With that, I'm going to go and turn this over to our assistant city manager who will introduce the item. Or maybe someone else will be introducing the item. What is it? Okay, so we'll we'll have the hour. We'll go and start off with staff that will introduce the item. Okay. Hi. My name is Dawn McIntosh. I'm a deputy city attorney. As you see, the city manager is not here tonight, so I'll be teeing this up for you and filling you in on the process. The appeal. Before you is somewhat unique from the harbor department, so I'm going to go over the. Process. On January 22nd, 2018, the Board of Harbor Commissioners adopted a resolution. Which certified the Environmental Impact. Report for the Pier be on Dock Rail Support Facility. They made some associated findings that are required for that certification. And they approved. That project and issued a permit for development of the project. As you know, under the city. Charter, the Board of Harbor Commissioners has sole jurisdiction over projects in the port, such as this. Pier be on dock rail support facility project. However, under the city's. Municipal code section 21.20 1.507, the environmental determination under the California Environmental Quality Act. Which was made by the board for the project, may be appealed to this body to such appeals were. Filed by Phillip Steel Company and Superior Electric Advertising. And those appeals are before you tonight. And Madam City Attorney, I just want to make sure, just as a reminder for the clerk, before we do need to do so, before we do any sort of comment, we'll do the ask. Thank you very. The scope of the appeals before you tonight. Is quite narrow. The city council's. Jurisdiction is limited to a determination of whether the port's environmental review resulting in the final environmental impact. Report was adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council conducts a de novo review, which means that you. Judge the facts presented to you and you make your determination on the evidence without deference to this made by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. It's important to remember. However, that the Council is not considering the merits of the project itself. The only thing before you is the environmental determination. The process for the hearing will be as follows Port staff and appellants will each. Have 20 minutes to present. Port staff will begin. And present the staff report, which will take approximately 10 minutes. After their presentation, the two appellants will have 20 minutes to present their appeals divided among them as they choose. At that time, the port staff. Will respond with their rebuttal for the remainder of their 20 minutes. At this point, you may take public comment and then take it behind the rail. After you've received all the evidence, you have two options. First, you may deny the appeals and. Approve a resolution affirming the second determination made by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. Or you may grant one or both of the appeals, set aside the environmental. Determination, and remand the matter to the Board of Harbor Commissioners for further action. I'd like to introduce additional counsel who are here with me tonight. To my right is David Alvarez. He is also an attorney with the city attorney's office who handles matters for the harbor department. Behind me is Cathy Jensen of Routan and Tucker. She is an attorney who specializes in environmental matters and has been advising the port for some time. Also behind me is Heather Tom. She's the director of environmental planning. She will be presenting the staff report tonight. And next to her is Matt Armes, who is the assistant director of environmental planning. And with that, Mr. Mayor, I will turn it back over to you. Okay. Thank you. The as far as the additional part of the presentation, will you be doing that? I'm assuming the port staff will be doing that right now. Yes. Okay, then. Then if we can just hear from our harbor staff. Thank you. Good evening. Honorable Mayor Garcia, members of the city council, the harbor departments before you this evening to respond to two appeals that have been filed against the environmental impact report for the pier be on dock rail support facility project that was recently certified by the Harbor Commission will present a brief staff report describing the project, a summary of the appeals filed and our responses. Culminating an eight year process where the harbor department responded to over 300 comments on the draft air. Our board held a hearing on January 22nd where they heard presentations, the testimony of 42 public speakers, and they asked numerous questions. The Harbor Commission found the air to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or SEQUA, and approved the proposed project. The project is located in an industrial area southwest of Anaheim Street and the I-70 ten Freeway. Tracks from the facility connect to the iron dock, rail infrastructure in the terminals and trains depart the facility via the Alameda corridor. Rail is the most efficient, economical and least polluting means of moving cargo inland across the country. With the Pier B facility, the port seeks to enhance and expand the existing rail facility at the northern edge of our harbor district. The new facility would provide for longer arrival and departure tracks for today's longer trains. It would increase productivity at our terminals by providing them the ability to build longer trains on dock at their facilities with more storage and staging tracks. The result will be more efficient on dock rail operations to promote the transport of cargo containers on trains versus transport of cargo containers on trucks. To opt out of rail facilities, the project would also improve motorist and rail safety by eliminating an at grade crossing at the Ninth Street and Pico Avenue . The on dock rail support facility would be built in three phases over an estimated seven years. Construction of the project would create more than 1100 jobs. The approved project would expand the existing PRB rail facility from 12 tracks to 48 tracks, providing room to stage trains up to 10,000 feet long. Expanding this rail facility will carry out the goals of the port's master plan and Clean Air Action Plan and will allow more cargo to leave the port complex by rail versus having to go by truck. Currently, about one quarter of the cargo is loaded or unloaded within the port and moved by trains to meet our Clean Air Action Plan goals for improving air quality. Our aim is to increase the use of on dock rail to at least 35%. The potential impacts of the project were analyzed appropriately. Per SICA, using all of the relevant methodologies and all feasible mitigation measures were applied. All potential impacts associated with the project, construction and operation were properly disclosed. Following our board certification of the air. Two appeals were filed to the Long Beach City Council, representing the interests of Phillip Steel Company and superior electrical advertising. This figure shows the location of Phillips and Superior relative to the project site. The three locations owned by Phillips and the property leased by Superior are all located on Anaheim Street outside of the project footprint to the north. None of the properties have been identified for relocation or acquisition. The area where the project is located is zoned industrial, which is specifically slated for heavy industry manufacturing, railyards and port related and maritime industry facilities. The Harbor Department has provided detailed, written responses to each of the grounds for the appeals. I'll provide a summary of the key issues raised by both appellants. First, Phillips argues that various road closures will negatively affect traffic on Anaheim Street, obstruct access to its businesses and result in traffic delays. The air traffic analysis fully assess the operation of Anaheim Street during the peak construction activity and operations of the project did not identify any significant impacts. Phillips Employees and customers will continue to have direct access to each of Phillips facilities. Further, while travel times are not an environmental issue required for analysis and are secure, the estimated travel time delays of approximately 3 minutes are addressed and disclosed in the air. Also, the port is committed to work with businesses and contractors to develop a transportation management plan and will minimize impacts to the community and businesses during construction. Superior Electricals Appeal asserts that the air did not address the issue of train dust because this issue was not previously raised by Superior or any other commenter before or during the proceedings before the Harbor Commission as required under the Long Beach Municipal Code. This issue may not be appealed to the City Council, and the appeal on this ground should be denied. That said, particulate matter impacts associated with fugitive dust during construction and operation were appropriately analyzed in the air quality section of the air and the project will comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Requirements for dust control. Superior also appeals the determination excuse me, Superior also appeals the determination that the railyard is industrial in nature and that the railyard is compatible with neighboring businesses. The zoning designation in the vicinity of the project is industrial railyards or expressly permitted uses in the General Industrial District and the port related industrial district where the project is located. Ellipse also contends that the significant air quality impacts identified in the air will negatively affect their employees. The air appropriately analyzed the potential health effects of the project and identified that cancer and non-cancer health impacts from the project would be less than significant. Impacts from nitrogen dioxide would be significant and unavoidable, as was appropriately disco disclosed in the air. The area where Phillip's properties are located already experience high background levels of snow too, and the project's contribution is small in comparison to the background conditions. Furthermore, the potential and O2 exceedances at Philips locations are expected to be temporary and occur infrequently during construction. Next. Phillips claims that the scope of the sequence analysis is inadequate and the IIR provides no plan for acquisition, relocation or compensation for adjacent businesses. The air fully analyzed all of the potential environmental impacts in compliance with Sequa and demonstrates that there is no need to relocate or acquire businesses outside of the project footprint. Phillips also identified a comment letter submitted by Caltrans on the Draft de Air, where they recommended the Ninth Street alternative. The air analyzed potential impacts at numerous street intersections and roadway segments and did not identify any significant impacts associated with ground transportation as it relates to public safety. The removal of the A-grade crossing at Ninth Street would result in a public safety improvement. Recently, in a letter to the port. Caltrans expressed support for the project and the Harbor Commission certification of this secret document. Caltrans also stated that the objectives of the Pier B project run in parallel with those of the IE 710 corridor and Shoemaker Bridge projects which overlap with the footprint of this project, especially those objectives which seek to improve efficiency and safety across modes of travel. This letter has been provided in the staff report. Phillips also argues that access to emergency services included at the close, including the closest major hospital, were not sufficiently studied. While emergency response times are not an environmental issue covered by sequa unless new infrastructure is required. The air did describe the locations of emergency responders, which are located near and on all sides of the project. Fire Chief Terry testified at the board hearing that his department reviewed the project and concluded that there would be no significant impact to emergency response capability. Further access routes to the closest hospitals at St Mary Medical Center and Long Beach Memorial would not change as a result of the project. Finally, Phillips states that the air was difficult to follow, should have been recirculated due to a number of changes, and that findings were not supported. The changes that were made from the draft document to the final were appropriate under sequa and served to reduce the potential impacts associated with the project in response to the comments received. Further, the findings offered 65 pages of detailed, factually supported findings, and the appellant did not specifically identify what changes lacked factual support. Neither appellant has identified any flaw in the ER analysis or explained why the board certification of the final air was in error. Therefore, the appeals should be denied this evening as described by the City Attorney's Office and considering the merits of the appeals by Phillips Steel and Superior Electrical City Council as tasked with determining if the Harbor Department certification of the final air is in compliance with the requirements of SEQUA. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that, we're going to hear from the appellants. So we'll put the clock at 20 minutes total. If I can, please have the appellants. You can feel free to use your time however you would like. Can have both. The appellants please come down. And you'll both just use part of the time, I assume? Yes. Okay. Whenever you're ready, sir. Are we good? Yes. Can you please raise your right hand and say I do or I will at the end of the statement to you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give and the calls now in pending before this. Body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. I do. Good evening, honorable council members and other officials. My name is Darrell Phillips. I'm the proprietor of Phillips Steel Company here in Long Beach, a company that's been here for over 103 years. I'm no attorney. However, I have two general objections to the ports admitting the admitted rubberstamping approval of the C.A.R.. First, the proposed plan specifically creates unnecessary burdens for the on a number of local businesses to the point of actual destruction of companies, some of which have been pillars in our community and the city of Long Beach for over 100 years. The plan clearly designed to benefit the east side of the city while placing the costs of these benefits on your neighbors to the west side. This is patently unfair. And while the E.R. admits much of this discriminatory treatment, it is deceptive to the point of misleading. In its descriptions. Second, the proposed plan admittedly creates new levels of toxic pollution, health problems and destroys programs within our city that deal with the homeless, mental disorders and residents and others in need. It places the burdens associated with the unfettered expansion on those too poor or too conflicted to capably object. For these reasons, we ask the City Council to reopen the E.R. and request further findings towards mitigation and impact. More details as to these matters is found in the February 5th, 2018 appeal filed by our company, by our Council on behalf of our company, Philip Steel Company. Here are two purpose specific examples of my points. Just one part of the air admits that the project will materially increase nitrogen dioxide emissions. One of the most toxic emissions known demand short term exposure causes asthma, wheezing, hospital admissions and the E.R. visits. Long term exposure, which will admittedly occur with the port's plan, not only affects physical health of the people, but causes hazy air and nutrient pollution in our oceans. In its response, the report states that increases of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide are, quote, simply unavoidable. The port also concludes that the quote, quote project would also resort result in significant and unavoidable air emissions and health risks impacts on the cumulative impact level, unquote. These admissions occur just before the Port admits that the project will increase greenhouse gases higher than acceptable by the Southern California AQ, M.D.. How can the city knowingly enter into a program designed to generate new and unsafe levels of toxic air and water pollution? Maybe the port has determined this is to be in the best interests of the city and the Treasury. But I can imagine. That the class action lawyers are chomping at the bit. Another victim is the Long Beach Health and Human Services Building, which directly abuts the proposed new rails and my company. I am doubtful it is permitted to object to the project given the inherent conflict of interest. There will be noise, vibration, toxic pollution, interference with school, the homeless and the city's most vulnerable inhabitants. Let's just consider the noise. Noise is measured. Lager. I knew I was going to mess up this word. Lager and mythically. Close enough, for example. Normal conversion. Normal conversation is 60 to 70 decibels. A full blown rock concert is 125 decibels. However, a train horn is 152 decibels, equal to a jet taking off at about 25 meters. At this level. Eardrums burst. We do not see this addressed anywhere in the air. The port claims that we say now, the port claims that nothing we say now can interfere with its move forward. And none of the points we make are technically violations of sequel. For example, Square requires a ten day notice on the adoption of the final EIA. Did we get 11 days to analyze the thousands of pages before the port hearing? No, we got ten. We were supposed to have 90 days to consider the initial EIA, but the hearing was only 30 days after the last publication notice. So did the port technically technically comply? Perhaps, but it did so in a manner least designed to give notice and least designed to provide time to investigate and respond. We do not believe the City Council must simply. Sit back and allow the poor to hide behind technical defenses while its businesses and most vulnerable residential residents are devastated by the willful and knowing acts. Therefore. I ask you, please, to postpone your vote here this evening. Come to the west side. Meet us. Meet the people, meet the business owners, hear our concerns, work with us to formulate equitable and workable plans. If your goal is to disrupt the environment. Disrupt and displace businesses and its employees. If your goal is to cut off the West Side emergency services, if your goal is to impose detrimental health risks to your citizens. If your goal is to have a complaint in mandamus, then congratulations. You have succeeded. Please postpone your vote. Come meet us. Hear our story. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. And next, we'll have the next speaker in the appellant group. Pablo, do you have the remote? Good evening. My name is Stange Anoka, along with my partner, Jim Sterk. We are the owners of superior electrical advertising. Jim and I have worked together for 49 years, two thirds of my lifetime. So this is an emotional issue for me. I started at the bottom in 1969 after getting out of the out of the U.S. Navy. Worked my way up to management, went to school nights. And when the owner passed away in 1998, Jim and I purchased the company. We paid $7.1 million for the company. We borrowed. We mortgaged our houses. We did everything we could because we wanted to keep the business in Long Beach because somebody else wanted to buy the company and move it to Orange County. Superior has 125 employees. Of these 112 125 employees, 43 are Long Beach residents. One third of our workforce are Long Beach residents. I am. I am. I'm a Long Beach resident now. I'm in your district. So when we have an option to hire somebody, if we have equal, you know, equal people we chose, if one lives in Long Beach, we checked we chose the people, though whoever lives in Long Beach, we worked two shifts. We have employees on site inside and outside our building for 22 hours a day. We do over $25 million a year in signs and we pay a lot of taxes. According to the air, my back gate is 125 feet from the first rail track. If you turn around and you look at the picture right behind you, that's how far that's how close the trains are going to be to our business. This is the wrong project for the west side. Remember, the West Side also includes schools and homes east of the L.A. River. These are these homes and these schools will be affected. We are we had breakfast with Mr. Gonzalez last week, and we're talking about the issues of the of the trains. And there was an issue brought up about the train whistles. Mr. Gonzalez noted that she can hear the train whistles in her downtown home. So I'm wondering how loud will the whistle be at Cesar Chavez School and at Edison School when there are ten blocks closer than the downtown area to those rail yards? It's a it's a that L.A. River is not that wide and the tracks are right on the other side of the L.A. River. Let's talk about the west side. The west side industrial area is own I.G. Industrial general. The I.G. Drift District is intended to promote an industrial area where land is preserved, preserved for industry and protect it from non-industrial uses. A rail yard is not industrial use. There are some 300 businesses on the West Side, 2000 workers, 2000 men and women. How will they be protected from a 48 yard rail yard? The rail yard does not fall into the IG classification. It's not right for that area. What does a what does a 48 yard rail yard look like? It looks like that that's what 48 tracks looks like. If you look at the picture behind us, that's that's 48, that's 44, 45 rows. So it's massive. That's going to be in my back yard. Well, let's talk about Superior. We are in the old Coca-Cola bottling building. I invited everyone. I invited all of you to. To come and meet with us. And the only Lena had breakfast wasn't a talked about it, but she's been to our plant many times, and Al Austin sent his deputy down to to meet with us and see what we do. It's hard for you to realize how close and how much the train is going to affect affect us without being there firsthand. And Darrell Phillips was right when he said that you should postpone this and come down and take a look firsthand. We have a 50,000 square foot manufacturing plant and a 50,000 square foot open yard. We work in the open yard and store finish lines in the yard. We manufacture high end signage. Here we are. What are the most expensive flying companies on the West Coast? At any time there can be a half a million dollars worth of product finished science sitting in our yard ready to install. Our clients are businesses like McDonald's, Starbucks, CBS, Disney, Universal, Dunkin Donuts, The Giant, don't it, on Seventh Street and PCH for Dunkin Donuts. We did that, don't it? The the sign you see in front of the Performing Arts Center facing facing Ocean Boulevard. We did that sign, Gladstone's, the Pike Parking Structure. Our signs are in every district in Long Beach and not only in Long Beach, but across the country. So I'm just wondering how we can do business, you know, a stone's throw from our backyard. We're going to have whistles blowing all day long, screeching train wheels, metal on metal, coupling and uncoupling all day long. Especially the crushing sound coupling makes air pollution that wouldn't include dust that will affect the product we have in our yard . And Blythe, tell me how we do, how we entertain clients, clients, many of them looking at finished products in our back yard. How do we protect our products? Signs that are 100,000, $200,000 signs? You know, you can spend an hour and air anywhere you want. Nobody writes or presents a bad idea. According to the air, the port plans to use electric trains in the rail yard, but diesel locomotives will be used to pick up the 10,000 foot long trains. Not one diesel, but four or five diesels, maybe more. I learned yesterday that what's going to happen is that there will be two diesels in the front and two diesels in the rear. That means that diesel engines will have to come from the Wilmington area all the way across the rail yard to the east side, where they will get to that will where they will get on the back of a 10,000 foot train and push the train. So these diesels are going to travel through our backyard. The Earth states that this rail yard meets all Section eight UMD guidelines. But read a couple of lines in the air on page 11 dash tool for the four areas of environmental concern. Noise, vibration, air quality and transportation have been thoroughly evaluated in the draft. EIA only air quality impacts have been determined to be significant. On page 11, Dash 212, after considerable analysis determined there will be less than to say that these will be less than significant. The only exception being air quality impacts, which were determined to be significantly adverse. So air quality will be significantly adverse. If I stay here 125 feet for the rail yard, I will be subjecting my employees to noise and significantly adverse air quality. The first time one of my employees has a breathing issue. I smell a lawsuit. So what can Superior do? Not much. We can close our doors. After 62 years, we can. We can just shut our doors down to. We can move. But moving a company of our size is probably more expensive than we can afford. And move. Where? How do we find a 50,000 square foot building with a 50,000 square foot open yard, which we need? There are no properties in Long Beach that are available at beginning of this presentation. I said it's an emotional issue for me. It's an emotional issue for my partner, too. We've been working together for nearly 50 years and we have many employees that have been there for 20 years, 30 years, and we have our two sons there , my son and my partner's son. They've been with us for over 25 years. Our legacy was to leave the company to our sons one day. Well, that may not happen, you know, or if it does happen, it's going to be very difficult. Approving the railyard in its present format is the wrong decision for the West Side. Because we do not fall in the footprint of the rail yard. The Port of Long Beach position is that we are not directly impacted. Important words directly impacted. I strongly disagree that 125 feet from that yard is directly impacted. The port of Long Beach and the city of Long Beach will be changing the lives of many people. There are studies done by many universities across the country on rail yards, and they all conclude residents and employees near rail yards are expected to suffer asthma, cardiac disease, cancer, premature, premature death and at a higher rate than someone who lives four miles from a rail yard. You can see the trains, but you can't see the air pollution. The rail yard is wrong for superior. It is wrong for Philip Steele. It is wrong for everyone south of Anaheim Street. It is in the wrong. It is it is wrong for the entire West Side. I got it. One minute left. Good. You know, we met with the port yesterday. They came down to our facility. Not the first time. We've met one couple of times. We've met up with them at their office. And, you know, I think the port can see that the up the property south of Anaheim Street between Anaheim and 12th Street are in a zone and everybody in that zone is affected. Everybody in that zone is going to lose business. They're going to be hurt. They're going to be sick. They're just too close to that property. A 12 foot buffer is not enough. So I think you just need to really think of what you're doing to a half a dozen businesses that are in that limbo area. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. And we're going to go ahead and go back to the hearing order. And we do have now an opportunity for rebuttal from staff. So please. Thank you. Sir. Please, I the it's part of the hearing that will happen. So I will have it handled. So. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. Thank you. The Environmental Impact Report Process, the development of the process for this project has been going on for eight years, and it's been a process that we've taken very seriously. We've done our due diligence and preparing all of the technical analyzes, looking at all of the opportunities to reduce the impacts of the project to the extent feasible, and making sure that we have a robust process. As we went through this, we had numerous meetings in the community with different groups. We also. Had all of the required. Processes under secure with proper notifications, proper review times for the draft document. We're required under Sequoia to have a 45 day review period. When the draft document was released, we extended that comment period to 90 days and we held three public hearings as opposed to the one that's required. We also had the public hearing with our board when they certified the document and we had the documentation out under that, the required times for that. We feel that we've had a very robust process. We've had numerous meetings with the appellants that have presented before you today as well, and we will continue to work with them to address their concerns as the project moves forward through the design, the construction and the operation phases. The project did. Identify the analysis, did identify that there will be significant and unavoidable impacts for nitrogen oxide emissions at the through the analysis near the. Project area. And those impacts will occur during construction and operation. Looking specifically at the locations for the appellants for Philips, there was a receptor that we used for the modeling that identified that the impacts will be infrequent during the construction process and and that the majority of the impacts to NOx are actually coming from the background conditions. And the project contribution adds about a quarter of the the impacts that are seen at that site. But the 75% of the impacts are actually from the background conditions. There were no significant impacts identified from no noise and vibration associated with the project and also for the traffic evaluation. There were no significant traffic impacts from the project and. All of the appropriate sensitive receptors. We did look at residences. We did look at schools for both noise and air quality analyzes, and there all of the potential impacts to sensitive receptors. We're also properly disclosed within the document. The rail yard is an appropriate use for this location. It is located within the port industrial zone and rail yards are explicitly listed and listed as a eligible use. And in that area and building our additional rail infrastructure is consistent with our port master plan and our Clean Air Action Plan . If I may, I would just. Kathy Jensen with the law firm of Ratana Tucker, the city is secure attorney on this project. I would like to point out that secure is a disclosure requirement. It does not preclude the City Council from approving a project or the the Board of Harbor Commissioners from approving a project that has significant impacts. There are requirements to mitigate to the extent possible. There were findings made that this project has mitigated to the extent possible all of the impacts, not any of the appellate issues are saying that there was a disclosure that wasn't made. Instead, they are referring to disclosures that were made in the air. There was a reference to there only being 30 days from the closure of the comment period to the approval of the project. That is incorrect. The comment period closed on March 13, 2017, and the hearing before the board was not until January 12, 2018. And I think that's the only other issue. At this time, I'd also like to conclude with comments from our executive director, Mario Cordero. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. And members of the City Council. The Pier B on dock rail support. The City project. It was an essential component to the port's mission of being the green port of the future and furthering our commitment to sustainable development. As you may know, in 2017, the port had its best year, moving 7.5 million containers. Best. In our 107 year history. The Pier B project not only enhances efficient movement of container cargo. But also in addition mitigates potential roadway congestion. And clearly and I will say again and clearly a less polluting freight transport system. You have heard commentary on both sides and both sides admit there's been a lot of dialog. There has been meetings. The port has never been dismissive of the concerns. And we will continue to commit to engage with our stakeholders and engage with those impacted, whether directly or indirectly. And thus, I would respectfully request that the Council confirm and affirm the certification of the final Environment Environmental Impact Report for their Pier B on Dock Rail Facility Project. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Kudo. I appreciate that. We're going to go into public comments. And Madam Clerk, do we need to do an oath for anyone that is going to make public comment and city attorney? We need to do that. Should we do one, one, one Big Arthur? I think. Did the earlier oath handle it for the speakers. Or do you need to do that now? The oath was for the. Speakers, the. Appellants. So no, nothing. If not, no need for public comment. Not for public comment. Okay. So. So now we will. You know, I'm not. Guys, please, no one. No one. Talk from the audience. We've got a handle. Thank you very much. Now we're going to be having public comment on the hearing. So if you're here to comment on the hearing, please come forward. Thank you. Hello. I'm Stephanie Dora, resident of Long Beach and business owner here, who will be very close to the proposed project. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, I implore you to consider the job you were elected to do to serve this great city and as the people who live in it. Please be mindful that the vote you cast here today has a very real effect on and carries risks for the city of Long Beach and its people. The votes cast today in this room will change the city and its landscape forever. They may very well carry negative effects for Long Beach as citizens and businesses for years to come. Once you cast your votes, there are no do overs, no take backs, and you will be personally responsible beyond the reaches of your time on this council. The proposed pier be on dock rail support facility project is more dangerous than the ER report let on only more in-depth studies and considerations can prove that it will have very little effect on minimizing the number of trucks on the road and will inevitably increase pollution. It will obliterate small businesses on the west side of Long Beach, isolate its inhabitants and limit routes to downtown, thus decreasing access to restaurants, shopping, parks, meeting places and other vital resources, all of which will impact downtown businesses, residents and employees. Past studies following completion. Of other cities rail. Yards have proved that with rail yards come increases in crime, illness, pollution, unemployment and decline in property value. As a business owner and a resident here in this city. I am all too aware of the importance of responsible. Usage of car compliant equipment and the need for improvements in the transportation industry. But more trains so close to schools, houses and our main tourist attractions is not the answer for the city of Long Beach. Unlike other cities such as San Bernardino, L.A. or Oakland, just to name a few, we are a very small city. Our industrial parks are in very close proximity to the rest of our city. The estimated reach of pollutants from trains found in studies from places like London, China and even parts of the US suggest that they reach up to four miles. Ladies and gentlemen. Four miles goes a very long way here in Long Beach. Increases in cancer, asthma. Noise, dust and carbons will be painfully noticeable here in our beloved city. The negative impact on my family's business personally will include but not be limited to increases in noise pollution. Increase air pollution such as carbons and dust affecting myself, my. Indoor and outdoor employees. Increased maintenance costs to equipment such as filters, engine maintenance, upkeep and vehicle security. Decreased terminal access. Decreased access to and from our facility. Decrease in property value, increase in security costs. Potential changes to the heavyweight corridor. Increase in disruption of day to day operations, especially in the office. Thank you. Very much. Thank you. No problem. Next speaker, please. Gavin, your mayor. City council executive staff. My name is National Medrano. I represent the Los. Angeles, an Orange County building and Construction Trades Council, which comprises of 140,000 hardworking men and women in construction. And we're here to support the staff. Recommendation to move forward with construction appear to be the port must remain competitive. Trade moving through the port of Long Beach sustains more than 300,000 jobs in southern the southern California region, including 40,000 jobs in Long Beach. Construction of this. Facility could generate over 1100 jobs. The project would allow the port to move more cargo, more efficiently, continuing to sustain jobs and generate economic. Opportunities while reducing emissions and traffic. Cargo would be moved to and from Pier B only on trains. Each onboard trains saves up to 750 truck trips between the port and half dock rail yards. The proposed project will have a port wide project labor agreement that will support 40% local hire in the Los Angeles and Orange County's 15% disadvantaged worker go 10% of veteran worker go and 30% apprenticeship provision. This will be this will provide for many apprenticeship opportunities for communities, for the young people coming up here in the community. Thank you for your support of working men and women. And again, we urge you to support the staff recommendation. Good evening. Thank you very much. And I am right to your point and just about a minute, 15 seconds. So I appreciate that. So we have a lot we have a long agenda, sir. Obviously, if you are able to to to make the time a little shorter, that helps the process. So thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. I'm Tiffany Rao, director of government public affairs for Endeavor, speaking on behalf of our terminal and pipeline operator and the Port Tesoro SoCal Pipeline Company, LLC. We support the overall goal goals of the Pier B project, but we share some of the appellants concerns about the project's construction impacts, including potential effects on air quality traffic and circulation, emergency access and business disruption. We are committed to working with the port to resolve our concerns that construction of the project could require removal and or relocation of over 200 utility pipelines, including over 75 oil pipelines. Removal of hundreds of utility lines could result in significant disruption of the port's operations. And these disruptions would also directly affect our operations, our customers, public utilities and numerous other operators at the port. The impacts will disproportionate disproportionately burden to Thora. So Cal Pipeline Company who operates 15 active lines that require relocation. We have spelled out these concerns in our March 13, 2017 letter comments and commenting on the draft e.r. And again in the January 22nd 28 letter. On the final e.r. We have identified a solution that could significantly reduce these potential impacts, minimize disruption and limit unnecessary construction costs by allowing active pipelines to be protected and abandoned in place and safely abandoned. Inactive pipelines using accepted best practices and abandonment activities are strictly regulated by the U.S., D.O.T. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the California State Fire Marshal that prescribes certain steps for formal abandonment of pipelines, including the disconnection, purging and stealing of abandoned lines left in plant place in addition to regulatory obligations. The owner of an abandoned line continues to have potential liability for any nuisance or hazard that may be created by leaving pipe in the ground. Long Beach's Pipeline Ordinance Section 15.44.150. Provision for abandonment of a facility specifically authorizes abandonment in place when there is no detriment to the public interest. We ask and ever ask the city to consider development of a memorandum of understanding that identifies which pipelines need to be removed, if any, and which can be safely abandoned in place and establish specific timeframes for completion of all necessary relocation. Again, Endeavor supports the port's Pier B on Dock Rail Project, and we ask for your support, support and direction to staff to work with us to achieve a solution. Thank you. And I'm available to answer any questions on this matter. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Members John Hanna, Governmental Affairs Director for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. Happy Nowruz. Council Members Price. I want to also thank the Council, particularly the Mayor and Councilman Nine and Councilwoman Price for your efforts to keep open community hospital of Long Beach. I would say on this the Carpenters strongly support the Pier B project, but I want to remind you what your mission is here tonight. Your charge, it's to deal with the certification of the air so it's not on the substance. So much was discussed on the process and on the process. There's been no evidence tonight that the city failed to comply with the requirements under SEQUA. In fact, they gave additional time, as your deputy city attorney reported, for people to come forward. And in fact, tonight we heard an admission that there was sufficient time by one of the appellants, but not one fact was ever presented that they were unable to produce in that timely manner to justify an extension of time. So I think that the city has the staff has has put it forward. And I think particularly the last item, the deputy city attorney said that 75% of the negative impacts, some of the stuff that was highlighted in one of the appellant's comments in paper is already there in the background. We think on the on the balance, this is a great project. It's not going to mean a lot of jobs for Southwest Carpenters. It will mean some. But for the over 2000 carpenters members and family members who live in the city of Long Beach, it means that this port will continue to be competitive. You've got people in Savannah, you've got people in Canada who want to take this business. This is the engine that drives the city council members. And this project will do two things. It will increase the velocity of moving those those goods, which makes us more competitive. But second, in the keynote for this city is that it's going to do it in a green way, reduce the pollution. That's what makes Long Beach unique. With all the ports, you're the greenest port in the country. Let's keep it that way. Thank you. Mr. Hanna. Next speaker, please. Late evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members and staff. My name is Diego Gomez. I'm a resident of Long Beach. I'm also a 15 year member of the IBEW. Our body is a membership of over 1200 12,000 excuse me, members here in the greater L.A. area. We're here in support of the project for various reasons. And I will be very brief. Pier B on dock projects supports well over 1100 jobs here locally. The potential to save 750 transportation trucks between the dock and the rail station adjacent to us is. A large benefit as. Well. But the most important part is the key infrastructure. That's for improvements for the dock, which will keep it competitive. We support this primarily because of the play components that do encourage local hires not only for veterans but disadvantaged workers as well. It aids in alleviating congestion in our local highways and streets, alleviating a lot of our membership, having to drive out to larger areas of the greater Los Angeles area. We fully support this project and the ability to provide good middle class wages for our membership and others that would benefit directly from the project. In conclusion, we ask that you deny the appeal, as well as urge the full council support in bringing the project forward. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Camilla Khatami. I'm a resident of Long Beach. And here today I'm representing the Hubbard Harbor Association of Industry and Commerce. We urge your support in the 12th Street option of the proposed Pier B rail yard project, which you will be considering as part of your review of the project's final earth. This project is vital to keep the Port of Long Beach competitive and meet the environmental goals outlined in the updated Cap Clean Air Action Plan. With the development of the Pier B rail yard project. Short haul truck trips will be reduced greatly, as will the emissions associated with them. These are factors that our membership considers as necessary to remain competitive in our industry. The Port of Long Beach has a strong track record of supporting their customers and tenants. We are certain that this air has sufficiently address safety, air quality and efficient goods movement. Without the Pier B facility, the port cannot meet their near-term goal of moving 35% of containers via on dock rail or reach the eventual goal of 50%. It is the best option to accommodate future cargo growth and boost the economic activity while sustaining the 30,000 jobs in Long Beach that depend on the city's port. We strongly urge you to vote in favor of it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Lupe Valdez. I'm with Union Pacific Railroad. I'm the director of public affairs and I'm here in support of the project. We believe any time the ports can do projects of this magnitude that make everything more efficient for us, that's also a reduction in emissions. Any time you can have operations that clearly cut down on drainage, that moves. I have the near dock facility, you pitas and that's a four mile facility. And when you have facilities on dock that don't have rail service, this would provide for some of those smaller, smaller moves to all be connected into one train. I do want to tell you that the previous speaker mentioned about how we accommodate for the engines on a train. A lot of what is happening in terms of that's called distributed power. And what happens is that actually makes the train run more efficient and use less fuel. Even though you see those locomotives, the head locomotive is the one managing that train and it can really help a lot with efficiency in terms of reduction of fuel use. And that's something that's always very important to us. And with that, I thank you very much for allowing me to speak. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. My name is Elizabeth Warren and I'm the president and CEO of Dialed In Partners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm here as a community stakeholder, business partner with the port. And I want to express my support of the Pier B project. And to urge the. Council to support the staff's. Recommendation for the final. Year. The port staff has done its due diligence over the years and has. Completed the environmental process above and beyond what is required. As you know, I've been a supporter of green growth, an efficient, efficient cargo movement for many years. That is why this added infrastructure is so important in order to move that cargo by rail to. Support the on dock. Marine terminals. It's not only important to our communities to get the containers on rail, we also need to keep our port competitive. The Port of Long Beach is the busiest seaport in the United States. And however, we need. To do everything we. Can. To keep our goods moving. Industry here in Southern California, to keep the cargo in the. Hundreds of thousands of jobs supported by that cargo here and not diverted to other regions or to other countries. Modernizing the port and greening. The port. Go hand-in-hand. This project is. Another example of how the. Port of Long. Beach can modernize and go green. At the same time. It's a key. Component, and it's critical to the future development of the Port of Long Beach. So I again urge the port. Excuse. Me to urge the Council. To approve the final EMR. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Thanks so much, Nick. Speaker, please. Good evening, Dr. Mayor. Robert Garcia, Vice Mayor Richardson. My name is Jessie Equity with. POTUS. I am representing the Long Beach Chamber Government Affairs Committee with our 800 members. We really, really, really urge you to support this project for reasons you've heard and four reasons you're going to hear. Please support the Harbor Commission's decision, and we thank you for your support. Thank you. Thank you. Everyone's been keeping it under under 10 minutes, so we're going to step. There's not any objection. We're going to go down to 2 minutes. Just set the timer there. We'll continue. Good evening, Mayor. City Council. My name is Thomas Jellinek. I represent. PMC. We represent the marine terminals and ocean carriers that are the customers of the Port of Long Beach. We're here to urge you. This evening to support. The port's decision on certifying the air. This project will do three things. One, improve the port's competitiveness. And as you've already heard, competitiveness is key. To this port and retaining the cargo that flows through these ports. Two, it will benefit the community. It will benefit the community through shifting cargo from trucks, through trains, reducing congestion, and thereby improving the environment. And third, it will create jobs and retain the jobs that this port. Creates in this. Community and throughout the region. For those three reasons, I urge you to support this project and affirm the port of Long. Beach, the port of Long Beach, its decision. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is Mining Premiere. I'm the interim executive director for Future Ports. I am. I'm here tonight on behalf of our 57 member companies, many of whom are based right here in Long Beach, to emphasize our support for the Pier B project and the staff recommendation. During the IR public comment period, we submitted comments in support of the project with requests to ensure that the project coordinate with utilities, some of whom you have heard from tonight, as well as with the Skegg rail yard for future development. And we are confident that as the project moves forward, the port will work closely with stakeholders, including our members. The Pier Beyond Dock Rail Project is vital to keep the Port of Long Beach competitive and meet environmental goals outlined in the 2017 update of the CAP. The project would provide more truck space to connect smaller train segments coming and therefore increase port efficiencies. Future port is dedicated to supporting sustainable growth at the San Pedro Bay Ports complex, and we believe this project is a strong example of a project that provides improved port operations, improved air quality and reduce congestion and will lead to more jobs for Long Beach residents. For those reasons, I urge you to vote to uphold the approval of the air by the Harbor Commission. Thank you. Thank you so much, Nick Speaker. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Council members, my name is Jessica Alvarenga. I'm with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. And I'd like to share our. Support for the Pier B project. It was initially approved by the Harbor Commission in January for its. Benefits in improving port. Competitiveness. And environment. And the environment by adding on dock rail capacity. This project will make. Port operations more efficient. While alleviating future truck. Congestion. Additionally. There will be a smaller. Number of trucks on the road. And the project. Construction will. Create much. Needed jobs in the community. This project will improve efficiency. Without increasing pollution. It will reduce. Truck. Congestion and create jobs. Please support the Pier B here. Thank you. Thanks so much, nick speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and City Councilmembers. My name is Kendall Asuncion, and I'm here on the left on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. We are here to express our support for the air for the Port of Long Beach Pier beyond our rail facilities, as needed to move more cargo on dock, which will both improve efficiency and reduce pollution. The improvements will increase track space to connect smaller train segments and connect the cargo terminals, enhancing the system and increasing rail use, which will eliminate truck trips and congestion at the ports and throughout the region. Pier B on dock rail facilities will leverage the port's existing investments in rail, which will continue to have positive ripple effects to the community, including improved air quality, reduce poverty, reduce pollution, decrease congestion and construction, which will generate new jobs in the area. It will also play a key role in meeting the near-term goal of moving 35% of containers via undock rail. Given these useful benefits, the Chamber urges the Council to uphold approval of the EIA for the by the Harbor Commission. Thank you and have a good evening. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and City Council members. My name is Paige Polonius and I am here to speak on behalf of Assemblymember O'Donnell's strong support for the Pier B Project. Pier B expansion will reduce harmful emissions, reduce truck traffic congestion and increase port efficiency. To put it simply, this project will help the port become greener. Leaner and more. Competitive. For these reasons, Assemblymember O'Donnell is in strong. Support of. This project. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Speaker, please. My name is Paul Collins. I'm an architect in Long Beach in the West Side. I'm here representing the West Side Project Area Committee. We are firmly right now behind the port as far as we want the port to expand and we always try to be on the port side. But the pollution aspect of this has not been looked at carefully at all when I read through the air. And all the items that were checked that there was no significant impact. They weren't certainly talking about the industrial area. The only industrial area where heavy industrial can occur in Long Beach is in the West Side, and the pollution for us is going to be much greater than it is now. Already within a mile of the port, we have cancer rates and asthma rates up to 800% higher than any other part of Long Beach. And the trains are going to indefinitely produce more pollution for us. The trains that leave the port, they go through and they and they go long term. Those were not part of the port's environmental impact study. Those trains are a different type of train, and the port cannot control the people that own those trains and tracks on what kind of engines they burn. We've had we've taken pictures of these trains leaving long term and they have black soot coming out of them and they produce as much, if not more pollution than the trucks would. The businesses in the West Side have had good access for the city and for the to the city and to the port, and that's going to all be cut off. So all the businesses that require access to the port to get their items that they build in West Long Beach out of the port are not going to have the same access that they have now. And some of them have heavy loads and large loads. That hasn't been considered at all because they go up Santa Fe right now and Santa Fe is going to be closed off. And that does not work for several of the larger companies that have many jobs and have many people working for them that won't be able to get their items to the port to get them out of the country. Thank you very much, sir. Good evening, Mayor Garcia Garcia and council members. I'm keep this short. I'm a professional carpenter and I lived in the West Long Beach area all my life. I live two miles away from the project and I am for Pier B project. So I agree. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Even Mayor Garcia and council members. And thank you for this time and opportunity. My name is Ted Humanas and I'm a representative with the Southwest Regional Council of the Carpenters. And what I have with me today is carpenters. Stand up, building trades, stand up. These are people here a few and quite a few are outside. And we're here to let you know that we support the project. I'm sure you heard all the details. I'm not going to be redundant. This is about hard work that's going to provide a lot of construction jobs. We're about a middle class living, health care pension with dignity. And whenever that opportunity is available, like you're offering here, we're strong supporters that we represent over 50,000 carpenters just in the southwest, 30,000 carpenters plus here in Southern California, along with the building trades . We urge you to support this project. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. I'm an employee of a heavy industrial. Manufacturing company. In West Side, Long Beach. My understanding is the whole thing of tonight is just. Questioning her. About the environmental impacts are not good publicity. I was just wondering about the vibration impact because that has. A direct impact on precision manufacturing. And the train just in and of itself has an impact. And I don't think that that came up. Definitely things you can do about it. Right. But I don't think that that was brought up in the environmental report. So maybe that's something to look at. As well as the inevitable rerouting of the heavyweight corridor and the associated environmental impact as a current project directly impacts the heavyweight corridor. So I guess the question would be we need to kind of assess how it was evaluated and take a closer look because there's there are things we can do about the impact. Just we need to know what the impact is accurately. Right. But fair consideration, I guess. Thanks so much. Next speaker, please. Thank you, Mayor. City Council. My name is Lee Wilson. I own a piece of property at 1520 West 11th Street that is right underneath the railyard. The building will disappear. We've owned that property since 1965. I have a tenant down there today doing some very crucial work not only for this port, but for the country on some of the specialized handling that he does. He has no idea the future of his business. But I'm not here to speak against the air. I'm going to address the fact that and request that council postpone their approval of this tonight until they can convene a meeting and another hearing to where probably the dozen or two dozen people that were outside that have not been able to get in have left out of frustration. Because when I got here about 20 minutes before, there was a 100 yard line, long line, and it just grew and grew. If I had not been forceful at the door with the police department, I would not be in here myself. I want to thank I did talk to Mario and I talked to Rick camera. And I know Rick went out and got the fire marshal to go out, try to get people in. My buddy Larry here and other impacted business is here. But I don't think that the pop, you know, the people being impacted that have skin in the game had adequate time to address the council and raise their issues. I, I can thank the port and I am totally positive that they follow every rule in Sitka. I'm very familiar with the square and the processing, but I think the council as a whole has left the stakeholders down, not allowing enough of them into the meeting to hear the appellants. I only got to hear Superior did not hear the Phillips Company, which I missed. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, Mr. Mayor Garcia and council members. My name is Lawrence Mihara and I'm with 435 Seafood, Long Beach Sportfishing, Queen's Wharf Restaurant in the Port of Long Beach. And I want to talk about my opposition to the approval of the air in the air, or the response states that our business is not significantly impacted yet. In the first paragraph in black and white in the report, the project eliminates 53 parking spots. We already are unable to accommodate our customers with sufficient parking spaces, particularly on the weekends. There are no overflow lots and no alternatives for parking. To state that reducing our parking lot by approximately 25% is not significant is to ignore the facts and nature of our business located there, which are popular with the community. This is one of the only places in the port where local community has access to the port. The response states that no building will be affected. But just I just learned in a meeting with the port design team that Pico Boulevard, essentially a multiple lane highway, will be 12 feet from my from the corner of my building to state that no building will be affected also ignores reality. And I also want to talk about the air quality will be adversely affected for our employees and customers. The report admits that the air quality is significantly worse as a result of the nitrous oxide levels that are beyond the federal threshold levels. And yet it says this is not a significant fact. It defies common sense to say that doubling the number of rail tracks and trains and having tracks and road 50 feet closer to our business will not significantly increase pollution and affect our business. Our restaurant is mostly outdoors with people sitting outside. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. And it looks like we're nearing the end of the speaker's list. So we will be our last speakers that are here in line for this hearing. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Members of the City Council. My name is when I was meeting with the Regional Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. We're here to support business development. We support the Hispanic business community as well. We're here in favor of the Pier B on dock project. We're here because we support the jobs that it will generate. Trade through the port sustains about 300,000 jobs in the Southern California region. 30,000 of those jobs are in Long Beach. This project alone will be over about 1100 jobs, that it'll create it a lot more at the port to move more cargo more efficiently, generate more opportunities while maintaining low emissions, reducing traffic as well. The chamber supports the project. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Port. Port. I remember I adjudicate on employment law and some of the people, the attorneys who were called that office won it and adjudication determination in their favor simply because they were attorneys. Never mind that they were defrauding the people who were fired. When I heard this, and I'm sitting there with no real particular interest, and then my mind just skirted back to the airport argument. How beneficial it would have been financially, how the international community would have had access to Long Beach wanting to bring the Olympics here. And you got the aquarium that put this of the Pacific that you just gave $53 million to do. And the jobs that would have been created long term had you brought in International Airport to Long Beach. Why didn't you do it? You didn't do it because your rich clients didn't want it. That's why you didn't do it. They wouldn't have voted for you again, some of you, if you had brought that international airport that, you know, would have been of large global impact to Long Beach. It would have brought put Long Beach on the map like none other. But you voted no. Why did you do it? And now you're willing to say yes to this? Hypocrisy is terrible. The souls of men are being bought and sold here because the poorest of the community of Long Beach live there. And you don't care about it. Even though you're going to have jobs, you're going to have an international influence. But you said no to an international airport. You have a tunnel. The airport. You don't have a big boy airport. And why not? Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And we love our we love our airport as it is. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Grady Mayor, the city council. My name is Tony Rivera. Most of you know me already. I was former chair of RTA on the West Side. And I will I will tell you to everyone, this project, I am not opposed to this project, but it's been done incorrectly. When we were talking about a long time ago, we were talking about Unite Long Beach, not divide it. Now Long Beach. The problem is decided to divide us. Put a rail wall in there so we don't go to the port. Number one problem. Number two, problem. They just said that we're going to have a clean, local motors for the neighborhood. I got burials right now with the locomotives coming in and contaminate all the west and downtown Long Beach with all this smog. There's not been taking care of it. So that's the second thing is bad. The third one is that the ships are coming in 40 miles. They come in slow, but everybody's talking about trucks and trucks leaving the trucks alone. They already clean, concentrate on the ships 40 miles, even 100 miles up in the air. All the contamination comes to downtown and you can go see my yard on Sundays. How black it is for that smoke when the ships and the rail. Now, I'm going to tell you this. We need to work together and we I will ask you to send it back to the public, have some hearings. The port knows they need to go back and do the engineering at work. We cannot screw American people over international trade. You guys are elected by American people, not by the we're all agents and everybody. And and I would make a little point in here. And, you know, we always get unions from other cities to come in and support these projects. We live in lobbies. I spent 18 hours for the last 40 years alone. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that concludes the public comment part of the hearing. We're going to go and close public comment and come back to the council for deliberation. So let me begin with Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you, everybody, for being here tonight. I know that you have been through many different meetings, and so I will speak very shortly as you have. And we appreciate your time here. I want to thank everyone, particularly Darryl Phillips and Stan, to Nokia, as well as the West Side industrial area businesses. They have I've met with them about five or six different times over the last year, both my staff and myself. I've also worked very closely with our first district former first District Council member and Port Commissioner, Bonnie Lowenthal. We actually deci each other yesterday and chatted about this as well. And I want to thank our harbor commissioners as well as our harbor staff Rick, Samantha, Nina, Heather, Matthew, as well as our president, Mario Cordero. I've connected with everybody to make sure that we're getting this just right. And as you've heard here, you know, Phillip steal superior signs. I think the average time that the West Siders have been in business and invested out there has been probably it's the average is probably 60 years or so. Those businesses are historic. So of course, we we care very much about them. And although we know that this is going to be a good project, we have to be very mindful of this business community. And just to be clear as well, the city council is only making a determination on the appeal of the art in the segment analysis. So I have a few questions for staff. And really they're just two main concerns. And I know that they don't specifically speak to the air, but I feel like they have to be addressed. And I thank you for addressing this. So first, as it relates to access, as the 12 ST option was formally adopted by the Harbor Harbor Commission, it will remove access to Ninth Street. Do we have any other access options that we believe will be more beneficial for our Westside community other than Ninth Street? Thank you, Councilwoman. ACCESS Well, this shoemaker Brant ramps when they are removed can still occur through Anaheim Street and down one of the Archer arterials or via the 710. Okay. And I just want to make crystal clear as well, as you mentioned in the as far as the public safety access, there will be no issues with public safety going to and from the west side to attend to any emergency. That's correct. We have worked extensively with the fire department and other emergency services. They've done their own analysis about access and response times. There are no significant impacts or concerns with emergency service access. In addition, we've evaluated the routes to get to the nearest hospitals, and those routes will not be impacted as a result of this project . Great. Thank you. And then the second question is related to our businesses. Of course, as we've said here, and I want to emphasize how how many businesses do we have that not just the parcels, but businesses that will be directly impacted, either directly or indirectly, like Phillip Steel and Superior Science? Do you know how many actual businesses? So at this point, we can give estimates until the air was fully certified. We were limited in the. Amount of. Work we could do on the business relocation and survey side. But we believe that there's approximately 40 businesses that would be impacted in the project footprint. Okay, so 40 businesses. And after this decision tonight, should we move forward with staff's recommendations? How will we identify a strong business retention and relocation plan for these businesses both directly and indirectly impacted, whether it's receiving mitigations for noise and air just in general, and also finding alternative options in our city for these particular businesses. The port staff has already been establishing a project team to evaluate all of these issues, to work with the affected businesses, to work with the community. We've already been addressing questions and responding to the comments and questions that have come up through the process. We've also been reaching out to the other city departments like Development Services and Economic Development, and we will be continuing those discussions and looking for ways that we can relocate all of these businesses within the city of Long Beach and close to their to their current location. And so we commit to continuing to work through that process and to make sure that we're listening to all the concerns and addressing those concerns as we go through the design and construction process. Okay. And that was my next question. Have we worked with the Economic Development Department? You said we have. That's fantastic. So these businesses are fully aware of their options. And as the project moves forward, what is the timeline for the project? I understand this could be, of course, done in phases. Do we have something coming up, a milestone that we can hit and we can report out to, say, the Harbor and Tidelands Committee? We would be happy to report out to the Harbors and Tidelands Committee. I think in general, the the initial priorities are for us to start working on developing further development of the design. We'll need to go through a process for the evaluation of the properties that will be affected for the acquisition of those properties. And that will be a long term process. We'll also be moving forward with the ninth Street closure, which will be a early priority for the project as well. That's likely to take place in the next year or two to the acquisition process will likely be over about a five year period. And we'll also be doing some of the initial efforts for the utility relocation, which will also need to take place in the early phase of the project. So a lot of that work will take place over the next approximately five years. Okay. Thank you. So as we hit those milestones prior to ninth Street closing, which seems to be a fast tracked, you know, priority, I would just ask that we report this information out to the Harbor and Highlands Committee. I'm the chair. Councilmember Price and Pearce are both on the committee with me to ensure that our businesses are fully aware of what comes next and our residents are fully aware of what will happen next. And you need to just specifically notice them as well. So we're working either with my office or I know you're very you're well acquainted with our West Side industrial area, but for any other residents that might want to have this information and and be privy to it so they understand what exactly is going on with the project, I would just ask that we we do that. And then the last question I have here, will will there be mitigation and will it provide funding for the West Side livability plan for both residents and business stakeholders? This was the Westside Livability Plan that was a multi year process for communities and business stakeholders. They came together, they talked about many projects for lessening mitigations due to air pollution, noise, etc. So this can this be folded into to this project? So this project does have a contribution to our community grants program between the air quality and the greenhouse gas impacts associated with this project, there will be an approximately $1.5 million contribution to that fund. As a reminder, several years ago, our board established an overall program that will be providing over $46 million in funding through the Community Mitigation Program. So this this project will make a contribution to that program. Part of the reason why the Port of Long Beach worked with the city and development of the Livability Westside Livability Plan, initially we provided some. Funding to help support the development of that plan. Was that so that we could get a better understanding of the priorities for the projects that could be done to help address those concerns in in West Long Beach and to help us line up how we could prioritize some of the funding through our program. And so we look forward to continuing to coordinate with the city on those priorities and how those funds can help to address some of those projects. We will continue to work with the community as well each year as we go through developing the funding priorities for that program going forward. And so we look forward to continuing to support that project. And as a reminder, this project will make a contribution to help further that program. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure that was addressed. And I will just say let's just continue to keep connected to make sure that that was saved. Livability Plan sees fruition for the community. I know it's a big deal for them as well as businesses, residents, everyone. And so do we know what the community process will be in terms of that? Is that coming back at a certain time? It's it should pass, right? So each year it's an ongoing program. Now, that was part of the board's approval a few years ago is so that we could establish an ongoing program. So each year we go through a process of having community meetings where we seek input from the community. We also meet regularly with city department staff to find out about priority projects. So we go through a process approximately around the fall each year to gather input on funding priorities for the upcoming year. We make a presentation to our Harbor Commission in the early part of the year. We made a presentation in February of this year identifying the priorities that were shared by the community and the city staff. During those meetings, we made a recommendation for this upcoming funding cycle to focus on stormwater projects, and so we'll be releasing a request for proposals later this spring for approximately $3 million to fund projects that can improve stormwater infrastructure in the in the city in that area. But each year we go through a process last year that the funding was provided for air filters and community health programs. But each year we go through a process to seek input from the community about those priorities, and then we release a new funding cycle each year . So that will be an ongoing process. Okay, great. Thank you. And I will just ask, with that said, to make sure that we are connected. The council offices are connected. I know some of the meetings had been occurring on a Tuesday, which was a council Tuesday, and I would just really urge that we all just stay connected to make sure that the community is fully aware of what is happening at every step of the way. And I know that will do that. But we appreciate you answering those questions. So thank you very much. I will move that we review and I'm sorry we should receive and file all documentation of the record concerning the two concerning the two appeals and adopt the city staff recommendation and uphold the Board of Harbor Commissioners certification of the final air. I just want to say again, thank you very much to the Westside Industrial Area for coming out. I know this is very difficult. It's very difficult to deal with this. I get that. But I urge you to just stay involved with our office. We've been connected with you. We will remain connected with you. We will make sure that you do not lose sight of what this project will mean and entail. And we will ensure that everyone is privy to the information, both residents and businesses. Thank you. Thank you. So just to be clear, also, that's a motion on the floor then to approve the staff recommendation on the on the air and deny the appeal. And with that, the second on the motion, Councilmember Janine Pearce. Plus everybody in the room that's been coughing and sneezing. I want to thank first of all, I want to thank the appellants for being involved in this process, for advocating on your business's behalf, on your neighborhood's behalf. I know that a decision like this is scary and emotional because it is your livelihood that you have been building on and working on for a long time. And so I just want to thank you guys. I want to thank all the staff at the port, our commissioners, the staff at the city. It speaks volumes to me. That we had as many people here and support and a small handful of those that that spoke with some concern, somebody who's watched issues of the port for the last decade. I know that this always is a rare occasion to have so many people in support of. And I did reach out to my environmental. Activist. Organizations and nonprofits and tried to get their take on this policy on this earth as well. And so I'm happy to be able to support my council colleagues. Decision to receive. And file I did have. A couple of questions that I wanted to ask staff and I did want to also highlight. I think somebody started as a speaker here, but one train takes 750 trucks off the road. One train takes 750 trucks off the road. And to me, as somebody who takes that freeway almost every day and knows what the fight has been to try to clean up our air, really having a conversation around when the impacts are. And so my my first question is really when we talk about the air quality issues, I believe it was stated that a lot of those come from building out PRB and not so much that it's extremely long term. There are long term effects, but how much of of the the air pollution is caused from just. Building the projects? The air analyzed both impacts from the construction of the project over the seven year period through the three phases, in addition to the operational impacts associated with the the trains that will be operating in the facility for the for Philip Steel specifically and their response to comment that they had when we looked at the impacts at the nearest receptor to their location, the impacts were the significant impacts were limited to the construction phase of the project. But there were areas around the project that did experience both construction phase impacts and operational phase impacts for nitrogen oxide specifically. Okay. And then this is just an idea I had off the top of my head, so forgive me, but I know that there were the bonnets that were created for ships. Is there anything like that in the works for trains. To help reduce some of the pollution that comes from them? So there is a project that the the two ports established a technology advancement program many years ago. Over a decade ago. One of the recently funded projects that we're working on is with a technology developer called Vir Rail, and they have developed a near zero emission locomotive. So these are cleaner than the cleanest locomotive standards that are out there. These these have extremely low nitrogen oxide emissions. And so we've provided funding for the development of that switcher locomotive. But then recently through a grant from the California Air Resources Board, we're going to be able to replace the onboard generator in that locomotive with batteries so that the the locomotive can operate using zero emission track miles. So that's a project that we're developing right now, working with our operator, Pacific Harbor Line, who's been a great partner with us on demonstrating different technologies over the years. So we're hopeful that that technology will be effective and then we can look at future opportunities to get more of them integrated into the operations. Currently, Pacific Harbor Line is the cleanest switcher operate switcher locomotive operator in the country. They've done a lot of work over the years to upgrade their locomotives and they're currently testing out a Tier four locomotive. Great. So when we we talk about the air, it does not include that plan, right? It's based on what we have in place today. That is correct. We used a conservative analysis based off of what we have today, but we're hopeful that we can reduce emissions even further in the future. That's great. I think that speaks volumes again. And this is a question around the workforce piece. We had some conversation around local residents. This project falls in line with the project labor agreement that also has a local higher percentage. Is that correct? This project is included in the project labor agreement. Great. Thank you so much. I know again, operations at our ports having multiple layers and tiers of where we're doing that work is really a big challenge to please everybody. And I think that you guys have done a fantastic job. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Vice Mayor Richardson. Thanks. I know Councilmember Arango represents West Side. If he wants to go ahead of me, I don't mind. Councilor Murray. Ringo. Thank thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson, for the permit. I want to thank my councilmembers. GONZALEZ It appears they touched a lot on the issues that I had obviously been the representative of the West Side. You know, we're talking about the West, the Westside Livability Study. We're talking about the trains. We're talking about taking off cargo on dark rail and away from freeways that would take 750 trucks out of the freeways. So based on the fact that there's a long term benefit to what's taking place here, I think there's a there's a support here for that when it comes to what the effects of the project would have in the short term, I think are outweighed by the benefits in the long term, when we're looking at taking container traffic out of the freeway out of the 710 and the issues that we deal with it with it there also the fact that in addition to having more on dock rail facilities, this was an issue that has been taking place for many years. And in fact, when I joined the city council four years ago, that was a big issue of debate in terms of whether the candidates at that time were in favor of undock. Rail And of course, I was, and here we are. Here's the opportunity now to move this proposal forward. It's a part of a process. Obviously, it starts with CEQA and then the engineering work takes place to make it happen. So I'm very pleased with staff and their support and their work in getting this done. I think that they've done it with the sensitivity to the neighborhood's impact in terms of the impact to the West Palm Beach community. And I, I think that it's a job well done. And I again, want to thank my councilmembers for their for their support of this. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you very much. So I support this project. And I want to thank both the appellants and city staff who provided the presentation this evening. As the chair of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. I'm a big supporter of anything that we can do to stay ahead of the changing industry that we have in terms of goods, movement and on dock rail provides us an opportunity to do that. It allows us to stay competitive and really look to the future in terms of the way we're moving goods both locally, regionally and throughout the nation. And so I support everything that's being done in regards to this project. I think it's going to be a great model and it's going to allow Long Beach to, in practice, do what it always preaches, which is to be a zero emissions port move towards a zero emissions port. I'm grateful that it includes the play and I'm also thankful for the comments of my colleagues to try to mitigate the issues for the immediate neighbors. I think that obviously is an ongoing concern and something that should be addressed along the way. So I think everyone for being here tonight and I wholeheartedly support this this project. Thank you. Base me, Richardson. Thank you. I want to just give some kudos to the work that the port did. It's not often and I think Councilmember Gonzalez or Jeanine. Councilman Pearce mentioned it's not often that you see no environmental group opposing infrastructure investment at the port and you see a lot of positive comments here. So, so good. Good work there and sort of doing the outreach. And it appears that you've you've done a lot of work to be sensitive to those adjacent businesses and neighborhoods. On dog rail is smart for a lot of reasons. It's the standard we encourage it across the country gets, you know, trucks off the trucks off the street. It cleans up your your air and it creates a more efficient system. And then infrastructure investment in general supports job creation. And so obviously support infrastructure investment. Three things I want to note. So I recognize that conversation on the West Side about the Shoemaker Bridge up in North Long Beach. We have an area of town that's sort of cut off by the 17th is kind of the Coolidge Triangle Longwood area. And as infrastructure is modernized, we try to find ways to stitch communities back together. So I just want to say, if there are, you know, just ask if there are any conversations about mobility plans or seventh and or anything else to make sure that we're thinking about stitching communities back together. Yes. The port staff, our transportation planning and engineering staff have been coordinating with City Public Works as well as Metro and Caltrans on their work on the I 710 project and the early action projects that will affect the Shoemaker Bridge. So we'll be. Making sure to continue those discussions, continue that coordination, and making sure that we're developing circulation and traffic management plans that accommodate access through that area. Okay. And secondly, I want to recognize and thank you for the conversation about engaging economic development and development services, about thinking about ways to retain businesses here. I just want to just sort of just put it out there that if ever there is some displacement of a business, we should think about, you know, opportunities to clean up other industrial spaces and create economic activity there. For example, the gentleman who spoke about his sign saying business, I would love to have this same business in North Palm Beach if if the opportunity was was there. So there are other other industrial spaces that could use more economic activity to sort of raise the standard in some of those areas. So I just wanted to sort of put that on the table. And then the last thing I would say, I would encourage you or rather our frame it as a question, is there an opportunity to continue to to to work to find a solution with the utilities? The conversations brought up about the utilities and the pipelines. Is there an opportunity to continue working to find a resolution there? Yes. And we have had some initial discussions with all of the affected parties for the utility relocation work that will be necessary for this project. Once we move through the air certification process and can start the design phase, that's where we'll move forward with those discussions in earnest and make sure that we're working with all the affected stakeholders to make sure that we're accommodating those needs as we develop the final design. Fantastic. Well, you have a good project here and I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second, of course, that's been made. I just got a couple of brief comments. We all know, of course, that the actual vote tonight is a narrow one for the council from from the scope of the actual vote itself. But I do want to make just a couple of comments just for the public at large, I think are important. And the first is, I know there was some concern about pollution or impacts of the project. I just think it's important to note that long term, the actual benefit of on dock rail and the actual benefit of implementing the full cleaner action plan will dramatically reduce pollution in and around the ports and up, up and down the 710 corridor. And so from an infrastructure creation perspective, this project at Pier B and and the expansion of our rail capacity is critical to the to the clean air future that we all want to have in this community. So I do want to commend the Board of Harbor Commissioners for, I know the incredible amount of work that went into getting us to this point. Pier B and the conversations around Pier B have been going on for many years, and there were many decisions that led up to getting to this process. And it's critical that we expand rail. The only way that we ensure that Long Beach as a port remain competitive across the world is to expand rail. It is a critical piece of the future. And there were some comments about, you know, being global or being local. And I just want to be clear that the port provides 30,000 local jobs to people in and around the port area. And so we are talking about local issues. And I want to think there are many workers that are here, both carpenters and electricians and others that are local, live in Long Beach and that live in the area. And so this idea that somehow they're not local, I take offense to I also add that it's as important that we are working with our businesses. And I do. I well, I want to thank Councilman Gonzalez for I know having met multiple times with with these businesses. But I also I'm confident I look to our harbor commissioners. I know that Vice President Askew and Commissioner Lowenthal are both here. And I ask you, as I know on behalf of the council, I know that you will ensure that our our port team continue to work with the businesses. I know, Commissioner Lowenthal, how much you have worked with these businesses in the past and when you were here. And so just to those that came forward, I think we hear you and you have our commitment that we're going to do everything we can to mitigate these impacts to to meet with you. And I know our port team are going to do just that. And so, again, I want to thank Tom Lee and the entire Mr. Cameron, the entire environmental team. Mr. Cordero, your your senior staff getting here has been a long and long process, but an important one to make this to make the air cleaner and to move to a zero emissions port. And so with that, we do have a motion and a second on the floor. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Great. Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming out. We appreciate that. Okay. We are we are going to take as a reminder, we have two hearings left. We're going to take those two hearings next. We are going to just do take a one minute pause so we can clear folks out our fires, asks that we get some folks out first before we move on to the next hearing. And we will be doing hearing item number one next. Oh, everyone I knew I. If you were here for the first hearing, please exit and take conversations outside. Please take conversations outside. Okay. If you want to have a conversation, please, please take it outside. Where, as a reminder, we just finished our first hearing. We have two hearings left, and then we will go to the regular agenda of the city council. So we'll have two hearings left. Yes. Okay. We're moving on. I need everyone to take a seat or please. Exit. Exit the room, please. Okay. I need everyone to exit the room if you're having a conversation or we will move on. So we have the next the next two items are two hearings. So, Madam Clerk, hearing item number one.

DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0343

Approves a contract with Arbor E&T, LLC doing business as ResCare Workforce Services for $6,719,694.00 through 6-30-2017 to provide comprehensive services including business development, employment and training services to jobseekers (including TANF recipients) throughout the City (OEDEV201627862_00).

I know with the previous one listed here, we did a lot of work for youth and I appreciate all the efforts that were done to ensure that local providers were being factored in to some of the work that they will be compensated for. You know, by having out-of-town people come in that don't know our community, it was going to be harder to be able to reach the clients. And I'm just curious how we're going to be able to do that with our disabled community. Sure. Thank you so much for the question and good evening, members of Council. I'm Denise Bryan. I'm the director of Workforce Development. And to answer your question, that is ongoing. But agencies like Bayard Enterprises and others and the Vocational Department, Rehabilitation Department with the state, we will continue those relationships to make sure that we're able to serve those constituents. Okay, great. I appreciate that. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. I'll take all the questions, comments, 343 scene and we'll go to the next one. Resolution 270. Councilwoman Ortega, would you like for us to do with this? I have a question on this one as well. Go right. Ahead. And. So this is one of a series that I think we're going to be seeing, and I think it will be helpful for council as a whole to see the total amount of spend and what those deliverables are going to be for the entire planning process that we're going to be undertaking.

LongBeachCC_12222015_15-1295

Recommendation to conduct a study session to receive and discuss the City’s capital investment needs for transportation infrastructure and City facilities. (Citywide)

Recommendation to conduct a study session to receive and discuss the city's capital investment needs for transportation, infrastructure and city facilities citywide. Thank you. I'm turning it over to staff. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. Infrastructure is one of the most important things that a city does. In addition to providing public safety and our services, it is one of the chief core missions of a city is to provide streets and roads and facilities and and all the things that go into infrastructure. From time to time, we get questions from the council in the community about what are our infrastructure needs. We wanted to present a presentation to you today to give you a, you know, an estimate of what those needs are over the next ten years. And so I will turn it now over to our deputy director of Public Works, our city engineer, Sean Crumby, who's going to go through a brief PowerPoint presentation to talk at a high level about what our needs are over the next ten years. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Council. As mentioned, the presentation for the study session tonight focuses on city infrastructure needs. This study session continues a series of presentations this year by the Public Works Department. In March of this year. 2015, the City Council was presented with the state of our streets and in October this year with an update to the city's parking assets. Tonight's presentation reflects the collaboration of the Public Works Department with other departments of the city. So the presentation is going to begin and highlight what's being done with current resources, followed by a transition to unfunded needs and conclude with funding shortfalls. Over in the city. So to begin, Strong Foundation, Strong City, that's the motto of the public works department. And I think it's important in regards to to relay the strength of infrastructure within the city or the importance of infrastructure within the city. The definition of that infrastructure can vary along beaches. Infrastructure extends beyond the roads, bridges and sidewalks of the city. Other infrastructure components include public safety facilities, storm drains and pump stations, community centers and parks that bring together people of all ages. Our energy, infrastructure and new technologies such as fiber optics, all of these components are related. Improving the infrastructure enhances the quality of life for all residents and continues to make Long Beach a national leader in livability. In this past fiscal year, Long Beach has continued an aggressive infrastructure program that brought over 50 park projects through completion, responded over 2200 facility repairs, rehabilitated 55 lane miles of arterial streets and 16 lane miles of residential streets throughout the city repaired five major bridges and enhanced a variety of bike bicycle infrastructure throughout the city. Within the capital improvement program. The City Council adopted fiscal year 2016 capital improvements this September. This budget includes 50.6 million in spending on new projects. Just a summary of a few key projects not intended to be comprehensive are shown within this slide. As approved by the City Council last week. Work will begin on the Civic Center, which includes City Hall Headquarters, the main library and Lincoln Park. Installation began on 25,000 LED street lights citywide. The East Police to the East Division Police to Station Project will be completed near the start of 2016. Project continues. Progress continues on construction of the Northshore, which are the North Branch Library. Work also is in progress to force wetlands, gum binder park as well, as well as critical road work on Ocean Boulevard and Alameda Avenue. With street projects, bicycle infrastructure is added, most notably will be the Pacific Bike Boulevard and Sixth Street projects under progress this year. So infrastructure needs. It's clear that despite the immense progress that's made, there remains a lot more to do, much more to do. Long Beach is at a critical juncture with aging infrastructure and facilities. The slides remaining from here will highlight the major investments needed in our city infrastructure. So taking into consideration all of the infrastructure needs, the total infrastructure cost over the next ten years is $2.8 billion. The rest of the presentation is going to focus on what comprises that $2.8 billion. But in addition to that, we're going to cover infrastructure. We're going to cover maintenance needs that total $40 million per year. So transportation infrastructure, the first component to be covered. These include components that move people throughout the city, but also is a key component to facilitation of goods, movement and economic development. This infrastructure includes not only what's visible above the roadway surface, but also a network below the surface, including our cities stormwater system. So first is our street inventory. This slide was taken directly from the city's payment management program. The city of Long Beach has about 177 miles of major roadways, plus an additional 600 miles, 609 miles of local roadways, encompassing 169 million square feet of asphalt and concrete surfacing throughout the city. Even though major roadway networks, even though that comprise less than one quarter of the total network by length, it actually represents 35% of the paved area on a per mile basis. An average major roadway cost approximately $2.3 million to construct. Whereas. A local network as a local network. Whereas the local network represents 65% of the pavement paved area, with an average replacement cost of just under $1,000,000 per mile. So this slide depicts some pictures of different pavement condition index conditions throughout the city label. There are the values 100 would be a brand new street. Zero would be a failed street. In all cases, all of these streets are in need of repair. So this slide provides the average estimated peak PCI for road conditions for the next ten years based on three funding scenarios. Our city's entire road network of streets, both major and minor roadways, is currently at a pavement condition index of 60. As adopted by the City Council, major roadways are currently funded at 11.4 million and minor roadways at 4.9 million this fiscal year. That's the $16.3 million that's shown. However, to bring the backlog to 20%. At maximum would require a 14.3 million and 16.6 million. For major and minor roadways, respectively. That's the 30.9 million that's shown. The optimal solution, however, which eliminates all the backlog and brings the city's network to an average pavement condition index of 85 would require 17 million annually for the major roadways and 25 million for minor roadways. That's 42 million. In sum, the optimal solution would require 420 million over ten years, which is 257 million more than what is currently budgeted. If we continue to fund at the 6.3 million current annual level. According to experts in payment management, backlogs that exceed 20% and above tend to become unmanageable. The cost of repair and maintenance of streets increases as this condition becomes worse and the PCI drops without adequate funding to reduce that backlog. The needs increase every year. Other components of transportation needs totaled 933.4 million. Alleys are estimated at 60 million in repair work. There's currently no funded ALI program within our capital improvement program, but there have been recent, numerous discussions about funding needs, bridges, connect to city streets and have needs totaling 365 million. With the Shoemaker Bridge estimated at 250 million of that total stormwater includes 147 million for rehabilitation of 24 pumps and 108 million estimated for the Long Beach Mosque project. Sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure and parking structures have received improvements but have needs totaling over $70 million. Shown her pictures of typical infrastructure needs. The photos show the condition of our sidewalks and unpaved alleyway. Unpaved alleys in the upper right. Our bike boulevard. And what happens when a pump station fails? Community. Community infrastructure and non transportation related infrastructure that the public relies on. Spanning public safety, library services, parks, health facilities and the coastline technology and other city services. The city owns 414 buildings totaling 6.8 million square feet. The facility condition index or rating for city buildings assessments have poor condition. These buildings do not receive the maintenance or have not received the maintenance necessary to extend their or maximize their useful life. Adequate maintenance extends or maximizes the use of all of these buildings. So we'll start with public safety. The unfunded needs for public safety totals more than $130 million. Fire replacement. Replacement fire stations. Seven, nine, ten, 11, 18 and 19. These fire stations range in age from 48 to 79 years. Improvements are needed to address workplace safety, public accessibility and workforce privacy issues, including separate gender restrooms and locker. And locker rooms. Police wear and tear at the police academy range and facility are needed to support and train officers to meet current public safety standards. Many of the Academy's facilities are located in trailers put in place in 1998 and were never intended to last the past 17 years. Classrooms, locker rooms and staff offices at the Academy are located in these trailers. Recruit replacement of the academy with a new permanent facility is estimated at $20 million. A new crime lab and property facility is needed to meet the 21st Century Police Department. This is estimated at $15 million. The remaining balance is for needs that other facilities, such as the jailhouse and substations. The Echo see. The Emergency Communications and Operations Center needs power supply, stability and backup power. Before you. Some pictures related to the police academy, which is still in temporary trailers. Fire Station ten is in need of replacement after nearly 50 years of service. It shows daily wear and tear, typical for a 24 hour facility of that age. Parks and Recreation. 365 million needs have been identified across 162 parks, 26 community centers, historic sites and other facilities. The above are only a sampling of those projects. The projects include new developments to the park systems, but many of the projects reflect age parks with the toll of deferred maintenance. One example of a large park is Halton Park. That's a 95 year old park that is one of the highest, if not the highest, utilized in the city and in need of and have needs that need to be addressed. The most significant item, however, includes the need to obtain update irrigation systems citywide, which account for almost a third of the projected total. In addition, roof replacements across the city account for another 21 million. These photos show conditions to conditions of parks across the city. A Community centers are in need of repair. Playgrounds have failing equipment. Roofs need replacements. Restrooms are dilapidated, and irrigation system systems need improvements. Coastal infrastructure for coastal areas. Parks, Recreation and Marine have identified 12.7 million in unfunded projects, largely largely driven by the need for Alamitos Bay Channel dredging, as well as improvements and general maintenance of facilities. In addition to the improvements at the marinas, beaches and waterways in June of this year, the City Council approved an update to the five year Tidelands capital priority needs. That's reflected that reflects the realities of declining oil revenues. This list is in order of highest costs, not necessarily and is not intended to be a priority for the project for the projected needs. Shown in the picture is the Junior Lifeguard headquarters, which serves hundreds of junior lifeguards and does not meet today's needs. An additional 14 million of projects has been identified for LED conversions. Currently, a $6.7 million project is funded to convert street streetlights throughout the city. The 14 million in additional needs includes conversion to existing outdoor lighting at parks as well as other post lightings. Other city facilities, unfunded needs at various other facilities total just under $70,000,000.60 8.8. The public works yard includes consolidation of its three facilities, the library services various maintenance needs across the whole library system health has. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning flooring needs for a new mobile health clinic. Fleet Services has needs to repair the fleet service facility, where 1.4 million in facility maintenance is needed at the Temple, Temple and Willow Complex. Structural maintenance, such as window replacement, floor resurfacing and traffic striping, and the need for a camera system amount to almost 75% of that total estimate. Here's some photos demonstrative of the capital needs of the Health Department's facilities, with pavement damage, wall and floor cracks and other capital needs. Further needs are shown at the Fleet Services Library Services in Long Beach, gas and oil. Technology and innovation have needs totaling just over $70 million. The city is in need of updating its handheld radios for public safety, which amount to $40 million of that total. Additionally, radio system backbone as well as other radio infrastructure adds 13 million. Needs also include fiber optic connections throughout the city for future development and support initiatives taken by the Bloomberg I-Team. Maintenance matters. Maintenance is a critical component to effectively manage infrastructure and protect the investments that are made by the city. So while this presentation has primarily focused on one time capital needs throughout the city. Maintenance of existing and new facilities needs to be considered. While the Public Works Facilities Management Division has an operating budget of 4.4 million annually in the adopted 2016 budget. The Facility Condition Index report noted an annual need of 15 to $20 million to the upkeep of over the 100 facilities within the city. Additionally, Parks Rec and Marine have identified annual minutes cost needs of 20 million for basic repairs, upkeep of current and new facilities combined. That's a total need of $40 million annually. So in summary, taking into consideration all the projects that have been identified, the total infrastructure cost is 2.8 billion over the next ten years. This reflects projects identified throughout tonight's presentation, inclusive of the $40 million in maintenance needs that were discussed. Thank you. A couple of things. So the first is I just want to make sure I know that we were initially going to present this last week and a couple of members aren't here. So I want to make sure, Mr. Modica, that in kind of your next round of briefings in the next week, that you kind of are able to present all this information because it's important information to the rest of the council members. Yes, Mr. Mayor, we can certainly do that and we will make this public. This will be available, this presentation for the public as well. I wanted to let you start. Okay. Thank you. And then and then the other piece I want to just to mention is there is can you expand on the issue? And the one the one that's concerned me for a while is the issue about for every dollar that we're not investing, the cost dramatically increases over time. And I don't know if what staff want to comment on that. Absolutely. Great question. So as the condition of the city's infrastructure declines, the repair costs increase. So as they're ignored, those repair costs go up and it costs more to bring them back to the condition the longer we wait. Okay. I have a motion in a second for to receive and part of the report. Let me go and do public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? Just come forward. Good in council. Mayor Garcia, Tom Stout information is on file. You know, you guys just voted to add dates for a half a billion dollars last week. And you have all these infrastructure needs a total, almost that amount that's deferred. You guys have been deferring maintenance ever since I moved along Beach in 1986. The street at my house in Chestnut, the 3100 block has never been repaid since I moved here in 86. It's funny that Mr. Ranga Street was paved many years ago. It wasn't any worse condition than mine. Yet there seemed to be some favoritism there. You paved from Pacific. I guess from Willow to 31st Street, from Pacific to the river. But why did you stop at 31st? There, there. The streets south of us were no worse condition than the streets where I live. I mean, drive on it. It sounds like a hardwood floor that the glues no longer sticking. All you hear is a cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck when you drive over it. And you pictured some of those streets. We're never going to get anything done because 90% of the general fund is compensation. You spend ten or 12, I mean, maybe 15 million a year on paving the road, yet you spend a hundred million on your own pensions, and that's going to continue to increase, you say, by about 3 million a year. So in 2021, when Per says you all this money? It's going to be, you say, 135. A lot of other people say $150 million. That means that all the stuff that you keep spending money on is not going to provide us any more services. Hers is a, you know, saying it's the elephant in the room as a gross understatement. You guys talk about the great pension reform you had. That's a parks pensions will be $150 million by 2021. And now $150 million will go forward for the next 15 or 20 years. Where are we going to get some extra money to make the repairs in this city that we need? When compensation takes everything and pensions will grow up more because there will be raises raises add to their pensions. So, you know, I don't think that, you know, nothing's got better. And since I moved here, it's got more expensive. Property value goes up. Property value goes down. Property value goes down because infrastructure is hurt. And it's always going to be a low priority in the city. You have a lot of nice slides, but nothing ever gets repaired. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any other public comment? CASEY None. And actually, I just was just informed that we missed two slides at the end. I'm sorry, Mr. Modica. So I think if you want to just quickly put those up zero. And if you could bring those up real quickly, I'll cover those. So what we wanted to point out on Slide 30 is that we do dedicate a fair amount of resources towards our infrastructure. We have about $31.1 million worth of our own city funds that we spend on infrastructure maintenance citywide. That's not all. General Fund, a lot of that is, you know, in the various departments. But we also do very well at bringing in federal, state and regional funds. So these are MTA funds. These are state for state transportation funds and federal grants for infrastructure as well. So that's about 24 million. And then we also go out and look for new grants that are specific for for infrastructure, for example, to force wetlands received almost all of its funding from state grants of 12.5 million. So that's about $67.6 million that we brought in in 2016. However, on the next slide, as you can see, if you take that $2.8 million billion dollars and assume that if we were to fund all that need over ten years, essentially, even with that $67 million, our annual shortfall would be about $212 million per year. So while we are doing very well at securing funds there, there is a tremendous need. And what we have currently doesn't cover what what our need is over the next ten years. And with that, we're available to answer questions. Thank you. I'm going to go first to the make or the motion, then I have a series of councilmembers. So, Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank the staff for this very chilling report. $2.8 billion over ten years is is it's not making our job as a city council any easier, that's for certain. And the decisions that we make. The needs are clearly vast and untenable with our current level of funding and our current finances. I get as a council member and I'm sure many of my colleagues do as well, request we leave from residents to to pay attention to the the neglected infrastructure in the streets, alleys, sidewalks. And I know we all do the best we can with the resources that we do have. The limited resources that were was just just outlined for you. And I think we do do a great job of patchwork and addressing most critical needs in our districts with the with the limited resources that we have. But. And then when it when we have inclement weather, when we have rain, where we're reminded most of it, I mean, I think I received a few text messages or people sent me pictures of puddles in front of their their homes. And it is very, very difficult to to tell people, hey, you know what, I wish we had the resources to to pave your alley or to order to fix your street, your curb and gutter. And so we are going to, as Mr. Stout said, have to make infrastructure truly a priority. We're going to have to do it when? Now. Have to step up and potentially. Make us make some tough decisions. I did did have a couple of questions in regards to this. I mean, I understand we have a number of you laid out basically everything, but some of these areas are don't they receive uplands funds some of the more coastal area of the highlands once. Yeah. So some of the coastal needs are covered by tidelands funds. So we did show those though not everything is required under on that list would be paid for by general funds that could be paid for by other funding sources such as Tidelands. So they're not not of $2.8 billion is necessarily. Um, there's, there's a whole there, there may be some funding coming in other sources to, to, to meet those needs. Is that correct? That's correct. When we looked at this analysis, we didn't focus just on generally funded. We focused generally on our infrastructure and our technology needs citywide. And then, you know, the various funding sources could fund certain pieces of that. So this was a big picture kind of overview. Correct. And I should point out that these are rough estimates that not every single project that the city has is included in there. Some have very strong engineering assessments. Some are very rough estimates. It was more of a a picture to the council of of a general outline of our infrastructure needs. Well, I think it was it was it was necessary. I don't think I've ever seen anything this comprehensive. Um, and like I said, it was, it was chilling for us to see that, that type of number. I do think that I do have some, some, some hope because I think the payment management plan that we have in place will help us prioritize street repairs. And and we have a system in place that that will will help us move move that program. But I think, obviously, where we're short on on on finances and revenue, I'm concerned that without identifying new sources of revenue, the city will not be able to address this $2.8 billion of long term infrastructure needs identified tonight without cutting critical services. And as the speaker mentioned, yes, we do have employees. Employees cost. It is the cost of running a government. It's the cost of running a city to try to to be able to deliver the services and to maintenance and and do all of the great things that that the city of Long Beach does. You know, our residents live here for a reason because they enjoy the city. So that said, I'd like to request that the city manager and finance staff work with the city attorney and city clerk to provide options for new sources of revenue. I mean, let's let's put it out there. We we've got an overview. We have a understanding of what our infrastructure needs are. Let's let's let's show us how to get there, how do we fix it? And I think this council may need to consider options for identifying sources of revenue to make needed investments in infrastructure and other important city services. And so what I'm asking for staff is can you guys come back in the next few weeks in an early part of next year with some information to help guide this council on a decision in that regard? Yes, that's something the council would like. We can certainly provide that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I'm sorry. The second the motion with Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes, thank you. I want to think staff a staff Shawn and say Ron and everyone that was a part of this for taking this over. I know with Reagan this has been a large undertaking, but it's a really great large picture, as we've been talking about, as to what our city needs in terms of infrastructure. And I will certainly be and always have been an advocate for better infrastructure. You know, as we put forth the alley plan or the alley agenda item a few weeks ago, you know, of course, we're very committed. I also like what Councilmember Austin mentioned. I think, of course, we certainly do need dollars to be able to make all of this happen. But looking specifically at leveraging dollars, you know, sitting on both the state and federal legislative committee, for instance, we've done great work with Shoemaker Bridge. I know in going to DC and really talking to the Department of Transportation or talking to our Congressmember Alan Lowenthal, about specific funds that we may need. So this is a beautiful document for us to go and take when we're at these different committee meetings to really give them a picture of what Long Beach will look like . So I just ask that maybe we look at, you know, for instance, Prop 84 funds that were used for Craftsman Village Park. I know, just kind of documenting a little bit more detail as to what other funds could be used in leveraging these dollars. And then I think I did hear, but I just want to make sure the document will be added online as well. Yes. Okay, perfect. Great. Well, thank you very much and great work. Thank you. Council Member Richardson. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, and thank you to staff for that presentation. I appreciate the comprehensive nature. I am also deeply concerned about our inability to invest in our infrastructure. We can only go so far with respect to taking a triage approach on how we handle our our critical infrastructure needs. And I know that there are tremendous needs across the city. And I was glad to see that there was really sort of reflected in this report, like our counterpart community center, 95 year old community center. I know about this center, but I know that there are needs and stories just like this across across across town. So I know that our residents don't want a second rate city, and I know that we all want to be proud of our neighborhoods. And we also want to, to some degree, control our fate and not always, you know, wait on grant funding to handle the important things that are that are vital to our community. So I think this is certainly appropriate, and I'm going to be in support of Councilman Austin's recommendation as well. Thank you. Thank you. I have very little info. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, would like to thank staff for putting this thorough presentation together. I know a lot of work went into the research and really review of our entire city. We have talked for quite a long time about investing in our city and our city's infrastructure. There have been councilmembers here before. Many of us joined this team that have expressed how difficult it is to really catch up, let alone stay ahead of our infrastructure repair and restoration needs. And so the beauty of our city being as old as it is, also comes with these challenges. And I think investing in the infrastructure will ensure that all of the progress that this city is making is supported. Failing infrastructure is difficult. We have in many areas just really considered ourselves in the position to do spot treatment. And I think taking a wholesale approach, really a whole wholesome approach to shoring it up is very important. And in the past, certainly in the retreat that we had last year, I want to say it's about a year ago we discussed our priority being infrastructure repair and restoration and all of the technological innovations that we pursue and are really advancing in, especially with the new innovation team that's been supported by the Bloomberg grant. All of that will be for not if we have crumbling infrastructure. And so, Mr. Mayor, thank you for your commitment to looking ahead for how this city can be secure really well beyond any one of our ten. And I think that's that's really one of the key roles we have here is to ensure that the city is shored up and can be stabilized long after that has a lasting effect long after our tenure. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank you all for obviously putting this forward. It's been a long time since we had any kind of study of this nature to look at our infrastructure and how we can we can fund it. I know I asked earlier when I was meeting with the city manager, you know, how are we doing on oil? Because some of these projects are oil, talent and other resources. And apparently there's no change in the fact it's going further, further down. So revenue is going to be a big challenge. So I'm going to support Councilmember Austin's motion to look at this even further. We don't have full council tonight. So, I mean, we're not going to have that robust discussion as we probably could have or should have. But I'm looking forward to bringing this back again in the next few weeks so we can get a full, full extent as to what what's out there and what types of action could take. And I wouldn't especially thank Council Member Gonzales for bringing up the alleys. And alleys is a big thing in my district and certainly having that included in this study is is important because a lot of neighborhoods are suffering in regards to what their alleys look like and the access that our city employees are refuse collectors have in terms of being able to pick up the revenues from from the alleys . And of course, there's the the issues of our public safety buildings and our parks recreation building. So I'm looking forward to the next report that we get the update and moving forward with this. Thank you. Thank you. I want to just start by thanking staff. I know you guys actually work really hard on this and working on this for a while. And and I just want to thank the entire public works, Parks and Recreation and the city management team. I know technology, innovation, Health Department, everyone was involved in some way in this project. I know Public Works took the lead and I just want to thank you because I know it's very extensive and certainly there's an enormous amount of need. And so thank you for that. And I also just just wanted a couple just kudos. I think I do want to thank you know, Councilman Austin has been on this issue particular when it comes to the statewide advocacy piece. And I want to just remind us that we still also have an opportunity to hopefully also work with the legislature in this next upcoming cycle as they look at ways of trying to get cities transportation dollars. And we're in a situation today, unfortunately, where the state and Congress have chosen to do very little to help our transportation road repair, street repair needs. And so we will continue, I know, through the state led committee in particular, but also just to a further extent to to a lesser extent. But we will still do some work in the federal committee on trying to get some sort of package down to our cities. Obviously, there's no guarantee that's going to happen, but I know that work will continue. And I want to thank Councilman Austin and Councilman Richardson for I know that the work that's happening on the on the committees and to staff. So this is great stuff. You'll get this report online. You'll get the information back to the to the full council. And I know put that information on line as well so that it's all out there. And and that's it. We have a motion and a second to receive my father's report. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. And I'd like to. Next item, Madam Clerk. Item eight Report from Economic and Property Development. Recommendation to approve the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report and assessment for the period of January 1st, 2016 through December 31st, 2016, and authorized payment of $54,000 in city property assessments districts eight and nine.

LongBeachCC_02192019_19-0137

Recommendation to request City Manager to develop a policy where work done to develop our City EV infrastructure is performed by contractor’s signatory to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who hold a valid California C-10 electrical contractors license. This requirement should apply to light, medium, and/or heavy duty EV charging infrastructure.

Motion carries. Thank you. And let me move on to item 16, please. Item six needs communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilman Austin. Recommendation two requires City Manager to develop a policy where work done to develop the city's EV infrastructure is performed by contractors signatory to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who hold a valid California C ten electrical contract license. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. This item is a very important one, I think, for our city at the juncture that we're at as a city within the state, trying to create more green infrastructure and the inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations and infrastructure is a major part of that. In light of state recent state policy decisions requiring increased certification for those conducting electrical vehicle infrastructure, electrical work, the city of Long Beach should also require these categories of projects be completed by the same quality and certification of electricians. Additionally, because safety is also an important issue for Long Beach, it's important to ensure that contractors installing electrical vehicle infrastructure do so with correct safety training and practices. Contractors working in the city of Long Beach on city infrastructure should be required to do so with the same skills as the California Energy Commission requires, and that the California Public Utilities Commission requires for infrastructure work financed by SC, PGE, ENI and SG ENI. This will be an important infrastructure mechanism for our city to ensure quality work as we continue to look towards the future and build the necessary infrastructure for our mobility needs. I urge my colleagues to support this item. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I certainly second this. Probably if anyone has had the opportunity to visit the IBEW training center in Commerce, you'd understand that that this is an excellent item and something that we need to be fully supportive of as a city council. These individuals spend a good number of years learning their craft in it, and so it's so important that, particularly when it comes to public infrastructure, that we have the best and best quality and the safest approach to to our infrastructure. And so I'm fully in support of this 100%. Thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Pearce. Awesome. Very happy to vote yes on this item. It's been great to see our city really embrace. Clean energy and to see us not only say we want to clean up our environment, but we want to make sure we have a skilled workforce that's rebuilding the middle class. And doing that is a great honor to take that step. And so I want to thank my colleagues for leading on this item. Thank you. Council member Vice Mayor Andres. Also, I want to thank our council and you know, price for doing bringing us forward because the fact that whenever we talk about our workers in the city of Long Beach, I'm so glad to hear that all these individuals are working from the city and live in the city of Long Beach. This is the greatest part about all of it. I mean, I can't applaud you even more on this. So congratulations on this item. Mrs. Weiss. Thank you. And I'm going to make some comments and then I'll open it up for public comment before the vote. Let me just say just to both this item and to the one before I think that I'm really proud of. This council continues to value the importance of good jobs, skilled labor, and ensuring that people that are doing the work within our city also have access to benefits, a pension and the dignity of being able to take care of their families. And I know that particularly as it relates to the IBEW and the other trades that are involved in our work at the Convention Center and our work in this motion that Councilman Price brought forward. This is absolutely the types of of measures and the types of of items that we should be supporting to ensure that the work is being done at the quality level that all of you men and women are doing every single day in our city. And so I just want to thank all of you. I want to thank Councilwoman Pearce and Councilwoman Price for their support of these important items and their continued support of the Council for supporting these really great jobs. And so thanked. Thank you to all of you here. Any public comment on this item? Please come forward. Hi. Good evening. My name is Pat Stewart. I'm director of business development for Baker Electric. And I'm really happy to be here tonight to talk about the certification. Baker Electric is a four generation family owned union contractor. We've been around since 1938, and an important part of Baker's reputation is built on quality and safety. And we do a lot of different scopes of electrical work, and obviously one of them is infrastructure and even charging stations. So in that industry, we want to help to eliminate safety risks by using certified installers. And Baker is installed over 1000, well over 1000 charging stations using qualified technicians. As you guys know, EV charging stations involve AC and DC currents. The voltage can vary between one and 20 to 40, fast charging for 80 and new charger technologies that are pushing chargers over 300 kilowatts. And that's why EV charging infrastructure should only be done by electricians who have had the appropriate advanced training, like National Fire Protection Association 70 and National Electrical Code. So this training helps because the electricians also survey the existing electrical infrastructure to ensure they can safely support the charging infrastructure. We want to make sure that we keep the public safe and want to make sure there isn't any incidents where we in charge to put in these charging stations. So I thank you guys very much. You know how important this is and we really appreciate your guys attention on that. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Nick, thank you very much. Next speaker, please. On there, councilmember manager Ron was a resident of Long Beach and I hope for the city to approve our charging stations for jobs and clean apartment for our city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Quick. Next speaker, please. Greetings, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Keith Franklin. I'm a resident of Long Beach. I'm a veteran of the U.S. Army. And I'm. Speaking in favor of the FBI. Type program. And the good electrical jobs that all bring to the city of Long Beach and. The residents like me. Please support the FBI, T.P.. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, next speaker, please. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the council. My name is Bernie Collier and I am the co-chair of the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program, otherwise known as ITP. And I want to thank you for this time to comment a little bit of information about Evite, which I think will be helpful in making your decision this evening . Evite was founded in 2011 as a national nonprofit industry wide program. It is staffed by volunteers all over the country who give their time and energy and expertize to develop the curriculum and update the curriculum on a regular basis. Evite is brand neutral. We don't endorse any products or any companies, but yet we have the involvement of a lot of companies all over the country who do give in-kind contributions of their technology and their knowledge no money. So there are over 30 organizations and include manufacturers, utilities and other members of the industry who are involved. The goal of the Evite is effective high performance installation, but most of all, safety, safety, safety, as you already heard from the previous speaker. There's a lot of high voltages involved and a lot of current. And it's important that we keep the workers safe, but it's also important that we keep our facilities safe, our homes, our businesses and industrial facilities that have EV charging or will have EV charging. It is already required by a number of state agencies. I'll give you a few key precedents. The California Public Utilities Commission requires that the utility installations be done by certified electricians. The California Energy Commission has awarded a grant to the Port of Long Beach, which requires the installation and maintenance to be done by certified electricians. And our neighbor in Nevada, Envy Energy, is installing charging stations on their highway, which also have to be done by Evite certified electricians. EVA training is low to no cost. It's available at community colleges, industry training centers and utility training facilities. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon or good evening, counsel. My name is Jennifer Crockett. I have the distinct honor and privilege of working for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the National Electrical Contractors Association. Myself and my colleagues are here today to ask for your support for every TPI. Part of the reason why we are here to ask for. TPI is not just for the. Very critical safety aspects of doing this charging infrastructure, right? But in a time when people are talking about green new deals and creating green renewable energy jobs. Long Beach is doing it. You're doing that here. Today by implementing policies. That create green and clean energy. Jobs that support. Your residents and support people in this industry. So I'm asking for your support. I'm so excited to be here tonight. We're excited to be a part of this. And thank you very much for your leadership. And thank you for all the work you do, which is really important. So thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello, Commissioner Jane Templin. 623 Rosa Avenue resident, electrician and outreach director for the Electrical Training Institute and a proud graduate. We appreciate your understanding of our safety, building green and all the other components that we're here to support. We very much appreciate that. And anybody that is in doubt, I would love to invite them to our facility so I can give you a personal tour. I thank you for your support. Thank you. Thank you. And I want to also, for those of you that don't know, Commissioner Champlin is also under planning commission and does a very good job, I think of not just is not only a great planning commissioner, but does a great job of bringing the perspective of the trades and the work that you all do to our work of building buildings and building projects across the city. And so thank you for for the work you do, Jane, in that in that role. Councilwoman Pryce. I just wanted to end on this note and thank everyone for coming out tonight and let the men and women who are here with IBEW know just how very skilled and approachable your leadership is. So I did have the opportunity to tour the facility over five years ago, and had they not reached out and invited me and continued to foster a relationship with me, I would not now have any idea the level of work and detail that goes there, the number of men and women waiting there every day for job opportunities. It's truly remarkable to see and I'm really grateful for the partnership. And again, it really has to do. Not every union has the type of leadership that you all have. You should really understand that because the relationships that they foster with policymakers, to me it makes a world of a difference because if they bring an idea, they know and they've told me many times, we don't expect you to agree with us 100% of the time, but we want to have that dialog and we want to talk. And this right here was an amazing idea. It was really great as someone who drives an electric car and one of your members actually came out to our house and helped us set a set us up with our charging adapters at home. But, you know, to be able to have the additional infrastructure throughout the city and to have it be predictable, consistent and done with skill means a lot for our city. And again, I appreciate the partnership and I cannot say enough about the leadership of IBEW who brought this forward. I have tremendous respect for all of you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I do have a couple more comments here. Council Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes, I, too. Just want to thank Councilmember Price for bringing this forward as well as working with IBEW. And I can't say that enough in the past and so many of you here, I really appreciate all of the the work. I worked with many of you on a few other issues relative to the environment and labor. What a concept is that the two can combine and we can actually see a trajectory of good, amazing opportunities for jobs and amazing opportunities for our city. So thank you again for the work. And Councilmember Pearce. I'll be brief I know already spoke and yes to the Bluegreen alliance. That is a strong alliance. I did not think everybody that came out earlier on my previous item, so I just wanted to thank not only IBEW but painters and teamsters who reached out to me in support of that previous item. So really great to have all labor in the House. Thank you. And and with that, we have a motion on a second. So Members, please go and cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you all for coming again. Um, as we're going to go back to our hearing in a minute, there's wanted to get all these men and women on the on their way. I know they're here for those items.

LongBeachCC_09162014_14-0745

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with Kathy M. Gaylord, as Successor Trustee of the Michael E. Crawley, Sr., and Patricia S. Crawley 1999 Trust (Seller), for the purchase of certain real property located at 1858 Atlantic Avenue (APN 7210-016-009) in the amount of $380,000; accept the Categorical Exemption CE 14-071; and Increase appropriations in the Refuse Fund (EF 330) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $400,000. (District 6)

Item actually. Item 19. Yeah, the next item. Item 19 Report from City Manager and Public Works Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary for the purchase of property located at 1858 Atlantic Avenue in the amount of 380,000 and increase appropriations in the Public Works Department by 400,000. District six. All those in favor mostly came Bush and by Mango, second by Andrews. Yes, Gray and Johnson. Andrews. Yes. Thank you very much. Yeah, I think this is a great opportunity for the city of Long Beach. You know, my purchase in this property that we can move forward, you know, the first educational environmental recycling demonstration depot in Long Beach. You know, Pat, you know, I would really love to see a green technology job training center at this location so that workforce development in collaboration with the, you know, refuge department, I can train people for the future in jobs, in green technology. And I'm sure the mayor and city could like to see, you know, this as well. Thank you. Thank you. There is a motion on the floor, if any public comment on the item. Okay. CNN Oh, okay. All of us a favorite. Please raise your hand. Motion carries unanimously. Next item. Item 20 Report from Financial Management Recommendation to award contract to seed metropolitan electrical distributors for a total aggregate amount not to exceed 750,000 15,000 citywide.

LongBeachCC_09102019_19-0834

Recommendation to declare ordinance adopting an amendment to Ordinance No. C-6496, adopted July 5, 1988, and amended on January 24, 1989, July 11, 1989, December 5, 1989, March 20, 1990, July 3, 1990, September 18, 1990, July 2, 1991, July 7, 1992, January 26, 1993, August 24, 1993, June 28, 1994, July 18, 1995, November 28, 1995, October 1, 1996, March 25, 1997, October 7, 1997, October 27, 1998, April 20, 1999, October 19, 1999, October 17, 2000, October 30, 2001, March 19, 2002, November 26, 2002, January 6, 2004, February 8, 2005, November 1, 2005, December 5, 2006, March 20, 2007, May 22, 2007, December 18, 2007, July 15, 2008, September 21, 2010, September 13, 2011, September 11, 2012, October 3, 2013, and September 9, 2014, September 22, 2015, September 20, 2016, September 12, 2017, and September 11, 2018, relating to departmental organization of the City of Long Beach, read and adopted as read. (A-6)

Motion carries. Thank you. Item 17. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to declare ordinance adopting an amendment relating to the Depart Mental Organization of the City of Long Beach. Red and adopted as red. Please. This is basically to enshrine what was done last or last meeting or with the budget. And so is there any there's public comment. I'll take first, Mr. Goodhew and then Ms.. Control. It's good to hear any public comments. Yes. The comment is. There is no specific. That I hear. To comment on. And this is why this goes to the issue of we need to go back to what really works. I was just I signed up earlier today, too, for an open public comment. And I was just told. Essentially that's gone because I spoke before. These are too confusing you've got to put out. If you're going to list these all down, Mr. Goodman, this is what these subjects are. Thank you. This is about the budget. So I'm 17. Please. But it doesn't have. It's about the budget. Yes, but it doesn't have the details, period. That's what you've got to change that. That's the thrust of what has come almost on every single item. And I go back to the other one. I was going to comment on something relative to not reconvening the Council of Trent in order to appoint a new city manager. But that got lost in other. And all the previous stuff that was up here. So we have to go back to what works so well. Before we let Ed let the criminally complicit get in here. And jerk around the agendas. So give that some thought, please. Or again, look for another part time. Occupation. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Cantrell, please. Item 17 Recommendation to declare ordinance adopting an amendment to ordinance number c6496 adopted July 5th, 1988, and amended on January 24th, 1989. July 11th. 1989. December 5th. 1989. March 20th. 1990. July 3rd. 1990. September 18. 1990. July 2nd. 1991. July 7th. 1992. July a January 25th. 1993. August 24th, 1995. And on and on. There's 67 more lines of dates, and you finally get to what this is about relating to departmental organization of the city of Long Beach Red and adopted as red. I would like one of you to explain to me what you're voting on. Make you Miss Cantrell. Vice Mayor Andres. Canterbury Ranga customer Margot. Yes. I just wanted to thank the community again for this budget. I know that it took many community meetings. I want to highlight and raise up a few things that we were able to accomplish. I think it's amazing that we're going to be able to do some pilot programs with homeless services on the weekends. Homelessness is not a monday through Friday 9 to 5, and the opportunity to be able to have these outreach teams on the weekend is crucial. Through the mayor's recommendation, we're adding a refuge team, a clean team, which will be instrumental in keeping our community clean and safe. A lot of our summer youth programs in partnership with partners of Parks, who was so gracious to bring forward an extra $25,000 to make sure that we had the summer programing and our parks additional library hours. I mean, this really is a robust budget and I appreciate every member of the community who came forward to give their opinion and input. I want to thank each and every one of my colleagues who was very thoughtful about the things that they advocated for and against. And I want to thank the staff for their excellent work throughout the year, ensuring that we start from a place of fiscal responsibility. And I really, really also appreciate Mr. John GROSS and grace for their continued commitment to the fiscal policies that keep this city sound. So thank you very much to my colleagues for voting on those very fiscally prudent policies. And then thank you for our budget team for always ensuring that we're we're keeping those in mind. And with that, I asked my colleagues support on this very important item that has a lot of stuff in it. Thank you. Thank you. Please cast your votes. Motion carries.

LongBeachCC_10022018_18-0874

Recommendation to request City Manager and City Attorney to review the drafted Neighborhood Transformation Partnership Agreement and report back within 45 days on the feasibility of participating in the program.

Motion carries. Please note item 18 1:00, please. Regarding communication from Councilmember Durango. Councilwoman Gonzales Recommendation to request city manager and city attorney to review the drafted Neighborhood Transformation Partnership Agreement and report back within 45 days on the feasibility of participating in the program. Is there a is there a second point? No. Okay. First of all, I want to thank my colleague, Lila Gonzales for staying out of the salon with me and for her leadership in bridging the digital gap, the digital divide here in Long Beach. I'm pleased to bring the title forward tonight. As the city of Long Beach prides itself on leadership for our residents, including the Long Beach College Promise Everyone Home Initiative, the Clean Air Action Plan, and our city's ongoing ability to lead in technical innovation and much more. There is still, however, room for improvement as certain sectors within our community continue to remain affected by the digital and social economic divide, most notably our residents in West Long Beach who lack access to basic internet and technology on a greater scale than the rest of the city. We have taken a large step in not only acknowledging these divides within our city, but passing on a number of initiatives which we hope will help bridge these divides. As a result, we believe now is the time to continue to invest in our neighborhoods through a Neighborhood Transformation Partnership Agreement in conjunction with the California Emergent Technology Fund , a nonprofit group that has partnered with the YMCA of Greater Long Beach to work collaboratively, collaboratively, collaboratively to define the greater impact to our community as it relates to digital inclusion. I have issues with multi syllabic words. Tonight, the city of Long Beach must continue to lead in the fight to promote and produce equitable opportunities for our youth, especially those who reside in our most economically disadvantaged communities. This partnership would act as a pilot program centered around the Stephens Middle School community, allowing for a multiagency, collaborative effort to provide services to the local families, which will ensure that we provide the technology to communities such as West Palm Beach. Do have the best opportunity to attain academic, social and economic success. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this item and to allow the city manager and city attorney to analyze the Neighborhood Transformation Partnership Agreement and report back to us within 45 days on the feasibility of participating in this partnership. An agreement I ask for you as well. Thank you, Councilwoman. Mrs. Linda Gonzalez. Thank you so much, Councilmember Ranga, for bringing this forward, and I thank you very much for being a part of this initiative. We are in the midst of our discussions about digital inclusion and have yet to include even more partnerships. And I think this only creates an even more robust discussion. So just a few points of clarity on what the findings were from the Tech and Innovation Commission. They conducted a survey this past summer with Long Beach residents, and it was said that 51% of respondents could only afford a maximum of $20 for Wi-Fi service each month , and another 26% couldn't afford paying for Wi-Fi at all. Unfortunately, a lot of times we we need the YMCA as the libraries, the nonprofits that are doing the work every day to not only provide Wi-Fi, to provide technological services. And so we thank you again. And I think Councilmember Wodonga especially pointing out the West Side neighborhood as we know that that's a desert for technology. We thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Margo. I want to thank you guys for bringing this forward. I think it's important to look at the digital divide, but also recognize that a big component of that is seniors. And the more and more we are out in the community and talking with our senior community, it's really, really important that we also include them in the program . So thank you for bringing this forward and I hope we don't forget them. Thank you. Councilman Pearce. I yes, I also wanted to thank my council colleagues for bringing this forward, but also the nonprofits and all the organizations that really assist in trying to bridge that divide. And I know that at the city level, we are doing what we can and we're also advocating at the state level. But it really does take a village. And so I just wanted to thank you all for being here and great job on doing community outreach on this item. Thank you. By the way, I'd public comment on this. By Stafford, please. Good evening, council members. I just want to embarrass myself. My name is Jonathan Gray. Grew up in the seventh District. I was born and raised in Long Beach. I want to talk about the struggles of my life growing up and why I think the neighborhood transformation is going to make a big difference to the teens and the families around the Stephens Middle School neighborhood. My dad was on disability and he became on disability when I was in the third grade. During that time, my mother was unemployed and it was a very hard time for my family. We were on welfare. I remember going to the check cashing places and getting the food stamps, then going to buy groceries or ripping them out of the book with the cashiers. I thought that's what all kids did. I went to Longfellow, I went to Hughes. I went to the prep academy. I went to Long Beach Poly, and I went to us through that. I had to get loaner uniforms because my family couldn't afford it. I was on free lunches. I couldn't fit in with my peers and my education. And my attendance dropped. Soon after. However, I'm glad to say that I graduated from Lombard City College with my associates, and I graduated from Cal State Long Beach with my bachelor's in political science. And now I work for the YMCA development branch to help teens there in similar situations. I support the Neighborhood Transformation Agreement because I believe that creating this integrated service team between the state, county, city and school levels can really help a student. That was like in my shoes who is struggling, especially in the areas of West Long Beach. I can relate to the five outcomes of the Neighborhood Transformation Agreement. Education. I clearly struggled. And clearly the school district wasn't there to support me as well as they could have. Employment. I had a hard time finding a job, writing resumes and applying for them. I was a victim of a crime in my own neighborhood and I had the scars to show for it. I know what it is like to grow up low income and to grow up in poverty here in Long Beach. And let me tell you, it was a struggle. And the last member sorry, the last issue that the last five outcomes of health I've been to the Long Beach Comprehensive Health Clinic multiple times and I can relate to being on medical and the supports that it can provide in the help that it can provide. I think by creating a plan, having a family navigator with the neighborhood transformation would really make a difference and will help create the next generation of leaders of Long Beach. There are many fabulous families here in Long Beach who share a similar story of mine, their struggle struggling to navigate, navigate the in the systems in order to get the help they need. The Neighborhood Transformation Initiative will help those families get a pathway out of poverty. So please join Assemblymember Patrick O'Donnell. The Long Beach Unified School District, the California Emerging Technology Fund, the YMCA grid in Long Beach, and myself in supporting the Neighborhood Transformation Agreement. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity. My name is Augustin Jealous. I am here on behalf of the California Emerging Technology Fund, where statewide foundations are established by the California Public Utilities Commission with a mission to close the digital divide. This means that we are ensuring that all households have access to a high speed Internet service in order to fully participate in the digital economy. Unfortunately, we know that the most economically disadvantaged members of our communities are the ones that are on the wrong side of the divide. Bless you. I also want to say that we have admired the leadership role that the city of Lombard Lombard has taken in this area of digital inclusion. We're very proud of our partnership with with the Lombard YMCA. For nearly a decade, we have invested nearly $1,000,000 because we believe in the leadership of the of the Y and and their approach of integrating digital literacy, digital inclusion into their work of youth development and leadership development. I am in charge of a program called School to Home that supports underserved middle schools with the integration of technology, making sure that they are successful at supporting their teachers so that they can use the technology effectively training parents so that they can communicate with schools. And by doing that, we make sure that they can transformed a learning environment into something that's more engaging. Parents have access to student information so they can track progress, and that really helps us address a lot of the academic needs. However, we know that a lot of the really underserved intelligence communities, the academics is just part of the problem. A lot of the kids, as you've just heard, have a lot of the families actually have a lot of other challenges, whether it's not knowing where their next meal is coming from, where they're going to sleep at night . Substance abuse issues. So that's the other piece where, you know, the the support that is going to be brought together, brought to the table through this neighborhood transformation initiative. And what it is really is looking at the resources and services that are already there through the county, the city, the school district, and putting together a comprehensive, coordinated plan that has a navigator that helps family families navigate through the different services so we can have a more accountable system. So we're saying that families are able to get themselves service and address their various issues. So we're happy to be the organization that's convening this, using our resources to bring everyone to the table. And we're very pleased about the response that we've gotten from all the stakeholders at the government level and also organizations like the YMCA. So thank you very much. And we're excited. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. City Council Members Mayor Robert Garcia, Vice Mayor. De Andrews. My name is Bob Cabezas. I'm the vice president of YMCA of Greater Long Beach. And I need to start out. By commending you and thanking you and showing my tremendous respect to you for the work that you do for our city every day. And I think. Not enough of that has been said tonight. So I wanted to thank you. Secondly, I wanted to really advocate for the Neighborhood. Transformation Initiative from the standpoint of. Of a citizen in Long Beach. I've lived in the city for 26 years, between third and fourth on Temple Avenue. And Jenny. You're my you're my representative. I have known you throughout the city as just big advocates. For our city. But also be an advocate for our city's underserved. Our youth, our families, our seniors are homeless. And I believe that the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative really would raise up. Services for those families and more importantly, coordinate those services so our families. Really have a chance to. Get access and equity in our city. And I really want to commend you. Because I believe what Lena Gonzalez is doing with the Digital Divide. Initiative and all of you signing on to that. Really talks to the progressive answers to some of these difficult questions we have. In our city and some of the issues. I really want to commend Roberto or. His office for just collaborating with us in. Making sure that this works and that and that. We can move. Forward. I want to commend Linda Chico and. County Supervisor. Janice Hahn's office for helping. Us move this forward, as well as Christina, which was obviously with the school district and Megan Care. On the Columbia Unified School Board. But I also want to thank Rex Richardson for his dire commitment, just tireless commitment to under-served children and youth of this city and his leadership on my My Brother's Keeper initiative and working to bring that to Long Beach. You know, you folks are doing phenomenal work and you make me proud to be a citizen of this city. So I just wanted to commend you and also speak to this initiative. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Any more comments on this item? If not, please cast your vote. Now we'll go back to 21.

KingCountyCC_06152016_2014-0320

AN ORDINANCE relating to telephone or electronic attendance at council and standing committee meetings; and amending Ordinance 11683, Section 15, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.24.145.

All right. That means is item number six and make it by paperwork here. Item number six is proposed ordinance 2014 zero 3 to 0. This is one we've been talking about for a number of time. This will not be voted on today. This is purely a briefing, although it does say possible action at the top. It is purely a briefing to talk about where we are, get some background information, and then during the next week or two weeks, people can decide what they want to do and we will move from there. So, Mr. Wagner, will you please brief us on this issue? Thank you, Madam Chair. Nick Wagner, counsel. Staff. The staff report on this item begins on page 67 of your materials. This proposed ordinance addresses the issue of when council members are permitted to attend council meetings by telephone or other electronic means, which I will refer to shorthand as remote attendance. There is a proposed Amendment One, which is that pages 81 to 85 of your materials that makes several non substantive wording changes in the operative section of the ordinance. On the recommendation of the code revise or so in my staff report, I'll be referring to Amendment One. And a red line has been distributed to each council member this morning that shows the changes that Amendment one would make in the original ordinance. And I should make clear that the changes that Amendment one would make are in red. There's lots of underlining and crossing out, which is in the original proposed ordinance, Amendment One makes only the changes that you see there in red. I'd like to begin by describing the current county code provisions governing remote attendance, and you can find that description on page 68 of your materials. Currently under Section 1.24.14 or five of the county code, remote attendance at full council meetings is permitted in three situations. First, in an emergency as defined in section 12.50 2.01 area of the county code. And here we're talking about a public emergency, not an individual council members personal emergency. The second situation is if if there's a special council meeting convened during the council's summer or winter recess. And the third situation is if a council member declares to the council chair before or during a meeting that the council member is unable to attend the meeting in person because of urgent circumstances and the term urgent circumstances is defined to mean either of two situations. First, inclement weather that poses an immediate life health or safety risk to the member. If the member were to travel to the meeting and the examples given are a flood alert or snow in the member's district or in an area that the member would have to travel through to get to the meeting. And the second situation is a medically related emergency or urgent need for assistance that makes the member unable to attend the meeting. And the emergency. The emergency or urgent need for assistance must must be either the members or that of the member's immediate family, which is defined as you see there in the middle of page 68. Pardon me always. A member. The definition of family member. I think would be helpful for the listening audience to know what is meant by immediate family. Currently under the code, it includes a spouse or domestic partner, a child, a child of a spouse or domestic partner, a parent. And that would be the member's parent, the parent of a spouse or domestic partner of the member, the grandparent or of the member or the grandparent of the member's spouse or domestic partner. Those are all the categories that are included. Currently, only three meetings per calendar year may be attended remotely on the basis of urgent circumstances. As I said before, the current rule limits remote attendance to meetings of the full council. There is currently no provision for remote attendance at council committee meetings such as this meeting today. The changes that the proposed ordinance would make are described on pages 69 to 71 of your materials. And as I mentioned, I'll be referring to the language in proposed Amendment One, which is attachment to pages 81 to 85. First, the ordinance would allow a council member to attend up to three meetings of standing committees of the council each calendar year, as well as three meetings of the full council to provide context for that change and the other proposed changes. There is a table attachment six which follows page 92 of your materials. It compares the meeting attendance rule rules of King County and nine other government or government related entities. Eight of those nine entities allow remote attendance in some form, and none of those eight distinguishes between meetings of the full entity and meetings of its committees. Six of the other entities place no limits on the number of meetings per year that a member may attend remotely. One has a limit of six meetings, and one has a limit of four meetings unless absent for medical reasons. The second change that the ordinance would make is to allow remote attendance at more than three full council meetings and three committee meetings per year on the basis of urgent circumstances. If a majority of the members present at the meeting vote to allow the member to attend remotely, and if it were a full council meeting that we were talking about, the ordinance would permit remote attendance only if there were a quorum present at the meeting. The other eight entities that permit remote attendance that are listed in the table that I refer to. One makes remote attendance contingent on approval by other members of the entity, and seven do not. The third change would be in the definition of urgent circumstances, and that change is shown in the red lining at the bottom of page 69 and the top of page 70 of your materials, as proposed in excuse me, inclement weather would justify remote attendance if it made it difficult for the member to attend the meeting. It would not need to be so severe that travel to the meeting would pose an immediate life, health or safety risk for the member, and a medically related issue or other urgent need for assistance would justify remote attendance if it made it difficult for the member to attend the meeting. But it would not need to be an emergency and the member would not need to be unable to attend in person. Of the eight other entities that permit remote attendance. Five do not limit the circumstances under which is permitted. One permits it only under extraordinary circumstances such as emergencies, illness, accident, being away from the agency's region due to official business or similar circumstances, and one permitted only for emergency meetings. It was clear the fourth proposed change would require a member attending remotely to have the member's voice be audible so that the public can hear the discussion and voting process. Six of the comparable entities listed in the table have a similar requirement. And fifth. And finally, the proposed ordinance would add the following notice provision quote to facilitate connection to the broadcasting system. Requests for participation by telephone or other electronic means should be made half an hour in advance of the meeting when possible. And, quote, five of the comparable entities have no notice requirements for attending remotely and three have some form of notice requirement. There are three proposed amendments in your materials. Amendment one, as I mentioned, which is attachment two at pages 81 to 85, consists of non substantive changes in wording. As shown in the red line that you have in front of you Amendment two, which is attachment three at page 87, would permit remote attendance when a council member would have difficulty attending a meeting because of the council members need to attend a meeting of an outside committee to which the Council member has been assigned under the council rules. And I should mention that both Amendment two and Amendment three, which I'll describe in a moment, are amendments to Amendment one. Amendment three would expand the definition of family members. That's because the individuals whose urgent need for assistance would warrant remote attendance to include all immediate family, as defined in section 3.12 .010. g g of the county code. And that section specifies the family members for whose death King County employees are eligible for bereavement leave under Section 3.12 point 210 of the county code. And those additional family members are the member's daughter in law and son in law, and the siblings and grandchildren of the member or of the member's spouse or domestic partner. And that concludes my staff report, unless there are any questions. Council Member Goss. Thank you, Madam Chair. Where is this list of eight jurisdictions that you keep referencing? What page? There's a table following page 92 of your materials. 92 and at the top right here. Right. Yeah. There's always has to top this here. Okay. And there I could see some of these changes being necessary if we had a problem with member attendance. Belichick It's been 13 years since we haven't had a quorum at Cairo and 21 years since we weren't able to get five people at a regular county council meeting. I'm trying to figure out what is broken that would be fixed by allowing this kind of flexibility. And I do see now that there are other jurisdictions that do it, but why most jurisdictions don't do this. And I just think it's so much more responsible when you have a rule that one has to be here and there are serious emergency reasons for one not being here in order to vote. May I answer my question? Okay. Let me answer that one. All right. Unfortunately, I've had more opportunities probably than most people to want this to happen. First of all, I think it's important for us to come into the 21st century. And what does that mean? It means we use the technology that's available to us. As you can see, all of these other entities make it available. There have been occasions when I have been out at a Nako convention doing county business of which, you know, I'm assigned to that committee and while I'm out doing county business, I'm marked absent from county. So I don't get any any credit. And it looks like I wasn't doing my job when in fact I was doing my job. But it doesn't appear any way. And in one occasion, I did go and listen to the part of the meeting so that I could put comments in so that I was attending back and forth to meetings at the same time. And I'm sure we're all aware that there are many times when we need to be in two places at the same time. So having the ability to use this technology is important. There was a time when I called because there was a huge snowstorm in my district and the person from the county said There's no snow here. And I said, well, that's true. There may not be any snow in Seattle this morning, but there is in my district and I chose to come in, but it was not a safe driving environment. And I was driving and thinking, what the heck am I doing? Although those were the exact words I was thinking because it wasn't safe. And so there needs to be opportunities because it's a very large county. There can be things happening in one part of the county that are not happening in the other. And the third reason is even more important is it brings the voice of that district that is available because you are available to the phone, to the conversation. Should that community voice need to be heard on any and all topics? So I think it's important that we allow and encourage all the members to be here in whatever way they can be here. Obviously, it's the best possible for us to be here personally, but when the circumstances are either dangerous or you've had a family emergency or you're in one case, I was on the phone when my husband was in surgery. And, you know, it was good for me to be concentrating on something that wasn't quite as nerve wracking as what was going on in the operating room. But I was here. I was making the conversations that needed to be for my district and hearing what needed to be done. So I think it's important, and that is why all these other jurisdictions are already doing it with much more flexibility than we're talking about here. We have had this available to us in our council meetings, not in our committee meetings for years, and it has not been abused. So I think it's time for us to move on to the next step. So, member Dunn. I think there's going to be some questions relating to this. I, I support this in principle. We might need to smooth that just a little bit because I think it will actually approve, improve attendance as opposed to early. And I think it's always good for us to be able to connect in as having lived having served on the council, lived in Maple Valley where, you know, traffic was a roughly an hour and windstorms and trees down. I think there's a lot to be said about this just provided that it's not abuse. And I'm very confident it won't be this without a similar provision in place for a while. And it certainly hasn't been abused by the members. But I would mention that a few of us have called in. In fact, our council by Roger goes on the phone right now. And if you've done that, you realize that the acoustics are not good. And we need to, if we're going to support this, make a commitment to and and and those TV that we will. Improve the system so that we can hear and communicate well. It is sometimes difficult to hear the chair and other members of the committee for a variety of reasons. So I just wanted to add that that thought. Thank you. I think that's really important. And I know I listened to it a lot. Even committees when I'm not on, when I'm driving and there are certain members who speak right into a microphone, you can hear every word and there are others you cannot. So I think as a politeness that we all need to hold each other up to saying, Hey, I don't think you're speaking as a microphone. Councilmember Bell, D.C.. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I possibly stand alone as coming from a jurisdiction where we did have a rule allowing this sort of thing. When when I was at Bellevue. And in fact, our rules are listed here and similar to what Councilmember Dunn was just saying, it wasn't used all that frequently. I recall using the rule myself. For example, when I was on vacation, it wasn't a family emergency of any kind. I was enjoying the beach with my family, but that was for scheduling reasons that couldn't be avoided. That happened to be the week of the meeting when the council was going to be debating some very big and very contentious issues around the light rail project that I had been working on very, very diligently for a long time, and I wanted to participate. And so I did. And it was challenging. I mean, it's not easy to have that kind of a substantive discussion when one of the members is on the phone. But I feel that it was important that I had the ability to do that, and it was important to the ultimate outcome of that issue for the people of the jurisdiction that I represented at the time. So I understand the value of this. And frankly, there's a lot of regional bodies that allow for phone calling, sound transit allows for it. And we have members here who have taken advantage of that. It's on transit. Others have. I think that it's important that we have everybody we're stronger body when the entire body is represented, whether it be a committee, whether it be the full council, whether it be this committee of the whole. And so I think in general, reducing barriers to participation is a good thing. And for that reason I'll support this. However, it is logistically very challenging in this chamber. I really appreciate what Councilmember Dunn just said, and I had it noted that I was going to say something as well, that if we're going to move to having marginally or even substantially more frequent phone participation, we have got to do something about the setup. It's just okay. The heavens have spoken. Wow. That's great. Yeah. We've got because they've got the acoustics in the chamber are not just for the people who are calling in, for the people who are in the room listening to the person talking. They're not they're not the best. And so we I think we'll have to look at a budget item possibly to upgrade our system, you know, as we go forward. So I think it makes good sense. As Council Member Lambert said there, we have had the ability to do this with committees and I haven't noticed that people take on do advantage of it. And so it seems like a really it seems like a common and not at all controversial thing to me to do. We just have to make it work. We have to commit to each other that we're going to make it work. Thank you. Thank you. And I think the courtesy is going to be really important to, as far as, you know, letting somebody know that you can't hear. And also at the end of each section to be able, say, you know, council member at the Grove, do you have anything you need to say so that, you know, the person on the phone knows that they don't have to be interrupting? Hello. Hello. So that they know that they'll have some opportunity to make input. So I think, you know, some minor adjustments to making this work will be needed. Council Member Oh yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a comment and then a question and I appreciate what's been said thus far. And in fact, I think as Councilmember Dunn said, it can increase attendance or participation even if telo telephonically. I recently last month was chairing a commission meeting in another state and tuned into the Health Housing Human Services Committee , which had Vice Chair Lambert chaired. And I went through airport security besides parking the rental car going through it that my husband did that and I was on the phone through all of that, through airport security, through waiting at the gate, boarding the plane, and was on for the whole time of the committee, except the last few minutes. So my partner said it was very difficult and I think it would be nice if, you know, I'm going to that amount of effort to participate that I could be able to vote a vote or an action were needed. My question is on amendment number two and two questions on it, actually, and this has to do with the A members. I'm looking for tenants at a meeting of an outside committee in which the members service would make it difficult. Now, in my case, it was an outside commission of north of Western State. But if that wouldn't be included, I would not think. Are we talking about an outside committee that's in a formalized committee that council members are assigned to? My intention in drafting the amendment, council members council member Lammers direction was to refer to the the provision in the council rules that provides for the chair to appoint members to various outside committees. And that was my intention. I don't know if that council member, Lambert may want to explain her view on that. Now, we were trying to find something that would be a guideline, and so that's what we use as our official list. So my example was it being at Naco and not being able to participate, even though I was on the phone and I, I could have so. I can understand that with Naco, but I don't think other committees would be meeting the same time. That may be an exception. I bet. Well, Mr. States, if I. So in transit or, you know, whatever outside communities that. Have found transit is actually listed on that resolution. Oh, I know it is. And I'm just in. I can't I'm trying to think of circumstances where outside committees would be meeting the same time as our council meeting, which is the designated time. So if you want to amend that, add something or it's fine. I was just trying to get the idea that we shouldn't be absent from doing our duties if we're actually doing our duty. And that's why we're absent. Commissioner Make absolutely no sense. Councilmember Bassett. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nick, what is the current policy for being marked absent from attending our meeting? Well, the clerk may want to elaborate on this, but my understanding is that if you're permitted to attend under the current rules, then you would be marked present. And if you're otherwise, you need to be physically present. And anything you want to add. Well, so members are either present or excused. There's no. No, we don't. What about the from. So right now, for council meetings, if a council member participates by phone, we're required to. The chair makes that announcement at the beginning of the meeting, and then we note that in the minutes that the member participated telephonically. You know what goes on the record? Well, then they're there. Then for council meetings, members who participate telephonically are considered present for purposes of the quorum. And then they their votes are counted when we take the oath. What about for the committees? For the committees. There's no that's what this I think this ordinance does is extend that rule that applies in the council meetings to the committee meetings. And make some other technical changes. But essentially now there is no provision for participation in a committee meeting by telephone. He keeps the Sony C one. Madam Chair, one of the additional concerns that I have, again, and reflecting back upon our history and there's been the concern Don needs to hear this. There's been two political races that involved members of this body running against each other where attendance at meetings became a key issue. And there's been three other meetings where King County Council members were running against others in the community that are not concerned with where it was raised, their attendance. And in all five races, attendance at meetings became one of the two or three more important issues that members of the general public considered. So I would need to know whether or not being able to call and make you present or not present at a meeting. It would make you present. You were present if you are here telephonically or if you were here in person as you are during a council member under existing rules. But you are not allowed to be present even if, as Councilmember of the Grove is present at this moment, is not considered present for this meeting because it's a committee meeting and not a council meeting. So if you are telephonically at a council meeting, you are present as if you were here in the body. And this is also expanding non emergency reasons that you could call in. Right. Those concerned about duty used an example where she was at the beach and she was able to call in and Bellevue. Yeah, I really do not go that far. I'm on another committee and in one meeting they were able to say anybody can can be attending remotely any time they want in one sentence, as long as everybody can hear them. And and I had to laugh as I voted on that. But, you know, they can do it in one sentence. And here we are, months and months and months later at several pages long. I think the most important thing is that everybody has life around them, whether it's happy circumstances, death, bad circumstances, illnesses, traffic accidents. And there are ways of getting here, you know, whatever happens, you know, rainstorm, snowstorm, sleet, hail, whatever. And we have to deal with those. And we're professionals. And as has been said in doing this at the council, it has not produced any problems. Nobody's abused it. And I think that we need to take in in my mind, this is the next baby step. It's not even as robust as five out of the eight surrounding jurisdictions that have no limits on the reasons and six out of eight that have no limits on the number. So this is a very, very modest step, but it does allow each of us to participate and have our individual citizens be able to participate through us, no matter what the weather is or what other issues are being faced. And so that is your question. Yeah. Essentially extends what we currently have to all of our committees and makes the criteria. One can use a more flexible and broader. Yes. In the fact that you can go to other council approved meetings and not be considered absent and that there are more family members such as grandchildren and in my daughter in law as the son in laws that should they die, you would be. Is this sick? Well, I think it's been. A little traumatic. What it would do is the amendment you're referring to would expand the group of immediate family members whose urgent need for assistance would justify attending remotely to include all of the categories who currently if if they did die, the member would or a county employee would be entitled to take bereavement leave on that account. So it uses the same just the same categories of, of individuals for this purpose, as well as for the categories that are currently makes someone eligible for bereavement leave. So you are only talking about bereavement then. See, I thought Cathy said the relative would have to be dying in order to be able to call that. No. No. It uses those categories. It borrows those categories. Category categories, the. Bereavement category. The relationship categories, and. Number of bereaved means about to die. I thought. Right. Certain category if someone in a certain category, certain relationship to a county employee dies. The county code provides that they can take bereavement leave. Right. This proposed ordinance would use those same categories and say if any of those individuals has an urgent need for assistance and I'm paraphrasing now, that that would be a justification that would constitute urgent circumstances, justify a council member to attend remotely by phone or other electronic means. All right. Thank you for that clarification. So just to make sure I'm clear on the language. What does amendment number three mean? That you could be marked absent if you have a sick family member? But does it also mean if your family member died, you would still be marked present if you participated? Well, if a family member died, I guess I haven't. Thought about under that category. That is. That would. Be urgent. There'd be an urgent care category. Well, yeah, it's I guess it doesn't really fit the definition that the proposed ordinance would use it, which is that there has to be a medically related issue or other urgent need for assistance that makes it difficult. So you might want to clarify that if that's what your attention is. Well, medically urgent, I guess, with death is considered a pretty medically urgent issue. But if anybody's questioning whether death is considered medically urgent or not. Then it's all over. Yeah. Council member Belushi. See what happens if we just. We still don't know what. We're going to replace it. Just a confirmation. As I read this, you basically have three discretionary times when you call in for whatever reason, which would cover not only a death, but my beach vacation or I mean, we don't do that every year, by the way, but so you'd have up to three times as I read this as a councilmember to choose to call in. No, no, that's. Currently, there are three different categories of reasons why. I'm talking about with the amendment, but they're new with the. New rule. Okay. All that would do it would address the urgent circumstances as a ground and it would modify the definition of urgent circumstances. But it would not create it would not give members the right to attend remotely in the absence of urgent circumstances is. So I would go further. I don't. Know. That's what I was hoping somebody would say that I would like to do a new striker that took in the fact that we have. For. That we have four amendments before us because this has been here for so long that some of the language has gotten older and that we do keep the three for no reason and then we go into the urgent. Um, so anyway, this is up for a briefing because there are obviously some various opinions about how this would be implemented, should be implemented. It just boggles my mind that other groups can do it on one or two sentences in one meeting. But anyway, here we are. So during the next two weeks, if you would like to bring amendments, let me know and we will go for that. Council Member Duncan. I have to make this point because of the record on it. With all due respect to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Goss, our districts are different and yours is is right here and close. And I know you don't do a lot of skateboarding, but if you wanted to, you could skateboard to work. My friend. My district goes, Do you know that my district goes all the way to where King County borders, Yakima County and Natchez Pass. And I have people that live out there and I am frequently out there and it is in elevations up to 6000 feet. Kath has got places, I've got almost 8000 feet. We are out there doing a lot of work and sometimes things happen and I had a situation where down at the state of the county last year and I got in a really bad situation in terms of traffic and and just missed the meeting and then of course, you know what happens there, but if I could have called in, it would have been fine and I would have attended. So I just I want people to remember that we all come from different circumstances. When I lived out in rural, unincorporated King County outside of Maple Valley, and it took at least an hour to come to work in traffic, that's that was really hard on my family and my children because of the amount of commute times going back and forth. These are choices we make. But I'm urging my colleagues to remember the diversity of our districts and what challenges may exist, especially relating to weather, where the big windstorm with 29 trees around it couldn't get anywhere and power was out. So anyway, just just to chew on food for thought and always with great respect. Mr. Gossett you had to stop that skateboarding came out. You. Mr. Guys. But what are we, uh, I mean, other examples are that Councilman DEMBOSKY there's a way out north, and for three years he's been on the county council and never missed one meeting being physically here. Mr. Dombrowski is is. I was doing so well, you know, in avoiding this conversation. He's always sat right at the front of the class to give that kind of guy. A halo came with it. Position. I appreciate the comment there. I was just but I you know, last week I was out in Reagan's district at his invitation to look. Get some of the marijuana growing issues and and income and coming back. I was reminded, you know, we were coming down the valley highway and the traffic there, it it it is a long way out there. And these are big districts. And I, I think very often every day when I'm coming down either on the bus or in the car or now sometimes on light rail, how easy it is for me from Northeastern to get here to participate. I mean, it's it's easy and I'm lucky then. So I, I'm not sure we'll look at these from this perspective. I've supported these interest in having a little more flexibility here. I think it's a pro participation measure. I want to make sure we do it the right amount so it stays a pro participation measure. There is a lot of value in face to face dialog and in that I want to preserve that. It's one of the great things about this body, I think, is that we're here and can see each other and the debate is richer. We've got to fix if we're going to be more flexible, we've got to fix this technology because frankly, today it's more disruptive than it is helpful when you're here in chambers on the call. And it just is. But I think there's solutions to that. I think there probably are solutions to that. So I look forward to working with you, Councilmember Lambert, I think to see if we can get this to the right spot for a little more flexibility while preserving the really tremendous value of being here and working with all of you. Face to face brings. A lot of thank you and I appreciate that too. I think, like I said, we have work balance. We have very large districts, my district, 1007 square miles. And it's a little different to be commuting if you have a meeting in the morning and frequently I do. I have a mayor's meeting at 7 a.m. at North Bend sometimes and getting back in here on time and sometimes I listen to the meeting on the way in, so then I'm prepared when I get here. And it does help us that have large districts to be able to be in two places at once. And as Councilmember Caldwell said, lots of times we are scheduled from more than one place at the same time. So all of these things are helpful to us and we need to be able to get to that. This is a robust discussion and so I look forward to hearing from you as to exactly what you would like to see. We will try to get a compromise. Everybody has very different ideas and so not everybody's going to have 100% what they want in it. But I think as long as we can keep the flavor of getting this done and moving on, it will be great. So we have now moved the other two items for today off to the next meeting. And so at that, this meeting will be a.

DenverCityCouncil_07252016_16-0541

A bill for an ordinance providing for a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately twelve months. Approves a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately twelve months. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmember New.

We have given our council members a copy of one of the their six pending applications, and it is a copy of one of the designs of one of the six. And his garden court is 50 to 60 feet wide rather than the minimum of 15 feet. So it can be a beautiful design and we're looking forward to seeing it reevaluated and implemented in the future. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. And I just wanted to add that thank you for for bringing these amendments forward. And and I just want to make it very clear that this moratorium should have happened years ago, because the problems related to this garden court form have been in the code since 2010 when it was adopted. But wherever this this pause had taken would have taken place, projects would have been impacted. So I just you know, there may be concerns. There are a few in the queue right now, but that would have been the case at any point in time, really, unless we found some sort of law. And so I just wanted to share that. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Black. Thank you. I am going to support this, but I'm not promising. I'm going to support it when it comes up for a final vote until we all learn more about it. We just learned about this a week ago. I totally agree that there are issues with the garden court form and they need to be addressed. But I just want to understand better the impacts on current projects. I don't want to. Abuse anyone's property rights who may have plans already done and that their property was already zoned for this. Just as when we looked at the marijuana laws, we decided to honor those pending applications. So I just want to be very clear that I want to learn more about this before I'm going to vote for it in in about a few weeks or more. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to support this because I do believe that this is something that needs to be looked at. There are a lot of things within our zoning code. Ever since we adopted a new foreign based zoning code in 2010, that this is going to create garden. This garden build is one of them. And if you look close enough and a lot of it, a lot of our code that there's going to be a lot of things that don't match or you need to have a little bit more emphasis and guidance. And that's that's what we do as a council. That's one of our primary powers and roles per charter. So looking at this in the further detail is something I look forward to seeing and participating in. However, I do feel that there are some folks that if they are in the queue, that as a council that we be mindful of this date on the 25th and time this date for folks who are already in the queue and have been operating and and using funds and having their plans reviewed, adopting their plans, getting looking and in process. And, you know, I think it would. It would. And the spirit of the previous action of this council on marijuana. I think it's it's important that we mind the folks that are already in there, since we have already set a precedent in doing that. So but I do look forward to it. It's going to be interesting. Garden court is a rare but very, very if done right, it can be very beautiful. It's protected. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Councilman Nu, there you have. You gave us a schematic of one of the six applications that are in the pipeline where your amendment would allow this to proceed. What's the status of the other five? Because I. I don't want to prevent folks who have abided by the process and are in the pipeline. I don't want to cut them off cold as we did not with the the marijuana moratorium. And as also tonight, we're not doing with the small lot parking exemptions. Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. Of the six pending applications, three of them are just in constant review right now. Okay. One the one that you had the diagram on Boulevard. One is inside site. Build a plan and it meets all the criteria as well as the exception so it can move forward nicely. And it's a wonderful picture of what I think we want in the future. The other two are also in site of urban planning, so none have been approved, have gotten zoning permits or or close to building permits yet. So they're in that stage where I think there's really some discussion and redesign. I think they could apply easily with the exceptions. So none of the other five applications. Three in all five right now in their current state would not go forward under this moratorium. I'll see if they redesign. If they meet the the exceptions, then they all can move forward. No question about them. But we don't know. If they do meet the exception. Not yet. Only example we've got is the one boulevard one. Okay. Before I vote, I would like to know if the other five would be able to go forward. Because I want to honor I want to honor the fact that people followed our rules. Well, Councilman Espinosa, talk about that. Yeah, I just wanted to let you know that I. I made the request from CPD for all six concepts that have been submitted so that they can all be reviewed the same way this one has. So we really don't know what what would or wouldn't conform as is. Okay. So I'm uncomfortable voting yes unless I know that. But so sometime in the very near future, we'll have that. As soon as I have that, I'll share that with my colleagues. We have four weeks. But you won't have that before roll call. This is my point. No. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, if it's okay with you. Councilwoman Sussman also has a little bit to say about your question. That was all I had. Okay. But she's speaking, I think, to your question. Yes. Thank you very much. And I believe that is a really good question. And I know that coming up is a full referral of this bill to committee in the next two weeks so that we can have those sorts of discussions. Because I would just echo what Councilwoman Black Councilman Lopez said, that we want to be careful about those in the Q know where they are in the Q, what the process is and abide by our sets that we had with the marijuana bill that those who are acting in good faith can depend upon our rules to some extent. So it is going to committee. I think you'll be referring it right, councilman, to in just the next few minutes so that we can have further discussions. This is just to publish it. It's not to agree to it. Okay. Mr. President, could I. Yep. Go ahead, gentlemen. Okay. Just a follow up question. If if we're going to refer to committee, should we bother amending it now or should we leave that to the committee to to actually formulate the final draft of the bill? We'd like to ask that you be amended now then we can we discuss it a little bit? Committee. No, not thoroughly as we want to discuss it afterwards, but we'd like to publish it as amended today. Anything else, Councilman? Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman, did you have anything in addition to the answer? Oh, thank you, Mr. President. All right. And Councilman Espinosa, if I'd never mind. Councilman condition. Thank you, Mr. President. I had two questions. The first was, does the amendment only allow folks who've already submitted applications to amend or adjust their applications to meet these criteria? Or in theory, does the amendment make it such that any applicant who comes forward during the entire moratorium period could continue to have their application processed under these standards? It's my understanding that any application can come forward. Is that okay? Great. And then I recognize this may be more applicable to the next motion, but just so I understand, if we if we vote yes on the amendment and then we we would be doing the vote to refer it to committee, would that in terms of the 30 day clock and all of that? I just want to understand what the implications of voting on the amendment tonight and having the bill as amended. Do you in terms of timeline as it relates to going back to committee? So someone can explain that to me. If we can vote on the amended bill tonight, then the second reading in the public hearing will be on August the 22nd to be 30 days. If we do not amend that tonight and then the there will be a different time period will be a later time period when it goes to committee. So. Okay. So can I just clarify then. So if there is a motion to refer to committee, it does not slow down the clock between first and second reading yesterday. Okay. For explaining that it just these votes are related. So understanding the full picture is important. Thank you. Kels. Is that. Is that all comfortable? All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Also have a question for Councilman Nu. Can you just explain what the conversations have been with the planning department that assure that they will be involved in helping to clean up this language and make sure that we don't have, you know, what has appeared to be conflicting sections of the zoning code around this particular issue? Yes, we've had several conversations with CPD and with the planners and and and the supervisor of CPD and everybody's in agreement. And this was actually this the garden code form was actually on the list that needed to be addressed and changes to the zoning code. So it's not a new issue and I think is something they will recognize just because it's been not being implemented as they really are, I guess anyone desires. So there's been extensive conversations and discussions with them and they they recommended the 12 month period to review and we will restructure the work load to make sure it happens within that 12 months. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. So those discrepancies that you and Councilwoman Ortega was mentioning, those have existed. And that's one of the things if you've been paying attention, I hope you haven't. I've been harping on for the better part of a year. Well, for exactly one year since I've been on council. Time and time again, because we've allowed zoned districts that allow this form and the density that's associated with it. But it's clearly not part of the intent of those zone districts. And so there's this this real confusion. And so one of the things is, is that the moratorium, as proposed without the amendments, was actually very clean. It just said, look, we're going to stop using this this this form until we take the time that we should have to address it. And I had already been working with CPD to do just that some time before the end of the year. But because of our workload, we just simply don't have enough time to get that done. And so rather than keep allowing sort of egregious projects, take advantage of this, yeah, it needs to be addressed. But that said, the purpose of the amendment is actually to allow it to sort of continue to persist, something akin to what was intended in the existing code that is commensurate with rowhouse sort of forms where it's allowed but not. And so we won't go into that because that's a wholly different. Litigation. And I'm sorry if I'm confusing anybody, but there are problems with this form as defined and has recorded in documented in the zoning code. And a moratorium is the right tool. When you have a problem in your zoning code and you need to address it and you want to sort of take a breather to take the time to do that. The these simple provisions would allow development, fairly dense development, to move forward on those parcels while sort of preserving the. Defi means the demonstrated or illustrated intent of this form district. So I could illustrate with these boxes, but I'll spare you all. But I just wanted to make that very clear that I have been talking about this. I have addressed it in numerous planning committees and from this day as previously. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilman Espinosa, you're actually you're very right. You do bring this up. And I thank you for sort of giving us a sense of where we might be able to make improvements in the garden court. And I do believe that we perhaps need to discuss this. My only concern, and I hope that we will be able to work on this in committee, is that the hurry up nature of the direct filing of this bill seems to be pointed to a or several particular projects. And while this is a citywide issue, I wasn't sure about the speed with which we needed to do this. So looking forward to the discussion in committee. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Flynn. Thank Mr. President pro tem. And thank you, Councilman Nu and Espinosa. And I think I understand where you're going, but I am uncomfortable voting to move this forward. Even with this amendment, if it would mean that the other five applications and the work that went into them in good faith would not be allowed to go forward. In other words, the moratorium should apply only to any future applications. This would be a precedent that would be set here where we did not do this with pending marijuana applications, marijuana applications, and we're not doing it tonight on the other ordinance that has a moratorium on it. So I'm uncomfortable going forward with it, as is and ordering it published. Even though I support the direction you're going, I don't think that it's I think we need to be fair to people who follow the process, even though I support where you're going with the overall bill. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I just want to make clear that the vote for the amendment does not make that the case. Only a subsequent vote for the moratorium in four weeks time. So this is simply to amend with this this provision to allow these these these development proposals with the that meet these exceptions to proceed going forward in the moratorium . Once it is if it is adopted. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Back to Councilman for just a. But we're voting right afterward and ought to order it published. Correct. And I'm uncomfortable with that. I think the bill should follow the normal procedure and go to committee and before we order it published so that we have a committee recommendation. And we have them. We have all this language worked out. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem, I. I guess I want to fully understand and this might be a question for Mr. Broadwell. So if we vote on this tonight to have it published and then it's referred back to committee and through the conversations in committee, if there are further amendments or what we're talking about right here around honoring folks who are already in the process, would there be the opportunity to further amend it or. I just have that question. David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. The answer is it depends. Most likely changes in committee would require republication and would kick out the hearing date further. If you order if if if the bill tonight, if the amendment passes and then the bill garners enough votes to order it published, then we're going to proceed to post public notice of a hearing four weeks hence about the bill as it came out tonight. See, so if the substance of the bill were to change later, you would probably have to do a new publication several weeks out of another hearing date. And so it could potentially change things at that point. Is that clear enough? Yes. Thank you. And so with with that knowledge, you know, I we did set precedent with the marijuana process and that we honored folks that were in the process in the Q and I, you know, think that that's an important precedent that was set. And I am, you know, citing, I think, with Councilman Flynn, that it does make me uncomfortable voting on something and having it published and not having the opportunity to have further conversations, especially when people have made investments and have I have no idea the amount of money that folks have maybe invested in moving forward with their projects . Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa. I want to make something very clear to everybody here that this is actually normal process. This is fully within our powers as members of council to bring forward a bill such as this at any point in time. It does not need to go through some sort of set of set of hoops. This is this is one of the things that we can do as members of council to work to preserve or move forward or benefit our communities. So this is normal process. By putting it back in committee to have a discussion, we can actually have this discussion about the merits of these amendments and maybe there needs to be additional amendments and then go back into this other process and all that stuff. So we have the tools to to modify even with a vote for approval with the, you know, publishing right now. I mean, there's nothing about publishing that make this a foregone conclusion. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, you just you just want to let Councilwoman Gilmore and Councilman Flynn know that we tried to get it to the committee last week, too, and the agenda was so fortunate. Councilwoman Sussman, this committee is just jammed with all kind of activities. And what was interesting about it is we ended up expediting and doing a lot of great work last week and then ended up having a lot of time at the end. You know, we had a just sort of a general discussion. It wasn't a thorough discussion like we we want to have at the next committee meeting. But but we were intended to bring it through the committee structure first and we just couldn't get it on the agenda because how busy they are. But we want to have a real thorough discussion about all pending applications and this bill next time. Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. I'm sharing the concerns on both sides of this. I'm concerned that we honor the people who are legitimately in the pipeline, have been following the rules that we set up. I also share Councilman Newark Councilman Espinosa's concerns that some of the I don't think horrendous is too tough a term horrendous abuses of the garden court form that once built will live on forever. So I'm going to vote to move this forward. But with the confidence that with it going to committee and if it makes it out of committee to the floor for a second reading that we'll have adequate time to vet and amend if it's the council conscience that amendments are needed. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. I just have to say, you know, one comment and 98, which is a moratorium with the exact same provisions which would stymie or stifle any projects that aren't to a certain point in time. So I just don't it doesn't comport that we're willing to do a moratorium on small lots. But without any concern about those projects that might be in the queue. But suddenly now we're concerned about projects that are in the queue. You know, we if we vote. If we don't vote to publish this, we shouldn't vote to publish for 98. And I'm by no means advocating that because both of these are bills that we should be moving forward and discussing and having to vote on in four weeks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem, I guess, for both of my colleagues. Councilman Nu and Councilman Espinosa, I appreciate where you're wanting to take this and where you want to go with it. You know, the the the small lot moratorium that's been a conversation of a little bit over a month or so. With that project, I just was able to get my briefing from you, Councilman Espinosa, at 430 this afternoon. I know we were going to try to do two, but, you know, it's the day of. And just to really understand what this is entailing. I want to make sure I'm understanding and I don't know if it's appropriate for Councilman Nu or Councilman Espinosa to answer this question, but where? Under the new language that you're inserting into the ordinance. Could you just explain one more time what that exactly means for the projects that are in the queue? What would be the additional items that they would have to then comply with if they aren't currently in compliance with it? Yes, on the first provision exemption we're talking about is really is redefining the width of the garden court to equal to or greater than the height of the building. Most of these are zoned three stories and I think it's about like 35 feet. So we've actually done some in which will talk about and show at the committee who does review of existing garden courts and they're about 30, 35 feet. So it seems to have seems about equal to what the building height is. We thought that was a good good way to talk about that minimum with the others is rowhouse development. Where. The they're not being stacked on top of each other. Then the example that the diagram I gave you shows those Rowhouse shows a row house development on the boulevard, one that is very nicely done with a 50 to 60 foot courtyard as well as each individual row houses together without any kind of snacking on top of each other, which is probably the intent. And this is something where. This is going to be a tiny bit esoteric. But what it boils down to is right now in the Westword that I believe came out today electronically, they talked about slot houses and these townhouses that have this narrow gap. So right now, the garden court, the minimum garden court with is 15 feet. So you can have a 35 foot high structure with a 15 foot garden court with no real requirement that you can plant anything in there. But that's not the intent. And so, yes, what we're saying is that this now gap this gap now has to be as wide as you are tall. So if you're going to do a 34 foot, 35 foot high building, you have to have a 30 foot five foot wide garden court so you can have a fighting chance at getting some sun down there and planting some things and having an actual garden. So that's one of the exceptions because the slot houses were not intended in this. And therein lies the problem is in the row house, they own districts. And this is going to be part of the subsequent rezoning tonight in the row house zone districts, a row house, everyone has a very clear definition. Even the zoning code has a clear definition about a row houses. These are buildings in units that face the street. The row House districts clearly defined that you're allowed to have a urban house floor, a duplex house, four in a row, house floor. It makes no mention of the garden court for yet the garden court is allowed. And so now you can have these slot houses that are perpendicular when all the other forms in the intent orient themselves to the street. So this garden, this this exception is still allowing that garden court form to exist, which shouldn't be allowed in a row house in district, provided that it has a healthy, viable garden court. Associated with it. And then it further compels that that a-road mean that the units be not stacked so that they're each like townhouses, that the units that comprise the garden court all orient themselves to the court or to the street individual units, because right now it's just a form. And so if you do a 15 foot slot and you put the doors facing that way, you can then put that door attached to any number of condo units behind that door. And that's that was never again intended for the Rogerstone district, at least as defined in the building code and in the zoning code, Denver's zoning code . So these two amendments actually address that concern going forward for the next 12 months and say no, even though we know that we have that conflict, you can now use this form with these exceptions rather than live in a series of of of of confusion, the land of confusion, where people are using this form, where it isn't in the intent statement, but it is in a use in a form table. And we haven't vetted out which one of those where it is has more gravitas. But I'm pretty sure that if we keep going down this road, we're probably going to get a legal challenge to find out. And so the moratorium is critical to actually finally addressing this concern. So my last question, Mr. President, pro tem, is if this is equivalent to the small lot moratorium, why aren't we utilizing the exact same language as far as the the the bills and creating new language to be interpreted? Councilman, new councilman. I'm not sure I know the answer to that question. I. Maybe Mr. Broadwell, he might. Of the. Well, probably not, but but I. It does give me a chance to comment on something I heard earlier. I don't have the small lot parking exemption language in front of me, but my understanding and recollection of it is that that bill does, in fact, grandfather applications in the pipeline entirely. Right. And then it says when the moratorium is in place, some some small light exemptions will still be granted when the moratorium is in place. Many will not be allowed anymore. But the issue that's been focused on by Councilman Flynn and and one or two others about how it treats applications in the pipeline is different from this bill and different from this bill even as amended. The bill as amended tonight, if the amendment goes on, will allow some of the pending applications to continue through, but will presumably cut off others of the pending applications. But I believe the small light parking exemption bill does have the kind of language we use when all pending applications are allowed to continue. The moratorium would only have prospective effects to and applicability to future applications. That's that's the shape it was in last time I saw it. And I see some heads nodding. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Kinney. Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem President. That was my main question. I guess my second question is, I don't do we have someone here from development services? So my question is, if someone can please explain to me the difference between the cutoff point here, which is, I believe concepts, approval and building permits. Exactly. Can you just distinguish between those two gaits for me? Sure. Thanks. So I'm Kyle Dalton. I'm principal city planner with Community Planning and Development, and I've been authorized to speak for development services tonight too, so that CPD has been provided the text of the amendment. So I don't I mean, I'll try to write it as fast as councilman new read it. But you know, we got a draft about an hour ago that was different than what was read tonight. So the amendment speaks to this. I can't speak to that. But the Bills has drafted and has filed. There was a difference between the two bills that I think Mr. Broadwell accurately reflected. So the the small parking exception. Thank you. The small light parking exception, Bill. Um, grand grandfathers, if you will. Anyone who's applied for a concept review, which is kind of the first step in a site development plan review. So if you're in with concept, if you're informal, you can continue all the way to receive your approval and receive your permits, irrespective of the exclusions. Then there are exclusions that apply to new applications. So for new applications, if you met the two, one of the two criteria that are in that bill, you could continue. Everything else is stopped under the Garden Court bill that you're considering tonight. It actually stops all approvals. So anyone who has a concept review or a site development plan review, if they're ready to get their permit the day after you you pass the bill, we would deny it until the moratorium lapses. Okay. That was a very good description of the bill. I guess I actually want to understand better what is the difference between the plans that someone has when they have a site review approved versus when they get their building permit? So can you give me a degree of if you're in site review, you're at 20%, 80% design. And if you're at building permit, you're at 100% design. Help me understand functionally where a project is at when it's at the site. Concept, concept, use the term again, please. Concept review. Concept review. Yeah. So when someone's applied for concept review, they're required to submit a site plan that meets a number of things on our submittal checklist. And sort of the first idea of the massing, the use, the number of units, if it's a residential project, they're required to demonstrate a few things for fire. It's kind of it's it's the first idea that requires more than a napkin sketch, but it's a free review that requires a plan to be submitted. So that's that's the concept review. Now, your question about the difference between site plan and building permit. No, I think you've adequately answered it. Thank you. Just wanted to get a sense that it's not a full architectural it's not a full, complete architectural plan. The concept is not. That's correct. Thank you. So that that's actually really helpful for me. Really quickly, I'm just going to comment before I vote then, which is to say that I think that if this if without this amendment, there would be no chance of me supporting this bill because it would literally stop projects that are already in a pipeline. But this I would distinguish from the marijuana, the amended language. I would distinguish from the marijuana moratorium in that the mayor, when we were discussing marijuana licensing, the idea would have been or the proposal was to literally not allow businesses to open who had already spent money on construction design, bought land, bought stores, and to literally say you cannot operate. And that is unconscionable. This provision in this amendment, although I'm not you know, I need to see the committee discussion and understand it better, allows a path for someone to revise and continue to proceed. So to me, I'm not sure yet where my vote will be on final reading after I, but I would like to hear testimony from folks. I think about the concept review phase and understand that more from the perspective of those who testify. But I will be supporting the amendment tonight because I believe it is a path to giving folks options. So that is by no means you know, I want to hear all the testimony. I want to hear the committee discussion. But but I will be supporting the amendment because it allows an option for someone to revise but continue to be in business, which in my mind is very different. Very different than saying you are out of business, period. So. So I will be supporting the amendment tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez. Mr. President, my my comments are just straight out of regarding process. We've been debating this on the floor for 45 minutes. This should be talked about and discussed in committee, not on the floor. We need the proper community notification, public participation. I want to refer it to committee. I don't mind it being published. I'm glad the amendments there. But we have a lot of folks here who had signed up to speak on numerous things tonight and not expecting to sit through another hour of committee work. So I would. I would. Respectfully suggest you call the question on this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I just want to make that distinction between the the small moratorium and this one, though, is that that was a case of unintended consequences. And it's a it is a clear cut. We were doing something that we had envisioned unintended consequences where we're shutting that down while we figure it out. This is a situation where we have conflicting language in our code and it makes us vulnerable to getting it right. It's not actually conflicting language in the multi-unit zone districts. It's only conflicting language in the rowhouse zone districts. The problem with us making an amendment and we'll talk about this in committee, the problem is this making exceptions for the multi-unit is then we proceed to continue to have the conflicting language in the house. And so the exceptions for oddly written are to. To address that to basically allow this to. To proceed. Now that's that's now getting into I won't get into the specifics. They're happy to do that in in committee. But this is clarifying language to sort of allow for the next 12 months to proceed healthily in this form while we figure out what the way how to correct all of the numerous zoning districts where the conflict does or doesn't exist, and then to add it where it should have been by code. Point of order. Mr. President, when we have a vote to call the question, that means we are voting to cut off discussion. Thank you, Councilwoman. It was not my understanding that Councilman Lopez called the question that he was encouraging me to call the question. Did I misunderstand? Councilman Lopez respectfully asked that we call the question so we can discuss this in committee. You didn't move that. Oh, I can move it if you like. Well, so point of order, Madam Secretary. If my understanding is that Councilman Lopez is calling the question, well, how do we proceed? It'll be. Mr. President. QUESTION Mr. President, I didn't call the question. That's what I thought. So I thought. I hope we do. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman. Well, I just wanted to I wanted to support Councilman Lopez. I think this is a perfect example of why bringing a bill directly to council is is very difficult, because the council wants to discuss it, needs to discuss it, needs to think things through. It needs to have the kind of time that our process allows. And I also sort of apologize to our audience out there because as these are things that should happen at committee, and that's why we have a process like this. Amen. Councilman Cashman. I just. Want to. Just wanted to see. Was that a moratorium on calling the question? Just. All right. Let's vote on the amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. New Ortega I. Susman, my black eye. Espinosa. Flynn. No. Gilmore. No question. I can teach Lopez I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. Nine eyes. Two nays. Nine eyes. Two days. Council Bill 541 has been amended. Councilman Cashman, we now need a motion to order published as amended. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 541 be ordered published as amended. It has been moved and seconded by comments by members of Council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Just very briefly, Mr. President, pro time. I support exactly where Councilman Nu and Espinoza are going with this, but I can't support going forward by picking winners and losers already in the pipeline. So I have to vote no on it. But I support the bill in concept. That's my conundrum. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, any other comments? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call. New Ortega I assessment black eye. Espinosa. Flynn. No Gilmore. No Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Nine Eyes. Tunis, nine eyes. Two Days. Council Bill 541 has been ordered published as amended. Councilman Moo Nu, do you have emotion to offer? Yes, Mr. Perez, I move that council be off for one day as amended. We refer you refer to the committee on Monday. Well, through the next neighborhood and planning committee, there will be August the third. And then I'll come back to council on August 22nd. Yes. All right, we get everything we need in that motion. Okay. All right. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman, did you have anything to add to the conversation at this point? No, I don't. I apologize again that we didn't have the opportunity to get it to committee and look forward to a thorough discussion and and really appreciate all our colleagues comments. This is a very, very important issue. And and I really want us to see how we can really value way to redevelop this garden forward and have it implemented as intended. So I appreciate all the discussion and I look forward to the discussion in committee. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call. New Ortega assessment. Black Eye Espinosa. Hi. FLYNN Hi. Gilmore. I can I can eat. LOPEZ All. Right. Mr. President. All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and know the results. 1111 I as Council Bill 541 as amended, has been referred to committee. Uh, to committee on August 3rd and will come back to council on Monday, August 22nd. Moving on, Councilwoman Sussman, under bills for final consideration, you have called out Council Bill to. Probably do the resolution next. Oh, I'm sorry. All right. Go back to our resolutions that have been called out. Can you pull the next one up and put it on our screens for us? All right. We have Resolution 388 called out by Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman, what would you like us to do with that one? I have a question. Go ahead with your question. So we have $32 million in eight bills that are for engineering contracts for wastewater and. What I'd like to do is get information that talks about how many of these have been utilized. Oftentimes we have these on call contracts that we do, and it costs money to go through this whole publication process to negotiate with the attorneys

LongBeachCC_01072020_19-1269

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 5.57 related to the regulation of nuisance motels, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

I see no public comment on this item and I will go and do a roll call vote. District one yeah. District four, yes. District six. District seven. District eight and District nine. Motion carries that six votes. And next up is 31. Report from Development Services recommendation declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code related to the regulation of nuisance motels read and adopted as read citywide. I have a motion any second. I do have some public comment on this item. Uh as an I can't fee and Jerry Glenn Thomas are the two folks I have is Jerry Glenn Thomas here? Nope. Mr.. Can we go ahead? Please put. The micron. Okay. It's unfortunate. Can I get my 8 seconds back mouse again? It's unfortunate that all the housing people have left, because I'm really curious on what the municipal code defines a nuisance motel. Being curious because, you know, everyone watching those that don't know, you know, motels are a vital part of the ecosystem of housing homeless people. So I'm always worried when I see that term Nuisance Motel. I know what it means. It means that there's drug activity possible, gang activity possible, uh, you know, uh, prostitution, etc., etc.. And this is true. But I'm worried that when we define things, uh, as such, it limits the opportunity of places for a lot of our homeless and housing impaired people to go to these vouchers. My mother works for the Department of Family Service at the county building on Santa Fe, and she specifically she's eligibility worker, so she's defining who gets to have a housing voucher each and every month. There's over 60 people a month. Those are 60 people who take housing vouchers from the county. And where do they go? No, there's no there's very rarely any Section eight or or apartment or subsidized housing providers who are taking these vouchers. So nine out of ten times, most of these homeless people who are on the streets are going to the county building, getting a voucher from them and then going to a motel. So if we start getting rid of these motels and or we start labeling them as nuisance motels, we're therefore eliminating housing opportunities for homeless people, thereby putting more people on the streets. So I'm just curious to see, like, what what, you know, what were the finances? And I'm worried that, you know, I understand that some of these motels are are, you know, harboring certain activity. And we don't want in areas that are now being redefined and changed and rightfully that's. And I appreciate them for that. However, you know, we can't get rid of opportunities for homeless people to have housing and at the same time say, well, we're going to knock down this nuisance motel. And then in 5 to 10 years after, it's been an empty lot for X amount of years because we don't actually have the capital funding to build the building on top of it, we're going to put affordable housing there one day. So it's like you're going to get rid of motels that actually do homes house homeless people right now or what. So I'm just curious to see what the city is going to do with that, because that county money is really like people are using these motels purely to get off the streets today. So. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes. That concludes that concludes public comment as a sign. Oh, yeah. Okay. Here we go. That concludes public comment. And we do have Councilman Austin who has some comments. I did. Just just to clarify for clarification purposes. And following up on a public speaker, the the comment. Can you city attorney once again define what a nuisance site is or would be considered to be? Certainly in the in the nuisance, this ordinance is trying not to close them, but to make sure that they are in conformance and not creating a nuisance. And in the event, for example, of drug related arrests at the location or excessive calls for service by the police department for services, it could be deemed a nuisance hotel. And if it is deemed a nuisance hotel, then the that business should shall retain its license only if it conforms to a series of and there are 22 requirements that they have to do in order to make that hotel a non nuisance hotel and maintain their license. So it's it's a combination of calls for service and complaints from the community that we're trying to address by this ordinance. So. And I just want to ensure that that, you know, we're we're being fair here and understanding that, you know, one or two complaints from. One person is not, you know, used as a trigger to to a nuisance. That's absolutely correct. Okay. So I just want to clarify that, because I know I had a few people reach out to me after our last meeting. Just just for clarification on that. That's why I asked the question. I'll be supporting the item. But again, I want to make sure that we are not deeming every motel in the city as a nuisance property. Just just those specific ones. And I know we had a list of when we we looked at the study to begin with, there was a list of of specific sites that that that caused this or created this this ordinance. So. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just want to speak in support of this. You know, staff done a good job. It's been a long time coming. We know the issues. We know the hotels. We know we. This gives us the definition of what a nuisance motel is. It helps add clarity, set some standards, and and it's going to have an overall impact on the quality of life in every neighborhood. So we're really proud that this has come forward. And thank you. Can I support this? Thank you. There's a motion and a second. No other public comment. So please, let's do the roll call vote. District one. Yet true to. District four. Yes. District six, seven, eight and nine. District nine. Yes. Okay. That is six votes. That concludes the regular agenda. And so that's the I believe it's the last item. We do have some additional comment, but that is the last item 31. Is that right? Madam Quirk. Great. I do have three speakers I want to invite to please to please come forward a Cathy item.

BostonCC_01032022_2022-0154

Councilor Flynn for Councilor Fernandes Anderson offered the following: Order for the appointment of temporary employees Kalamu Kieta, Joshua McFadden, Aline Mercury and Amina Scott in City Council.

Docket 015 for counsel of Flynn for Counsel Fernandez Anderson. The Chair seeks suspension of the rules and passage of Docket 015. For all of those in favor, say I now oppose saying no. The ayes have it. The docket has passed. Late files. Now, moving on to late files, I am informed by the clerk that there are two late file matters. They are both 17 f orders. We will take a vote to add these matters to the agenda. All of those in favor of adding the late file matters say i. I. While those opposing a. Thank you. The late file matters have been added to the agenda. Madam Clerk, please read the two late matters into the record. Thank you, Mr. President. In the City Council and Order of Council, Frank Baker. All of it. Under the provisions of 17 of Chapter 452 of the Acts of 1948 as amended, and any other applicable provisions of law. The Mayor be and hereby is requested to obtain and deliver to the City Council within one week of the receipt thereof. The following information relative to Code COVID 19 Vaccination Mandate for City of Boston employees filed in the City Council on January three, 2022. The second 17 filed an Order of council. Frank Baker ordered that under the provisions of 17 Section 17 of Chapter 452 of the Acts of 1948, as amended and any other applicable provisions of law, the Mayor be and hereby is requested to obtain and deliver to the City Council within one week. The receipt thereof. The following information relative to the best Western Roundhouse hotel filed in the City Council on January 3rd, 2022. The chair recognizes City Councilor Frank Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, this is unorthodox filing this, but we're in a period here now where we won't have any hearings, we don't have any committees. And both of these things are looking to be implemented in the in the month of January. So that's why we have the 17 FS sorry for the late file. I ran up against the holidays and didn't get them filed on a on a. In the proper timeline. The first one is the first one is about the the the the mandates. The the. The COVID vaccination mandates. And I'm not taking the position. I'm for it. I'm against it. But what's going to happen here in the next little while that I want clarification is is first of all, what jurisdiction do we have to go into private business and tell them they have to collect or they have to do the vaccine passports? But more importantly, we're talking about hundreds of people here that can potentially lose their jobs, whether it's police, firefighters, teachers, people that are collecting tickets, people that are giving tickets. Every department is going to be affected by this. We have no idea who they are, what they are, how many they are, and if they're going to have an opportunity to be able to come back to work if they comply. I'm looking for some clarification on this. And the second one is on is on the Roundhouse Hotel, which I defer. I couldn't be any more different from what the pathway that this administration is taking right here. Simple things. Who's the leaseholder is? Is it Public Health Commission? What's our what's our commitment going to be there? Meaning what's our money commitment going to be in there? Is it going to be drugs used on on the premise? What is the what is the the the security plan? When we asked in a meeting what the security plan was, a person from from BMC said it was very high level. So whatever that means, I can handle high level. I want to know what that security plans are. Again, these these were all filed because we are unable to have hearings now. We don't have our committees. We don't have our we don't have our. Yes, we won't we will not be having hearings for a month now. So this is this is pressing. And in the 17, if it's it's a face to face meeting, I would like to have someone sitting in front of me and explain to me all these things here. The Roundhouse isn't a surprise. It's not a surprise. We've been asking for over a month here all these questions I've been on record sending it over to this administration, all these questions. So it shouldn't be a surprise why they're not being why they're not being answered. We're asking the people on the street if they want hotel rooms. We're not asking the neighborhood what their their opinions are. It it reminds me if you ever wanted a question answered about the BPD and Menino, good luck. You never get it. You never get an answer question. At least I wouldn't had nobody to call. Nobody returned my calls. This feels eerily the same. So everybody that's here now, you should be asking questions here because it feels like. I'm going to save my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Feels good to have you saying, Mr. Chair again. Although I may call you Madam Chair every once in a while, because it's just ingrained in my head. Sorry about that. If I do do that. I appreciate you and sorry for the the delay files. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Counsel Baker. The chair seeks suspension. Of the rules and passage of the first slate matter. All those in favor say, All right, all oppose, say nay. The ayes have it. The matter has been passed. The Chair seeks suspension of the rules and passage of the secondly foreign matter. All those in favor say aye. All oppose any. The ayes have it. The matter has been passed. Memorials. And let me also note that the recording of this to the stenographer is being recorded remotely. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Two memorials. Today, we will adjourn our meeting in memory of the following individuals. For counsel is Flynn Baker. Clarity in the body? Erica Calderon. A moment of silence, please. Thank you. Chair moves that when the council adjourns today, it does so in memory of the those mentioned individuals. And it is scheduled now to meet again in the Eisenhower Chamber on Wednesday, January 26th, at 12 noon, all in favor of adjournment. Please say I. The councils are joint.

LongBeachCC_08112015_15-0779

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Economic Development and Finance Committee to assess whether the City of Long Beach should allow residential repair coverage plans to be offered to residents and return with recommendations to City Council.

Thank you, Commander. Motion carries eight zero 28. Communication from Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Recommendation to request the city manager to work with the Economic Development and Finance Committee to assess whether the city should allow residential repair coverage plans. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to make the motion and also ask council members that they may recall from their briefings or from your own research. There are coverage plans for sewer, plumbing and electricity that are separate from the standard homeowner's insurance policy. These cover leaks and other issues from the house to the property edge. These plans have been around in one form or another since the seventies, but the city of Long Beach has not partnered with any companies or supported them over the last year. So the city has been approached by a company wishing to offer the plan to residents. So I'd like to ask our E.D., an economic development and finance committee, to work with the city manager to evaluate this concept and determine whether it's appropriate for Long Beach. That's it. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? See none, please. Councilman Mongo. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, thank you for the recommendation. And how does this. How is the city a facilitator of the agreement? Is this company able to work with residents directly now? You know, they're not able to work with the residents directly. That's not my understanding. I think Mr. Modica can elaborate on that, what our role would be in facilitating it. Mr. MODICA If we could get a two from four before it comes, before it's enough so that we can be prepared on the item that would be. Appreciate it. Churkin two. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Members, please cast your votes. Motion carries eight zero 29. Report from City Manager and Technology and Innovation Recommendation to execute an agreement with Code for America in the amount not to exceed 220,000.

DenverCityCouncil_05222017_17-0421

A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and JKS Industries, LLC to extend the term and add funds to provide on call asbestos, lead and mold abatement services. Amends a contract with JKS Industries, LLC to add $2 million for a new contract total in the amount of $2,480,000 and to add two years for a new end date of 8-3-19, for nuisance abatement actions for residential properties and environmentally regulated building material abatement and demolition activities of city-owned facilities including those associated with the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative and Platte to Parkhill projects (ENVHL-201415783). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-12-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 5-10-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, May 22, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, June 5, 2017.

Okay. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I think we got the affirmative from council staff. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next items on our screen? I believe that's for 21. For 22. For 23. You can just put up for 21. Councilman Espinosa Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. President. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, I'm calling these resolutions out to postpone consideration until the next regularly scheduled meeting of council on Monday, June 5th, 2017. All right. No motion is required. Do any? Yeah, we have a comment. Members of council or councilman can each. Thank you, Mr. President. I was just curious, since we did have these committees in these bills in committee and had a fairly lengthy conversation about them, if you might share with the body what your concern was so we can be aware. That's right. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, happy to. The explanation to council for the need to increase from sub $500,000 contracts to $202.5 million contracts was in part because the contracts capture job on projects that have yet to be determined, yet alone, let alone put on a ballot measure or voted on by the people of Denver. Moreover, the contracts include indeterminate amounts of money for the Platt to Park Hill project and projects for the North and NDDC that have the potential to consume large amounts of the funds if approved. I have requested from Environmental, Health, Public Works and Parks and Rec their estimates for the abatement projects in their existing 2017 work plan and future 2018 work plans that are that they are currently making budget requests for right now. So that I can know what the estimated fiscal need is for the existing facility work planned abatement contracts covered by the general fund versus that what is being made available to massive projects like Plant to Park Hill, which quite honestly should be contracted separately in a separate council bill, not an amendment to a council resolution. Fortunately for everyone, the postponement tonight provides two weeks for that information to be generated and reviewed by myself and my colleagues. Okay. Are there any other members of council that have any comments since this request does not delay consideration of the of these resolutions past the 30 day review date of June 12? Your request is granted and consideration of resolutions for 21. For 22. For 23. For 24. For 25. For 26, 27 have been postponed to Monday, June 5th. All right. We have no other items called out all of the bills for introduction or to publish. We are now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and that you will need a to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call on and I don't want a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass and a block for the following items. Resolution 540547599466. 495509. 538. 546. 533. 535. 596. That's the resolutions and then the bills of all of series 17 nine 2017 472474396 456. 4634705 11 523. And that's the bills. Great. Well done. It. It has been moved in. Second it. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye. Clerk. Hi, Espinosa. I. Flynn I Gilmore I Katherine Kennedy Lopez knew Ortega I assessment i Mr. President. I Please close the voting and announce the results. 1212 Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a one hour courtesy of public hearing on Council Bill 513, amending the sentencing structure by modifying the general penalties and creating a tiered system, a tiered penalty system

LongBeachCC_12082020_20-1177

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, adopt resolution continuing the Fourth Street Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment levy for the period of October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to extend the agreement with the Fourth Street Business Improvement Association for a one-year term. (District 2)

Okay, great. We're going to go back to the agenda. We have two hearings. One side is to hearing tape. Please report from economic development recommendations, receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution continuing the Fourth Street Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment Levee District two. Mr. Modica. Good evening, Mayor. I'd like to introduce Eric Romero, project manager, Economic Development Department. He'll make the staff presentation for this item. And Eric, just give us a quick overview. Sure. The fourth Street parking and business improvement area was established by the City Council in 27, allowing for the live even annual assessment to be paid by businesses located in the district. The city contracts with the Fourth Street Business Improvement Association to manage the district. State law requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed program, an assessment at its November 17, 2020, meeting. The City Council approved a resolution granting approval to any report declaring the intention of the City Council to levy the assessment and sets a day of the data public hearing. So the Council shaheer and consider all protest from area businesses against the settlement program are boundaries and proposed in any report. That concludes my staff report. Any public comment, Madam Clerk? No public comment on this item. Council member Pearce made the motion. Let's go to a rock. There's a second bike. Who's got the second Sunday house. Okay. And please walk over. District 1. A.m.. District two. I. District three. I District four, district five. I. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. I. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Hearing 29 please.

LongBeachCC_04132021_21-0308

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider the third-party appeals of Ann Cantrell and Anna Christensen representing the Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force; Corliss Lee representing Citizens About Responsible Planning; Juan E. Ovalle representing the Riverpark Coalition; Renee Lawler representing the Historic Equestrian Trail Association of So Cal; and Robert Gill representing the Los Cerritos Neighborhood Association (APL20-004, APL20-005, APL20-006, APL20-007); Adopt resolution certifying Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND 07-20), making certain findings related thereto, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approving the Pacific Place Project at 3701 Pacific Place;

Thank you for that. And and we didn't have consent. Okay. The proper comment, we're moving on. Now, that concludes that concludes the consent calendar. We first thing on the agenda is our hearing. So we're going to begin with our our hearing. I know it's a it is a lengthy hearing, and we do have a multiple appellants. And so I want to after the hearing is read by the court, you're going to want to go over the procedure for the hearing. So please, Madam Court. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record, conclude the public hearing and consider the third party appeals. Adopt a resolution approving the Pacific Place Project at 3701 Pacific Place. Declare ordinance approving zone change on four lots at 3701 Pacific Place. Read the first time and lead over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and uphold the Planning Commission's approval for the construction and operation of the project at 3701 Pacific Place, District eight. There is an oath for this hearing. Mr. Mayor, if I may recuse myself from this agenda item, I. I am an employee with the Rivers Mountains Conservancy who has been engaged in the discussion and potential future discussion. And out of an abundance of caution, I'm recusing myself on this item. Yes. Thank you, councilwoman sorrow. And with that, let me just kind of briefly go over some of the how the order the order works for for this hearing. So we'll in a minute, the clerk will swear any witnesses. We will have our staff report from the planning department. Then I will turn this over to Councilmember Austin, who may have can give questions at that point. If there's counsel has questions, we can do questions off the staff report. We can also save those towards the end. Then we'll have the applicant will make their their presentation. And the presentation should for the attorneys time here in consultation between 15 and 30 minutes for the presentation. The applicant will also be provided with time for a short rebuttal at the end. Also, after the applicant is present, then we have the appellants present. The appellants. There are five separate appellants. Each one is provided a reasonable amount of time to appeal. And so, again, the city attorney has noted that a reasonable time would be 10 minutes per appellant. And so each appellant will go for ten up to 10 minutes, of course, and we'll go through all five of those, get a total max of 50 minutes of of appellants. And then after that, we will go back to the city council. If there are questions there or counsel wants to hear public comment, first we'll go to public comment. And then after that, the applicant is able to provide the rebuttal and then we go into council deliberations. So we'll take our lead from the councilman as far as when the questions and that piece happens as the hearing starts. But of course, there's always time for questions and deliberation at the very end as well. So with that, let me begin having the court call the witnesses. Thank you. And as a reminder, the council members will have their cameras on any witnesses. Please make sure your cameras are turned off. Please raise your right hand to you and each of you 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. I do. I do. I do. I do. I do. I do. I do. I do. Yes, I do. I do. Okay. I think we've heard from from the witnesses that are that have been sworn in. Before I start the staff report, just as a reminder, the clerk will be keeping time. And so once the applicant begins, then the appellant's and then public comment, the clerk will be monitoring time on all of those and making sure that time is, is noted. And and then with that, I will go ahead and start with the staff report. I'll turn it over. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for the staff report. We have Patricia Devendorf, her friend, Development Services, who will give the report. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor, Council Members. Patricia Devendorf. The item before you consists of a request for a zone change and appeals associated with a project proposed at 3701 Pacific Place. The items before are the actions being requested of counsel to today are to deny the appeals. There are five separate appeals, as was mentioned, to uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a number of actions, including a site plan, review standards, variance, conditional use permit and lot merger associated with the proposed self-storage and RV parking lot on the subject site and declare an ordinance approving the zone change from the light industrial asset. I'll zone to the commercial storage see US Zoning district at the subject location. Just a little bit about the project site. The site in question located at 3701 Pacific Place, is a nearly 14 acre site that is currently vacant. The property is currently and has long been zoned for industrial use. The 2019 General Plan Land Use Element designated the property as neo industrial. An early draft of the general plan land use element showed the subject location as having an open space general plan place type because of its former use as a driving range. Ultimately, the neo industrial place type was adopted based on the fact that the driving range use had was no longer on the site and the property has is and always has been privately owned. And because of its characteristics and its historic industrial use, the site is located or is an ice, is isolated and is bounded by railway tracks to the north and east. The four or five freeway to the south. And vacant land. And the Al River to the west. All right. I wanted to just point out also that uses to the east across their rail tracks in Del Mar Avenue include the post Cerritos Elementary School, the Los Cerritos Park and then residential neighborhood . Beyond that, due to its location bounded by the river and other infrastructure, the site has limited access. Some history about this site. The site had oil related uses for many decades, beginning from the 1920s, and it was used as an oil brine treatment facility and for oil drilling. More recently, the uses included a privately owned and operated golf driving range and golf related retail and equipment rental. The site has been vacant since 2015 and has been a source of nuisance activity since that time. Given the historic use of the site, it has significant contamination and any re-use of the site require substantial environmental remediation. Just a little bit about the project briefly. The proposed project on the site is a three story, 153 square thousand square foot storage self-storage facility consisting of over 1100 self-storage units and a 6200 square foot office space. There's also a 578 space recreational vehicle storage, lots proposed, and a approximately 2100 square foot car wash that is accessory that would be used only by the vehicles stored on the site. So the action before the council is the zone change would be, which would be a zone change from the current ial industrial zone to the proposed zoning district of commercial storage. There were a number of actions taken by the Planning Commission on December 17th of last year. The Commission held a hearing on the proposed project and approved a number of actions. Included among them was Site Plan Review, which is required for projects of greater than 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development. At the time, the Planning Commission found it was able to make the findings in support of the site plan review action, including the fact that the project was harmonious and consistent and compatible with its surroundings and the project presents the most compatible use given the previous contamination. The Planning Commission also acted on a standards variance. The standard variance would allow for height in excess of the height that is allowed by the commercial storage use. The commercial storage district allows for 28 feet. The proposed project is just under 40 feet, with some architectural elements projecting above that to about 40 to 40 3 to 44 feet. The standards variance was supported by the fact, again, that the. The site is an isolated location and is located away from residential users. The general plan allows for greater heights of 40 feet. And the industrial zone also says industrial zone allows for 60 feet. The site being irregularly shaped and having an isolated location and limited access bounded by the river and other infrastructure supported the the rationale for the standard variance, as does the limpid viable uses based on the historic use and site contamination. The Planning Commission also approved a conditional use permit, which is required for the subject to use a self-storage RV parking and car wash. The Planning Commission found that the use would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. The project site is appropriate for this lower intensity use that is deemed appropriate again due to the site's heavy contamination . The proposed zone change is consistent with the land use element new industrial place type. The new industrial place type promotes low intensity, uses next to low density residential. It encourages the resident the retention of restricted light industrial activities associated with startup businesses and creative design offices. It encourages new developments that consist of office and commercial uses. And the proposed zone change is consistent with a particular policy allows for which encourages abandoned buildings and properties to transient transition into more productive uses through new development. As previously noted, the city council must act on the appeals that are have been filed on the project. The main appeal points are shown on this slide here. They have to do with the environmental document that was prepared for the project. There is one of the appeal points was that the initial study mitigated negative declaration that was prepared for the project as insufficient and that the project required a full environmental impact report. Another point is that the project is inconsistent with the vision of the Los Angeles River Master Plan. The standard variance for building height of more than 43 feet is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that the proposed zone change is a smart zoning and the planning that the Planning Commission's decision was made on false information. The proposed Cerritos Neighborhood Association was in support of the project, and there was no consideration of horse trails. So these are the primary points in the end, the five appeals. In the next few slides, I'll quickly address the primary appeal points. An initial study was prepared and mitigated. Negative declaration was prepared for the project to analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the project. The initial study mitigated negative declaration found that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Areas of potential impact that were mitigated to less than significant levels include the impact areas shown on the slide here, which included air quality biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and tribal and cultural cultural resources. All of the public noticing in common periods and other procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act were carried out. The public comment period for the mitigated negative declaration took place from October 19 through November 16th of last year. Extensive responses to comments were prepared and published throughout the process and in excess of those required by secure. There was a 30 day comment period on the environmental. And this table here just shows all the different comments that were received in response to the mitigated negative declaration during the comment period. Some of the main topics include concerns about toxic dust and contaminants, lost opportunity for open space, consistency with the L.A. River Master Plan, the river link plan, air quality, environmental justice issues. The rezoning of the property and cultural tribal resource impacts. Amanda, you just to be more specific that Amanda includes mitigation measures to address the hazardous materials and to remediate the environmental contamination on the site. They include a mitigation measure, HRC, one which requires the applicant to have a qualified professional prepare an approved response plan prior to any building permits being issued for the commercial industrial development on the part of the city. The response plan outlines measures that will be taken to remediate the site, institute various engineering controls to minimize exposure to hazardous materials and to restrict future land use to prohibit residential school, daycare and other more sensitive uses that would potentially to limit the exposure of future occupants. The response plan outlines measures for all phases of the project, including grading construction and recovery, and requires monitoring and reporting to DTC during the operation of the project. Similarly, the committee also includes a mitigation measure that requires the State Department of Toxic Substance Control to certify the response plan and to ensure that all the different mitigation measures as outlined here are complied with again during all phases of the project, including construction and operation. Just a point of note about the issues related to the river master plan and open space with respect to the use of the site. The subject area is shown on the Draft L.A. River Master Plan that is currently being updated as a major project area, which incorporates components of the Long Beach River River Link Plan. The L.A. River Master Plan is a long range vision plan that identifies opportunities but is not a land use plan, identifies opportunities for open space, but is not a land use plan. The city's adopted land use plan designates the subject privately owned property for industrial job generating uses plans like the L.A. River Master Plan and the Long Beach River Link plan, however, aid the city in its efforts to identify potential parkland and to identify funding for parks. And the Albee link plan in particular has helped the city secure grant funding for the DeForest Wetlands and the Wrigley greenbelt. So as previously mentioned, that the Planning Commission did approve a standard variance for additional height on the basis that the additional height would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties because of the unique side characteristics and the unusual circumstances of the site, including its environmental contamination. The fact that the proposed use is appropriate. The the proposed use is appropriate for the site and the the CRC zoning does have particularly restrictive height provisions at which the project was unable to comply with. The zone change is appropriate when looking at existing zoning patterns and taking into account the context and historic uses of the site. On the map. One can see the institute that institutional industrial zoning are both found in the area, as is the case zoning district, which is prevalent, which is the prevalent sounding south of the site. That concludes the staff presentation and we're happy to answer any questions and we have the applicant and others available on the line as well. Thank you for that. Coulson often. Do we have any question at this time? But you want to just keep going and go through the the application and presentation right now? Yeah. I would like to just hear from the the appellants first and the applicant and then. Okay, fine. It's great. Let's go ahead and start. Why don't we then if there's no objection to it, that we will then do the applicant and then the appellants, and then we'll go to the counsel in Austin. So let's go ahead and go with the applicant. Madam. Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you. Mary Garcia, members of the Council for taking time this evening to hear our proposal for 3701 Pacific Place. Our saw, our property borders, the 710 freeway to the west as well as the four or five freeway to the south. And the metro line runs to the north and east of our site. We acquired the site in 2019. And currently surrounding our side is the L.A. County flood plain to the west and another private parcel to the east. So the site's current geo industrial zoning allows for up to 600,000 square feet of industrial buildings. But we think a low impact self-storage facility would be a better fit for the site. We also would like to relocate inside property groups headquarters to the site and a little background about Inside Property Group. We design and build self-storage facilities throughout the country. We currently own and operate about 40 projects around the country and this would be our global headquarters for the site. We'd also like to provide a public access path to the L.A. River for future access to the river. We'd also be built building a viewing pavilion to overlook the L.A. River and provide 24 seven security cameras to help ensure safety for the pavilion. We're also giving free parking for members of the community, as well as free car charging stations, for electric vehicles for people to access the site from. We'll also be building a new nature preserve to the northwest corner of the property. And we really feel this nature preserve would help set the stage for the future expansion of the LA River Park development as highlighted in the city of Long Beach Park Acquisition Feasibility Report that was just issued a few weeks ago. So this is this is Zach. Thank you all for giving us the floor tonight. The site has been underutilized for 50 years due to the challenging environmental history. As the city planning department went through and in more detail, and our plan significantly improved the site's environmental performance with no significant impacts. That's essentially the summary of the city's response. 15 months of expert third party studies confirm the project will have no significant impacts, and that's after implementing the mitigation measures required by the city of Long Beach and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. That's the overseeing thousand employee California state body tasked with protecting human health. This the third party studies and again the city's review. These just once more. We've done an environmental impact report in the form of the MMD, traffic and Noise Impact Studies, Hazards and hazardous materials impacts. Cultural Resources Impact Water Quality Impacts, Air Quality Impact, biological resources assessment. And all of these studies were reviewed by the city of Long Beach and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control as necessary. And again, the M.D. committee's finding is that the site will have the will have no significant impacts after implementing the mitigation measures. So neighborhood safety through construction is our priority. We have a fleet of water trucks on site that will soak the dirt to contain dust during grading, which is one of the major concerns been raised. Site air quality will be monitored by an array of air quality sensors. Third party experts will be on site to monitor air quality all day during grading. And if unacceptable, air quality is detected at any point, grading will be halted until it can be controlled. Neighborhood safety after construction is is our our priority as well. And in terms of the mitigation efforts we're taking, we're spending three and a half million dollars of site environmental mitigation as required by the DTC in their remediation plan. This includes putting a cap on the site to contain impacted soils, which includes a vapor barrier system that will mitigate any existing gases underneath the site and a state of the art engineered stormwater mitigation system to control any runoff, etc.. So in our experience, we've as Paul said, we've got 40 current projects and we've done over 100 similar projects in the last decade. These efforts sufficiently address the environmental concerns of the site, and notably we will be occupying this site ourselves and obviously have a good incentive to ensure that the site is safe when we finish. That's correct. And. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, Paul. Back up. No, that's exact that. Go and go to the next slide, please. This is yours. So back in December, we went to the Planning Commission and the commission approved the project to a 6 to 1 vote. I think it was the first redeveloped. They approved the redevelopment, the remediation project. I think this is the first one that they have approved on the site. So the Department of Toxic Substance Control decided that the remediation plan will protect human health and the environment and would be implemented after the City Council adopts the amend and approves the project. So in terms of outreach and it's been a obviously a tough year for everybody all around to follow our normal processes. We would typically be organizing in-person meetings and whatnot, but instead we've held weekly webinars to engage the community, particularly before and during the the planning meeting. And we've amplified our outreach efforts with local door knocks, a major social media advertising campaign to let folks know what's going on, and then also being interviewed by Long Beach newspapers and stations and advertising in their business journal to show the community, the project and the outreach campaign results. We knocked on thousands of district doors. We targeted district specifically, given that that is where the site is is located. Over 10,000 district residents watched the entire video presentation online. That's that's not just opened it, but actually watched on your mobile phones and devices all the way through. And over 90% of digital campaign respondents clicked on. I like the plan button in support of the project. We saw the comments come in and responded and integrated those where we could and we generated over 300 plus resident emails and support cards from within District eight to the City Council. And again, narrowly targeting that at District eight, we got a good, solid response feeling. Obviously, self-storage is not the most exciting product type in the world, but in general, the community seems to really like the idea of cleaning up the site, providing amenities and the access to the L.A. River trail. Thanks, Zach. And during that outreach, I think the biggest comment we got from the small opposition was that the property should be used for a park instead. So working with the city of Long Beach before we purchased the site and answering the most common questions we received during the campaign was about the park and the city gave us a quote that said, This location has never been designated by the city of Long Beach as a park. The zoning is and always has been industrial. We also read in. The city's park feasibility report that, you know, the location of the park would make it difficult for people to access the site, given the auto oriented location with the freeways around it and the train tracks. So like you want to take the summary? Sure. So in summary, we're proposing to rezone our privately owned site for low density, low impact, self-storage and RV parking. Instead of pursuing the higher density, higher impact industrial use as per the current zoning. We've listened to and worked with community in the Planning Department to include benefits with the L.A. River Access Bike Pavilion, charging stations, public parking, the plant preserve, cleaning up an eyesore, eliminating illegal activities and providing security, and also bringing new jobs. We'll have more than 40 positions moving to this office. We spent 15 months working with third parties to deliver expert studies which have confirmed there's no significant impacts and have provided and put together a comprehensive neighborhood safety plan for before, during and after construction. And finally, the cleanup and remediation plan will be overseen by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and significantly improved the site. And as noted, we have community support behind this project. So we're going to introduce Fernando Vila from Allen Watkins. Fernando is one of the most experienced attorneys in the area in terms of working with California environmental quality at Sequoia and can address some of the the comments directly. And he's going to hit you with a fire hose a little bit here. But we wanted to make sure that we we were complete here and promised it will only take 5 minutes. So, Fernando, are you are you on and on unmuted? I am on it. I'm muted. Thank you very much, Zach, for that introduction to VR Land Use Counsel and seek or counsel for the applicant. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers for this presentation. I'll be brief. I will try to keep the fire hose too reasonable. Full circle. The so our ask is very ably presented by your your planning specialist here is really straightforward. We're asking first and foremost, please adopt the agenda for this project. We think it's very conference fully put together. As noted already, please approve the following rezoning from light industrial to commercial storage site plan review standards variance to give us a big nudge up in height that we need that's still within what's currently contemplated by the general plan and the existing zoning we asked for because we need a conditional use permit for the self-storage RV parking and accessory carwash uses. And we asked finally for a lot merger to combine the four separate parcels into one because we need to meet your minimum parcel size. And of course it benefits the city to have this project all on one site that can be controlled that way by next slide, please. We asked the City Council to approve the entitlements for all the very good reasons already presented in the City Staff report. I just simply want to highlight the key elements of why we believe the city staff supports this project and why we think it makes ideal sense for the city to support it as well. It is the ideal use for the property due to its unique location, shape, access and the need to remediate the site and the proximity to residences which is quite which are quite a distance from the property. There's a natural buffering there that protects the residents from any close proximity to the site for self-storage use, as as noted by your planner, aligns perfectly with the General Plan's new industrial designation, which seeks to locate low intensity, uses near homes and adaptability, reuse blighted properties. Again, bearing in mind we're asking for, believe it or not, work is open for thousands for a reduction in intensity, not an increase in intensity. The project, she says, also internally harmonious and compatible with the surrounding community, with its innovative architecture and landscaping. We work very hard with the city staff to come up with a design that made a lot of sense for your for your design guidelines and what we would like to see on this property. As already amply noted, we will have a very comprehensive remediation that will protect human health and the environment. And that is evidenced, by the way, or the letter from DTC that I believe is in your packet that the DTC, a state agency, issued a short while ago, indicating that implementing this remediation plan will constitute appropriate care and it will fully protect human health and the environment. That's not coming from us, that's coming from all from the regulatory agency and as noted already by Zach. And so we will also voluntarily provide community trail access to the Los Angeles River and our dedicated greenspace. We also now would like to turn our attention to the legal to the appeals that have been raised. Next slide, please. We're asking that, as per the planning staff's recommendation, that each appeal. With all due respect to the appellants, be denied because we believe none of the claims or positions raised have any real merit to them. First, as already very nicely presented, the remedy is in fact the appropriate singular review in the it was not needed simply because the project once mitigated, as already outlined, will produce no significant impact. And here we are going to have not one, but two agencies. Your city, of course, and Dtsc overseeing our implementation and mitigation. We have to get it right. It's not simply up to us. The low density use, the state of the art design and landscaping, the comprehensive remediation plan, the robust storm drain and bio filtration systems all structurally and operationally will ensure we will not significantly impact this property or the surrounding residences or other uses. One of the claims raised indicated that a traffic impact study was needed. In fact, your Department of Transportation and planners told us otherwise because there was a very careful study put together that showed because of our low intensity use, our daily trips are well below your city's VMT screening thresholds if we fall below the stress thresholds. Your regulations say no traffic study is is needed. We simply followed your your lead and your guidance. The MVD, contrary to what was also claimed in the appeal, shows that there a very low likelihood of any tribal cultural resources impact by virtue of the nature and scope of our excavations and project design. Notwithstanding that low probability we have, we are going to abide by a mitigation measure that we crafted in consultation with the tribal represent representation that indicated they would like to see. And we fully agreed to have a tribal consultant expert onsite during the entirety of construction. If there are any tribal cultural artifacts or resources found, they will be identified and adequately protected, preserved and stored and added, and construction can be halted if any such artifact could be in fact harmed by that activity. The response plan, as noted earlier, has been the product of Gaetz's comprehensive investigation that spans many years period of time , including our last two years of effort. And as a result of that comprehensive investigation, sampling has indicated it is prepared to act on the response plan that will, as we know, fully protect people and the environment. That's the result of this MMT that opponents we believe incorrectly claim does not adequately protect the environment. Next slide, please. The appellants have also raised I'm sorry, the yes, the appellants have also raised a claim that our project somehow will impact equestrian and other trails. But that is really a strange position with all respect to the appellants, because none of these trails are anywhere close to the site. The nearest equestrian trail is 200 plus feet away. Likewise, with bicycle paths, there are no known pedestrian trails across the property. There could not be because it's private property that would be a trespass if in fact such efforts were made to impose this trail without the owner's consent. The project site, which is a bit of concern to the court, claiming that it is not compatible with surrounding uses, in fact is compatible with surrounding uses and does comply with the current general plan designation. We're right about where the hype is already contemplated by by the general plan. The current zoning would even allow a greater height, but because we are down zoning our site to allow for our lower density use, we do need a slight 15 foot high increase. Most of that and much of that increase, by the way, is not due to the building itself, but rather to architectural features that are designed to enhance the beauty and the functionality of our building. As previously noted, although there has been much concern expressed about a need for park space, this property has never been zoned or designated for park space, and there will be no park space impact for that very reason. Notwithstanding that, as noted, we are providing for greenspace to the north of our property and pedestrian trails and bike paths to provide access to the trails and to the county property. That as and when the county sees fit will developer for park space. And the last two points there has been a claim made that the zoning that has been proposed for your approval constitutes unlawful zoning. But none, nothing could be further from the truth. Number one, this site is not the same type of use as the surrounding residences or the the publicly owned county property or the the freeways that surround our property. This site is unique by virtue of its isolation, its terrain, its contamination. It has always had unique zoning. The industrial zoning today, for example, is very different from all of the surrounding uses. We're asking for a reduction in that zoning to allow our lower impact much more environmentally compatible use. So there is no spot zoning. Your city has put a lot of thought into this. Finally, as I think the planning staff noted earlier, the commission was not told that most of Reno's neighborhood supported this project. We scoured the record. We could find no such indication and that support is not necessary for project approval. Although of course we respect any and all comments submitted in support of and in opposition to the project without a closed. Thank you very much for your time. And as indicated earlier, we do reserve our time for rebuttal following the presentation by the opponents of the public hearing. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I am done. Thank you very much. That is the applicant's presentation. Now we're going to go and move on to the appellants. As a reminder, there are five separate appellants. The first one is and Control and a Christianson. The second, appellant is called Oxley. The third one is Juan, or via. The fourth one is Renee Lawler and the fifth one is Robert Gill. And the clerk will we'll do the time on each one and called each appellant up after another. And so, Madam Clerk, please take it away. Mayor Garcia, the appellants would like one of you to speak first. Sure. If you want to. If that's okay. If just Madam Clerk, you just. You facilitate which one's coming up after another. That's okay. Each one gets the same time. Thank you, Mr. Avaya. Your time begins. I my slides. Hello, my love. I can't see my slides. Did you provide us with your presentation? Give us one moment to check with our team. It's a public review. We will check with our team and pull them up right now. One moment, please. Oh, sure. Mine. Okay. We. We have them up now. Can you see them? I can see them. Fantastic. So we start the time. We will start time. Before I start, they would like to note that all of the 20 people who are on the speakers list for the public comment are Alan all aligned with the Lower House lobbyists. In the spirit of fairness. I ask that you, Mayor Robert Garcia, stop violating the intent of the Brown Act and open the phone lines to more than just 20 people. Our city clerk's office has informed us, and it's up to you. It's as easy as that. Next slide. The Rural Party Coalition. I request said you denied the M&A and requests it requested so any change for the following reasons. The premature and inadequate M&A. The proposed project will make an environmental disaster worse. The proposed Sony change and height variance are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which is solely residential. Next. The call of the California Environmental Quality Act sequel. Congress has a review and approval process of all large developments in the state, both public and private, and as and is implemented primarily by local governments like our city. Today, you have the authority to exercise on behalf of the residents of the city a process that respects the will of the people and acknowledges the systemic inequity and racism inflicted upon our Western working class neighbors and people and people of color. Next. This map clearly shows the inequities. And a disproportionate burden placed on the western half of the of our of our residents, along which we suffer from the higher rates of asthma and cancer. And we live shorter lives than people in East Long Beach, our polluted environments, robust of both health and of life. Not only do we bear the burden of our disproportionate pollution. We are now here before you humbling ourselves, practically begging you to follow through on your earlier votes to provide a larger arc to our half of Long Beach. The very least you can do is to require an air and deny a zoning change. Next. For some reason it seems like you have missed out on your slice and it looks like you skipped a few slice. Memories doing the slice. In. Yeah. Back up, please. Jesus Christ. Next. Next there. The. We find it unconscionable that the city of Long Beach would. It is incredible that city of Long Beach would allow construction on this site without a complete air to protect the local residents. At this moment, £1,000,000 of contaminated and imported soil sits on 50 feet of highly toxic sludge with the consistency of toothpaste crashing down and displacing a storm drain. Abandoned oil wells adjacent to the Inglewood False Zone nicely. Align. Across an elementary school and homes, contrary to the opinion of the development services. The best and ideal use for this land is green open space, not more asphalt. Next. We've seen users. I think you're kind of going backwards and forward. Next slide. This. I'm sorry about that, but this is totally unacceptable. The slides have been missed by your city clerk's office. They cannot. Yeah. I don't know. Even this is just have different sides of what was provided to us. You could share your screen. Yeah. Can you see why this will be called the crown jewel of the Los Angeles River, a trailhead for visitors from different areas to easily enter from the A-line. A short walk from bisphenol A or from Wrigley arrested on the 405 to welcoming Park for all, where you will find a meadow repairing wetlands and trails. For those of us that grew up here, we can surely imagine this area becoming a beautiful gateway not only to our city and the lower Los Angeles area, but also to a future in which we celebrate and enhance and enhance our Native American and historical equestrian cultures along the river. This is a moral change choice. You can't choose to do what is right for the underserved half of law. Or you can choose to be part of the same old system of corporate control of government. The evidence is crystal clear. You should reject the MMD we are requiring in the air and the dying deny the zoning change. We know that the road ahead will not be easy, but we know the will of the people as there are 1500 people have signed a petition or in the air, all understanding the dire need for more green space and environmental equity. Some of us have suffered on a personal level and saw how some of our children and neighbors asthma, cancer and death that we have attempted are attempting to leave a better legacy to the next generations so that they can be proud of us. While Legacy, do you want to leave the next generation of residents? Your next generation? Thank you for your time and I will share the remainder of my time with our part legal counsel and our board member, Laurie Angell. Thank you. Good evening. Honorable Council members, this is Douglas Filmcast in the chat and Brian Kirsten's been here here on behalf of the River Park Coalition. We've also submitted a letter on behalf of L.A. Waterkeeper and the River Project. The letter details in extensive detail, the environmental injustice that would occur here by approval on the basis of a mitigated negative declaration. And we ask that you prepare an environmental impact report. And amend is not an appropriate document because there is a fair argument to support that. The project could have significant impacts on the environment in numerous ways, which I will detail and others will detail tonight. The Air or Environmental Impact Report is how the public is able to participate in decisions where a CPA has a Bill of rights for a participatory democracy. And we ask that you respect the rights of the public to have fully informative air. And here's why it's required. There's oily contamination that has been deposited on the site over the years by oil operators, including the city of Long Beach. That could be spread with compaction of the site to offsite locations. And deferred mitigation through a future response plan is not acceptable. Recreational opportunities will be lost and they are set forth in the river linked document. That is a plan for the city which is not being recognized or implemented as the general plan requires in lieu 86 . There are also biological resource impacts which Fish and Wildlife has identified, including to the southern parkland and the crashes bumblebee. The variance here is not supportable, even if it is an irregularly shaped vessel. The height has nothing to do with the shape of the castle and it cannot be supported. We explained that in our letter out. Rather than detailing all of that, I ask you to refer to that. And I would like to turn to Lori Angell for the rest of the presentation. Thank you very much. Laura. Angel, are you on the line? I'll bet I am. I'm getting here. Okay. I don't have any slides, but I have just a quick few words. My name is Laurie Angel with the River Park Coalition. Make no mistake, this hearing is important and the outcome will affect the health and well-being of tens of thousands of people on the West Side that have been deprived of open space. Others in the city enjoy. Today, our decisions will set the tone for this city's future. This body has recognized the need for open space on the West Side. Time and again, we are at a point where every single parcel along the river is needed for open space. We need to protect and enhance the watershed. We need to improve our environmental situation and sustainability. Not continue to detract in this area. This time is done. Pardon? The time concluded. No, it's not. I am part of one thing for 10 minutes. And once 10 minutes has been concluded. So all the technical problems are just. We did add extra time for the technical problems. That's right. This has not been a fair process. But thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Speaker number two and control. Before I start, I want to make sure that the other present presenters for this are Amy Valenzuela and Anna Christianson. Are. On connected and able to speak. I'm here. And. Anna is having problems, but she phoned in. And she'll have to speak by phone. Her phone number is 5625675011. Are you able to connect her? SH is she on the line if she needs to hit Star six to unmute herself or she unable to get on the call? She? She. Now I'm. Unmuted. Okay. Okay. Can you hear me? All right. I cannot see the computer screen. Cisco Systems froze up. So. But I'm online. I can give my talk. Go ahead. All right. Good evening. This presentation is being presented by Anna Christiansen, Amy Vallance, Weller and myself and Cantrell on behalf of the Sierra Club, Los Arenas, Wetlands Task Force. Next slide. Our task force agrees with the appeal arguments presented by the other applicants and attorney Doug Carstens. We urge you to deny this inadequate mmd the impossible mitigations, excessive unnecessary height variance, unwanted land use. And see you. We suggest that if there is any zoning change, the site be returned to open space as it was before the l u week. Next slide. This is the city's map of the project property. However, it shows only half of what was once the oil operators site. Next slide, this map. Next slide. Slide four. This map from the River Link plan approved by City Council in 2015 shows the Pacific Place property on the north and the 712 Baker parcels on the south divided by the four or five freeway. What was planned to be park lands are now proposed to be self-storage, RV parking and car wash on the north and a gated housing development on the south. Next slide. Before being separated by the freeway in the 1960s. This was one large site performing the same operations on both the north and south sides. Both sites contain hazardous waste, the same cultural history, air quality, biological resources, recreational and transportation issues. However, a complete air with alternative uses is being prepared for the Baker Site Streets project. An inadequate negative deck with impossible mitigations and no alternative uses was done for the specific place. Next slide. We are asking you to deny the M and D. And. Require an air for Pacific Place as was done for the Baker Street site. Next slide. Next slide. There are many issues needing environmental study which our fellow what I once will discuss. Sierra Club will be addressing biological and cultural tribal resources. Next slide. One of the inadequacies of the media is the lack of studies for biological resources. The very thorough comment letter written by Felicia Salt, Silver, California Fish and Wildlife States. More studies are needed for the endangered, threatened and special species. She also says mitigations for the rare southern tar plants are inadequate and undoable. Now that all the vegetation has been removed from the site. Next slide. Southern Tar Plant is a special species plant, which required mitigation. In the many surveys done in early August 2020 found 830 southern tar plants on the Pacific Place property. Next slide. Every blue areas where southern tar plants were found in early August 2020. The green hash marks on the upper right are areas cleared of vegetation before the surveys were completed. Many southern tar plants were possibly destroyed before being counted. Next slide. In August 2020, the Department of Toxic Substances Control DTC posted notice of site investigation and remediations of 37 over one Pacific Place. There is no record that remediations were done. Instead, a test known as a surcharge was performed to measure the bearing capacity of the building footprint. Soil was moved from the northern end of the site to the southern end, creating a 15 foot high mound of dirt. Next slide. In the process, every shred of vegetation, including trees, were removed. This renders useless the biological mitigations of all the sensitive plants and animals on site. Yet you are being asked to approve these mitigations along with the negative declaration. Next slide and next speaker Amy Valenzuela. Hi. Thank you. This whole project, there's huge opposition to it. It's not. Small. Opposition at all. And and importantly, my I myself am a descendant of the tongva people. We have lived continuously on and near this site in question since time immemorial. This movie is only the latest example of my family's history and indigenous peoples lives in general being obliterated. The MMD completely ignores the value of this land as the site of an ancient village. It fails to address how this loss of a historic site, one of the last opportunities we have and habitat would be mitigated. It cannot be mitigated. Next slide, please. This map shows the there are tongva villages and um, we usually built near a water source and followed the seasonal changes to the water. So this site absolutely encompasses an ancient village and there have been midden, shell middens as well as arrowheads and other artifacts found on the site. So the developer saying having a tribal consultant after construction has started and after the destruction does not mitigate in any way the destruction they've already done or what will be done in the future by paving over it. It also irreparably damages any chance we have at maintaining some type of open space where native flora and fauna and cultural practices can be utilized. The next slide. States that there are no cultural tribal resources to consider. The prepared did not bother to look at the history of this land, nor the documentation that is easily available, which clearly identifies the significance of this area as an ancient village site. I am a survivor of cultural genocide and I still live on this site. My great great grandmother, having been an indentured servant on the on the mission San Gabriel. So that just isn't true. And only an air will be able to adequately address this many inhabitants who had to work the Rancho to survive, meaning the Bigsby Rancho . Continue living in this area. The Valenzuela family is just one such example. Still living on a part of a parcel given them by the Bixby family in present day Wrigley. That doesn't even include my family myself in love Cerritos. Next slide, please. Artifacts. Middens. As I talked about and exceedingly rare, cog stones have all been found in this area. My own family history documents that this exact land has been continuously occupied by indigenous people since time immemorial. Yet there is no acknowledgment of that precious and irreparable part of our heritage in the. Next slide. The city and oil companies have poisoned this land and exposed generations of children to toxic waste, including myself, my my father, who used to ride his horse down the river and see the green pools, and he himself found arrowheads at that site. Now it's time for you to take one small step to right the wrongs of the past. You could be working with us to heal the river and create a wonderful green space. Forget about calling it a park space. It has been zoned as open space and open space. It should remain. It could be a wonderful resource for all of us. You promised you would do this. Your city council and mayor. Please. When you unanimously voted for the River Lake Plan, which was not just some piece of paper, we all invested in that and we need that to be seen and put to practice. Thank you so much. Next speaker is Anna Christianson. When it comes down to it. What we have here is a failure to communicate the city's vision of, quote, compatibility and profitability, meaning a parking lot runs counter to traditional tribal understandings of relationships and responsibilities as regards both community and the natural world. Tribal leaders and members who continue to advocate for the protection and preservation of places as sacred species of plants and animals, as relatives of air and water, as life find themselves caught in a web of regulations meant to control the degree to which all of the above can be owned and regulated and exploited, but never allowed equity with societies that privilege people and the accumulation of wealth above all else. The low Cerritos Wetlands Task Force takes our lead from tribal peoples and we support the community and we support life, not RV parking lots. Thank you very much. Could you show the rest of the slides, please? Yeah. One final slide. I'm sorry. That final slide is the Tongva tribal leader, Anthony Morales, his son offering a prayer. Tribal people are still here. Genocide hasn't worked. It's not going to work. And now, like Dennis Banks used to say, the canary in the coal mine. This is happening to all of us. It's not just tribal people who are suffering the loss. Thank you. Your time is great homes and helped. Thank you very much. Next speaker is Rene Lawler. This Lawler. Good evening. I'm speaking through the telephone. My finger on my computer doesn't work. You can hear me. Yes. We can hear you. Okay. Very good. Thank you so much for putting up my slide deck. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I am representing the equestrian interest and my information is on file. Next slide please. Please uphold the appeals and produce any I are. There is sufficient there is insufficient review for known overland stormwater runoff and conditions that are present within this vicinity. This project will increase flood risks to adjacent properties, to the levees and the structures to the west and to the south. Please reject the zoning change to commercial storage. With that height variance, it is incompatible with the adjacent open space trail and low density residential community class 1341, three, five and 11 sigma guidelines have not been addressed with the amended class. One guideline states that if a proposed project consists of significant alteration to graphical features such as grading, that it needs to be further reviewed. The surcharged is already consistent with significant changes in the unique terrain, and there are therefore also not green solutions that have been considered despite the robust bio swell system that the developer is proposing . So it's not exempt and an R is required. The Class three simple guidelines all have to do with significant change in structures. Equipment are major modifications to the site. This is occurring class five sequence guidelines. If there is a major alteration to the land use and average slope changes which has occurred and will occur then changes in density and lot. Line adjustment for setback sequel class five needs to be reviewed. Class 11 is a categorical exemption and this project is not exempt. It's a sensitive river environment. It is a historic wetlands environment. It will have impact on the habitat corridor and there will be significant changes of use beyond the time of the lead agencies determination on air as required. Next slide, please. The result of stormwater runoff. These are some example photos showing runoff coming off the levee, showing runoff standing at the levee based floodplain. These are additional stormwater runoff photos that are from various times and years, not all the same time, but is showing land, storm water runoff conditions in the southern reaches of this watershed. Next slide. There are hydrological and topographical changes that will be occurring. Developing Pacific plates will add cumulative storm water flow. This property has been used as a retention basins for decades and water has been diverted onto it from an overland situation where there are no stormwater pipes. By changing the use of this and developing this property now, that water that had been going to the retention basin is going to continue to flow southward of the natural water, does flow west toward the levee and then it flows from a north south direction. The bio soil system is assuming that there are good pipes to tie into which there are not and there already are. The developer is acknowledging that the excess will still flow over the edges of the property lost lives. This is a example of a denial by the city to the county of tangible flood control to tie in into pipes for a project within the sub watershed because they've acknowledged that their storm drain pipes are under seismic flood. In fiscal year 2015, the city of Long Beach and addressing various storm drain have admitted that it is in a circumstance where its pipes are undersized and that that has been a infrastructure used since the 1930s. It's become undersized and insufficient based upon the growth, development and age of infrastructure. In the flood, the levee project, the lack of project created topographical hydrological changes itself in this sub watershed. That alone, by bringing the levees closer to these hard shoulder locations, created less permeable space. As the project also will do. That means less area for absorption increased velocity because of the change in elevations and increased density and volumes of overland flow not only from the levee but also coming from this property. Next slide. This is an example article of just how long these types of issues have been under review and have insufficiently been addressed for this sub watershed. Next slide Title 33 is a federal code and it covers navigation and navigable waters. But Part 208 has to do with flood control regulation. And part of the flood control regulation has to do with erosion control, where erosion is not to be allowed to occur adjacent to the structure of the levee that might endanger its water tightness and stability. Furthermore, Title 33 requires that there be inspections and also that it requires that there be permitting, so that if there is any construction, earth grading, any land movement, any FIL activities, anything on the river land or any private parcels adjacent must be permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in advance. Next slide. We also have the cultural and historical resources. The trail itself was dedicated in 1947. It is considered a scenic and esthetic trail, and despite what the developer says, this project is close enough to where it will negatively impact that trail experience. There will be added crossings that the developer is proposing, and those added crossings over that trail will have a cumulative impact in terms of the safety for the horse and rider, the lack of education, lack of signage. That has been a problem for decades without erecting proper signage on these trails. This will be a negative impact and needs to be reviewed. The overall height of the building will be non-conforming with the trail, even though it is set on a location closer to the freeway. There is still plenty of area of construction of this project that will, by the time you add the height variance loom over the trail and open space lands up to about 100 feet. That's an insufficient buffer for an esthetic and scenic and historic resource, and that's why the Coastal Conservancy supported open space and equestrian within this sub watershed and within this area of which this project is also a part of. Next slide. This is an example of the historic equestrian map. The city of Long Beach and the county of Los Angeles both enacted legislation in order to create this trail system. This property is adjacent to this trail system, and this trail system ties to a more historic trail system that's acknowledged through the 1968 federal trail. These these trails are feeder trails and connector trails via the rail hondo up to the Anza and should be given the same equal federal protective status. Next lime property is in a liquefaction zone as identified on this map and it is the third highest liquefaction zone identified landslide. It is also within a fault zone, as indicated on this map. Next slide, this map in. Next slide, please. Thank you. This map has a grand jury and map 22 as well as area mid-range map area 29. They both show the drainage system and for the experience. For those of you that don't see what you're looking at, basically you're looking at a map system of where there are not drainage pipes. There are not any storm drain pipes in this lowland area. There's no drainage pipe below the ridge line of country club drive there. The natural diversion of water that doesn't make it into any storm drain pipe is diverted overland to a westerly direction for the levee. That means it flows over this land. You develop this land, you change its topography. You're now going to start condensing overland flow, which also has a natural tendency to flow to the south. So you're going to be impacted property to the west and you're going to be impacting dramatically property to the south and a cumulative overland flow of which will also bring potential toxins and many, many other negative impacts. Next slide. This is an example of the overland flow that's coming on to this property from the Cerritos neighborhood off of Del Mar. Without addressing all of these overland flow issues, as well as the inefficient, insufficient storm drain pipe infrastructure. You can't adequately approve this and consider that in mind. Is is correct. Also, I'd like to provide some notable quotes of background history that shows that the storm drain overland runoff situation in this sub watershed, which is a part of the L.A. River watershed and this sub watershed needs further review. It has not been accurately reviewed, but there's full knowledge that there is a problem. And to quote a few notable, do you have Tony Zabel, who was formerly deputy director under Don Can? Harvey said, I understand the flooding is knee deep. You have Mary Ann Bennett, a landscape architect, associate, architectural engineering, L.A. County Public Works. I realize we have. This all the time concluded. It is unethical and probably illegal. Thank you very much for your time. Speaker number four is carelessly. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. Okay. This is cordless. I haven't seen my slides yet. This is carelessly speaking on behalf of Karp, and I agree with all the statements made by the appellants. Next slide. Currently this project does not have an environmental impact report. The city as lead agency chose to do a mitigated negative declaration instead. The site is fraught with environmental issues, and the public deserves to have a comprehensive study done to include the stormwater drainage problems that have not been addressed. And MMT is not sufficient. We ask that you do not approve zoning changes that would allow this project to move forward in the near term. We ask that you allow the facts to speak for themselves. The facts will be better, will be determined by an environmental impact report. Next slide. The values we hope our council will embrace is to consider the best use of this land for the greatest good. There are land use issues that include years of promises to make this into parkland. Plans were put forward in the L.A. River Master Plan and the Long Beach River Links Plan, which was approved at council in 2015. There is a dire need for more greenspace in this area and precious little land left that could fulfill the promise of those plans. This is one of two parcels that were considered the jewel in the crown of the L.A. River. Open space plans large enough to accommodate a good sized park, and Mundy does not allow for consideration of alternative uses. While you are asked those questions, would the public be better served by fulfilling 20 years of promises for green space? Or should you put in an installation that benefits the few instead of the many? If you want those questions examined and IRR is the vehicle, that's slide. A park or a parking lot. Remediation of this site for open space is a simpler task than putting in structures. Emissions can be harmlessly released into the air as they do in Davenport Park. Building on the site that has numerous risks that have to be addressed and monitored throughout the life of the building. Toxins in the soil will travel into the storm drain and contaminate the river either way. We need an air. Next slide. There's a storm drain pipe under the side that was not studied in the MMD. The developer's plans show a 30 inch diameter storm stormwater pipe, but county docs show it is a 24 inch pipe. So the real pipe has 30% less capacity, but is expected to handle runoff from 14 additional acres of land. The pipe is in the highly contaminated, compressible soil. Thousands of pounds of soil are currently on top of the storm drain pipe because of the surcharge test. The plan is to put £1,000,000 structure on top of that pipe and contaminated soil. The pipe is undoubtedly already compromised and cracked to build the proposed development. A cap and cement will be installed that will make a permeable side impermeable. Water will not seep into the soil. It will wash into a series of drains that will bring it into the existing pipe. The water and contaminants will get into the pipe and empty into the river. Next slide. This is a cross section of the problem. Showing the Pope under the weight of the surcharged has probably been crushed and damaged. A damaged pipe will allow the contaminated soil to enter and flow into the L.A. River and flood. There is a request for a zone change to commercial storage with a height variance. The reality is that the grading already added nine feet of height. The request is to add another 44 feet that is almost twice as high as the standard of 28 feet and is not compatible with the neighborhood. This will be an eyesore. Also note a storage pole was not erected on the site showing the proposed building height. Please do know the height variance and the zone changed. Next slide. I want to share a little of the history and the location to illustrate the magnitude of the oil drilling activity and how it affected this site. The Long Beach oil field was discovered in the 1920s. The star indicates the location of the project site. The gray blobs indicate oil deposits throughout the county. But the black area was the richest. Find the mother lode. Enormously productive. In 1923 alone, the field produced over 68 million barrels of oil. Next slide. This is an example of what neighborhoods looked like in the Long Beach oil field. Those tall structures are not trees. Those are oil wells. Next slide. Many residents had oil wells in their backyards. This is on Pacific Avenue in the 1940s. Next slide. Nearly every lut on Pine Avenue, Western Avenue, Pacific Avenue and Chestnut Avenue had an oil well. Children could not walk to Lowe's through school without an escort because of the oil fires. Between the fires and the noise. Some residents chose to abandon the neighborhood. The residues and contaminants from oil wells were delivered to sow ponds. 3701 Pacific Place was a serpent. Next slide. This is what the site looked like for 25 or 30 years up until the mid 1950s. It was operated by oil operators as an oil brine water treatment facility. They pumped oil into some sun. Water was allowed to evaporate from the brine or seep into the subsurface below the surface, leaving sludge behind. Following evaporation, remaining sludge was left in the slopes or dumped elsewhere. Next slide. The pie shaped piece of property is the project site. You can see Low Street, a school just across the road less than 200 yards away, as well as the Cerritos Park, left side. The map on the right shows contaminants throughout the site. The words elevated concentrations means more than what is safe. Lead, arsenic and TPA are the heavy metal contaminants in the soil. Total petroleum hydrocarbons is a term used to describe a large family of several hundred chemical compounds that originally came from crude oil. And that is what you have across this site. I am concerned that the soil sample only went to 20 feet. The history on this site says the residues go down 30 to 50 feet. A core sample should be done to cover the depth of the site. Next slide. What is important on this side is what is in red, that arsenic, a carcinogen, is present at unsafe levels and just below the surface. Next slides led in benzene are also toxic substances. President and dangerous concentrations. Elevated concentrations of benzene and methane were detected in soil vapor at nine locations. Next slide. The neighborhood already knew this site had contaminants. There was a sign there that was posted that told the residents about the dangers of lead and arsenic and told them to contact the South Coast HQ, M.D., to report any dust leaving the site . Next slide. Work commenced without adequate public notice soon for a surcharge test. No meetings were held with the public prior to the bulldozers arriving. You can imagine that neighbors were alarmed when they saw them kicking up billowing clouds of dust. The school and residences were bathed in dust and that likely contained lead and arsenic. That sludge. Sigma stands for California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA requires public engagement through a series of project steps. However, a mitigated negative declaration skips a lot of these steps. The public deserves to have a serious study of the environmental and cultural issues, not with the L.A. shortcut, but with a full air. As a public servant, your commitment to transparency and keeping the public safe is center stage as you make this decision. Next slide. This is the California enviro screen website. It shows today's environmental scores by census tract covering many sources of pollution. Pollution. So this is not just air quality. The area around Pacific Place has more people living with asthma or emergency department visits for asthma symptoms and deaths from asthma than 91% of census tracts throughout California. So this is heavily contaminated. The west side of Long Beach is already burdened with high pollution. Do you think it's fair to further burden the West Side with additional pollution? So go at 500 Harvey's many automobile trips to and from self-storage a three story building with employees going to and from daily along with a truck dock for nine trucks. All this will add significant impacts. Next slide school law says no projects would which would cause significant environmental effects should be approved. Approved as proposed. If there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would lessen those effects. The desired feasible alternative. Thank you for. Your time has concluded. All right. Last speaker is Bob Gill. Mr. Gill. We said Star six. Mr.. How are you going to speak for Mr. Gill? Okay. My apologies for my audio problems. Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. Okay, terrific. So Eric Garcia, Vice Mayor Richardson and council members my name is Joseph Hauer. I'm here representing the Lower Cerritos Neighborhood Association Board, and I live in the Low Street this neighborhood. Well, L.C. Enable is the best use of this land area, would be an urban forest with walking trails, all the possible uses. We think that's the highest quality use for the people of Long Beach LLC and is concerned about several environmental issues that I'll talk about in a few minutes and believes the project approval should only come after a full year as many of the other appellants have asked for. This should evaluate all the potential environmental impacts and require mitigations that the current MSD does not properly address. We do not agree that the project is harmonious with its surroundings. It is only at its closest point a few hundred yards from residences and a primary school. Project description also includes a warehouse that has not been talked about today. We are quite concerned that at some point someone will build that warehouse using this M&A, despite the fact that there was very little discussion of what that warehouse would or could do, how many trucks would be there or anything else. At a minimum, this warehouse should not be approved as part of this or any other secret document. Without a thorough review. It appears from the two of us that the self-storage facility would be visible from our neighborhood, particularly from most Laredo's Park. We can find no analysis of this on the neighborhood in the Mandy. The residents deserve to know what they will view on the project site as it is now. The they have added quite a bit of soil, as I understand it, as part of the test to determine the geological stability in that land. That soil is pile is very visible from many places in the neighborhood. Further clarification and analysis of those vehicle impacts, the property border wall and the proposed landscaping need to be there. We understand that there would be a wall along the north and east borders of the property, which is probably generally a good idea. But we're concerned that that wall could reflect the noise from the A-line trains back towards our neighborhood and exacerbate the noise impacts from that light rail system. And we did not find any analysis of that kind of an impact. There is an existing sound wall on the other side of the tracks from this site, but if we're reflecting the sound back from a higher elevation, there could be a significant noise impact from this project. The traffic study does not address the current city of Long Beach Traffic Impact guidelines and does not address the traffic congestion at the adjacent intersection of Pacific Place and Wardlow Road. It can. The study concludes that the magic maximum contribution of 33 peak hour trips to the adjacent intersections is nominal and the potential for an intersection impact is unlikely. The current. Impacts are pretty bad. And the project proponent told us there would be 40 employees there, plus the number of Arby's in there. So I'm not quite sure how they're saying that. There's only 33 peak hour trips. There's 40 employees. Carpooling just hasn't caught on yet. It also does not account for the effects of all the large vehicles, heavy duty trucks and whatnot that would be coming through this intersection. Again, a Pacific place in Wardlow Road, which operates poorly today, is impacted significantly already by the line, which can cause frequent closures at that intersection as much as every 3 minutes. While this is no longer a see SIEGEL impact as traffic injection, it is something that the city council should be concerned about. We've got a lot of folks in our neighborhood and others who use that intersection. And this project is going to make that intersection even worse than it already is. So before the city council should approve that project. We really need to understand what's going to happen with that intersection. In addition, there's a planned sewage dump station for recreational vehicles, which is likely to cause air pollutant emissions and odor nuisances. In a note to readers neighborhood, which is downwind of the site, that should certainly be evaluated in the air. And we could find no evaluation of that in the documents before you. Having said all that, if the city council chooses to deny our appeal. Yalcin I would like the project to comply with all the special conditions referenced in the city staff presentation during the Planning Commission meeting. One can condition notice that attractive landscape buffering and screening for parking lots and car washes should be there, in our view, in a review of the documents. We did not see such a buffer facing the Lost Mill or Cerritos Elementary School or the residential area. We request that any DI denial of the appeal require the project to have an attractive noise suppressing and maintain landscape buffer on a project boundary facing all Cerritos neighborhood. A neighborhood already has impacts from the noise of the airport to freeways, freight trains and the metro line. The homeowners have extensive noise from the interchange of the four or five in the 710 at the end of Pacific Place. Thank you very much. I believe Laurie Angell didn't have enough time to finish her remarks. If she is available, I invite her to use a little bit of our remaining time. If not, our remarks are concluded. I'm available. Won't take me, but 30 seconds, probably. May I go ahead? Absolutely, yes. 2 minutes. Okay. Well, I can start over then. My name is Laurie Angel with the River Park Coalition. Make no mistake, this hearing is important and the outcome will affect the health and well-being of tens of thousands of people on the West Side that have been deprived of open space that others in the city enjoy. Today, your decisions will set the tone for this year's future. This body has recognized the need for open space on the West Side. Time and again, we are at a point where every single parcel along the river is needed for open space. We need to protect and enhance the watershed. We need to improve our environmental situation and sustainability, not continue to detract and diminish it. You must follow through on your promises. In the early 2000, the City Council rejected a strikingly similar project across the street because a full year was inadequate due to the traffic issues. It was a full EIA and it was rejected by the council. That project did not happen because the council did its job. You must too. This must serve as a precedent for this project. You are fully aware that the worst land uses continue to be piled up on the West Side. The actions you take in your land use decisions either attests to your commitment to the community, or they show a reckless disregard for all the critical issues that continue to lead to extensive health issues and diminished life expectancy. Open space will help. Please uphold the appeal and request a full air. Thank you. That concludes the testimony from the appellants. Thank you. At this time, we will have the applicant. Is there a rebuttal, short rebuttal to any of that? No. The applicant has the ability to do so. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, Fernando Vila, on behalf of the appellant, we do have just a handful of points we would like to bring, but most of what was raised today, we already addressed in our presentation. I will first begin with a comment made by Mr. O'Brien regarding environmental justice and how our project would undermine that. I would actually say quite the contrary will occur today. Environmental justice pervades this community because you have had for decades an environmentally impacted site that's put residents at risk. We will eliminate that remediate to prevent that contamination via remediation. We will make this place a safe community asset. So we believe environmental justice will be absolutely promoted, not undermined, as incorrectly stated. The comment was also made that it is required because it would somehow provide greater protections in the or would not make any difference in providing protections because as mentioned, each and every tropical area needed to be addressed was adequately studied. Every mitigation that needed to be addressed and included we included in the air would make not one iota of difference. The Mr. Parsons had a handful of comments to which I would like also to respond. He indicated that there is a fair argument exists that would support because we did not sufficiently identify and mitigate impacts that would support an air in of course. We beg to differ. He has found in he focused most of his comments on the contamination. He said oily contamination fear could spread recreational lost DTC thoroughly, carefully for many years, adequately investigated the site and barely, after 15 months worth of effort, required a response plan that in great detail addresses all of the contaminants and will require CAP and all the other systems already addressed. And most importantly, based upon all those systems that we didn't propose the DTC required. The DTC is determined, and it is not our finding. It's the agency's finding that human health will be more than adequately protected, as will the environment if that response plan is implemented. So that is not a fair argument to make because it has been more than adequately addressed by that action by DTC, not by US and air. We simply had nothing to. This impacts analysis. Biological resources was another area that Mr. Carson raised as as a fair argument. And in fact, we had a very detailed biological resources assessment that was submitted to the city, and the city reviewed and approved. And, in fact, the city requires, as conditions of approval, the preservation in perpetuity of a green space that will protect the southern tar plant and all of the species that were found that needed some form of protection or another soil surcharge program did nothing to impact those tar plants that were found, because guess what? All of those species, all of the tar plants that were on the site were moved to that area where they will be preserved and protected, not under our oversight, but under the city's oversight and fishing game to the extent they will do so as well. So that is not a fair argument. It's been more than abundantly addressed. Miss goes way. With all due respect, raises excellent points. I really found her description of the Tongva Tonga tribe history gripping and really fascinating. With all due respect, there was a very careful survey done onsite or artifacts were found. There were research conducted. Over 100 years of records were reviewed. No artifacts, no indication that artifacts would likely be found. Nevertheless, in consultation with this tribe representation, representatives of the tribe proposed having a very robust mitigation by having one of their representatives onsite during construction to make sure if any artifacts are found. Despite our research that suggests otherwise, those will all be preserved and protected. Ms. Lawler raises a handful of issues that I think merit responses. She cites to various exemptions that this project doesn't meet. Well, that's not terribly surprising because we seek none of those exemptions. Those exemptions would have excused this project from having to prepare immunity, which in fact we all know it was prepared. So that was really, frankly, a red herring. Stormwater impacts were robustly assessed, contrary to what she said, and mitigation, and mitigated with new infrastructure. That new infrastructure includes, among other things, catch basins, storm drain pipes, storm drain pipes, bottle preparation, which the city reviewed and modified and ultimately are going to require as mitigation if this council chooses to approve the project. So we beg to differ with that mischaracterization that was made about stormwater impacts. The study that we that the city had conducted. The site concerning topographical changes showed that no topographical changes are or major hydrological changes or impacts would result in a project that's been refuted by study. That was very abundantly done. The Miss Lawler claims that we are in a flood hazard area and in fact it was demonstrated by the studies performed that the property is not within the 100 year flood zone hazard zone area. And so that is a misstatement of fact. A statement was made that various pedestrian crossings will be impacted. Well, in fact, there are no pedestrian crossings on this private property. We will create a pedestrian right of way for the public, none of which today exists and has not existed since this property has been privately owned. So that is a misstatement of fact. The property, by the same token, is also not an equestrian property and has not been used as such. And if it is used that says, with all due respect to those that are on the horses on that property, that would constitute a trespass. Liquefaction and faults with thoroughly assessed in the amended and the city are concluded. A deal with the staff indicated and recommended to the to the to the to the planning commission and out to your body that no significant liquefaction faults were do exist based on very careful, thorough studies that were done not by us, but by independent consoles. Mislead carelessly. If can't raise a few issues I'd like quickly to address. She indicates that in fact a a park use is appropriate because it can simply be remediate, just like our project could be remediated after much consultation with the city and with the DTC. However, these agencies have told us otherwise. DHS has made it clear having a park use would require tens of millions of dollars and years and years of use of soil removal that would be extremely infeasible to undertake. The city has not ever seen fit to acquire remediate the site. No private owner has ever seen fit to do so. It wouldn't work. And guess what? Dtsc doesn't believe park use is appropriate for this historically impacted site. The there was a comment made that the community was not properly noticed and that dust control measures were not taken during the search are. In fact our client acquired a permits. That agency reviewed the proposed surcharge and found that with the permits issued and with the appropriate watering and other measures for dust control that we undertook, each and every day would be appropriate to mitigate these dust controls. So this was in fact properly permitted, and the committee made sure that we maintain compliance with those conditions. Mr. Hammer raised a couple of points that I'd like to address. I hear the case that the project includes a warehouse that was never mentioned in any of our application papers. Well, that's not terribly surprising because that warehouse will not be located on our property. We understand that the McDonald Trust property owners next door at some point may or may not develop a warehouse facility. That property was evaluated in the media along with ours, but it is not a part of our project. So we wanted to clarify the record. There was also a statement made by Mr. Howard again with Mr. Howard Stewart, with all due respect, that somehow our project will in fact be visible from the neighborhood. Well, of the building, the building itself is going to be more than 700 feet away. We will have topographical impediments, we have railroad tracks, we have a floor. And we also have site photos that show that being 700 feet away with all those natural and manmade buffers simply would not enable a viewer from that neighborhood to see that building. And then lastly, Mr. Howard indicates that that the proposed that that the traffic analysis done did fail to comply with the city's VMT guidelines. We did not make that we that is, the applicant did not make the determination that our VMT study that showed we were well within the threshold that required no traffic study, no mitigation, that was not reviewed and approved by us, that was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer with assistance by a secret consortium that the city hired, not us. That determination therefore shows that we are in full compliance with the with the VMT guidelines that the city set forth. Mr. Ward. Can you please conclude your comments? Yes. And I think with that, we're going to thank you so much. Thank you. We are going to go ahead now that we have heard the appellants. We will now go back to the council member, Austin, and then we will gather. We can do questions now or we can go have a comment or unless you have some comments or questions there. Mr. Mayor, thank you so much. And really taken a lot in from both the the applicant and the appellants. I'm going to reserve most of my questions and comments for after public comment. But as been discussed by so many of the appellants in the narrative around this, this this project, much of it has to do with park space and open space along the river. And so before we go to public comment, I just want to ask the city manager, I think, has shared some information about the Park acquisition feasibility report that was recently released in response to a request by this Council. And in particular, I would like him to talk about the opportunities sites that were identified as relates to the Park Equity and how the recommendation was made as to the most feasible sites for park development along the L.A. River. And then I'm going to answer that question in a couple of hours. Yes, sir. So I can start with some a couple of comments on that. And I'd like Meredith Reynolds, our park development officer, to talk to your manager to talk a little bit about the specific projects. Can I ask the in the back, can we put up the staff presentation again? I want to actually show a couple of images that help her talk a little bit about that concept. And so one of the things that this council asked was about two months ago to really embark on a feasibility study along the entire L.A. River and really look at opportunity sites. The team took that very seriously. They put a tremendous amount of time into it and really looked at hundreds of sites that were potentially available up and down the river, focused on about 11 and had some criteria that Meredith can talk about, about how we picked kind of those as the as the most advantageous. And in the end, we did find a property right next to this property site, an 11 acre site, which is which is owned by L.A. County. And there's been some really exciting development on that. So before I get into that, I'd like Meredith Reynolds to just talk a little bit about kind of all the other projects on the L.A. Park Project or L.A. Park, I'm sorry, L.A. River Park development projects that have happened. Park planning takes a fair amount of time. These are complex projects. You've got to assemble money, you've got to do all the planning. And but we've delivered some pretty spectacular projects over the years. So Meredith, can you talk about those a little bit? Yes. Good evening, Mayor, vice chairman of the city council. Thank you, Tom. Just a couple quick slides here just to showcase some of the great planning and development work that's happened along the river. The first project is the Dominguez Gap Project. This is a project that was led by the county. 37 acres of new wetland property was developed and opened in 2008. This is on the east side of the L.A. River, just south of Delano. It is a great opportunity for trails and habitat and hiking. The cost of this was about $7.1 million and you can really see that investment in the site. Next slide, please. Next site is the forest wetlands. This is 34 or just almost 35 acres. That covers both districts, eight and nine from just south of the Forest Park, all the way to north of Delano. This was open in 2018, but much work had been happening in this location from planning and grant writing for the balance of about 12 years, where we were able to amass $8.5 million from multiple sources that features this really great wetland, seasonal wetland and upland habitat with trails and boardwalks and habitat. Next slide, please. The next site is Molina Park. This is a more traditional park that is just south of Delano in District eight. This was a park about 3.3 acres that was made possible by a private developer who was developing adjacent housing. And so this site was anticipated to be developed as a park, as a part of our city's redevelopment agency. When that was dissolved, the plans for the park were stalled. And so through a development agreement with the private developer, this was constructed this is open in 2018 and features a sports field, a very large playground, some fitness stations with ADA components and a parking lot, along with landscaping access to the L.A. River Trail. Next slide, please. The drink shop is Greenbelt down in District one toward the mouth of the river is a eight acre property that was opened in 2018. This was an investment of several grants that were amassed over a handful of years. About $3.8 million. And this project connects the Willmore neighborhood from the Anaheim Street all the way south to Drake Park. And so this features a multi use sports field, picnic benches and open space, some really dynamic murals. And we have several partners, including a community garden that is present on the site. Next slide, please. At Wrigley. Greenbelt is another project that is currently under construction. And this is a rendering that you see here. This is 9.8 acres on the east side of the river, starts just south of the four freeway and several county grants were secured about $1.6 million to develop this. And this will take folks along trails and habitat in the Wrigley neighborhood and also includes signage and connection to our city's equestrian trails in District seven. Next slide, please. There are several future park projects there that are on the horizon that have some level of funding for some of the initial steps. So the first is 51st Street Greenbelt. This is just under an acre in District eight that runs from 52nd Street to 51st Street behind Lindsay Middle School and adjacent to the southern end of the forest wetlands. This project is initially funded for design and landscape components by the Port of Long Beach Community Grants Program. We are in design for this currently. Next slide, please. Another project that is upcoming is a Drake Chavez expansion. This is just under six acres in the first District and represents the next component of development of the Drake Chavez masterplan. This idea is coined by our community, where nature meets play with some open space elements, some traditional park elements and perimeter walking loop and community garden. Design funding has been secured again through funding from the Port's Community Grants Program, and we will be beginning design here in the summer. Next slide, please. The Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment Facility includes a connection to a series of wetlands, the first acre of which is being developed with the site. This is at the southern end of the Drake Chavez greenbelt and connects to Drake Park right around the corner. This is currently in design and has a wetland feature with a perimeter walking path, some areas for contemplation, seating and also some picnicking areas. Next slide, please. And finally, the county property is listed here as a future potential park project. This is the site, the ideal site that was a recommended site that was included in the park feasibility study. This is 11 acres that is county owned. It is in District eight and it is adjacent on the east side, but adjacent to the River River Trail. And the city is currently in discussions with the county for a new open space. As our city manager indicated. With that, I'll turn that back over to Tom or Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much, Meredith. So clearly there's a lot of work that has gone into the L.A. River and continues to happen. It is quite the jewel and Long Beach. And we're really trying to reorient our community back to having a lot of that historic open space and really be able to enjoy that. So as you see, we went through a feasibility study and a lot has happened on this river, excuse me. And so a lot has happened in a very short period of time. This is the county property. So within two months it was identified. Once we really saw this site as an opportunity site and we contacted the county councilmember Austin, you know, help with that. A number of people help with that. And Janice Hahn actually asked the county public works director to kind of stop any other types of planning on that project. They were really looking at making that a maintenance yard in the laydown yard. So basically having trucks and pipes and equipment. And so they have officially put that on hold at the city's request and at the supervisors request as well. And we are starting some discussions. So park projects do take some time. This would be when they we'd have to go find funding for and do some initial planning and designing work and all the appropriate outreach. But we are seeing that as a very good possibility. I'm very glad that the county has made it available, at least stopped what they were doing so we can really get into the next steps on this project. So we're available to answer questions. Well, Tom, I appreciate and Meredith Step. I appreciate the clarification on that. I wanted to just highlight some of the great work going on throughout along the lower L.A. River here in the city of Long Beach and areas that are truly deep park space. And I'm glad you touched on what was proposed at 11 acre site next to the proposed project site, because it's important to note and to have that transparency for the community. Had this not come up with this project development not been proposed, we would not have gone into and looked at and had these conversations with the county , and nor will we have known what would what was being proposed there. And so this 11 acre site ultimately I see will be a win for our our community and for our city as a whole. With that, I'd like to allow public comment, Mr. Mayor. There is. Okay then let's let's go ahead and consider Austin's a well, go to public comment, Madam Clerk, and then we'll go back to Councilmember Austin. Our first speaker is. Anne Reynolds, because. Actually. Mr. Clarke? Yes. Just one more thing. One thing there. 1/2, ma'am. 1/2. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And please don't start it. Don't start our time. I just wanted to say there was someone that mentioned one of the appellants earlier. I had made a comment. I just want to clarify. I'm an appellant had mentioned that as mayor, I can just change the comment rules or that I created the comment rules on my own. Just to clarify, the 20 speaker cap was actually set by the city clerk's office last June, almost a year ago, not by our office. And the clerk set those numbers that she presented to the city council for after a review that she made on a variety of technical reasons, staffing and to provide public access . And so I just want to clarify that that is a rules that are set by the city clerk's office. And Madam Clerk, I know Madam Quirk is there is just want to confirm that that is all correct. Absolutely. Last June, the office of the city clerk released a press release outlining the public comment, telephonic public comment, the number of speakers that would be allowed per item, and also the signup procedures to sign up for telephonic public comment. It is not an arbitrary number and it is not. Something that was set by the mayor or nor can it be changed arbitrarily. There was a lot of research that was put into that number. Okay. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I just wanted to clarify that. And why don't we go to start public comment? Thank you. Our first speakers and Reynolds. Hello. My name is Ann Reynolds. I love the community aspect. I support the project and love the community part to bring into it. It allows everyone. To safely jog and bike. The trail is something we needed for a very long time. We, the people of our communities, deserve a beautiful park. Thank you very much. Think your next speaker is Cora. Mary Louise. Cora Morelos. Our next speaker is John Moreland. Oh. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Okay. Good evening, Mary Christie and council members. My name is John Moreland, resident of seventh District and very close to the eighth District. I do support and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Commercial Office Building Itself Storage Facility. This process has been vacant for over five years when the driving range and golf shop shuttered its doors. It's no secret that the site is contaminated and will require remediation at a significant cost to the applicant. The applicant is essentially proposing an assault lid over the site to stop pollutants in its place from further going down into the ground and to essentially mitigate that soil contamination issue. Opponents of the project that are the opponents of the project essentially wanted to build a park here. But there's simply three main issues with that idea. First, building a park when I help this oil pollution situation, in fact will exacerbate it with a park. Additional excavation will be necessary to remove contaminated soils and put a vapor barrier low enough to allow for adequate plant growth, which may be more costly. Which leads to the second issue. Who's going to pay for it? Where will that money come from? The county has some funds to improve the river, but only on parcels they control, not money to acquire and remediate private property. There have been no plans to improve this car park, nor has funding been earmarked for it for a while. It's been vacant over the past six years. Lastly, a park does sound great at almost any location, but a park at this location will not be using sound planning principles or guidelines used by the City of Los Angeles . And the National Recreation Park Association referenced that a surface area for a neighborhood park is about a quarter to one half of a mile. This property is located within a half mile, within a number. Think your next. Speaker is David. Nutter. David Sonata. Our next speaker is Mina de Attari. Good evening, Mayor. City Council. I'm a Long Beach formal resident. I live in the neighboring city of Lakewood. I was born and raised in the eighth District, and I happened to also be an attorney and a product of Long Beach Unified School District. I've watched Long Beach grow and change and morph into the city it is now, and I support this project because it is the best and highest use for that parcel. It's a good blend of economic opportunity for the parcel, as well as keeping it in line with some public use. If there's any opportunity to. Support this in any other way. I offer my support. I was just really impressed with the presentation that I saw on Facebook, and I believe the council should go ahead approve the CFP. And the zoning variance requested by the applicants. That's all. Thank you. Our next speakers, Mason Wright. Hello. My name is Mason Wright. I appreciate all the work and efforts done by the Insight Group engineers, scientists and city officials who have worked on both sides of this project. I am a third generation Long Beach native. My grandpa Glen. Right, moved here in the thirties. I was unaware of the vast history of this site. It has been amazing to hear this background, and I'm also appreciative of that. That said, this site is currently a blight on the city and unusable in its current form. Long Beach is becoming a destination for many Southern Californians, and space is limited. As an RV owner myself, I think I qualify as a nature lover and outdoorsman, and I am in absolute favor of this project. The amount of environmental testing that has been done and that the developer has offered to do for the duration of the project is satisfactory. I trust the process. I am looking forward to at its storage a new modern building accompanied by vehicle chargers, bike path access and a green space. Thank you for your time. I think your next speaker is Tracy Hodel. Hello? Can you. Hear me? Yes. Please begin. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Tracy Hazell. Murchison and I have lived in the Lower Cerritos neighborhood in the eighth District for over 20 years, and I'm very proud to call this my home. I purchased my house as a single woman 22 years ago. I spent many years enjoying biking along the L.A. riverbed to downtown Long Beach, practicing at the Golf Learning Center and running my dog at the Wetlands. Most of my activities were halted due to an increase in crime and homelessness over the years. When the Golf Learning Center closed, it was an open invitation to additional vandalism, homeless camps, fireworks, fires and noise. This has been a problem for our neighborhood and a major concern for our safety. I welcome and support the RV storage development because the developer has addressed all of my concerns. The development will provide new native landscaping, lighting, 24/7 security and most of all, it will clean up a contaminated site. It will be a nice addition to have a development at this site rather than the homeless encampment, which is what many of us see today when driving through Long Beach on the four or five and 710 freeways . With the approval of this development. Many of my neighbors and friends, including myself, will sleep better at night, knowing there are some additional safety measures for the low Cerritos neighborhood. Thank you for your time and thank you for listening to me. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. We're going to go ahead and go back to Council member Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I've already put a motion in the electronic system. I'm not sure if there's a second, but I'll get to the most. And then second. You know, there's been a lot of information, and I just really would say there's been quite a process leading up to this evening that has involved a lot of community engagement. I would like to thank our development services team and their for their presentation for all their hard work getting us to this point, particularly on this this project, but many other projects that they are working on simultaneously in our city. This item was reviewed by our Planning Commission, as mentioned on December 17th, 2020, and after a full public hearing and review, it was approved overwhelmingly 6 to 1 by the commissioners. And during the months prior to the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council hearings, there had been much community engagement on both sides of the issue . Unlike many issues that have come before the Council, over 500 residents. I have provided input to my office both for and opposed to the project, and I don't want to give the numbers, but most of the feedback that my office has received has been in favor of this project. There's also been interest and collaboration from a number of our elected officials. I'd like to thank the state and federal levels who shared their commitment to more open space along the L.A. River and who are also working to identify, as we speak, additional resources to make these open spaces possible. I'd also like to especially thank Supervisor Janice Hahn and her Long Beach deputy, Linda Chico, who have been engaging with the community and the city on making additional public park space along the L.A. River possible. Providing political will to make 11 acres county flood control property into public open space is a huge gain for our community in our city. And so I'd like to thank Janice Hahn again for her partnership. I'd also like to thank the city staff for their work on this project project as well as the Park Acquisition Feasibility Report, which I think provides us a framework to do a whole lot more work, a lot of good work in communities along the L.A. River because several opportunity sites were identified. And as well, as I mentioned earlier, earlier, that park space is has become a common narrative related to this park project. And if you review the park feasibility report, you'll see that many park projects in the city's history have come as a result of development projects. Right. This evening, my colleagues and I must look at the facts as it relates to this project on private property and the zoning rights that are in place. Most, if not all, of the environmental questions, I believe, have been addressed through the city's environmental review, as well as through the review of soil and water contamination issues by the California Department of Toxic Substances and Control. Ask the questions that I'd like to go over, and I'm sure my colleagues may have some questions as well. But at this point. And so. Mr. City Manager. Or whomever. Please, can you. I do think that there was some some interest in the water runoff issue. Right. Raised. Can you tell me what happened to the dust and dirt and water runoff at this site prior to the proposed application as authentic or in its current state with the applicant? And what was the applicant allowed to do on an interim basis before the project approval? And why? And maybe that that's a question for developers. So Councilman asked and I'm going to start with the before and Patricia is going to cover the after. So this site, like many sites in Long Beach, you know, it doesn't have proper drainage control. And what we refer to as something that it doesn't have water quality controls for drainage exiting the site. So today and in the past, water on the site would enter through a storm event or otherwise and would drain downhill into adjacent pieces of property and eventually into the storm drain system without any on site treatment or retention. There was some discussion earlier tonight that it was a past detention base on, which is not factually correct. So that's the past. The recent events. There was a permit issued just for the soil testing, stockpiling, and that did require a review not just by the city, but by DTC and AQAP. And that includes water control measures to track to where the water will go and promote onsite infiltration rather than exiting the site. Once the project is developed. There's a number of water quality control measures to achieve the goal of having water quality leave the site better than it enters it. And Patricia is going to talk about that future piece. So the the response plan that has been prepared and is in draft form currently outlines a number of different measures that will be taken, and it includes a engineered cap that will be placed over the site and it will minimize the infiltration of water into the underlying impacted soils. And it will be required to follow all of the stormwater urban stormwater management mitigations. And I think you also asked about dust. There are construction mitigation measures that require the control of fugitive dust. Oftentimes that involves watering down the site. And I think the applicant's team described some of those measures that would take place. And the fact that if there were if if there was, you know, dust and there was substances in that dust, that the grading would be halted. So if we were to reject the or uphold the appeal and reject the project, what would be. I would. How would we deal with water runoff and an air slope, soil contamination or air contamination as a result of the site? If we reject that, if the project is rejected, then the conditions will remain as they are and all of the mitigation measures that would be put in place to deal with water infiltration, control of dust, all of those things would not would not be conducted and would not be done in the and the current conditions would remain . And if the Council were to deny this project, what will be required to make this site a public park as outlined in the feasibility study? I.e. eminent domain, legal costs, site acquisition and soil remediation. We're giving much consideration to that. If if the if the city were to try to make the this site a park, it would require significant remediation. The city would have to identify funds for that remediation. The remediation would be required to be at levels that are greater than they are for the proposed commercial and industrial project. This would be a significant hurdle that the city would have to cross in order to to consider this site as a as a park. Thank you for that. I understand that we are on a five minute rule still. And so I'm going to yield to one of my colleagues back to the mayor. Or now. Okay. I have and I do have a motion by Councilmember Austin to believe the motion is you have here to approve the staff recommendation, which is a denial. Denial of the appeal. Councilman. That is my my recommendation. That is my motion to deny the appeal. I can read the motion if you want. Sure. I want you to read it. Due to the consideration I move that we receive the supporting documentation into the record through the public hearing, deny the appeals and adopt the resolution certifying the mitigate, get a negative declaration and declare an ordinance approving the zone change to commercial storage and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of this project. That is my motion. Thank you. And I'd love to have a second by Councilwoman Price. Councilman Price. Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. I had queued up to talk, but that's fine. If I'm next in the queue, I can second as well. Okay. Councilman Price. Thank you. So I want to I want to thank the appellants. You have worked really hard on this issue. You're very passionate about your beliefs in regards to this project. And I really appreciate the respectful dialog that you've had with any of us who have met with you. I certainly appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and hear your thoughts. When I did meet with some of the appellants who reached out to me, I committed to them that I would definitely do my homework, read the materials, and also talk with city staff. And I have done that. I have spent the past few months really educating myself on this topic, understanding that whatever we do with one project proposal obviously has precedence to other proposals and and vice versa, whatever we don't allow in some areas, that too will carry a precedent. So I've really tried to educate myself on this topic, and I want to thank our development services and planning teams for meeting with me and talking me through these the this particular issue and some of the. Arguments that have been raised by the appellants. I will say that while I appreciate the passion that has been raised and a lot of the talk, the arguments and a lot of the documents and letters and things I have seen, some of the the realities that have been conveyed to me from staff are in direct conflict with some of the allegations that I've heard from the appellants, and that may be just miscommunication or a lack of understanding. But based on my understanding of the ownership of the site and what it would take to achieve the goals and. Asks requests of the appellants. I don't believe that that is a feasible or viable option for the city. So with that, I do want to thank everyone who spoke in favor of this and those who spoke against it. And I want to thank Councilman Austin for the diligence that he's put into this effort. And I will be supporting his motion. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to take a moment and just acknowledge it's been a lot of work and this is certainly spilled out citywide into a larger conversation and things like equity brought out. And, you know, when it's a hearing, you really can't talk about these things publicly. And typically when these things come up, you defer to the council member or the council members and the closer proximity area. One of the topics just asked a couple of questions. More specifically, big picture here. Thank you, Councilman Alston, for asking about the process of what it would actually take to develop this into a park if that were the direction that the city wanted to do. Well, I didn't hear what I didn't hear from city staff is what would be did we do any analysis on what the cost would be to acquire and develop this into park space? Yes, we did. That was part of the park feasibility report. Meredith, can you give a summary of that specific 11 acre parcel breach since. The height of the high level? Certainly the identify I recommended site is included in the park feasibility study. And what we did do is a rough order of magnitude due to cost for the development. And the acquisition, development, maintenance and operations. We are focused on the recommended site of the county property. And so at the 11 acres we were looking at a cost, a development cost of 291 million with some additional costs for maintenance and operations. So I think that's what. I needed to hear. I want to be with my 5 minutes here. So forgive me if I'm sorry. Sure. So 291 million, to put it in perspective. That's more than the rebuild of Jordan High School. That's how our community center was, about 10 million. That is a significant, significant cost. And when we talk about park equity and I'm a big champion and supporter of Park Equity, I think it's important that we think for the sake of equity, that we actually prioritize area with respect to proximity and access. If we're going to make a $300 million investment to expanding of open space, they should be in areas that are walkable to communities that don't have access to open space. And and staff. Have you done some analysis? What are the top three or four districts with the least access to open space? Yes, I can answer that question. I'd also I think we're going to take a second to look at the 291. That number is a little higher than what I remember. But I will if that needs to be corrected, we'll let you know. And so we did take a look at what the we do look at Park Ridge Park acreage throughout the city. While parks are open to everybody, they're not always located in the same areas and not every area has the same amount of access. When we do look at where the the districts with the lowest amount of acreage, they really fall into districts one, six and nine. Those have between 50 acres and about 67 acres each. When you look at your highest districts, those are four, three and five. Those have between 356 acres and almost 2000 acres. And so there is a disparity, and that's something this council has embraced and acknowledged. And a lot of our park development efforts have really been focused on the areas in the past several years that have the least amount of park space. So I'm gonna conclude with this because we have this five minute limit here. The disparities within east and west part of town are really driven by deep, deep disparities, hyper focus in about three areas. The town of west of the 17 north Long Beach, sort of north of the Alamo and central north downtown area. That's really where the disparity is so high. It pulls down the broader disparity between east and west, and that's where we need to continue to place our focus. There are plans we need to implement and invest in those plans. I think the 11 acres on going plot 11 have been identified. I want to acknowledge the speakers on both sides for reaching out. I think they've been they've made strong cases, particularly, you know, particularly some of the appellants. I thought Mr. Gillis offer some very realistic I mean, some reasonable requests. And so my final question I would ask is Mr. Gillis talked about a list of things if this were not to be approved tonight, I mean, if the appeal were not to be approved tonight, there were a list of requests. Our staff addressing some of those requests raised by Mr. Gill Gills or Gillis. I just wrote down Give. One of the comments from Mr. Gale was about landscaping. And I think there's an opportunity to look at the on the site plan and look for opportunities to do some additional landscaping. There are walls between, you know, along the property that perhaps could be landscaped on the outside of the wall with vines to soften those edges. So that is one of the possibilities that can be looked at. Let's just make sure, though, there was a list of things. Let's make sure what can't what can ever be done to accommodate those steps are taken and factored into the plan. But that said, I don't see the grounds to vote to uphold the appeal on this. I think we should continue to express our opportunities to invest in the river, but really take out the scalpel and invest in the areas that are truly our core. That's where we need to make sure that Austin Young people think. Councilman Richardson, I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. And Mr.. Mayor, can we go to are we able to correct. Something real quick, Mr. Mayor, before we move on to the next speaker, just that $291 million number. Sure. Thank you. Meredith, can you give a quick update on that? Yes. I apologize, Vice Mayor, I misunderstood the question. So just to clarify, the information that you're looking for is on page 28 of the open space feasibility study, and it's for that 11 acres. The total development cost is $27.5 million, with some additional funding for maintenance and operation. I apologize. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is council member Ranga. Thank you. I'll be brief. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Vice Mayor Richardson's comments on that. It doesn't rise to the level of. Of rejecting the appeal. I think that. When it comes to the to the appeals that were there that were presented today. And by the way, I have to thank them for a very extensive, very thorough testimony. And they provided it was very compelling. And to me, also, the responses of the of the applicant, of course, were very strong and very compelling as well. However, I think that the community is asking for one thing only. Do a full year and I in support of that because through the equal air you're going to get a lot of the information that they want because we want to be comfortable that whatever goes in that property is going there because there was a whole extensive year performed. All the concerns regarding contamination, regarding the the environmental justice issues that were that were brought up were in fact, addressed and looked at. I'm not. I know what it's going to take to build any kind of other kind of structures, various mitigation. Lots of points for that because of the contamination and the history of that area there. So I'm I'm I'm not in favor of this project. I will be supporting the the appeal under those conditions, because I think that the the E.R. will provide an opportunity for the residents to provide their ideas, their concerns and with with additional scoping that would need to take place. And that's all they want. And that's and that's what that's the direction that I'm going to be. Date. Thank you. I think next I have Councilman Mongo. Thank you, Mayor. I've had some technical difficulties. Can you hear me? Good. Thank you, Mary. I want to thank all my council colleagues for their comments this evening. I also want to thank the appellant and the. The both sides of the. Presentation tonight. I thought that there was a lot of really great testimony and the quality of those presentations was excellent. I think that one of the things that comes to mind is that there are personal property rights, and I recognize that I may want my next door neighbor's house to. Be a park, but they have some personal property rights. And I appreciate hearing a applicant who takes into consideration the requests of the community, because I do know that we've had some parcels across the city where we don't have any cooperation. And by right, they are able to do things that are not only not in the best interests of the community, but sometimes to the detriment of the community. And those are from decisions that were made a long, long time ago. I think we as a body came together during the process and. Recognized a lot of needs across the city. And while I, of course, see that there are greater needs than what the space potentially is being used for, especially with our economic downturn and the need for jobs, it's also important to recognize that each and every piece has to come together to have a greater impact and lift up the city. And so I think one of the things that's really drawing on my heartstrings tonight is the excellent efforts of Councilmember Austin and his leadership in finding a parcel of additional park space and working with the county on making that a reality. I hear his commitment to the community and making that possible, and I think that's critical and important. I think that it's unfair to talk about parks based by districts as the district that has the most park space. I'm happy to talk about it by districts, but I think that it really disproportionately disadvantages Council District four because there are areas that are just on the edge of his district, such as the nature center, that we're kind of looped in. And depending on the dividing line of any given census year, park space is added to and fro. And that really is disingenuous to the communities that live on the other side of this district that really do need additional park space. So I would just say that as a community, even if our districts are split, we should really talk about the city and the park need in regions. And I think that that would be a more. Realistic and sincere a way to describe where things are, because in the next census tract, the nature center could be in the fifth District versus the fourth District. So I think that those are some things to keep in mind. And furthermore, I want to I want to thank the community for coming together behind so many projects. I think that this project would not be what it is today without the appellant and all the requests and coordination that went into this. You really made the presentation and it sounds like had the community input along the way to ensure that that. Developer and land owner are working in tandem with the community. And I think that that's a lot about what this process is for. And so congratulations. I think a lot of big wins tonight on on what the state will look like. And I think that you'll have a big win in terms of I'm continuing to work with Councilmember Austin and his legacy to pull that all together with an additional park space with the county. Congratulations. Thank you. And then finally back to Councilman Austin. Thank you. I think we've had a lot of great conversation and I really appreciate the input of my colleagues. I do want to just address a councilmember your rhonda's assessment about a poor e.r. I disagree with that. And and i think there are some differences between the projects being proposed in our districts. The project being proposed in his district is a housing development, which would I think it may necessitate airport air. This is a storage facility that has low and minimal impact on community. There won't be people living there, drinking the water or anything like that. And then I wanted to just just also address Councilmember Richardson's concerns. I haven't had a chance to really talk to the applicant or the appellants since this process has been under appeal. But prior to I know the applicant has given his full support toward being a great community partner. And I know that a lot of the plans and considerations were done with the input of neighborhood association residents. I've been emphatic about them speaking to. And I'll just say throughout my time on the Council, it's been almost nine years of several, maybe a dozen different development proposals have come to my attention regarding this particular site. And when I met with the developers for proposed projects, I've always encouraged them to engage our surrounding communities, neighborhood associations and referred them directly to the most Reno's Neighborhood Association. In fact, when the city was considering the lands element in 2017, Councilmember Urunga and I received a communication from the President of the neighborhood association at the time , Mr. Bob Hill, who indicated that the board of the most serious neighborhood association like to would like the former Golf Learning Center driving range land, which is approximately 15 acres, to be zoned as light industrial instead of open space. And I quote The land uses available under light. Industrial are better for our neighborhood and better for our neighbors and better for our for the city of Long Beach. But a city staff and attorney has already indicated, even without the Neighborhood Association's input, the city could not change the zoning of the property to open space because of the objections of the property owner at the time. So private property has never been zoned open space. And I just want to be very clear with that. Let me be clear that this particular site has been industrial use for the past 100 years. Right. And for the past 14 years, ever since the driving range closed, it has been a blight, blighted and vacant site. My office has received countless complaints about nuisances and blight and from this site since it's been vacant. These include dirt, bike and off road vehicles on the weekends kicking up dust, this very contaminated dust that we now know about as well as noise contamination. And there's also been complaints about encampments and brush fires in this area, which has been a drain on our public safety services. Also heard from residents who have a direct view of this property from their homes and support this project, property project, I'm sorry, because they see it as a way to permanently remove nuisances that are a blight that they've had to endure for many, many years. And so with that council, I do appreciate that the robust conversation. And again, with all respect to everyone who've been involved in this project, the applicant as well as the appellants. I do appreciate the robust engagement. I would like to channel all of this wonderful energy that we've heard here tonight. The last two and a half hours. I'd like to channel this energy toward actually working together and building park space. And so I'm going to extend an olive branch to all of our community members and stakeholders who've been engaged here today, but also to the project applicant, because I think there's a lot of work to do and we can win together as a city. So with that, those are my comments and I appreciate your support. City Council. Thank you. And your customers. And they are. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know that this is an issue of great interest to our community, and I'm glad to have heard from everyone who called in and who reached out to my office, both in support of the applicant and the appellant. I'm very appreciative of all the appellants that contacted me and met with me and really to educate me on the reasons that they were appealing this project. I also want to add, during that time that we met, you know, I, I was able to reassure them my personal commitment to open space and parks. I also want to make sure that that I you know, that even though I don't represent that area in in the Y in the eighth District, I'm very, very committed to the needs of our less west site community. I know that we are definitely on. You know, it's lacking in open space and parks in in this side of Long Beach. And not not only that, but we are also the parks that we do have. You know, I think we have a lot of violent crimes, a lot of homeless encampments, a lot of drug use and sale. And so those are, of course, for other conversations. But I think that that is something that we need to deep dig deeper into. I also want to share my many concerns, you know, about having real true access to parks in these disproportionately impacted areas. I am so happy that this the city staff went and did research. And I'm very thankful to Councilmember Austin for working with staff, working with County to actually see and and find opportunities for open space and that can be developed. I know that this is private property, so this is a very difficult and, you know, decision to be made. But I think that it is very important to to make sure that we that we followed through with helping not only find open space and parks, but maybe not on this property, but and finding them along the most needed areas. I'm particularly excited, like it's said, for the parcel of land that Steph described that we are working on and partnering with the county on. So that's that's really good. I'm I'm happy to stand in support of the efforts of my colleagues tonight. And just wanted to thank staff again for all their hard work on this project. I wanted to thank wholeheartedly the community for advocating for open space and parks, and let's continue that advocacy together and find more open space. With that, I just want to say thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Before we vote, I'd just like to just give the applicant an opportunity to make a public commitment to to to the neighborhood and the community to work on the issues of concern, to be a partner with with the stakeholder groups in the community. Is the applicant still on? And I know some commitments were made a few months ago. I want to just make sure that we hear those commitments again. Councilman, I don't think the applicants or the appellants are still on, but we can. And certainly if there are if there's a question, we can always contact them. So. Madam Clerk, do you want to contact one of the appellant? I'm sorry. The applicants to see if one of them could come back on. We will make that call right now. Is there a specific applicant that the council would like us to contact? Mr. Paul Brown available. We will contact him. Mr. Brown. Is logging in right now, if you can give him one. Are you there? Yes, we can hear you. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Sorry. We were asked to leave the call before the voting. Al Jazeera asked to leave the confidence building. Sorry if I have a bad connection. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Brown. Thank you for joining us. Mr. Brown. I'm not sure if you were listening to the meeting, but I know, you know, we're in the community meetings and early on in the process, I know you committed to being a great of a strong, committed partner with the community as you were going to move your your headquarters here to Long Beach at the site, as well as you make commitments of, again, being rooted in our city. Several comments were made and concerns related to some some buffering esthetics, as well as studying noise from the site related to the A-line. My question to you is, will you commit to working with our community to the neighborhood association as well as community stakeholders to work on these issues as your project moves forward? Yes. Council Member We will gladly work with staff on the Council to appease the concerns that were given to us tonight. All right. And I do understand also that, you know, as we are considering, you know, building this 11 acres and we're in the works and building 11 acres next to your property, will there be some some access points, public access points from your property for that that that a private for that public space. Yes, Councilman. We will be providing parking for our access to that future park or open space. Parking. Is there a is there a trail? Yes, there is. There's parking spots as well as a trail and an easement that we have been working with city staff to complete. And I do believe there's also some some some open space development on your property that you're also developing that would be in conjunction with that 11 acres, is that correct? That is correct, sir. Well, thank you. And again, I appreciate the commitment. We look forward to working with you in the future. Okay. Thank you. That concludes that concludes questions. We'll go ahead and now go to a vote. I have a motion by Councilmember Austin, a second about Councilman Price to approve the staff recommendation. So, Madam Clerk. District one. I district to. My. District three. I. District for. Right. District five. I District six. Six has a count, six is recused. Thank you. District seven. You may. District eight. At the No. District nine. All right. Councilmember Urunga, we have you as a neighbor, correct? Correct. Motion carries. I'm going to get through. Item number nine, please. Communication from Councilwoman Sorrell. Councilman Super Anna recommendation to receive and file a presentation in recognition of Cambodian New Year. Is Councilman Zorro back on yet? She? She might not be. So if she's not on yet, why don't we come back to those? I am for has been pulled from the agenda. I'm sorry Adam. 11 has been. We'll come back to nine and ten when Councilman Ciro is back on.

LongBeachCC_11052019_19-1106

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the status of Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance vacancies in the City of Long Beach; and Request City Manager to explore and implement solutions to restore BLS 12 and 13 to daily service as soon as possible and prepare a long-term plan that addresses staffing shortages for Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT).

Thank you. That concludes public comment. Thank you. Now we move to item. 21. Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilmember Urunga recommendation to receive and file a report on the status of basic life support ambulance vacancies in the city of Long Beach. And request the city manager to explore and implement solutions to restore bills 12 and 13 to daily service as soon as possible. And prepare a long term plan that addresses staffing shortages for emergency medical technicians. Councilman Richardson was speaking. Thank you, vice mayor. Sure. So most recently, I was I and the city council was notified of some recent actions that need to take place in our fire department that impact our ability to deploy our basic life support units 12 and 13 based in north and west Long Beach. This has a small but an important impact on our ability to respond and transport patients to the emergency room. The purpose of the motion tonight is to discuss and receive a briefing on that situation, discuss what actions have already been taken and what can be taken to immediately restore vehicles 12 and 13 as soon as possible. And then to begin the conversation on long term solutions to address the staffing issues associated with the EMT positions of ambulance operator positions here in the city of Long Beach. So that this problem which occurred last year, occurred this year, during the last two months of the holidays, won't occur next year. And so at this point, I'd I'd like to hear your staff report. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Members of the Council. So Javier Espinal, our fire chief, will be able to provide kind of an update of where we are with our blaze ambulances. We provided a 2.4 report on Friday, which is provides a lot of data and we can kind of get into that a little bit and answer your questions. So with that, I will turn it over to our fire chief. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Members of the Council, thank you for the opportunity to provide this update on our basic life support ambulance staffing. Recent staffing shortages and Long Beach Fire Department's ambulance operator position have caused a change in the staffing model for basic life support ambulance deployment. On October 18, 2019, after having met and conferred with both the International Association of Machinists and the Long Beach Firefighters Association, Long Beach Fire Department elected to stop using mandatory overtime for ambulance operators to staff one of the city's two time to daytime peak bliss units. If full time employees are available or part time employees have signed up to work. This unit will be staffed. This action was taken to provide temporary relief to the remaining full time ambulance operators who were being required to work an excessive number of additional hours to fill the vacancies. The FDA provides two transport methods for patients who have called 911 for a medical emergency. Critical patients like those who are suffering a heart attack or a stroke and need immediate medical intervention are transported to a local emergency room by firefighter paramedics in one of the fire departments. Nine ALS paramedic rescues patients who do not require immediate, immediate medical intervention by paramedics, but who require or request transport to a local emergency room are transported by one of the BFD bellows ambulances, the BLR ambulances or staff with non sworn ambulance operators who hold an emergency medical technician license and are either full time or part time employees at staff. One of the five bellows ambulances, three of the bellows ambulances are staff for 24 hours a day and are currently housed at fire stations two, four and 19. Two of the bellows ambulances are peak load units and are staff during periods in which transports occur more frequently. Currently, a unit is housed at Fire Station 13 and a staff from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and one is housed at Fire Station 12 and is staffed from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.. VLS Ambulances are a citywide resource. Therefore, even though each BLS unit is assigned to a specific fire station, the Bliss units are out in the community more often than they are in their designated fire stations. Long Beach Fire Department typically hires one class of ambulance operators per year. And in past years, this class would graduate approximately 20 ambulance operators. This is typically enough to support the natural attrition that occurs in that classification. Ambulance operators are hired through civil service and applications are screened for qualifications and sent over to the BFD for review. Candidate candidate candidates are selected from that list and 60 or more slated for BFD interviews with firefighters of various ranks. The top candidates are sent to live, scan a thorough background process and a medical exam with occupational health before being offered a position. Once offered the position, ambulance operators complete a three week course that covers internal BFD policies and procedures, an EMT refresher and emergency vehicle operations. The ambulance operators also complete field orientation observation rotations with current ambulance operators. Part time employees are offered full time positions in order of seniority or an order of their performance in the ambulance operator class. Currently they all. BFD is experiencing a shortage of BLS personnel, as many fire departments are hiring for fire positions in addition to ambulance operator companies. The shortage is limited to FDA ability to cover all shifts on the 12 hour bill as ambulances. BFD Ambulance Operator Staffing filled a critical levels in September 2018. We conducted a hiring process and 24 candidates began the background and medical exam process. Of the 24 candidates. Only 13 completed the three week orientation class. The others withdrew from the process or were disqualified during the background. Medical or EMT refresher course. A second process was initiated in May 2019, and in this process, 36 candidates began and a total of 20 candidates completed the process. The civil service list for this position expired, and a new bulletin was published in June 2019. In August 20, 1960, candidates were interviewed. 36 moved to backgrounds, and as of today, 28 candidates remain in the process and those that complete backgrounds are being scheduled for medical exams. The background and medical exam portions of the process are typically slated for ten weeks based on part on prior experience. We're hopeful that we may be able to conduct a smaller class prior to the end of the year if we're able to move through the process quickly. If this is not the case, a class would take place in early January 2020. As previously mentioned, bliss, ambulances, transport patients who do not require immediate medical intervention by a paramedic when there are no bills, ambulances available and a patient meeting. These criteria requires transportation. An analyst unit is dispatched to provide transport. This typically places an A+ unit out of service during a period of typically 20 or 30 to 40 minutes. Other A+ units provide coverage in that unit's area while it's out of service. To reduce the number of mandatory shifts. The ambulance operators recovering the department stopped filling mandatory overtime spots on VLS 12. This unit was selected because of the five B-list ambulances. It has the lowest average call volume at seven calls per shift. Additionally, it has two paramedic rescues nearby that provide overlapping coverage in the event one is out of service. Further, the OB FDA proposes to rotate this reduction between Bliss 12 and Bliss 13 beginning in mid-November. It is anticipated that most of these calls will be absorbed by the other Bliss units. If no Bliss units are available. An elite unit would have to fill in further. The recent restoration of Engine 17 provides an additional citywide resource to provide emergency medical services prior to the arrival of an A+ or a B+ transport unit. These reductions in daily staffing are temporary and will be in place until the BFD is able to hire sufficient number of ambulance operators, which is expected to occur in January 2020. During this period, BFD will strive to maintain response times while continuing to meet the expectations of the community with regard to emergency medical services. This concludes our report and we stand ready to answer any questions. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Just a thank you for that report, Chief. And you expanded on what was initially submitted in the two from four to the council. So thank you for giving us the most recent update and just have a few questions about the situation. So we had a call with our North local leaders last night and there was a lot of discussion about the difference between Alice and the Beatles. Would you just give a high level explanation of what Alice Rescue does and what a Bliss does? So Alice is advanced life support and those are are paramedic firefighter paramedics that respond to typically heart attacks, strokes, things of that nature that need immediate intervention by a paramedic by higher level of emergency technician. The Bliss ambulances are more slated for transport of patients to hospitals that don't need immediate intervention by a paramedic. Okay. So advanced life support, heart attack, basically it's a life or death situation. Basic life support will be an example of a basic life support call. It could be a minor laceration, a fall with bruising pain of some type that doesn't require immediate intervention. Understood. Okay. And you touched on this. It's the proximity to the ALS units and the three full time, because VLS units will limit the response time. But can you say that there will be no impact to response times, or will there be an impacted response times while we're in this situation? I can't say that there will be no impact. I do anticipate some impact to the system. But as previously stated, especially with the VLS units, once they arrive and change shift in the morning, more generally than not they are out of the station and whether they get back into that particular area within a given number of hours is subject to run count. Okay. And you mentioned in your presentation that you expect that this issue will be resolved and the unit will be placed, the units will be placed back in service January 2020. I do. Are there any factors that could affect the timeline on that, either pushing it beyond January 2020 or sooner than January 2020? So it is we stated we currently are pushing as hard as we can through the background and medical process. There is a potential that we could do a class potentially earlier as far as going past 2020. I don't anticipate that being a problem. We have everybody in the queue as far as the medicals and the backgrounds and I think we're going to be set. Sure. Thank you. Now I want to talk about the future. So based on our conversation, I know that this has happened at least once in the past last year, and then it happened this year. Mr. Modica, can can you would you talk about what your approach would be in responding to this, this motion to think about what we can do to either make the hiring system better or faster, or to build a bench or a pool, or to enhance or improve the problems that lead to the ALS being difficult, a difficult position to maintain. I know that there are concerns about the level, the rate of pay that these folks receive or whether it's a pipeline to a fire position or whatever it is. But how would you respond to this motion? Sure. So we have been putting a lot of thought into this, and this motion helps us really hone in on it. We do. You know, one of the aspects here is it's a smaller group of employees than we do have. For example, firefighter. We have, you know, 100 firefighter positions and just dozens of these positions. Part of the reason that this program was created in the first place place was to be a feeder group into our firefighter ranks. So we know that this happens. We know that we we often have transitioned these people into other employment in long beach. We're going to be looking at working with civil service and with h.r. About planning out those academies. We're also, you know, knowing that there's going to be peaks and valleys sometimes where something like this unexpected will happen and see what are our options to either bring in additional support or having people on a bench or others that we can bring in to do that. And if there's any other solutions out there, we're going to be looking at those in the next month or two. So we we don't like to be in this situation. We always want to have full staffing whenever possible. It does happen in an organization our size and in this case is just a small, limited pool that can do that job. So we were we will be taking this seriously and trying to plan those academies so that this doesn't happen in the future. Thank you. So that's the last thing I'll say is, is number one, I want to thank the residents who submitted comments on each comment and those of you who joined us. I see my neighbors, my Rohnert neighbors sitting here front center paying attention. It's incredibly important. So so Mr. Modica, I was going to say, Mr. West, Mr. Modica and Chief Espino, the more we can, you know, submit to form fours and keep the council updated, keep the public updated on this immediate restoration. But also the conversation about what we're going to do in the future, I think would be welcome. Folks want to want to know that we're on top of this and this won't be the situation next year. Is that okay? Yes. So part of our response will be to come back and look at all those different ideas. We we've had some ourselves. We are hearing from others about what could we be doing. We're going to run those down. We'll make sure we give a report back. And as the chief mentioned, we're going to try a number of things to accelerate that date from January into December so that the it's narrowed as much as possible. To make sure this is. Due in writing. Thank you. This is an issue not just for North Long Beach, right. All of the you know, the system is the sum of its parts. It affects response times across the city. We restored Engine 17 and they responded to a fire in North Long Beach on the 91 freeway last week. So it's all a part of the same system. I know the impact, the Westside North and citywide. Thank you. Thank you. Fine. We're going to public comment. We're going to go to right now. That's he said he wanted to wait. Yes. We're going to go to Japan and come up. Mr.. Good to you first. And then we have, uh, Anita, in a way, Mrs. Harding. You would. Your next question. Thank you. I fully support this motion. And I will use this opportunity as I tried to the last time we were at the council meeting. But the council, our mayor three times said, I already spoke on it when the public record revealed I did not speak on it. The thing to keep in mind and this is something I didn't know and a lot of people didn't know until about two or three years ago. Are they in heresy, dangers in fighting fires to the people that fire that fight those fires? These are the the long term effects on lungs excuse me and hearts from a lifetime of inhaling that smoke. It's debilitating. It cuts life short to short. And anything we can do. To address that we should keep in mind. And ironically, after last week's council meeting, of course, the issue became not just a Long Beach area issue or California issue or law in L.A. County, but it's a nationwide issue. These are the all the fires that nobody expected and so forth. So the that's front and center and should always remain front and center relative to those inherent issues that are extraordinarily difficult to deal with and cut the life short of our firemen. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Bonita. Yes. Good evening. Thank you. Vice Mayor De Andrews and our city councilman. My name is. We need a doctor Moore. I'm a resident in the ninth District representing the Collins Neighborhood Association. And the ninth District recently lost and just lost the services to Station 12, I believe it was seven years ago. And just recently those services were restored. Having these basic life support services reduced. To like part time services or loss of them. They put. Our. Most vulnerable residents at great risk. We have several residents that are elderly, they're homebound, and we have several members in our community that depend on public transportation. So having these services taken away from them and if they have an incident for call, for service, where they have to depend on this ambulance service to take them to a nearby hospital, that's not necessarily maybe in that neighborhood, but is across town. These life saving services sometimes can be life threatening and critical to our most vulnerable residents. So I ask that you please consider something that is more of a permanent and long term solution. So our residents in District nine, as well as the other residents in the city of Long Beach, can have a better quality of life. Thank you very much for your time and I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Yes, Mrs. Harry. She? Now I will go to the diocese council in anger. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to echo the last person who made a comment there. Although our report says to explore alternative solutions to the temporary to a temporary reduction in bills. I think we should look at more permanent solution to that. I totally agree with that. I would ask the maker of the motion if he would be amenable to. Redirect a step to make a permanent solution to this. That's the intention with a long term plan like fix it permanent. We don't want to deal with this one. On the record that we're. Looking on the record. Absolutely. We understand that's the that's the goal. We want to get there as well. All right. I have a few questions that regarding the the current status of where we're at and what brought us here. So Bill's services are sometimes provided by EMT. Emergency medical technicians are the ones or twos. One. One is that basically entry level emergency medical technician. If you're interested in getting to the fire service below a paramedic. Correct. Okay. The positions that we have here, are they part time positions or full time or a mix of both? They're mix of both. And when we come about to this situation where we're at now. How many hours? A full time EMT one would put in would be would it be a regular eight hour shift an hour firefighters put in 24 hours when they perform as often for as three, 4 hours. So. Valencia if we go in a shift, we shift and see shift. So red, blue and green, I think it is. How do they work? The full time blazer operators work on the same schedule as our firefighters, but they are the only bliss the ambulance operators that are able to be mandatory back in the temporary positions or into the part time positions, I should say. So if you look at their calendars, they're working. 20 days or more, 20 days or more a month, and they're being forced back to work. It's not voluntary. So is the coverage that the EMT, the bells serious ambulance, ambulance service providers? Are they mostly daytime then? You mentioned 8 to 8 or. Correct. So the two units that we would look at closing any event we had, two mandatory people would be the part time. One of them runs from eight in the morning till 8 p.m. and the other runs from ten in the morning until 10 p.m.. So you basically have air services at through the early morning hours or radio shifts. You would have A.L.S. services throughout the day, 24. Hours a day. But I'm saying that the majority of the you wouldn't have that many bells. Ambulance operators in the graveyard shift, we have mostly full time paramedic services. Decorate the three at night. You know? Correct. Also in also looking at this. Acting City Manager mauka. I'd also like to see we could get together with h.R. And Civil Service to look at not only the duties of the emt and what they do, but also look at some of the wage discrepancies that might exist. If we're losing ambulance operators to other jurisdictions. We're probably losing for a number of reasons. Obviously, 1/1 and foremost is pain. And I think that perhaps we should look at what's out there in the market. What can the market bear as far as paying these ambulance operators a little more than they've currently receiving? Now, I know it'll be an effect on our budget. However, if we're losing people and we're getting through the state of emergency, that's something that we need to address and we should address it as quickly as we possibly can. So I would also want to include a classification review, if you will, with including salaries so that we can look at a better long term solution to this issue here. But yes, we do expect this to come up during negotiations. Now's the time to address these types of issues as we're going into negotiations with. And so we we are aware that these of the pay of these employees and recognize the duties that they do for that pay. So we will be looking at that. And one more thing. I if I recall correctly, we used to have somewhat contract ambulance services, provide supplemental services to the city with that American medical services, I think was one at one time. You're in Long Beach, are they? We have no more contract ambulance services out there anymore that we contract with. So we used to contract the service out completely and not have our own ambulance operators of several years ago we went to an in-house model rather than the contract model. That is something we're going to be looking at as well as for those supplemental times. If you, you know, can we do it with in-house staff? Do we have a pool of staff that can do it? But is contracting an option as well? So we'll be looking at that as part of the review. Would contracting out the summit rephrase it? It's a terrible way of saying it. Would contracting with a million services be possible in the in the short term right now to address this current need? We don't believe it to be possible in the short term. By the time we would have that and go through all of the meet and confer and everything required. We're going to be fully staffed already. So this would be more of a long term solution and would not be contracting out. It would be more supplemental services where we. That's what I meant after. That's what I meant. Well, also, in perhaps in this evaluation, we can look at supplemental services, contract services as well for those times when there is a run of emergencies that would require getting a supplemental ambulance service to assist the city in that in that respect as well. What I want to revisit that in the short term. That's all I have. Thank you. Brian. Thank you very much. We have no more comments on that. Can we please no more from you comes by and please cast a vote. Excuse me, Councilwoman Pierce. Okay, fine. Okay, good. Cast your votes, please. Motion carries.

LongBeachCC_06212016_16-0566

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP EP16-121 for the purchase and development opportunity at 4800 Long Beach Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Numbers 7133-010-900, -901, -902, -903, -904 (Subject Property); Declare the City-owned Subject Property as surplus; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all necessary documents including a Purchase and Sale Agreement with City Ventures, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, or affiliate, for the sale of the Subject Property in the amount of $1,250,000; and Accept Categorical Exemption CE 16-137. (District 8)

Item 21. A report from Economic and Property Development and Development Services recommendation to adopt specifications for the purchase and development opportunity at 4800 Long Beach Boulevard. Declare the property a surplus and authorize the city manager to execute all necessary documents with city ventures for the sale of the property in the amount of 1.2 million District eight. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And this is this is a good day for the district. This property has been vacant for many, many years, has gone through some machinations and some some. Some visions. But but ultimately, this was put on an RFP. The original RFP came back with no interest. And then so the city reissued the RFP and we were fortunate to get three bids. And this bid turned out to be the bid recommended by staff. But based on what I have reviewed, I think this is a great project that will bring proposals to bring condominiums to the Long Beach Boulevard in an area that has been blighted for far too long. And so, members, I ask for your support on this matter. Councilmember Richardson. Congratulations, Councilmember Austin. More quality housing in North Long Beach. Right. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on item 21? CNN members cast your vote. Let's move on, though. Motion carries. Thank you. Madam Clerk, if we're going back to the regular agenda, does that leave us with item 22? We'd go back to item 1414.

LongBeachCC_05032016_16-0336

Recommendation to receive and file an update on the Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program. (Citywide)

Item 15. Thank you. Sorry about that. Item 15 Report from Development Services Recommendation to receive and file an update on the proactive rental housing inspection program citywide. Okay. It's an emotion. And a second. Mr. City Manager. Yes? We have a report on the status of this program by our development services director, Amy Barack and her team. Madam Vice Mayor, members of the City Council, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce to you Kurt Keating, my code enforcement officer from the city of Long Beach. And then Lisa Fall, my administrative and Financial Services Bureau manager. They have been intimately involved in the implementation of the ordinance since last year, both from a financial perspective, a strategic perspective, and then also the actual implementation of the program. Approximately a year ago, a year ago next month, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the municipal code by adding a brand new chapter to the municipal code related to proactive rental housing inspections. The the program had previously existed. It had been codified under the California Health and Safety Code and had resided for a number of years in the Health Department. But as part of government reform in 2013, that function shifted to the Department of Development Services to better align it with our existing code enforcement functions. As a result of the move to development services, there was a desire to go above and beyond what the state's health and Safety Code requires at a bare minimum, and to enhance the program. So we embarked on about a 12 month effort to work with stakeholders on crafting an ordinance that would enhance the type of inspections that we do on rental housing. The Council had very robust discussions about this last year and had a number of specific recommendations that were included in the ordinance that was ultimately adopted by the City Council and that we're attempting to implement. We have since. So I want to step back and give you an idea of the volume that we're talking about. The city defines rental housing as four units or more. So if someone owns a duplex or a triplex, that is not considered a commercial property within the city's definitions, and this program only inspects or attempts to inspect those those units that are either a four plex or greater. We have within the city approximately 7500 buildings that are either a four plex or greater. And it totals about 67,500 units, individual units. And that's just for plex's and above. If we were to consider the stock of Triplexes and duplexes, that would result in approximately 17,000 individual properties and 88,000 individual units. We have a goal in the ordinance of inspecting these units in these buildings once a year. I will tell you that we have been having a very difficult time with the implementation of the program. Meeting that task, I had hoped that in year one, when we rolled out the program, that we would be inspecting approximately half of the buildings. We're closer to a third than a half of the buildings, or I should say we're on target to inspecting about a third of the buildings by the end of this fiscal year. However, we have done a number of other things that the City Council had asked of us last year, and that includes coming up with a comprehensive outreach program and a comprehensive communications program related to the to how we let people know about it. We developed a series of door hangers, fliers for both tenants and landlords, translated those into our four language access program languages that the City Council has directed and are distributing those when we go out on inspection calls, when we attend community meetings, when we attend resource fairs. We have within my department not only code enforcement, but we also have our affordable housing division. And we have a very close relationship with the health department as well. So these fliers are getting distributed by all of those resources as well. The city council also asked us to allocate some of the department's general fund moneys last year to conducting an RFP and selecting a consultant who would actually help us reach out to the more disadvantaged neighborhoods and really get tenants and landlords aware of the program. We have recently contracted with the successful bidder, which is going to be the Orange County Fair Housing Association, and we're working with them on. A scope of work that would allow us to reach out to specific neighborhoods in particular. The city council also asked us to to prioritize the those landlords that may be more challenging to deal with, that may have units that are subject to frequent complaints or are habitually substandard in some of their compliance issues. We do have a a working list of of those that we believe are the more challenging landlords that we're working on. We've also prioritized our inspection areas based on census data that focuses on the age of the housing stock, the population density, the density of the housing units and other census factors, so that we are focusing on where we think the most area of need may be. The City Council also asked us to consider a, um, an incentive program for inspections for those landlords or property owners who are better at maintaining their properties, tend not to get code enforcement violations and are generally providing much more habitable conditions for our residents. I will tell you that since the rollout of the program has been much more slow than we anticipated, we are not at the point where we we believe that we're capable of of providing a recommendation to you on what that incentive program would be. We also discussed the potential for a fee increase. Currently, there is a. I'm looking for. I'm blanking on the word. There is an annual fee that is a tiered fee process so that there are three or four different fee categories, three fee categories. So if you own a four plex up to a ten plex building, you pay one fee. If you own an 11 plex to a 20 unit building, you pay another fee. And if you own a building that is 21 units or higher, that's a third tier of a fee. The fees equate. To about $26 per unit. And I will tell you that that allows us to support a program with approximately 11 full time employees, nine inspectors and a couple of clerical to actually run the program with that level of staffing. As I said, we are about a third of the way through the 7500 buildings that we have to inspect on an annual basis. We do believe that a fee increase at some point is necessary. We also believe that a restructuring of the fee so that it is a flat per unit fee is going to be warranted. But I'm not coming to you today with that suggestion at this point. We still need to do additional analysis on that fee. We still did commit to having meetings with stakeholders on those fees, but it is something that would be necessary in order for us to continue to move forward with these inspections. That summarizes my report. We've provided you a lot of information as part of your staff report, and I and my team are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. If it is okay, I'd like to defer to public comment first. Sure, we can do that at this time. We can go ahead and take public comment on item 15, please. Queue up. State your name. Good evening. I'm Dr. Ken Roth. You might remember me from December 1st when I appeared before you over housing stability issues at that time. I think that this is a gross waste of money to thank you. This is a gross this is a gross waste of money to inspect these properties. What you should do and what this council should do is to enforce state law. I was evicted on and actually won in court because it was I was evicted because I didn't want to have mice in my home. I paid for rent for ten months with mice in my home. I paid for rent for ten months with backed up sinks in my home. And so after ten months, I refused to pay rent any further. Given the law, the state law says I can withhold rent until those things were fixed. What happened? Instead, they came in, they fixed them and they evicted me. They took me to court and I beat them. I have a student here tonight that is no longer in my classes because she has been fighting the same battle in another district. She is a veteran. She is suffering from PTSD. Her sinks are backed up. She can't cook in her home. And when she went out and paid the plumber herself to pick to fix the house and ask her landlord to reimburse her, she was evicted or received eviction that has now been rescinded because I've stepped in and helped her with that. I also want to let you know that I have a number of my other students here, journalism students. And could you raise your hands? These are journalism students who are paying attention to what's going on and will probably be future watchdogs in our in our community. And I think it's important that that this this council begin to look at the 54%, the majority of residents in this city who are living in untenable conditions, because this body will not simply pass an ordinance to enforce state law. All you have to do is enforce the state law. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. My name is Lianna Noble. I'm a homeowner in the downtown area on fourth near Pine. I'm very active in the North Pine Neighborhood Group. And I found as I was getting ready to think about what I wanted to say tonight, I really thought it was very ironic that in the Long Beach Post today we had a great article about how the Newberry Lofts are going to soon be on the market. And that's great. That's one that's a neighbor building. But at the same time, we've got a story in the Long Beach Post about a renter who had similar horrible story to tell and has been living. That horror since. December of last year. I'm here as a homeowner because what. You do. Or do not do is are elected officials. Impacts. My neighbors who are tenants. And that impacts me and my entire neighborhood. And I'm very concerned that while I can hear the the hard work that staff has done, that they're telling us that only 30% of the units have been inspected that need terribly to be inspected. I am interested as a homeowner, as an activist in my neighborhood group, to know who the heck are these 87 properties? That evidently must be pretty darn bad that the staff has made a list of them. I'd like to know how many are in my neighborhood, and I understand that there's limitations to what the city staff can do or what you, as our elected officials can do about those kinds of slumlords, because that's what they are. They're ripping off my neighborhood and our city. And I would like to know who are the owners of those 87 properties? I would like to know what are the targeted neighborhoods based on the criteria that you were using? Because I know that there are many blocks and thousands of renters in my neighborhood who need not only these inspections, but also they need to be protected. I'm here tonight as a homeowner because the people who are my neighbors, who are tenants will not speak up because they know if they do, they will be evicted or they'll be threatened with eviction. So there are very important problems here, and they're urgent. And I urge you to take stronger and stronger leadership and utilize the public. Think you know what is going on so we can play a role and get rid of these slumlord. Your time is up. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yeah. Hi. My name is Bill Hui. I'm the president of the Fair Housing Coalition. We are a civil rights organization for L.A. landlords, and we believe in equality under the law for landlords and renters. This rip and skip thing is very corrupt. It lends itself in L.A. Let me just tell you what's happened in L.A. landlords. We have a very unfair rent control system. So you have landlords who are collecting $400 a month rent for an apartment that's worth 15. I know the renters like that. That's okay. But what the city does is they come around and they cite landlords for not making repairs and they want the building in pristine condition. When you're collecting $400 a month, you can't do it. So what they do is they prosecute the landlords. So a lot of these landlords have put two and two together, say, hey, I'm getting out of L.A. So they sell their older buildings to developers. Now, in the last 15 years, 200,000 apartments, rent controlled older buildings have been torn down. At the same time, the homelessness population has exploded in L.A. The L.A. City Council doesn't have a clue how this happened. Just read the numbers. The cities own numbers. They've driven the landlords out of business who were making affordable housing available to poor people by overregulating them. So it's a good idea. Going bad now in the state of Minnesota, some of the renters got together with their landlords and they challenged the concept of these forced inspection skip and they won in court. And in Minnesota, scrap inspections are declared illegal. So now what's happening is predatory law firms are going Minnesota saying, hey, your your right to privacy was violated. That's like rape. Why don't you sue the city? So now all these people are suing. So we're doing that in L.A. We're going to start running some TV ads to inform renters that their rights to privacy have been violated and they're entitled maybe some money from the city. Imagine if a few thousand renters start suing your city for step inspections. We're going to turn the tide. And who doesn't like free money? I mean, people have principles where they can bend them a little bit for free money. So what I'm saying is get rid of Skip. I mean, sure, if a landlord there's good and bad landlords, there's good or bad renters for landlords are scum. Lord could go after it, but don't go in every apartment. Enforce your way in. Tenants don't like that. Tenants don't like them anyway. And if anybody wants to write to me it's fair housing coalition dot com Bill Hui BLM Joey White EarthLink dot net This is government out of control this step and reap thing and in L.A. the whole reap thing you have a person who's not even a lawyer sit in a courtroom, put on a judge's robe and adjudicates to take your rent money away. This is a denial of due process. We're going to Supreme Court with this. In the end, the city of L.A. is going to have to pay a lot of money to a lot of landlords and a lot of renters . I don't know if you want to bring that kind of liability down in Long Beach. So what is thin ice here? So walk softly. Thank you very much. You. Good evening. My name is David Kinsler and I am a property owner in both the fourth and second district. And I am one of those people that take the. Being a property owner rather seriously. And as far as I know, since 1992, I have not been. No one has ever called code enforcement on any problems in my buildings, since for the last six years, I've been a member of a community group in the fourth District that has gone out on every fourth Saturday to pick up trash from, you know, couches and things from the alley. I've painted out graffiti. I've cleaned up weeds and trash from other properties around me. So I'm telling you all this to let you know that whatever decisions you make on this matter are going to affect people like me who are conscientious. And I represent the majority of property owners in the city of Long Beach and everywhere else. So I agree. You should be going after the number of people that are consistently violating code, that are constantly getting, you know, things like that. But you might consider for people like myself and the majority of other people in my position that maybe if there's an inspection and there's no violations and there's no people calling, maybe we get an inspection every three or five years. It'll save the city money. I can take the money that you would have put in inspecting my building into maintaining it the way you'd like to have property maintained in the city of Long Beach. And if any of you ever have any, you know, questions about. Anything related to, you know, owning and managing rental property. Again, my name is David Ensler. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. This has been enlightening. My name is Linda montgomery. I am a property owner. I'm a landlady. And I'm also a realtor in Long Beach for Main Street real estate. We're going to have a problem with investors is one of the things that has not come up here. If we have to let them know that any property that they purchased is going to be inspected annually. I agreed with him saying that if a person is inspected and there's no problem with the property, why would you do it every year other than to collect fees? And again, with the fees being from 4 to 10 units, I think that's that's kind of excessive and bottom the bottom line on it is, is that if you have had complaints, everyone thinks that, you know, if their tenants complain that we can just snap our fingers and evict them and good luck with that. You can't just snap your fingers and evict anybody. It takes months. It takes a lot of money. You you lose money on rent, you lose a minimum of 3 to 6 months rent. And you've got to, you know, go to small claims court. It's a nightmare to evict them. And of course, if someone has a clogged up sink or has a problem with their property, if you're a good landlord, of course you're going to fix that because it's your property, it's your business. And a good landlord should not be penalized for for the bad ones. And I see that's what's happening here. And you're starting to police the properties. And the next thing we're going to be looking at is rent control. And nothing's going to hurt the city more than rent control. I'll tell you right now, it's the only reason we're getting investors to buy now in Long Beach. Because we are the last. Haven. And let's learn from other cities that made big mistakes. And let's let's stop this ball that's rolling down a hill that's going to cause us a lot of grief for. A lot of really good people. That's it. Thank you. Hi, Nashville. I came off stealing the domains here. I'm also United States that, um. I had a situation where slumlord. I'm still going through it. And in retaliation, she didn't ask me to move. Initially, I thought she had rescinded it, but then I found out when I went pay my rent this month on time like I always do. Never been. Never been short that she told me she had already rented my apartment to someone else. And I'm trying to figure out how she doing now. What I'm still living in there. But the situation came about retaliation because I asked her to fix the sink and she sent somebody to fix it. But two days later it was clogged up again. So I paid for it. And then it was the gas leak. The gas company came out and shut the gas out. She got pissed off at me about that and she said some rinky dink guy to come out there and fix it. And I still haven't use my stove. Now, this has been going on a year and my lease has been up and she waited for the lease to be up. She finally fixed it tub, which basically he had painted it with wild paint and it was peeling up and leaking. And that's a lead poisoning issue possibly. She ran a motel with that and once she glazed it, she did it the day before in inspection because I call for special inspection. That's why they came out and it didn't pass. So then it went to abatement and then, of course, housing authority is gonna pay for that. And it's a game. But it's our retaliation. Just because I actually have something fixed that should have been fixed, I should be able to cook. I should be able to come out in my house and have. PS As a student, I couldn't even think my grades was affected. They still affected. My PTSD is affected. And now I got to decided to fight this lady on this eviction, which I know is crap. Or try to move, which I got to pay for because I've already used a security. My last place I was in seven years. No complaint. No problems. This one is she's a bully. Any time you fix something, it's a threat. I got cussed out when I went in and I pay my rent the month before that. Literally cussed out and slandered. Crack it. I don't drink. I don't smoke. I don't do drugs. I don't even fornicate. For real? Yeah, I'm serious. So I don't understand why you driving test drives and trying to lie to me now just because. I'm a college student and I know how to do my research and take pictures and document evidence. She met. So I just want peaceful, peaceful. And I know everybody out there ain't a slumlord. But I'm dealing with one. And as of May 31st, I will be homeless if I don't find a place because she refused to rescind it and she won't extend it. And like I said, I don't know how you go round from now when somebody's already living in their blessed city came out and found out that the building is unlevel. Ma'am, your time is up. So she needs. She got some other issues, too. Thank you for. Listening. Thank you. Sorry. My name is Celia McGill. I embraced it in the Long Beach for 29 years. I am here to speak on behalf of a number of the residents who do it to their workstations are enabled to be here in voice their experience. Long time ago I was limited, living under the same circumstance, some large conditions where the basic needs of a healthy home are not accessible for a number of residents of Long Beach. The residents could do it or will fear the local landlord. Retaliation have indicate they are building copper mine maintenance. It smell like a rats during an infestation they vermin and there is no response to these issues. We had to pull out the rental housing inspection program as a step forward since Broadway this week. We need more inspectors in. We need to haul this stuff. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Hi. I'm Francis. Emily Dyson Harris and I was driving district by law. I want to commend you for having a proactive rental housing inspection program and listening to everyone talk. There's some very concerning issues and concerns that everybody has. I'm sitting here trying to figure out how amicably everyone can be satisfied. The owners, the city and the residents. And it was mentioned that only one third of the inspections had been done. In order to move forward, more money's required. Well, maybe you'll have to have some kind of special call meeting to have an emergency thing, to try to figure out a way to get somebody to move forward on the inspections. You know, there's two sides to every story. And then the matter regarding concern of retaliation, that is a legitimate concern to the matter, concern of having a rent increases. That concern the matter. I'm wondering, you know, whether or not about having rent control. You know, some people want and some people don't. So I just want to say that I'm willing trusting you. You might have to have some type of special commission or task force where you have landlords, renters and people from the city, you know, all together to come up with a solution that's gonna resolve this matter in the fashion that we can move forward. Because every human being has a right to shelter, food and water and should be able to have contentment in their spirit. Thank you. Thank you, Francis. Good evening, Karen. Or Eastside. And I live at seven Pacific at the Park Pacific Towers, which is a subsidized, affordable housing unit owned by the Wylie family. And I'm very fortunate with my housing. I was very lucky to get in. It took me a year to get in to my affordable housing, and our building is really well maintained. I know other buildings within the city are not and there is a lack of information on the part of people that live in the affordable housing buildings. They're all under the impression if they complain about anything about their units, that they can be evicted. We tried to work with them and tell them, no, that's not going to happen. But I've also lived in a variety of housing throughout the city. One place I rented, I discovered, had no hot water, and the person that was in the building in that unit before me had not had hot water for seven years and never complained because her rent was low. She boiled water to wash her dishes every night and she boiled water to bathe her seven, her daughter, which I don't know how she could live in that way. Retaliation is a real problem. If you complain about issues. I've had buildings where I have complained and it was not pleasant afterwards. We do have. Major housing issues are starting to have major housing issues in our community as rents escalated and they have been escalating over the past several years. People have discovered what a bargain it is to live in to buy property in Long Beach. And we're starting to see incidents. I have friends that are being evicted from their property because new owners have come in and they've decided they're going to redo the property. So there's no compensation for them, even though they may be entitled to moving assistance. They're just given the eviction notices. And this is happening more and more in our community. It's really scary to me about what's going on, particularly in the lower income neighborhoods where the property is reduced and people don't understand what their rights are about housing. So I think an inspection program is really a great thing to have and maybe might need some adjustments. It's it's new and see and I live next across the street from one of those problem landlords. My gosh, if you can do anything about him. Yeah, the neighborhood would love you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Alejandro Costa. I live in your district. And I'm a property owner. About two years ago, I called code enforcement because one of my tenants was having the ceiling falling down from the water in the bathroom upstairs. It actually took about a year before everything could be resolved, and they ended up finally arresting the man upstairs. It was very interesting. Seven police cars in riot gear because they didn't know what kind of a nut that was after he was supposed to go to court, didn't show up in court, got a bench warrant and all that stuff. They got a locksmith at 100 and some dollars an hour to sit and wait. Then they were going to bust down the door. And I when they were starting to bust down the door, the guy opened it, said, Oh, hello. He ended up going to jail for one night and finally ended up buying out of the building. But the problem was not with the court wood coming out and. Having the inspection. It was being backing it up. Has an owner. There was nothing I could do. I gave my tenant. $100 off a month. I built some sort of mechanism to divert the water. Very interesting. Tubing. Taking the. Water that stripping off the ceiling. Into the toilet very had to be. Replaced every month. So just the fact that you're doing. Inspections and if you increase. Your rent, the. Inspection fees, we will just pass it. On to our tenants who will be very unhappy. So do you think they really want to be inspected? I have one of my buildings, never had any legitimate inspections. It just seems as though people when they get to the point that they can't pay the rent, they find. Odd things to call code. Enforcement about. I guess that might surprise you, but it does happen. Thank you very much. Thank you. Josh Butler housing language. It's had a few questions about the report and I don't expect them answered at this moment. But we did have a question with regards to the list of unresponsive and non-compliant landlords. There had been initially a request that that list be published and put online, I think in an effort to shame those slumlords who are providing inhabitable conditions. There were non-working plumbing facilities, rats, feces, problems that I know these good landlords are not are not putting upon their tenants. But we do have landlords that are and there is a list. And so we have heard that there are legal issues with publishing that list. Our question certainly would be, what is that opinion based upon and how are other cities able to publish their lists? The city of Chicago, New York City, they're able to publish their list of bad landlords when people come to their communities and they know who to avoid, what landlords to stay away from, and if there are bad landlords, folks that move here should know. We've anecdotally talked to a lot of tenants who are moving down to Long Beach because as people have said, it is affordable and they're ending up in terrible situations and they're ready to go. And these are folks that are the first time here. This is their impression of our city, and they think it's lousy. So we think that that's something that we'd like to see happen, is a list of our landlords that should be published, they should be shamed, and people should avoid wanting to be on that list rather than taking the time to incentivize the good landlords. Let's use our resources to go after the ones that are really bad, that are causing the problems. If they're good, then there's not a problem. We also have questions about the data that's being collected currently on the inspections and if we're actually what data is being collected so that we can measure the success of this program going forward. Are inspectors actually getting in to talk to tenants and what constitutes a completed inspection? When we say that we have completed one third of the of the inspections as that buildings, are we actually getting into the properties and to the units on the properties? And if we're not, then I think we have to reexamine why we're not. And I think that we all know that there's been a lot of trust that's broken down between tenants and landlords. We have tenants that are afraid to call their landlord for repairs. They're afraid to call the city for repairs because they're going to be they're going to be retaliated against. Those people here tonight that have said they've been retaliated against, you've heard people that have come forward for months who've been retaliated against for making simple, simple requests for simple repairs. And they end up out on the street. They end up and they don't go to court. They don't they can't take that risk. It's high risk, low reward for them. They go to court. The high risk is that they lose and they end up on a ten year blacklist. And if they win, they could stay in the slum, slum conditions. So they tend to walk away from those situations and try and move on with their lives. And so I think that we owe it to our residents to figure out a program that's actually going to hold our slumlords accountable, that is going to require our landlord to do some basic needs if they want to have a Goldstar program and needs to be included in more than just our code enforcement department, you need to include the health department and it's include the police department. If we're going to give out a gold star, it needs to be a true gold star. Otherwise it's just a Bronze Star. Thanks. Thank you, Josh. So just to let you know, I know that a couple of us have similar questions and so we will have those addressed during our discussion behind the dais. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is Julio Ura. I'm a resident here in Long Beach in the Wrigley District, and I am a real estate broker and also a property manager. I manage properties throughout the county of Los Angeles, so I actually have experience in communities that are both rent control and not rent control and it is very frustrating. The whole situation here is very frustrating because even when we were talking about enacting this inspection program. I thought that it wouldn't go that route, and when it did, I felt blindsided. We do have properties that have issues. However, we already have large. That if they were followed through, they would take out the players that are harming these properties. Right now we are in a situation where we're listening to a report about being unable to. Do all the inspections when we already knew how many units were going to be inspected. We already knew how many people were going to be doing the inspections. It should not have been a surprise that there's no way that you could have done all the inspections in one year. And now you're talking about redoing these things every single year. How is that possible? And now you're talking about increasing. The fees so that you can hire more people to do it. It just keeps perpetuating on itself. We live just a few miles away from Los Angeles and looking at communities that already have rent control laws and there are disaster. They're a disaster because the program does not work. The units are being taken off of the market. There's less housing. There is increased homelessness. People do not want to invest in Los Angeles. I've got plenty of clients that want to sell their properties and bring them to Long Beach. And now we're talking to them about the possibility of bringing those same programs here. It just doesn't work. The intention is good. We want to take care of properties. We want to take care of tenants. But I believe it is short sighted. And I believe as you move forward, please speak with people that already have experience working in these programs to see what works and what doesn't. Because right now it seems like we're just kind of paddling along and saying, Let's try this, let's try that. It's not a good way to go. Thanks. Katie. I counsel. My name is. I'm going to read this because I get a little nervous. So. My name is Johnny Weir and I'm a property owner and now a resident of Long Beach. I've been managing and purchasing properties in Long Beach since 1998. I've sat in. This room and listened to many council meetings I've never shared until now. Because I feel that there is a need for me to share. I am. Very against rape or whatever. You want to call it proactive rental, PR, HIV, whatever you want to call it. It's not a good plan. I have a friend in Long in L.A.. Melissa Cohen lost both of her properties to this. Rape. And she was not a slumlord. And she was not a greedy landlord, which I've heard people who work at the city refer to us as, which I don't think that that's a very positive way to refer to property owners. This ordinance can also be used and abused to defraud good property. Owners of their buildings. I urge you to do a little more research before you adopt more legs to this dangerous ordinance. If you'd like to speak with Melissa and a couple other people that have lost their buildings, I can arrange a meeting for you. I've heard a lot of tenants here and many other meetings talk about bad landlords. I'd like to talk a little bit about. Bad tenants because I've had my share of many of them. I'd like to talk about tenants who have have come to my properties and I've given them beautiful units. They've just destroyed. My beautiful units, brought bedbugs. They've hoarded and I've had to get them out of my properties. These are difficult things to deal with, and I deal with them all the time. It's hard being a good landlord and I do appreciate good tenants. Just a couple more things and I'm done. Tenants are my customers and I really work hard to give them a good service and product. It's not always appreciated by bad tenants there. There may be a few bad landlords who do not take care of their properties in Long Beach. But I know a lot of wonderful property owners. In Long Beach and this ordinance is not fair to them or me. This is not the answer to make Long Beach a better city. I've experienced abuse of power. With code enforcement several times, and I'm not a slumlord. And this opens up a door that can really harm property owners. I don't think code enforcement needs more power. I think they need less power. Please think about the damage. Your actions may cause. In strengthening a bad ordinance, and the lawsuits are going to follow that. Which is what's happening in L.A.. So thank you for your time. I know I'm a little passionate, but I. Also printed out. I don't know if you've already got the 13 pages of this ordinance, and I made a copy for everybody in this audience. If you'd like a copy after, I can. Give you one so you can read it. One thing in it that's a little creepy. Is that. We can be imprisoned or put in jail or $1,000 fine, which. Yeah. And we done. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm done. I'm passionate. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Hi. My name is David. We see. I don't know if this is the right forum. How many? They've done a third of the inspections. What have they found? So we don't do question. We don't. Do questions. Okay. So we have where do we find that information to? We can have a staff member talk to you after. Thank you. They never mention that in the council meetings. What they find they do. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Harris Lawless, and I'm a small property owner. I like to share with with you tonight a little personal story which is related to, you know, what is going on with the new ordinance that you try to go through with. I believe it was about ten years ago. I was also an owner of a couple small fast food places. And the council woman, Oropeza, decided that she wanted to switch the grading system from the health department to the restaurants from what was then and now to ABC. So anyway, there were some meetings in the council on the last do that I win and I talk there was leaning towards changing the system and going to ABC. So I said, Why people want to change the ABC? The argument was that couple older people, older people, when they walk by a restaurant, they cannot see the list of, you know, the grading list that the city of Long Beach had the health department. So I said, well, it took you almost three or four years to set up this law. And I think me as a business owner and original owner, it's a pretty nice system that you had because you had seven categories food preparedness, maintenance, blah, blah, blah, and everything else. So I said, How much is going to cost you to make the switch? I mean, she says $200,000. I said, the city is going to pay $200,000 to change something that, you know, they studied for years. And it works very well because all of a sudden, you know, somebody from the council decided that, you know, so. I guess after after the meeting, the vote was 5 to 4 in favor to leave the system the way it was. So now coming to what you're trying to do, this is a very, very touchy subject. I owned the property since 1978. I had a property on called a unit and the tenants that were there. After five years, they left and they called the city inspector. So I met him over there. The prop. The apartment was destroyed. So a young person came in. He says, What's going on? Look at this. Look at this. Look at this. I said, Just a minute. Let me take you to a unit just. In a few seconds. So do you want to summarize? Yes, that is for rent. So I work with him on a unit for rent and he says, this is beautiful, you know. I said, Well, that's how this unit was when I rented to these people. So anyway, I think. Getting into this inspection situation here, you should study it a little bit deeper. Okay. Thank you very much. If there isn't any further public comment, I'll take it behind the dice. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. First, I have a few questions, and then I do have, um. Some some suggestions and thoughts. So first, I want to thank everybody for their comments. I certainly appreciate the dialog and the comments that we've been talking about. Many of this is certainly it's very a hot topic, but it's definitely something I'm very passionate about because I've worked in the city for seven years. I've seen pretty much everything when it comes to housing, both great landlords, bad landlords and everything in between. So I'll have a few questions first for city staff. What was the criteria by which their housing was selected? So we did a request for proposals and we got a couple of respondents and they were actually the one that met the needs the best. We believe that they had a qualified staff to deal with the translation issues and that they have had similar experiences doing something like this in Orange County. Okay. And what are the the what's the time frame for them to work with both the Apartment Association and housing Long Beach? So we have been negotiating with them what the scope of work would be and where we would do the outreach. And so we're actually in that conversation right now. Okay. So we'll be updated at some point. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And then I noticed in looking at the memo, there were only since there's nine worst landlords, only four were included in the memo. So where are the other five? I'm not familiar with that property address. Just it says landlord one, two, three, four. But just shows property address cases violations. But there's only four landlords. So I don't feel like we have the full list. I do not know if you have a full copy of the memo. Oh, okay. That could be it, too. Because we have. We have a memo that was provided to the city council that does have all nine landlords. Listed options and. Mm hmm. Okay, perfect. We can get you a copy of that. It does not have the landlord name, but it does have landlord. One, two, three, four, five through nine. Perfect. Well, thank you. And then we have over 7500 units to be inspected. That's just including the four plex is in above. We only have nine full time inspectors. And so that would mean that if you were to attribute for each person to be about over 800 units, that each inspector would have to, uh, you know, they'd be delegated about 800 units each. So realistically, what would the time frame be to cover all of these inspections? I mean, we're only in, you know, 30%, a third. We we are also dealing with a situation where we're also getting reactive calls in as well. So we are figuring those into, um, we have to deal with those cases as well. If they are reactive code enforcement complaints, meaning that an individual has called to lodge a code enforcement complaint if it is for a four plex or more. We actually forward that over to the inspectors as well. So the inspectors are not only having to do the inspections on the 7500 buildings, but they're also also responsible for any of those reactive calls that come in over the course of the year. We have looked at some averages on what would be appropriate for an inspector caseload, and we think that ranges somewhere between 250 and 300 per year. But given the complexity of of cases, it could be lower or higher. We don't quite have that that sweet spot yet with the program. Okay. So it seems like it'd be maybe 3 to 4 years until we got through everything with the current staffing model that we have. Yes, at our current staffing model, it would take me probably three years. Okay. And what kind of technology are we using? I know and I don't know if it was the last budget or a budget before we had, uh, I think we allocated funding for iPads of some sort. So how are those being utilized? Because you know what a lot of the comments have been talking about was data collection. Yes. Importance of how are we collecting all that data? We are actually doing better data collection because we've updated our forms that have more specificity on the type of information we're collecting when we go into a unit. So we start assessing things like the the number of windows in a unit, the type of flooring materials that may be on it, whether it's carpeting or linoleum or tile . So we're getting into more of that specificity that we previously did not have. We do have iPads in the field. We are looking to do some internal enhancements with them and link them with our building inspectors on the other side so that we're using the same technology. So I do expect that in the next year that we will actually be upgrading our technology for the code enforcement inspectors in the field. Okay. Does that mean like new software or. Probably more connectivity with our Hanson system, which currently we don't have the ability to do in the field. So that's a key priority for us. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I have a few, uh, suggestions, recommendations I'd like to make, but I just want to, I'd really like to just reframe the discussion because, you know, I know that we're, we've made this some people have made this about landlord against tenant, tenant against landlord. And really, I think the spirit of it from what I gathered was to ensure that there were inspections, to fully understand the lay of the land relative to people's quality of life. And essentially, of course, like we've talked about, become more proactive versus reactive. Especially serious issues and concerns, and especially with those those landlords that are not taking care of their properties, that are unresponsive to landlords, that are doing a good job in many cases, that are going above and beyond to ensure that their tenants are living in not just good conditions, but great conditions. I commend them. I think it's great. We have many of them in the audience as well. And, you know, I've talked to some of them that have said I wouldn't rent a place out in a place that I wouldn't mind living in myself. And I truly believe that. And I think if that's the landlord vision for that area, then great. That's exactly what we want here for the city of Long Beach. And I would say, you know, most landlords are taking care of their properties. They're doing everything they can to ensure that police isn't coming to their door every 5 seconds. Code enforcement isn't knocking on their door, but it's those landlords, that small percentage that are worsening our neighborhoods, the ones that are cheapening our neighborhoods, they're creating blight. They're adding additional city resources that, you know, definitely don't need to be expended on these on these properties. And so I believe that it's time to do a little bit more in that sense. I've suggested some things in the past, but I'd like to do more. There's three things I'd like us to work on in looking at this. First, the worst landlord list I believe needs to be implemented. We currently have. So this is a I wanted to share visual with my council colleagues. I wasn't happy with the response we received as to why we couldn't implement this list. There's other cities that are doing this. And clearly, as you can see here, we have nine of the worst that have been identified in the city of Long Beach. And we could come up with options similar to New York City. These, as you can see here, great visual, but you can see the actual landlord name if there's a property management and the various code violations. These are. Massive code violations that are happening. Uh. I think we can I think I can click here. If we go to the next one, you can see 100 worst landlords in New York City. It has a list. Again, their names, the buildings, units, violations similar to what we have on paper. But I think it needs to be publicized via a website. And however else we need to publicize it. Last slide. Uh. This is. So when you click on the name, you get this information. You can see the violation. You can see the details. The buildings. So I think that with these slumlords slumlords, I'll just call them that. Just like tenants have to be screened. They have to go through a whole process in getting an apartment. I think we should also know and screen certain landlords that are not taking care of their properties too. We should be given that opportunity. So. I would suggest that we can come back with some information that would create options similar to New York City, to Chicago, that would look at this worst list. We have nine. If there's more. Great. We can add them to the list as well. And also, I would say some of these landlords have commercial property that are the worst in the whole city. And I know I've talked to you, Amy, about a particular person that has the worst in the whole city. And he's gotten away with a lot. And a lot of these landlords have gotten away with a lot. So I'm hoping that in addition to this list, that we have their commercial property information as well, because I think that's important. To include here. Secondly, it's just an an over kind of view but I think with it's tied into this as well but in. I don't know if it's in here. But there's a link that you click on in New York City. And essentially what it does is it gives you a threshold of after so many serious conditions, whether it's you don't have water, you have live wire hanging over your shower, something deeply affecting quality of life. They should automatically be put into nuisance abatement or there should be some sort of threshold because I feel like we don't have any standard or threshold whatsoever. So I don't know how that how we do that, but that's my recommendation to the city staff to look at that and see what type of options we have and in that sense. And then thirdly, I do believe in the Gold Star program myself. I've been looking at a few different programs for incentives for good landlords. I spoke with the Apartment Association today. We talked about Utah. There's a good it's called good landlord ordinance. And so there's options that we can look at. It will lessen the load if you're doing well, and it may take quite a few of those inspections out or lessen some some fees. But I think it's a good way to look at what else we can do for those landlords that are going above and beyond. That information. I'd love to get back as well to counsel. And then overall, I would just say working as a field deputy in the first District, I want to know where these properties are on a continual basis. And I think I would assume that many of my council colleagues would agree that during council briefings it'd be good to get this information as well to know when, how or why, who these people are. I mean, hopefully we can get to this point where we have a slumlord list, but to have information at each council briefing that gives us a good working knowledge of who these people are. And that is it. I want to thank again everybody for their information. I want to thank everybody for their comments. I'm trying to be as comprehensive as possible here because this is very, very important. And I know I've talked to a lot of you on this issue, not just today, but ongoing for many, many years. And I want to be very clear. The focus is on those who do not take care of their properties. The focus is is that people are getting retaliated against. I mean, I disagree with some of the comments that it's hard to evict. People are getting evicted. I've seen it. I have the information. They're contacting my office. And you just put the eviction notice up and you don't even have to go to court. People will move out because they think they have no other option. So I want to leave it at that. I do hope we come back with this information. And I want to thank staff for the information. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. So I want to thank Councilwoman Gonzalez for. One, introducing us to some models that other cities are using that we could use here. I fully support us exploring that option and also for framing the issue in the way that she has. I have a couple of questions and was hoping staff could answer these for us because I think I've received a lot of misinformation today, and I think there's a lot of misinformation out there. But can you explain a little bit more in detail the outreach component of this and when that's going to kick off specifically? So we are we're instructed by a council to craft an outreach strategy that would go into more disadvantaged neighborhoods or areas. That language has language difficulties and reach out to those tenants in particular to inform them of code enforcement programs in general. And so the idea was to be able to provide resources and information to those tenants who may be either afraid to approach the city and call in complaints or don't know how. And so that was what the outreach strategy, the intention of the outreach strategy is. We did do an RFP, as I said, and we have selected a vendor that we're intending to work with, and then we'll be working with them to focus our outreach on on specific areas. In addition to that, code enforcement staff goes regularly to community meetings. Just next week we're going to the Hamilton community meeting. We have regular meetings with AOC staff, for example, in district to West to all sorts of organizations. Call us and ask for updates on code enforcement issues. We go to those meetings and we receive complaints from the members of the neighborhood associations. That's not part of the formalized community outreach program, but that is something that we do on a regular basis. As I said earlier, we've also attended resource fairs, both by the request of housing advocates as well as at the request of apartment association in order to continue that outreach. Can you tell me a little bit about the annual inspection component? What is that? What's the scope of that? So there's an annual fee and the ordinance calls for periodic inspections. Our goal is to do that annually in order to get rid of a backlog of inspections that we've been carrying since the program transferred over to development services in 2013. We are required to and what we do is we schedule inspections with the property owner so that they know the property owner or the management company, so that they know in advance when we will be on site. We we usually give them three weeks notice that allows them the opportunity to notify the tenants that we will be on site. We are required to inspect the common areas where required to inspect a minimum of 10% of the units. If we find units that have more than one violation, we have the right to inspect all of the units within the building and look for violations throughout the entire building. Part of the data collection is that we are now treating each unit as an individual case instead of lumping it into the same building so that it is allowing us to separate out the data with a finer grain of detail on the inspections and on the potential violations. Okay. I have to say, I agree with Councilwoman Gonzalez's comments regarding incentive programs. I think those are worthwhile and something that we should be looking into. I personally have an issue with the annual inspections and that component, especially when we haven't even given the outreach and opportunity to to work to see if there's any data that we can collect after the outreach. I think that it would be prudent to allow I mean, it's kind of an unusual outreach partnership that we've created. So I think it's it's it's going to be interesting to see what these organizations come up with working together. And I actually think that's that's an exciting opportunity for us. So that that's the only kind of component. I'd love to see the outreach get into effect, see how that's working before we start imposing additional restrictions on people who really aren't the subject of this. This regulation shouldn't be the subject of this regulation, the good actors. So those are my only comments. Thank you. Councilwoman Price, I actually like to go back to Councilwoman Gonzales, the maker of the original motion, and ask if the three items that you had outlined, are you looking for those to be part of the amendment to your motion? Yes. I'd like them to come back to the city council within. I would say, uh, 90 days if we can do that, to ensure that we're taking care of the options for the slumlords list or the worst landlord list. Looking at strengthening our our thresholds, which also ties into the landlord list. So similar to what New York City is doing, creating a threshold which I think would all be one in the same. And then thirdly, looking at options for a gold star list. And that is it. Thank you. Council member Yarrawonga. Thank you, Mary. One of the most important things about any program that we're going to be implementing is obviously the communication and getting the information out. From the way I understanding this is going is we want to initiate that communication and that information to get it out in various languages. So having said that, it appears to me that we are not fully informed in terms of what the impact that program is going to have between once the information is being implemented. So I would I would support that this motion for now, not only because we do need more information, we need to know what's out there, what's happening, what's occurring. And having this kind of consultant doing the outreach and get and gathering the data is very important for us at this point. It's also obviously important to know that I think there's from what I heard today, Nancy, seeing people in the audience that there's there's generally some support for this in response to having to go out and get that information. Let's let's let's get a lay of the land, so to speak, and then take it from there in terms of how what direction the city wants to take, whether we implement a go step program or not. The data will tell us and the information will tell us whether we should implement the A We're Slumlord List or a policy that staff will let us know about that. In terms of what would be the legal ramifications of having such a list being printed and what are the potential liabilities that we would be under if we were to do this? And basically, it's it's a situation that lends itself to needing meeting the additional 80 days or needing the more time so that we can look at this more carefully and make a better analysis as to how we want to go. I realize that there are some programs out there. People mentioned L.A. not wanting to take up their program here. Does it work? Well, you know, Long Beach, we always consider ourselves very special. That I look at it the other way around. I, I see L.A. has been part of Greater Long Beach. But, you know, having said that, you know, we we have to be creative and we have to be innovative in many ways for our own special circumstances. We are a coastal city and we're one of the largest coastal cities in California. So we need to look at what the implementation we're going to have when it comes to rental properties and having a monitoring system that would ensure that people who come to live and work and play in Long Beach are getting the best experience they possibly can. And that means controlling our landlords and rephrase it, not controlling the landlords, ensuring that our landlords are responsible and being, uh. You know. I hope, but I opened up a can of worms right there. Okay. Let me let. Me just say that we I would like to see a program implemented that works for everybody. And I'll leave it at that. You know? Fine. Thank you. To Mango. Yes. Lena, I want to thank you for recognizing the good landlords, because good landlords that are burdened with less fees can afford to provide better units, more affordable rent. All of the things I know that you and I have had a couple of conversations, a couple of conversations about the things that would be valuable in a Gold Star program. And we've talked through that. While some individuals might find it valuable to sit in a meeting that learns about public safety because of where their unit is, another unit on the other side of town might benefit from an incentive program that provides incentives if you reduce the water usage of your unit. So for an example, we've talked a lot about conserving water in California in the drought. And when you are a owner of a property and you live in a property, you of course want your water bill to be lower. But when it is your tenant's property and your tenant pays the water bill, there's not as many incentives really to go out and change out all the faucets and all the toilets and the drought tolerant plants. So there could even be I know we talked about where Josh go, a Bronze Star, but really a gold star in terms of other things that are in the possibilities of setting everyone apart. So I just want to be sure on a couple of things. One, I to stand that bad landlords need to go. They make a bad name for all of us. They make it more difficult for us to get valid and good rent. And we need to make sure that bad landlords are out. And so we need to focus all of our attention on them. And with the number of inspectors that we have, we need to be focusing on the bad landlords. And therefore, I'm really confused about the word annual. So here's my my comment section of the ordinance passed by this body in June of last year states that it will be periodic inspections. There is an annual fee, but periodic inspections and what I'm hearing was proposed tonight was annual, but we do not have the staffing. So we're currently at approximately a three year cycle unless we change staffing. However, what I hear from Councilwoman Gonzalez is that we are not looking to go to an annual inspection program yet. We need to talk about the data. We need to talk about the facts. We might never want to go in that direction. We might want to focus on what Councilman Gonzalez eloquently said back in June of last year, which is a more ramped up fee and fine based penalty program for landlords that are bad, bad landlords. And to free up the resources, our incentive program, which I think we discussed extensively at the last meeting, is not included here. So when this comes back in 90 days, I would like to see some incentive programs proposed and I would like us to I know you said we're on an annual basis to get through the backlog . I think that we just need to stop using the word annual. We are not on an annual basis. We are not going to an annual basis. The ordinance instructs periodic and that is the policy made by this Council and nothing else at this time. So before we move forward on any regularly scheduled inspections of any time, whether it be every three years, five years, ten years, whatever it may be, I'd like to see the incentive program back before this body implemented and then data evaluating if it's been effective. Because I know that a lot of the individuals who came up here today that want to get rid of bad landlords also said, what does the data show? How many units have we inspected already in this year and how many were bad and were the bad? The bad actors because of reports in the community, some of which I've been out looking at property and I've made a few myself. Or are they because of random inspections? And so once we know that data, we can be in a better position. So just to be confirmed. I did not hear that we are doing annual inspections. Is that. City attorney, would you be able to verify where we are on this motion? You're correct in that the ordinance calls for periodic inspections. Wonderful. Whatever that I mean, that could be annually. It could be every three years. It's whatever the staff they currently said, staff doesn't isn't able to do it annually. The inspection fee is collected annually. Well, what I heard from this body today is that we are not looking to move in that direction. If I'm incorrect, I would love for someone to come in and say otherwise. But otherwise. I think the policy direction from this council is to continue to get through the backlog, see where we are, and to have a aggressive and supportive incentive program and an even more aggressive bad landlord program. And the reason I say that is because a staff report calls for annual inspections and they did not hear that from this body. And this body makes policy. If I could turn this back to the staff, Mr. City Manager, and get a clarification on what staff is proposing, and then we can have a follow up with what the council direction is. I'm going to turn that over to Amy. Staff is proposing, receive and file of this report that was requested to come before the city council. And that's my understanding as well. But those three had it. No, no. So I just asked the question. Sorry, I didn't mean to do a tennis back and forth. I just wanted to know from staff what they're proposing, which is accurate. And that's in our in the staff report. They're just asking they're asking for a receiving file of their report. The motion that was made by Councilwoman Gonzalez is to adopt the report, in addition to adding the three items that she mentioned to come back to the council with information in three months. Within 90 days. Correct. Within three months. And I think I failed to include in their. If we are going to enhance just some information as to how we're going to enhance our data collection. So what that will look like in terms of Hanson or additional software that will be using to ensure that we are getting the effective information on units. Also, just inconsistencies. I know that some code enforcements have gone, code enforcement officers have gone out, no violations found. Another code enforcement officer goes out, 11 violations found. So there's from what I understand, there can be inconsistencies there. It will help, I think both landlord tenant, just to have that streamlined, better technology, more information and better data collection. So I would include that as well. If I might just go back to the staff again. And so misspoke in the report as staff outlines what the recommendations are. Can you go over what staff's recommendations are as it relates to the subject of annual inspections? So based on past discussions with the city council, it was our understanding that the idea was to move towards annual inspections. In order to do that. We are not able to do that with our current staffing levels. We do not make recommendations in this staff report for enhanced fees. We do recognize that enhanced fees would be necessary in order to add the additional staff that would be necessary to do the additional annual inspections. As the city attorney did point out. The ordinance calls for periodic inspections that could be every three months, every six months, every 12 months or every three years, depending on on the will of the city council. In addition, we do have a reactive code enforcement program that we often visit the same units and do have information and will have information and data on the number of violations that we we record on both a proactive and a reactive basis. Our recommendation was to provide an update on the the initiative of the proactive rental housing inspection program, including where we were with hiring the community outreach component and then having a discussion, if you so wish, about adding duplexes and triplexes to to the inspection program. We have not previously recommended that in the past. I know that has been a point of discussion with the City Council. So we did again raise that issue in our receive and file report for your consideration. So, Mr. Barak, I appreciate that. And just bear with me on page two of five. In the second paragraph where it starts, staff recommends an expanded PR h IP that conducts annual inspections of all 7500 residential. We're often not sure what I said that to us. To some of us sounds as though it's a recommendation. And then when you go into the next paragraph, in addition to considering higher fees to increase the number of annual inspections completed, the Council directed staff to consider expanding the program to cover duplexes and triplexes. And I do recall that conversation, but hear how it's written. It sounds as though it's a recommendation. And so I think it would be very important for us to clarify that. Clarify that in terms of our recommendation or. Yes. Yes. The first part the first paragraph I outlined. So we were asked last year to provide a statistical report showing the numbers of triplexes and duplexes. We were then further asked in it via a two from four whether or not we recommended moving towards triplexes or duplexes. So that is our recommendation. That is for your consideration if you wish to pursue that conversation at a later date. We are not attempting to set policy with this staff report. We're attempting to be responsive to counsel's previous requests for information. Okay. So, Mr. City Attorney, in this staff report, when the council receives and files the staff report, it's not taking action on the recommendations that staff is making. We are taking it into consideration. That's correct. In order to change this ordinance, you would have to put something else on the agenda to amend the ordinance to either change it from periodic inspections to annual or tri annual or whatever it is that the council would desire. Okay. I appreciate that. Councilmember Mungo misspoke to reference the paragraph that Vice Mayor Lowenthal said. Would it be fair to state that maybe it was intended to say staff recommends an expanded wrap that conducts periodic inspections of all 7500 residential rental properties, as aligns with Section D of the ordinance passed by this body. I'm not really sure where this confusion is. We were asked to report back. We are. We're asked to consider what it took to do annual inspections. And that's what this report contains. So you are you are recommending annual inspections. We were asked to consider what it would take to do an annual inspection. If we were to if you were to tell us to do an annual inspection, we're recommending to you what it would take for us to do that. So as long as we do not approve additional inspection staff, we will not be moving towards an annual inspection program. As long as you do not make an amendment to the ordinance requiring annual inspections, annual inspections will occur on a periodic basis based on existing resources. Perfect. Thank you. And. So just to answer your question, Ms.. Burdick, the confusion comes from the sentence structure of those three lines, because the way it reads, I understand what you would like, where you are stating that the staff recommendations, you are basically responding to our question what it would take. And your statement is that it would take additional staff, but the sentence structure says something else. And so that's where the confusion comes from. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, vice mayor and and thank you so much to staff for for presenting this tonight. And and I attempted to the tone was really productive in my opinion hearing, you know, both sides housing advocates and apartment owners sort of saying the same thing. And what I heard was, you know, we should be more intentional about cracking down on bad landlords. We should protect tenants and we should encourage good, good landlords. And I think that makes sense. And that's sound public policy. I have a I have a question about process. My understanding was that initially there was interest in, you know, expanded stuff like reap the program with then this prep was recommended. Initially they came to council through the housing element and this pilot program. We were we asked questions and asked for recommendations because this was placed in front of us to consider. Now, I'm unclear on we have a proceeding filed tonight, but I'm unclear on whether we have a pilot program or not. So that my first question is moving forward, is there a program? If there is, when does it begin? And and what are the next steps for the city council? Yes, sir. There is a program we have been implementing it since last June when the City Council adopted the ordinance into the municipal code. It requires us to schedule inspections on a proactive basis with owners of properties that have four or more units. That is a completely separate function from someone calling in a complaint. So we are proactively going out and scheduling inspections of property units, which is a base requirement in the Health and Safety Code of the state of California. But this council did expand that program to add a little bit more teeth to it, and that occurred last year. So we do have a prep program. We do do proactive inspections of units in addition to our reactive inspection program, which is complaint driven. Okay. So in our proactive inspection, how often are the inspections? On our current schedule, it would be once every three years approximately. Okay. And the recommendation that was outlined in this and I understand the confused confusion about it's not the staff recommendation, but it's a recommendation from staff. This is this says that if we were go to one year, this is what it would require in terms of from a budgetary and staff standpoint. It is not proposed fee at this point because we've not had those fee discussions. If you are interested in going to an annual inspection, we would be requiring additional staff. I'm comfortable with the recommendation. I think sound public policy means let it do a little bit and work on it. I'm happy with coming back with some of these recommendations, looking at a Gold Star program. But ultimately, I want to have some finality to this on whether we have periodic inspections. To me, a proactive program means everyone gets inspected at some point, but it does not make sense to me if, you know, unless there's some trigger, like a transfer of ownership or something like that, it doesn't make sense to go to two annual on every single unit from a workload standpoint. Frankly, it doesn't make sense. So I want to make sure that we are clear in our process. So in the next three months we will receive a report on these recommendations will be when will we be in a position to have some finality on what what we're doing in terms of our program? Would that be an appropriate time or or do actions need to be taken within our budget? Let me jump in right now. Vice Chairman, Council members I think the direction that we have from the council and Councilwoman Gonzales provides that finality will come back within 90 days, answer those questions and the Council will have the opportunity to then give us direction on where they might want to go. Anything that would require any type of fee adjustment would be later on in the budget process. But at this stage, I think we can just lay out exactly where we are with rate and then talk about opportunities for the council to give us more direction. If they want to go a one year or a three year or two year in implementing and we'll have information on the Goldstar program as the councilwoman asked. And I think we have an out. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Councilman Gonzales. Yeah. I was just going to clarify as posted is that, you know, the hope is that in these three months, we're finally getting to a place where we can come back and see what it is that we can do with incentives, but more importantly, with this worst list. And in the meantime, I mean, we're still giving them three months, this worst landlord list. It's still being very generous. So I'm hoping that in these three months, we're really cracking down on these individuals for everything that they've gotten away with, in essence. And so I just hope that we're committed to that. I know we will be. But in the three months that come back, I look forward to seeing, you know, options for that, more data collection options. And then, of course, like I mentioned, the opportunities for gold incentives. So thank you again. I wanted to also follow up on the data collection piece. We had Mr. Butler come to the mike and ask about specificity, Mr. City Attorney, about what data is kept. Are we going to look more deeply into publishing the list that the Councilman Gonzalez mentioned, or there are some legal barriers to it, considering that we've heard that other and we've seen with the slide that other cities are doing it. You may remember vice mayor remembers the council. Yes. We'll certainly work with staffing and put a report back together. Our concern is where in the process do you release those names? And the further you are in the process, the better we feel. Our office feels about the ability, legal ability to. Release the names. You just can't do it. If there's simply an allegation, you'd probably want to wait for the inspection to be completed, the violations to be reported at some point. There is is the possibility if council wishes to release those names. We're just concerned about the due process. And I think I can say with confidence that this entire body would support due process and ensure that this doesn't become just a shaming site for allegations made. But really sometimes the last resort for individuals who struggle with the worst case scenario. Landlord. And so I do think that that's that's where this council is going. Understood. We will work to get something back to you. Okay. Thank you. So there's been a motion and a second in the motion is with councilwoman. Councilwoman Gonzalez has three items for request for information to be back to this council in 30 days. Our understanding is also that based on Councilmember Richardson's request is though we are not taking action on defining what periodic inspections are, but at at some point in the very near future, that does have to be addressed. With that councilmembers, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Okay.

DenverCityCouncil_01112016_15-0891

Rezones 770 South Federal Boulevard from B-A-1 with waivers to E-MX-3 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 770 South Federal Boulevard from B-A-1 with waivers (Old Chapter 59 Code - Business Arterial 1) to E-MX-3 (Urban Edge, Mixed Use, 3 Stories) in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-18-15.

I sure will. Mr. President, pro tem, I move that council bill 891 be placed on the floor for final consideration. Thank you. Councilwoman, it has been moved in second in a public hearing for council bill 891 is open. May we have the staff report? David Gasper. From Community Planning and development. Guzman-Lopez Councilmembers David Gaspar, principal city planner and community planning and development. Happy to be here tonight for the rezoning of 770 South Federal Boulevard. This is a rezoning that would go take be a one with waivers as former Chapter 59 zoning to the BMX three zone district. This is in Council District seven, Kathleen Clark's district, right on Federal Boulevard and Atmore, Moorpark on the far western edge. If we zoom in to the location a little bit closer, it's at the intersection of Federal Boulevard and Ohio Avenue. It's on the east side of federal really essentially between the major arterials of Alameda and Mississippi. The request here tonight is to rezone parcel just over a an acre in size, 45,000 square feet. It's currently a single story church. The property owner, Central Federal Investors is requesting the rezoning to allow for mixed use development. And Representative Dennis McClean is here to answer any of your questions to him. The rezoning is from be a one with waivers. That's a commercial zoning and the old code. The waivers reduce CFR the buildable amount in the area to 1 to 1 from 2 to 1 in limited the amount of uses to the annex to read. I'll quickly go through the existing context the zoning, the transit service on the corridor, land use and building and scale existing zoning on site. There is still be a one with waivers both to the north and south. The same zoning and beyond. That impacts three is also on the map. To the west there is B2 and to the east. In the Upper Park neighborhood is Eastside. So that's single unit urban edge transit. This is an enhanced transit corridor. RTD has significant amount of service on here with four routes providing a high frequency service on Federal Boulevard. Route 11 is the nearest east west route exposition on the northern border of the block. If we look at the land use, as I mentioned, the church surrounded by commercial and residential uses quickly through there's the church there looking from federal single storey, surrounded by parking. Out of the north, there's two and a half storey apartment buildings to the west, single story strip, commercial to the south, additional apartments. And on the east backside of the property, essentially, this is, I believe, Elliott Street, where there's the single family residences process. Notice of receipt of the application came in late September. Planning Board was scheduled their public hearing on November 4th. At that time, Ashmore Park, a neighborhood association, did speak in favor of the rezoning. I went to a plan committee in November and we're here in front of you tonight and January the next three. It's urban edge, neighborhood context, mixed use, and it's three stories, maximum heights. We'll go through the review criteria, mainly focusing on review criteria. Number one, consistency with the adopted plans. We have a comprehensive plan 2000 blueprint, Denver and the Ashmore Park neighborhood perimeter plan to look at for a review criteria. There is significant consistency with adopted plans through the comprehensive plan with promoting infill development at the site. We zoom in a little bit more to Blueprint Denver. The land use concept is commercial corridor and it is an area of change. We look at federal for many features through classification. It is a commercial arterial and an enhanced transit corridor. So the next three fits very well with Blueprint Denver. We zoom in with Ashmore Park with the neighborhood plan was adopted in 2000. There is strategies that speak directly about redevelopment along the transit corridors and promoting having rezonings for tomorrow mixed use transit sporting development also strategies to target new commercial retail to come to Ashmore Park and to promote commercial industrial areas, good investment opportunities. So there is significant consistency with adopted plans here through those three documents. There also is uniformity district regulations. The mx3 is mapped along Federal Boulevard near the property and along other commercial corridors. The application is consistent with furthering public health, safety and welfare with just varying circumstances. There is change in changing conditions at the site since the zoning, which dates back to the seventies. There has been the adoption of the plans I just mentioned, in particular the neighborhood plan in 2000. Also the adoption of the new Denver zoning code, which has mixed use districts that implements the goals of those adopted plans and that redevelopment along commercial corridors that align with the mixed use zoning standards that were not prevalent at the time of the existing zoning adoption all lead to a justifying circumstance of changed conditions, and there is also consistency with neighborhood context. If you look at the urban edge neighborhood context, it does speak of being characterized by low scale buildings, except for some mid-rise commercial mixed use structures, particularly at nodes and along arterial streets. And it makes you zoned districts in particular intended to promote safe, active and pedestrian skilled development in those areas. So with that, CBT does recommend approval of the rezoning of 770 South Federal Boulevard from B A-1 with waivers to the Annex three zoned district. Based on all on finding all review criteria have been met. You're for any questions. All right. We have one. Thank you for the staff report. We have one speaker this evening. Dennis McLean, if you want to come up to the podium. And forgive me if I'm not pronouncing your last name right. That's okay. McLean Council Members Dennis McLean City with McLean Commercial Addresses 4007 Bryant Street. Denver, Colorado 80211. I'm just here to answer any questions that you guys may have about our project. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council Councilman Ortega. Mr. MacLean, would you mind coming to the microphone, please? Can you give me an idea of what you're planning to do with the site? You know, we're not sure we bought the site some time ago and the zoning is pretty interesting. On the site. Typically, it's my. Understanding when the new zoning came around Denver, anything that had a waiver just got not looked at. So we bought the site knowing that someday we redevelop it and it's gone. So you have no immediate future plans to level the building and to put something else in there? Not immediate. Okay. And about how many acres is the site? It's about 1.17. It's about 47,000 square feet. Roughly three. Pretty good sized parcel on federal. Right. I'm familiar with it. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Dennis, can you answer? Is this property vacant right now? It is not. Vacant. It is not. Is it? Is there a church, a congregation still meeting in it? We have a couple groups that meet in there regularly. We have English as a second language group that meets in there and a couple churches that use. A customs or a couple of churches. Of different church groups that do things in there. I see. And you haven't given them notice or how they are month to month arrangements? They're all month to month. They know that we're working on something. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all. Are there any other questions for members of council? All right. This public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council will go to Councilman Clark where this is located. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. This is, you know, something that is right in my district. And I want to commend the applicant. The original application that came through was for a different zoning classification, and my neighborhood organization had expressed some concern with that. And I was actually at the meeting that Mr. McLean came to with the park neighbors and he introduced himself, had talked about, you know, his history with this city and then said to this community, I don't want to build something that you don't want in your neighborhood. So tell me what you would like. What zoning would you like? And we just hear so much, you know, sitting up here and in the news about when zoning is contentious and about developers and neighbors not working together and to sit there and watch that and then see this come forward with full support from the neighborhood organization, I think is a model for how we can have neighborhoods and developers working together to move Denver forward to bring positive, engaged use to a corridor that needs it that the neighborhood wants it at. And so I will be enthusiastically supportive of this tonight, and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. I think this is one where we really got it right, and that's because we had a developer who really cared about the property that someday he will develop. And and as I heard him, you know, just as I can go say, I don't know what I'm going to develop, I'm sure that that's because he's going to sit down and talk to the neighborhood about what they want. And I think that that is something that is really spectacular and the way that we should have our community and our developers as a city working together to build this city. So I'm enthusiastically supportive tonight. Thank you. Councilman Clark, are there any other comments from city council members? All right. Before that, I'll make a comment. I used to represent this this area. I'm right across the street. You guys will probably know this from if you've ever sat down at the first 75 or the crawling crab and looked out outside the window as you're enjoying your bowl of this is what you're staring at and it is this whole property. The good thing about this property is that under the old chapter 59, this would you I think you would be able to allow a junkyard here at one point. And that's how outdated the zoning was here. So to move 4amx3, which allows that mixed use, allows, you know, residential income and commercial to mix. This is exactly the vision for four federal boulevard. It's been underutilized under visualized and it looks like this is the right move. And Councilman Clark, I think you're exactly right. I think this is a good example of what happens when there's good communication ahead of time and when there's collaboration and with the community. So having said that, Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Clark Espinosa, Flynn, I Gilmore, I Cashman. All right. Can each. Lopez I knew Ortega I. Sussman Black, I. All right Madam Secretary close to voting. Announce the results. Lebanese Lebanese Council Bill 891 has passed. Thank you very much for attending tonight. There is no pre adjournment announcement and seeing that there's no other business before the body, this council meeting is adjourned.

LongBeachCC_09152020_20-0926

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal code by adding Chapter 21.65, relating to Interim Motel/Hotel Conversions, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

Thank you very much. And then we have our fucking hearing, please. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive the supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and find the project exempt from the secure. Declare Ordinance. Amending Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code to establish an interim motel conversion ordinance. Read the first time and later at the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance to the California Coastal Commission citywide. We'll have Christopher Coons make the final presentation on this public hearing. And I will move quickly. Again, Christopher Koonce from Development Services. And I'm joined on the Web meeting by Alejandro Sanchez Lopez, who has been working on this project since he was an M.A. in 2017. And then we hired him in the department. So it's great when that works out. What this item is about is we have a number of motels in the city, likely an oversupply of motels in the city. But what we have an undersupply of as housing leading to our housing crisis. And specifically looking at the number of homeless residents or folks in danger of homelessness or severely rent burdened motels that become housing of last resort. But when they're operated as some blurry line between legitimate motel and housing, they can be subject to a number of nuisance issues. This program seeks to address both problems and builds upon existing efforts and recommendations from all of our various task force and reports that we need to be able to provide additional housing to provide rapid rehousing of homeless individuals and to be able to address our nuisance motels. So how does this ordinance work? Motels typically comply with a number of requirements when converting to housing, and there are certain disincentives to do that conversion. This program would allow a streamlined conversion from motel to supportive housing for a period of time with onsite social services. They would meet performance standards and the conversion itself would be a matter of right. They would not be able to expand or substantially change the footprint of the structure. This from a technical standpoint, this ordinance provides relief from sections of the zoning code that would otherwise prevent these motels from being converted into housing. It provides structure to revert to the prior use to basically revoke the conversion if necessary, by the city upon termination of the agreement with the property operator or at the request of the operator. It allows development services to review the applications in partnership with the Health Department, and it provides strict performance standards for the operators so that these facilities are operated in consideration to the surrounding community and we resolve any nuisance activity. This just shows you that this program, while it's a land use item, it's also a partnership between the city, our health department, nonprofits that may be operating these hotels. We're going to come into an agreement and we're all going to meet our expectations and our performance standards. In order for a conversion to occur, a multi-year contract has to be entered into between the operator and the city. So that would be a partnership between the operator, Development Services and Health and Human Services. The ordinance is intended to remove barriers and incentivize this type of conversion. And we did have some discussion at the Planning Commission about whether this would overburden any particular part of town. But there are motels, including nuisance motels spread throughout the city, even if there are more in certain districts than others. So with that staff as excited to move this project forward and we ask that you adopt the ordinance in front of you and I am glad to answer any questions. Any public comment on this item? There's no public comment on this item. We gave a motion to the second Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is this is this is incredible work. We've been talking about motel conversions for quite some time. Now, remember, we also made a motion on this maybe two, three years ago to look at this as a package of a whole host of things. Since then, there's been state legislation, there's been Project Homekey and a lot of focus here. But but it's taken taken some time. But I think we're now is the perfect time actually to leverage some of the state programs and figure out how we can address some of the new no nuisance motels in our city by converting them into some purpose. That actually helps us solve our public policy challenges around housing availability in our community. So I'm really glad to see this and obviously supportive. Councilor Pearce. Thank you. Yeah, I'm really thrilled with staff's work on this. I recall in my first six months on office, which was over four years ago, we were talking about this. We had a lot of staff time dedicated to it. And I think converting these to transitional housing and providing homes for people is really critical. And I really applaud your staff's work to be creative and to stay focused. I hope that over the next decade even that we can open this up to more properties. I know that we went over the property list last time, but really what we should be really proud of this effort because it wasn't an easy lift. So good work in. Thank you. Council members and day house. Thank you, Mayor. I also want to say thank you very much to the staff. I am in full force, supportive. This is incredibly important to me and to my district that we provide more benefits for for our neighbors in experiencing homelessness. It has been such a joy to see this process come about. And I think all those who came previously, for all their efforts they did in bringing this forward and now we get to experience this. And I think it's going to be a great thing moving forward. And as my colleagues have said, you know, it's going to help us provide more services that are so, so much needed, not only in the first, but throughout the city and to the whole city as well. So thank you very much, staff. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Q Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of questions for Christopher, for Mr. Coons, and that is in regards to holding strict guidelines for the operators of the facilities. What enforcement resources mechanisms? Staffing allocations, do we have to ensure that the operator will be held to the standard that we're all agreeing on? Because I think this is a fantastic program and I look forward to some of the nuisance motels even in my own district. I'm not familiar with all of them throughout the city, of course, but the ones in my district being considered but what I what I want to be able to make assurances of to residents is that the operators will be held accountable in terms of abiding by specific guidelines when they're operating, especially in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. I'm sure. So while this ordinance takes care of the land use, it also makes reference to entering into a contract. So in addition to the normal code enforcement process development services, we have a much better tool in this case and that you it's not profitable to operate homeless housing. So these providers are operating with funding either from the county, the city or another government agency. And they're entering into a contract with the city of Long Beach about the provision of those services that go along with the housing and the city maintains the right to terminate that contract, which would ultimately eliminate their ability to continue to operate the facility. So we hold not only our normal nuisance abatement measures, but we hold the purse strings and we have a contractual relationship with these operators. So working with my partners in Health, because it's not development services staff on a day to day basis doing homeless services, but we would be working as a team and we believe that additional leverage of the contract and potentially some funding provides us a greater degree of control over these facilities than you would find on a run of the mill land use, such as a restaurant or somewhere where we have to go through the nuisance process. That would not be the case in this circumstance. Follow up question, will the provisions that we're entering into this evening by way of adoption of this also apply to properties that are acquired through county funds or through county sources? So this program will apply? Yes, generally speaking, and the county we have shared the county provisions with them. And Kelly Cappelli, director of Health and Human Services, is having those discussions with the county, not myself, but the county, even if they're not legally required to, because they preempt us on some things. They have expressed their intent to meet these conditions and to operate in cooperation with the city and to coordinate entry so that we make sure that we're serving Long Beach homeless residents in these facilities, whether it's owned by the city, county or a third party. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up is Vice Mayor Andrews. Okay. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Isaac and his team for putting the item together. You know, I believe that as a council, we are always forward thinking on how to help with the homeless crisis. You know, we have one more chance to participate in this conversation. We should be doing what we can do. I mean, to streamline the process for them. I'm just hoping that in establishing locations that all districts, you know, can help with this initiative. And again, I want to thank the team very much, Oscar Unity. Thank you. Roll call. Vote, please. District one. I District two I District. High. School, District fourth. In your high. High. District five. I. District six. High. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. A motion carries. Thank you. Now, let's go ahead and move on to some other items. We will do 23 and then. And then the rest should go rather quickly. So why don't we go ahead and do 23 and then we'll go back and do all the rest.

LongBeachCC_06092020_20-0523

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach municipal code by amending Subsection 2.63.080.I, and Section 20.20.050; and by adding subsection 2.63.080.J, and Subsection 20.12.180.C, relating to the extension of the expiration period for certain Certificates of Appropriateness and modifying the expiration period for future approvals, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

Thank you. Concerned calendar has been adopted. We do have a hearing tonight. It's on cultural heritage. So let me turn this over to staff for the hearing. So the City Clerk. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and find the project exempt from secure declared ordinance. Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code to extend the expiration date for certain certificates of appropriateness. An ordinance to extend the expiration date for certain subdivision and entitlement approvals. Read the first time and later for the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance to the California Coastal Commission citywide. Thank you, Mr. Modica. Thank you. The staff report will be given by Linda Tatum, our director of development services. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the Council. In March, when the city the city council declared a state of emergency, the staff was asked to take a look at their operations and look for ways to develop resiliency, measures to assist the city residents and business leaders to return to normal life amid the economic the pandemic. So this request tonight is for city council to adopt an ordinance that extends the expiration date for land use entitlements. These entitlements are essentially the city's approval to allow land to be developed in compliance with code regulations. And when they are approved, they are granted either by the Director of Development Services, the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, the City Council or the the Coastal Commission. They also include an expiration date whereby the the uses that are approved must be either developed or the use must be vested. And if they aren't vested within those expiration timeframes, the the entitlement is voided. And if it's if an any entitlement is voided, it essentially means that the developer or the applicant has to start from scratch and file a new application because entitlements are costly to acquire both in dollars and in time. They are a significant they have significant value to the applicant, but they also serve an important public purpose. They encourage timely development of projects that are approved, and they also ensure that development approvals can be reevaluated if conditions on the ground change before the project is built. So in times of economic stress, so just what we're experiencing right now, property owners may not be able to utilize their entitlements as quickly as they would under normal economic conditions. And the city's interest in these entitlements shifts to providing a more flexible approach for developers in order to encourage new development. So staff is recommending with this action that all entitlements be extended for a period of two years and that this provision be retroactive to January 1st of 2020. There is a range of of different entitlement timeframes for various city approvals. It could be anywhere from 12 months for the certificates of appropriateness that are approved by the Cultural Heritage Commission up to three years for track maps that are approved by the City Council. So what this action would do, it would essentially extend the the entitlement time period for approximately two years, but it would make a consistent three year entitlement across the board for any entitlement that the city council approved or that the city approves. We think that this is an appropriate action because it can take anywhere from 8 to 12 months to get an entitlement and then an additional 18 to 24 months for a developer to secure plans, get building permits and the like . So we think it's a business friendly approach that also continues to protect the city because none of the approval processes will change, nor will any of the development standards change. So with that action, staff is recommending that City Council approved both of the ordinance, both for the Cultural Heritage Commission approvals, as well as for the land use entitlements and the zoning code. That concludes staff's presentation, and I can answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Can I get a motion in a second? If I can get, please, a motion in a second from the council, I have a motion by Councilwoman for ICE and a second by Councilmember Ranga. Councilman Pryce. Any comments? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Ringa. Let me comment. I've got to go. Thank you. Okay, great. Councilman Austin, did you have any comments or were you queuing up. For a motion? No comments from queuing up for the next emotional thing. Okay, great. Then let's go ahead and then take a roll call vote, please. City attorney. I think we it's a public hearing. I think we need to open it up for public comment. Is there any public comment on the line? I didn't I wasn't I was told there wasn't any on for this. Is there is there. Call in public comments starts next Tuesday at the council meeting for this item. There's no. Nobody on the line and all public comments have been sent to council and staff. Thank you. So I see the roll call vote. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. All right. District five. By. District six. All right. District seven. By. District eight. District eight. District nine. Hi. Hi. Ocean carries. Irrigators on. This date is nice. Thank you. Great hearing has concluded. We will begin. The first item of the evening is going to be item 11. This is the which again, we're checking all the covered items first. And so we'll get through those in this first part of the meeting.

SeattleCityCouncil_01112016_CF 314278

Petition of Acorn Development LLC for the vacation of the alley in Block 21, Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, 7th Avenue, Blanchard Street, and 8th Avenue.

The report, the full council agenda item number one clerk file 314278. Petition of ACORN Development LLC for the vacation of the Alien BLOCK 21 Sarah Abel Second Edition to the City of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, Seventh Avenue, Blanchard Street and Eighth Avenue, held December 14th, 2015. Councilmember Burgess. Councilmember. Councilmember Gonzales. I'm sorry. Thank you. So this is this is related to the revocation of block 21. The Transportation Committee recommended approval of the vacation of the alley in block 21. So I think the way that the order goes is that we will consider first the amendment that is being made to the Transportation Committee's recommendation for approval of the allocation. That amendment is being made by myself, Council member Burgess and Councilmember Herbold, and then secondarily will take up the recommendation of the Transportation Committee as amended if the amendment passes. I think I'm accurate on that in terms of process. So by way of background, the full council took up this particular the Transportation Committee recommendation at its hearing on December 14th, 2015. At that time, council members Liccardo O'Brien, Sawant and myself raised concerns about the need for a condition as part of the Clark file that would serve to protect free speech activities should the vacation be granted . And as a result of that, the full council voted to hold over this particular item to today's hearing of the full council, and it is before us at this particular point in time. Now, over the past several weeks, I've worked with Councilmember Burgess and subsequently with Councilmember Herbold to draft some language that that would address those free speech concerns that were brought up in our full council, our last full council hearing before we went to recess. And I believe that this amendment addresses those concerns as related to the free speech of members of the public who seek to access that public, private property. And I, I want to say thank you to all of the advocates, both from SEIU Local six and from Transit Riders Union and others who have come and talked to city council members in the intervening weeks and who have come today to provide testimony on their concerns around Amazon's practices and want to want to at least iterate on my part that I, as a labor lawyer, as somebody who worked ten years on protecting and championing and advocating on behalf of only workers against corporate interests, I hear your concerns and I hope that we can move forward on this city council to address those concerns in a forum where we have the latitude to be able to really take on those particular issues. So the amendment before us is in everybody's packets. And the amendment includes just by way of background, it includes a few different changes. It will include a paragraph in what's known to be the property, sort of let me get this. The the PDA, which is a property use and development agreement, will include a condition in this allocation. Should it be granted that the areas that are open and accessible to the public must be open and accessible for 24 hours a day, with temporary closures permitted only for reasons such as maintenance, safety or private functions, free speech activities that will be fully protected with this particular amendment. If approved, free speech activities include things like handling, signature gathering, holding signs, all without obstructing access to the space, the building or other adjacent amenity features, and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others shall be allowed within these public benefit features while engaged and allowed activities. Members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others. That is the actual language that will be imposed as part of a condition of the PDA if this amendment passes. Another aspect of this is that it creates both a signage requirement and which which would have to be not only reviewed, but approved by Ascot Street vacations. That sign will advise people who are making use of the property knowledge with their rights around free speech activities. The last piece of this is that there is now included a a provision that will allow the city to seek enforcement against Amazon. If if those free if there is a claim that the free speech condition has been violated, then there will be a mechanism to create to do enforcement and make sure that folks rights are being upheld in that regard. So that is by way of briefing the amendments that are being proposed by myself, Councilmember Burgess and Councilmember Herbold. And I'll hand it off to my co-sponsors to add remarks. I'd Second Amendment. Okay, it's been moved and second to amend council bill. The clerk filed 314278. Are there any further comments on the amendment? If not, we do. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just want to thank Councilmembers Gonzales and Burgess for including the my two requests, one being the addition of the hours of open access, and secondly, the enforcement the enforcement mechanisms already in the language. But you flipped it so we could also make sure that the signage is provided. I've been active in developing the city's POPS program. Privately owned public spaces, and providing signage for these spaces is really, really important if you want to see. Good active use of. Them. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Are there any other comments on the amendments? If not? Sorry. Sorry. Councilmember O'Brien. It's early in the year. Council President Harrell. Should we be standing or sitting when we're making comments? So the rules changed? Oh, no. Standing is optional. No. Let's look. We look that. Through. We slip that through. I think people should stand. But I did support the change. So that some standing is kind of like the exclamation point. Yes, that's right. Yeah. You do it with emphasis here, so don't overdo it. Okay. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So I want to thank the the folks that worked up this amendment. As folks know, this was a point of contention at full council at the last meeting of 2015, excuse me. And one of the reasons why I wasn't ready to support it. And I think the this language addresses a lot of the concerns around First Amendment rights. My preference has been to refer this back to committee because I don't think there was just full discussion in committee. But that said, I will support this. I want to I want to just re-emphasize that I have experienced security guards approaching me when when I had a sign on Amazon Plaza, and I'd spoken to that a few times before. Also, over the holiday break, I was forwarded a Twitter post by a local news reporter who was approached by an Amazon security guard, which she speculated was an Amazon security guard asking her to leave or if she had permission to be there. And so I think it's really important that Amazon commits to making sure that security officers are properly trained when regards to respect the rights the public has on these spaces. And I look forward to having that dialog with Amazon as we move forward to respect the rights of of Seattle's residents and workers. I have some other comments I'll make on the underlying bill after this amendment moves forward, but I will support this. Thank you. Are there any other comments on the amendment hearing then? The clerk filed 314278 has been moved. And second, in terms of the amendment. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Would you like additional comments on the underlying. Clifton. I have. Just one. Councilmember. Thank you. I want to say special thanks to those in the neighborhood in District seven from Belltown and the Bell Street Corridor, that what this particular space will do is to help us connect what we're now calling Moai to market. And it will be a pedestrian corridor for people to be able to walk in. An expanded lovely green space at this particular parcel will be part of it. But I want to say thank you to those that were involved. This is 30,000 square feet of public open space and it had the enthusiastic and unanimous support of our Downtown Design Review Board. And I support this as well as being your District seven council. Thank you. If there are no Councilmember Johnson. Thank you. I just wanted to also express my support for the underlying legislation today. As the public may know, there are two options set in front of this body right now in terms of the what Amazon has filed with the city for its master use permit. The approval of the allocation, I think is the best possible built environment choice for our residents. Not only does it offer a better pedestrian environment, but also contributes financially to that pedestrian environment, as well as generating over $8 million towards affordable housing here in the city. I want to say thank you to my colleagues who offered an amendment around the privately owned public spaces. I, too, have been booted out of a privately owned public space just for being on the phone because I didn't have a badge. So we need to make sure that we're doing what we can to make sure that these are, I think, appropriate leave monitored and that the security folks are really well trained on what can and is allowed in a privately owned public space. I think it's really important for us to understand the public benefits associated with vacations. We don't currently have the authority, as I understand it, to enter into the sorts of benefits that have been put forward by some organizations. But I hope that we can go back as a committee and as a council and take a look at some of the opportunities moving forward over the next couple of months. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, are there any other comments any my colleagues would like to make on the amendment? Clark filed 314278. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you and thank you, Councilmember Johnson, for that segway into what I'm about to say, because I do want to take a minute to just step back and both acknowledge that from an urban design perspective, a lot of great work. Obviously, a unanimous decision by the Design Commission speaks highly of the design elements. We heard a few folks comment today from the broader community about the design elements that they like. And I would agree that those design elements are very strong for this project. But the issue of, you know, how the public has some say in what private design happens is somewhat limited. And when we are selling public right of way is one of the opportunities, we have to have some influence over how that moves forward. And I want to just be explicit with the public and future applicants that this council takes that role very seriously. And I think that it's a we're at a point now where the guidelines and standards that we've been following historically, well, they may have been appropriate in the past. It's time for us to revisit those and see what's appropriate going forward. Today is a very different world than it was 20 years ago or even five years ago, and that work has started during the budget process. Last year the Council asked our staff to do to gather data on on street vacations and early vacations over the last 20 years. And we expect to hear back from Massdot sometime in the next couple of months to see what are the types of public benefits we've received in the past and then also have the conversation about what are the types of public benefits we think the public is looking for going forward within the legal constraints that we have to operate in. I also want to just take a second to talk about an ongoing labor dispute that's happening at Amazon and how disappointed I am that a company like Amazon that has created so much wealth for some folks in the community is also contributing to a race to a race to the bottom for its contracted security workers. Specifically, I'm going to call out the Amazon subcontractors, security, industrial specialists. Some folks during public comment highlighted them. This is the kind of company that the way they're behaving now should have no place in Seattle. SARS has at least 15 individual complaints filed against them for numerous violations of Seattle's paid sick leave and safe time. Law workers have been suspended and even fired for taking sick leave. When the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, the Seattle Office for Civil Rights has reached a settlement agreement with SIAC for these violations. But my understanding is SARS has still not complied with all the terms of those settlements. SARS has also had numerous federal labor law complaints against them, for which they recently settled with the National Labor Relations Board. It's the type of company that for actually frankly, for for a company like Amazon that is such a high profile and such a successful business in our community. And someone that I think all of us want to be pointing to is the example of what Seattle businesses do. I think Amazon can do better when they hold their subcontractors accountable. And frankly, it's been appalling to me that they've continued to absolve themselves the responsibility and say that this is merely on SARS. Folks have said that Amazon, while driving incredible growth and wealth in Seattle, has also been playing an instrumental role well and has played an integral role in Lifting City out of the Great Recession. It has also pointed to as a symbol that has caused displacement and drive. Not the cost of housing and forcing and growing income inequality we face. There's an opportunity here, I think, to demonstrate how a city that's becoming a city of tech workers can also be one that supports those that serve them their coffee and manage their office buildings. That's why I think it's more important than ever that we carefully think about the future of public benefits that are provided for street and alley vacations and for any deal that results in public property or ride away becoming privatized. I want to just I see some Amazon folks, some representatives in the room to commit to you that I won't be part of the conversations going forward. I, I believe that our interests are actually aligned here. And I hope that we can continue to work towards solutions that meet all of our needs and take steps for Amazon to really demonstrate to our community that they are going to be a high road employer for all workers and not just the Walmart in the sky. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Bryan, councilmember suarez. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is deborah ward and I represent district five. First of all, I want. To thank council member Herbert Burgess and Gonzales for the amendments that they made and the good work that they did in addressing the First Amendment issues. I am new, but I did have an opportunity to go back and look at the public benefits and what we look at when we make a determination about street vacations. I think it's important to keep in mind that the city acts as a trustee. For the public in the public good. And that the public benefit we receive should outweigh the benefit that the petitioner receives. I'm not pointing to any particular company right now, and I want to thank the people that have spoken to Councilmember. Salant and O'Bryant. That we need to go back and look at 2009. And what we laid out is what the issues about what a public benefit is and what it brings to a community and the world is a lot different now in 2006 than it was in 2009. And I think we need to revisit that. Certainly business does time or does business in real time, and I think the government should do business in real time. And I look forward to working with the community, the business community, and certainly with my fellow. Council members on public public. Benefits and what they mean to our community. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember where's Councilmember Sawant? Thank you, President Harrell. I, I have talked to guns to members. My staff have talked to a gun to members. And one of the points that has been made. Frequently is that, well, if we want to change the public benefit process, then we should change it and then apply the law, not hold Amazon accountable to a law that isn't in place at this moment, as if, you know, somehow this is going to be grossly unfair to Amazon. I wanted to say that it's not totally I mean, that there is some truth to that, but it is not totally accurate to say that Amazon has dutifully gone through the whole process. And as Governor O'Brien explained, you know, there were there's a there's a very clear rationale for taking this back to committee. Part of the process that every petitioner has to go through is for the council, this body, elected body, to vote on such an allegation. This is part of the process. But as I see it, this is not a rubber stamping. It shouldn't be. At least that's what I think. This is the only this part of the process where the council comes into action is the only accountability, democratic accountability that working people can have over big business. Council members can talk about changing the process, but the reality is that that that is only meaningful if elected officials are willing to vote against such an early vacation for the moment or send it back to committee. As Councilmember O'Brien said, that was our preference, and I would still prefer that even if the request is coming from a powerful business. I don't think it will be sufficient. Even as far as the free speech is concerned, free speech concerns are are, you know, are the topic. I supported the amendment and just do things. Thank former council member Lekota, who brought forward the former incarnation of that amendment that we just passed. I don't think I support that, but I don't think it will be sufficient to address the concerns of free speech and also concerns of workers. Amazon has outsourced a security guard to a company and has gone tomorrow and said to security industry specialists or ISIS to try and avoid them by letting them have their democratic right to a union. It makes it easier to oppress workers in this way if you contract it out so you can just wash your hands of it. But we know SARS has shamelessly flouted Seattle's basic labor law. They did not give safe and sick leave. They have engaged in routine intimidation and even firings when one woman worker demanded her rights. As I has responded by publishing her children's medical records online, that's an example of intimidation. And Amazon is willfully turning a blind eye to this problem. They have refused to respond to these concerns, and I know that they have refused to respond because I was with workers at a demonstration when they had a letter to present to Jeff Bezos. He refused to meet with us. And I think they didn't know that they are the workers at a councilmember with them. And they made us all go on the street in the rain, even leaving their foyer, public foyer. Many elected officials think one can represent both the needs of workers and. Big business, but you cannot. This is a live example of where you have to pick a side and consumers are choosing to pick a side one way or another. And it's. Disingenuous to pretend that this is all just fair and square. We have a society that has a significant wealth and power differentials, so it is not neutral. This process is not neutral. It's not supposed to be neutral. And I know elected officials have said and will continue to say a lot about workers. But let's be clear, unless we use our position on issues like this one on bills like this one to hold big business accountable, then it is just words. At the end of the day, I'm sorry. Then they're just words. And because Amazon.com didn't want to be bothered with a delay until members, many of whom have accepted corporate donations and have a long track record of standing up for corporations against workers interests, I have indicated a willingness to give Amazon a smooth passage. I have no divided loyalties. I support workers. And if council members are not willing to send this back to the Transportation Committee to be properly discussed, and I do intend to vote no on this allegation. But my first choice would have been to send us back to committee. And I wanted to thank Councilmember O'Brien for politically leading that that part up last year. And that would have been a good opportunity for the council to do its job, to provide the space, to discuss with the community, the workers and Amazon, and find a real solution to the concerns. Then Amazon could have had its Ali vacation, but in a way that protects the public. However, council members have made it clear that they will not support that. So I cannot support this allegation that does not protect the interests of regular workers. Thank you, Councilmember, so much. So we have in front of us Councilmember Herbold, please. Thank you. So. One point to remind folks, if you don't remember in 2014, this council actually wrote a letter to Jeff Bezos. And to my to my knowledge, we haven't received a response. And it is it was a letter designed to deal with just these issues. I did speak to two Amazon representatives last week. They informed me that they had performed an audit of Cece's employment practices. And I at that point asked whether or not we could see or have a review of that audit so we could judge for ourselves the compliance with the city's labor laws. I think that's the appropriate place to have this conversation is within the context of our enforcement mechanisms. We have just the the previous years council passed legislation to explicitly give the Office of Civil Rights, the Division of the Labor Standards Office, the ability to do proactive enforcement of our labor laws. I think we need to work really closely with that office in identifying industries and particular employers where we have seen a history of problems. And I would really be interested in bringing that conversation on how to roll out that proactive element of this office. To my knowledge, are the Office of Labor Standards is not doing proactive enforcement at this point. And I think we need to talk about how to roll that out, how to engage with the community and identifying industries and particular employers that we want to see that proactive enforcement for. Thank you. Thank you for those comments, Councilmember Herbold. Okay. So we have an amended or a condition court file 314278. Are there any other comments that any of my colleagues would like to make of this first agenda item of 20, I might add. Hearing no comments. Those in favor of granting the petition as a condition to vote i. I. Those opposed vote. No. No. Okay. The motion carries and the petition is granted as conditions. Okay. Next, we'll have, I guess, items two, three and four read together for convenience agenda items.

LongBeachCC_04232019_19-0402

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Financial Management Department to recognize businesses that are majority owned by people who identify as LGBTQ+, veterans, and people with disabilities in the City's procurement and purchasing process; Furthermore, request City Manager to return to City Council in the next 180 days with a report showing how many LGBTBEs, DOBEs, and VOBEs have signed up on the City's PlanetBids database, information about outreach to these businesses, and how many of these businesses apply to and are awarded projects over this time-period.

Let's take the procurement LGBTQ procurement item from Councilwoman Gonzales. Communication from Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilmember Pierce. Councilmember Suber now recommendation to request city manager to work with the Financial Management Department to recognize businesses that are majority owned by people who identify as LGBTQ plus veterans and people with disabilities in the city's procurement and purchasing process. Thank you. Let me first turn this over to Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. So I first want to thank Joe Mendez, president of the LGBT chamber. Esteban Gomez, vice president of the chamber. Eduardo Lara, a member of the chamber as well, Porter Gilbert, Jonathan Levitz from the National LGBT Chamber. And Mary's in the House as well from the The WHO wrote a letter of support. I am very excited to bring this item forward and ask for the Council's support. This has been a few months in the making and I want to thank every single person for being here. As we know, Long Beach is one of the most diverse cities in the country. That's no secret. We're proud of our inclusivity and our efforts to work with small business owners, especially through the everyone in conversation citywide, led by my colleague and friend of Councilmember Rex Richardson. We're in equals inclusion. We've done a lot to engage small business owners, disadvantaged businesses, and my own minority and women owned businesses in the city's procurement and purchasing process. We actually have a small business certification program, a disadvantaged business enterprise program, and a Long Beach Business First initiative, all designed to provide our local businesses with an opportunity to work with the city. But we also know that Long Beach has a thriving LGBTQ plus community veteran and differently abled communities. And there are a growing number of businesses owned by these community members. And we know that nationwide, specifically with the LGBT owned businesses, they contribute over $1.7 trillion to the economy. And locally, we have amazing business owners that we should be able to recognize. So through this item, the intention was to increase outreach and make our city's procurement process inclusive for these businesses. We've been working with the local chamber and the National Chamber, as well as other organizations like the National Veteran Business Development Council and Disability. In offering third party certifications to verify that businesses are majority owned by people who identify as LGBTQ plus veterans and business owners with disabilities. So we'd like to just expand the options here in the city. I look forward to hearing more council discussion and I single one of you for your efforts and keeping this on our radar to make sure that we do the best here thing here for Long Beach, especially our local businesses. Thank you. And I think we have a few other councilman. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, let me go ahead and take their their comments first. I can actually get you to take a seat just as we finish the the agenda and I will call public comment and have you guys come up. Councilmember Super now. Thank you. And thank you to Councilwoman Gonzales for inviting me to sign on. It's my pleasure to do so, and congratulations for making it here. And I'd like to speak specifically about Joe Mendez, who's the board president. Joe's been working on this item for so long, and I don't know how long it's been, Joe, but I remember us having a discussion about it at a Christmas party in 2017. So that's that's been a while you've been at it. And also. What people may not. Know is Joe has been such a valuable asset to the organization, generally speaking. So he's done a great job. So thank you for all your hard work, Joe. And also just for the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce have one of the great mottos or if you call it a mission statement, I'm not sure, but it's joined for the business, stay for the community. And that's exactly what you epitomize. Thank you. Excellent Council, Pearce. Yes. I want to thank my colleague for inviting me to sign on to this item and for bringing it forward. I think this is a fantastic item. Obviously, in District two, I think we have a large percentage of businesses that are owned by members of our LGBT community, from tax services to food and restaurants. So I definitely love to see this come forward and fully supportive of it. I wanted to ask a question of staff just on the disadvantage program that we already have. Can you enlighten me? Does that program include previously incarcerated? I believe it does now. Would you be opposed to including previously incarcerated and just along with veterans as well? Sure I would. Like whether it fits here or whether it fits in the we can bring it back to a discussion. But I think being that we have the the disadvantage when already I was under the idea that had already included incarcerated previously incarcerated folks. So if you could just let me know, get back to us and we can reevaluate it being included under that one. Fully supportive of this. Fully supportive of making sure that we have a procurement process that includes these communities that have been identified. So thank you. Thank you. Gottesman Richardson Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilwoman Gonzalez, thank you so much for lifting up this important constituency. And so we're having a broad conversation about economic inclusion in the city and inclusion means everyone, right? And so our LGBTQ community has, you know, thriving business corridors, a number of thriving businesses. So it's important to make sure that they're called out and lifted up as we review all of our procurement strategies. I mean, Councilwoman Pierce, so there's a there's a large conversation taking place now is not fully cooked yet, but the conversation is really taking place across the region about setting, you know, reforming the procurement process and in setting some aggressive goals. L.A. County, for example, has a new supplier supplier to diversity program where they set a 25% goal. They specifically call out, you know, veterans, disabled individuals. And so I think, you know, as we continue this, everyone in conversation, there's certainly an opportunity to look at pre-leasing incarcerated because we really we should be thinking about inclusion from a standpoint as we bake it into what we do, not sprinkle it on top like not sprinkling on this groups frequently. We should really bacon inclusion and rated throughout all of our systems. The conversation now is really, you know, financial management. You know, it's a it's a big conversation about a really big overhaul. And what I think will be great is if they fall from here, from the full council very soon, that this is really incredibly important to really get the procurement conversation right. Councilwoman Gonzales, you have my full support here. Thank you so much for for lifting this up. And I also want to raise up the disabled piece. I think that's incredibly important. If if we have the biggest thing we can do to make sure people are included in our local economy is the way we spend our money. And so that is something we have direct control over. So we should take our time, think about it comprehensively. But thank you so much. You know, and obviously I'm supportive this item. Thank you, Councilmember Ringa. Thank you, Mary. And I, too, want to thank Councilwoman Gonzales for bringing this forward. I think that bringing these sectors of our business community into the forefront and into the procurement process is long overdue. And I'm strongly supportive. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. I also wanted to recognize John Newell, who is here as well, past president of the AIDS food store. And thank you so much for being here to. Thank you, Councilmember Orson. Yes. I'd like to just obviously lend my support to this. I think this is a great and great item. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing it forward. Certainly, we want to include everyone into our our our fabric and into opportunities in our great city as we celebrate our diversity. I did have a question for staff in terms of just intent. Can you can someone tell the city manager in terms of what this item adds to already that we we already do in terms of providing recognition to minority owned businesses and protected classes? What does this add to from. From what I understand, we already do that for minority businesses, women owned businesses, and we'll be reaching out to guarantee that the businesses we're talking about tonight get more representation and planet bids, that we reach out to the more local community groups so that they're more familiar with what we're what the city is bidding for, what we're procuring. So everyone has a better opportunity to apply for these bids knowing they're coming. And a lot of it is going to be communication, working with the right groups, having the the disadvantaged communities and everyone understand planet bids and get help on planet bids so everyone can be fair and bid on everything that we have. So everything's out there. So I think believe that would be the primary thing that we're looking at right now. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to get clarification for those who may not have heard the whole item or may not understand what we're doing here. So thank you. You have my full support. Give me your. Address. I wanna also thank Councilwoman Gonzalez for bringing this to the forefront, because I think this is what makes language. You know, look, the way you look when we look at small business and let them know that this is the way our city should always look and thank you, guys. And I'm truly supportive of this idea. Thank you. There's a there's a motion and a second. I'm going to comment and call for public comment. I just want to just think, Councilman Gonzales, but also Councilmember Pierson, Councilmember Superman, this is an excellent item. I know. I know. Councilwoman, you've done a lot of work on procurement issues in your time here. And I think this is another great example of ensuring that we are inclusive and continue our, I think, really strong record of LGBTQ inclusion. And I think this is another really important opportunity and in a way for the city to do even more to ensure that this population within our community continues to grow and also be aware that there is still in this country a lot of discrimination against LGBTQ business owners, businesses and LGBTQ entrepreneurs. And so it is critical that these types of programs are in place to ensure that those business owners and community members have access to the same types of opportunities that everyone else does. And so I'm very supportive and you've all done a great job and the Chamber has done a great job of advocating for this. And so with that, please, if that public comment and. Great. Thank you so much. I just wanted to just right off the bat. Thank you, Linda Gonzalez, councilman, for bringing this to the city council and to the other supporters of this this measure or this policy. As I mentioned, my name is Joe Mendez. I'm the president of the Long Beach Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. And we are also the affiliate chamber to the. The Chamber of Commerce as an organization. We have been in Long Beach since 1992, formerly known as the Long Beach Community Business Network. And once again, we are in the process of changing our name to the Long Beach Community, LGBT Chamber of Commerce, to be more inclusive in our diverse community across the USA, not just in Long Beach. Our organization has been in the diversity and inclusion space many years. Our corporate members like Southern California, Edison Socalgas, California Water, Southwest Gas out of Las Vegas, Comerica Bank all have diversity initiatives. So I know that adding LGBTQ businesses, veterans and members of the disabled community to Long Beach list of vendors and suppliers will only increase opportunity. Moving forward with this policy will be will be good for Long Beach City contractors as well as for the many entrepreneurs in our city, many of which are ready to do business with the city of Long Beach. Our chamber currently broke the 200 mark and we have about 24 to 30 businesses are certified through the NGOs. You see Jonathan Jonathan Lovett from the NGOs has provided you with with a letter which speaks to the what certification has done to LGBT businesses across the nation. Opportunity is what policy is, what this policy will bring. Equality in business is good business. Long Beach will make history tonight by being the first city government in California to add LGBTQ businesses, veterans and people with disabilities to the list of vendors and suppliers. It will increase the city's supply list. It will encourage greater innovation and competition. This is why all of these other corporations come to us because they want our help to increase their supplier and vendor and vendors and suppliers. It is time for Long Beach to be a respected leader in the business community. Diversity and opportunity to take its place as one of the most inclusive cities in for minority business owned in America. We are excited. Soon to for Long Beach. Among those who believe the power of inclusion not just as the right to do, but also has an economic imperative that benefits every citizen in our state. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers? Hello, everybody. My name is Estevan Gomez and the vice president of the Long Beach Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. I'm also the co-founder of Keen Social, a certified LGBT. So first, I would like to thank Lena Gonzalez and her staff, Corey Tyler. Jennifer and your staff has been amazing. So I really thank you guys all. I also would like to thank Darryl Zupan and Denise Pierce for sponsoring us. So I want to tell you a little story of a person that I once knew. When I was in college, I was pretty depressed. Add to options. One was to commit suicide. The other was to live a fake life. The third option of me being up here was not bankable. And luckily I have a supportive family. Who have inspired and encouraged me to become an entrepreneur. But there are so many others that aren't so lucky. They ended thinking. That it doesn't exist. So today, if you prove this, yes, you're providing opportunities for others, but you're doing a lot more. You're providing light. And Hope. That somebody you can become an entrepreneur, a leader, an employer. So I'm proud to live in Long Beach, and I'm proud to own my own business. I also want to tell you a story of one of our members. Her name is Chris Christie and she owns Chris Industries. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today because battling cancer. So my thoughts and prayers go out to her. But she is a certified LGBT and with the private sector. Last year she received half a million contract with Turner Construction and then Sony. So whenever a small business lands, you know, a nice piece of business, they can keep going and plan another piece of business and another piece of business. So if you're approved today, you can pave the way for other businesses like Grace Industries to bid on contracts they wouldn't have done before. The City of Long Beach can make this can really make that business. So today, I hope you lead our nation in becoming the first city in California to recognize LGBT BS, but also certified veterans and certified people with disabilities. Thanks. Good evening, council members. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Good to see you. My name is John Newell. I am as well as the past president of AIDS Foodstore, a member of the LGBTQ center. I am on their board of directors, honored to be there and wanted to. Kind of represent. The center and let you know what what we're thinking about the agenda item. The center strongly supports this agenda item to recognize LGBTQ majority owned businesses in Long Beach. As part of the city's procurement and processing. The agenda item utilizes the existing certification through the. National LGBTQ. Chamber of Commerce to increase the equity. Of LGBTQ owned. Contracts through the city's existing. Contract and bidding process. The Center is incredibly grateful to Council Councilwoman. Lena Gonzales for her continued leadership in increasing. Equity with. LGBTQ residents and business owners for our city. And furthermore, we'd like to applaud the Council Women's Initiative. And also seek. Increasing economic opportunities for veterans people with disabilities through this agenda item. The Center would also like to thank all the council people who have supported this agenda item, and we thank you so much for your continued support. Of the LGBTQ community. Thank you, Mr. Laura. And then we're going to go to a vote. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council. My name is Eduardo. Lara and I live in the second district. I also serve as a board of director. For the LGBTQ center and a faculty member in the. Sociology department at Cal State Long Beach. I'm also here to strong support this proposed agenda. Item in recognition that LGBTQ majority owned businesses in Long Beach as part of the city's procurement and. Purchasing processes, as well as veterans, and in particular those with disabilities. Or as one of my visually impaired students, this semester has gladly shared with me those that have diverse abilities. The best moment that. I can share with all of you in terms of highlighting the importance and importance of initiatives like this, really goes back to a short little vignette. That I want to espouse to all of. You. About two. Or three weeks ago, our dryer broke. And. We had to call someone to come in to take a look at the dryer. And it was quite obvious to us that the person who checked out the dryer was very homophobic. Not even 30 seconds into going into the home. It was very visually apparent. To us with his mannerisms and lack of communication and really his observance of me and. My husband's pictures all around of. Us, that it made him quite. Uncomfortable. And so. In that moment was a sobering. Reminder of how rampant. Homophobia, unfortunately, still. Continues to. Permeate through our society. So that is just one of many countless examples. Also, as I go to some of my colleagues. Here of how important it is to create. Policies that move the needle forward when it comes to representation for historically marginalized groups. And if I can also take a moment. To echo the importance of also including those that been imprisoned, but then have also made their way out of prison in order to create opportunities for those highly vulnerable populations. I like to also. Put my sentiment forward here in supporting initiatives like that that try to, as someone previously said, create a braided approach towards. Equity within the city. So I applaud this effort and I commend the city of Long Beach in terms of leading the charge forward to creating a more. Diverse and inclusive. City. And I look forward to the vote. So thank you very much. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Lora, and thank you to all the speakers. We have a motion in a second on the recommendation. Please cast your vote. Motion carries. We're going to move on to the so-so item here, which is next on the agenda. So if I can have the clerk, please read the.

LongBeachCC_05122015_15-0410

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute the Artesia Boulevard Study Implementation Agreement with the Gateway Cities Council of Governments for an amount not to exceed $36,890. (District 9)

Mungo. Motion carries nine zero. Item 14 Report from Development Services and Public Works. Recommendation to execute the Artesia Boulevard Study Implementation Agreement with the Gateway Cities Council of Governments for an amount not to exceed $36,890. District nine. Mr. City Manager, is there a staff report? Yes. Linda Tatum. This item is a request that the city participate in the to fund a master plan for Artesia Boulevard. This is a regional project and the cost to the city or the cost for preparing the master plan regarding making sure that the street is enhances its functionality for pedestrians as well as all modes of travel as well, as well as some esthetic improvements for the corridor. The the proposal is for the city to share on a pro-rata basis based upon the cost of the study per mile. Among all of the cities that touch the 12 mile length of that corridor in the city of Long Beach, a share of that cost is $36,890. And this cost will be borne by three different departments or three different whose members? TATUM Yes. Can can we give her our attention? I think someone's mic is on. Thank you. Please continue. Thank you. So this the cost is going to be borne by three different bureaus within the Development Services Division. But the total cost of the city for this preparing the master plan would be $36,890. So the city or the retirement staff is recommending that the city council approved the funding for the city to participate in the master plan for the Artesia Boulevard corridor. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thanks, Vice Mayor. We had a little confusion about who led on who led on it and pushed push the button and. We all clear. Now. It's all good. The reason I wanted to just speak up and say something was this is really exciting. And again, this was this was a vision that Councilmember Neill, my predecessor, actually stated at the dais when he when he was sworn in, he said uptown should be a preview to downtown. And for most folks, a lot of folks, their experience in Long Beach is when they get off the 91 freeway and cut across Artesia Boulevard and connect to Lakewood or wait till traffic or going all the way down to the 605. This is tremendous, the fact that we've gotten all of these cities on board from Compton to Carson to let's see, Bellflower, Lakewood, Cerritos in Artesia, all in one committee to two master plan, 12 miles, miles of Artesia Boulevard, really emphasizing its regional significance. So I'm really proud of this. And I think this is a really tremendous moment for for North Long Beach to lead again on this, especially considering the last line item, North Lambie's lead. And in this one we really led and it's been years of years of work. So thank you so much. Thank you. Council Member Andrews as the second year of the motion, did you want to make any remarks? Excellent. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. I just want to congratulate Councilman Richardson. He's always talking about Artesia Boulevard. I'm always talking about Pine Avenue and creating a renaissance in downtown. And he's always talking about uptown, and you're always putting a light on that. So I just want to congratulate you for that. Councilman Austin. Yes. I also want to just say that this is this is an exciting item and there is a lot of hope for this. As the city's representative one, the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, I just wanted to report out that we did include this in our strategic transportation plan last week at our meeting, which in which several of the the partnering cities in the region supported this as well. And so this is one thing that will be a priority for not only our city, but for our regional partners as well. So look forward to working with Councilmember Richardson and the entire council on this. Thank you. And I'd like to congratulate Councilmember Richardson on this effort as well. Seeing no further comment on this side of the dais, is there any member of the public that wish to address the Council on item 14? Seeing None members cast your vote. Motion carries nine zero. Item 15.

SeattleCityCouncil_06012021_CB 120080

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; extending for six months a moratorium established by Ordinance 125764, and extended by Ordinances 126006, 126090, and 126241, on the filing, acceptance, processing, and/or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use, or change a principal or accessory use, for any site currently used as a mobile home park, as defined in Section 23.84A.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Item number one Will the clerk please read item one into the record? Agenda Item one Council Bill 120080. An ordinance relating to land use and zoning extending for six months. A moratorium established by ordinance 125764 and extending an order by ordinances 126006126090 and 126241 on the filing, acceptance, processing and or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use or change of principal or accessory use for any site currently used as a mobile home park, as defined in section 23.8 4a032 of the Seattle Municipal Code and ratifying and confirming certain. Acts of a. For a public hearing. Are folks just toggling between screens here? Okay. So as Presiding Officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 120080 relating to land use and zoning extending for six months, a moratorium established by Ordinance one two. Five, 764 and extend by ordinances 126006126090 and 126241 on the filing, acceptance, processing and or approval of any application to establish a new principal or accessory use or change of principal or accessory use for any site currently used as a mobile home park, as defined in section 23.8 for 8.032 of the settlement of Civil Code in ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The online registration to sign up to speak at this hearing opened at 12:00 noon today, and I'll call on speakers in the order of registration. The online registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing. The rules apply to the public comment period also apply to this public hearing. If there are any speakers, each speaker will be provided 2 minutes and a 10/2 warning to wrap up comments. Speakers microphones will be needed at the end of the a lot of public comment time public comment relating to Council Bill 120080 is only being accepted at this public hearing. Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name. And let me take a look here and see if anyone has signed up for public comment on this particular council bill. I do not see anyone signed up for public comment on this particular council bill. So at this time I do not have anyone remotely present to speak on Council Bill 120080. Will staff please confirm there is not a member of the public in the queue before I close this public hearing? For an outside. Council member or council president Gonzalez, this is Deputy Clerk Schwinn. We still would like to open the public hearing and closed. I did. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I already went. I already went through the whole opening of it. So now I'm at the point of asking whether there is anyone remotely present to speak on Council Bill. Thank you. Will staff please confirmed that there is no one from the public available to speak during this open public hearing? Confirmed. Thank you so much. Again, being that there is not a member of the public remotely present for this public hearing on Council Bill 120080. This public hearing is now closed, so we will move to item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the recorder's? Madam quirky meeting you did. Thank you. Agenda Item two Council Bill 120089 An Ordinance Relating to the Sea, The City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilize utilization accounts.

DenverCityCouncil_08232021_21-0864

A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, the question of whether the City shall be authorized to issue or incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver Facilities System; providing the form of the ballot question; providing for other details in connection therewith; and ratifying action previously taken. Refers a question to the November 2021 ballot to allow the City to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver facilities system. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.

Nine eyes. Counsel Bill 20 1-924 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. And that looks like it's going to be the the black vote. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put council bills? 864865, eight, six, six, eight, six, seven and 868 on the floor for final passage. I move that council bill 8648658, six, six, eight, six, seven and 868. He placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bills. 864865866867 and 868. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. These are the rest of the questions to be advanced to the ballot regarding the other components of the bond. And I would like to go on record tonight as a no. Given our crisis with ah, with COVID and the economic downturn, our revenue shortfalls from last year, our need to recoup those revenue shortfalls by increasing taxes or floating the levy. I think it's not a wise decision to add more debt to the taxpayers. And I will be a vote on these bond questions tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Not seeing anyone in the queue here. And it didn't sound like we had folks online wanting to speak either. And so. Madam Secretary, roll call on council bills 20 1-86486586, six, eight, six, seven and 868. Cashman. I. Ortega. I. CDEBACA No. Clark. I Flinn. I. Herndon Hines. I can teach. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One day, 12 eyes. 12 eyes. Council bills 20 1-864865, eight, six, six, eight, six, seven and eight six, eight have passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put Council Bill 855 on the floor for publication, please?

LongBeachCC_07012014_14-0502

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.

Item number 1336, the dispute. Sorry I threw a curve. 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. 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. The motion carries six one. All right, thank you, members. Appreciate that. Good item 3038. 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.

LongBeachCC_02022021_21-0090

Recommendation to request City Manager, or designee, to work with all appropriate departments to report back to the City Council within 30 days on violent and quality-of-life crime in Long Beach with an overview of incidents and trends, an outline of current efforts and opportunities to address violence in highly-impacted neighborhoods, and a plan of action to meet the need for safety in all of our communities.

Communication from Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilwoman Allen. Recommendation to request city manager to work with all appropriate departments to report back within 30 days on violent and quality of life crimes in Long Beach. We're going to go in here. Here. The item. Please. I think I'll see. Believe it. CD1 Councilman's. Yes. Do we have any public comments? Maybe we can hear those first, Mayor. If we don't think we have any public comment on this item. Of course, speaker Mr.. Mr. Perot is on the line. Sure. Go ahead. Bill. Yes. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. I am Bill Perl. I published Long Beach report dot com a media outlet now in our 21st year providing independent news online all the time and regarding violence in the city of Long Beach. As we have reported, the city of Long Beach has crime stats, have gaps, and we urge the council to fix them so you can do. The city of Long Beach, for example, does not list shootings in its official crime stats, but the city of Long Beach. But the city of Los Angeles does. L.A. residents can see every month how many shootings there were and where they were. They don't have to rely on Public Records Act requests to get neighborhood crime information. Long Beach buries it shootings with an aggravated assault, which is a category that includes various crimes. And the council can fix this. Any of you can. Agenda is an item for future use. It could be in the next week or so to begin listing shootings in long beaches. Official crime stats. We urge you to do so. Second, the city of Long Beach no longer lists serious part one Crimes against persons and property by Council District. The city used to routinely do that. It was easy for us to taxpayers to compare what's going on in Council District two with five and seven and nine. But that stopped. Elbe PD now only shows crimes by divisions north, south, east and west, which spans which spanned more than one council district and then invites confusion and misinformation. For example, in her official 2018 ballot statements. Councilwoman Mongo took credit for crime decreases that use numbers from East Division that included numbers from council districts three and four that weren't part of her council district and five reporting crimes by council district would end the confusion. If there are incumbents on this council who don't want the public to know the facts, let's find out who they are. Some council members should agenda is restoring reporting crimes by council districts. And third, this council needs to end the double standard. If a child or adult is shot by a police officer, the city collects and releases data on the person shot to disproportionate impact on various groups. But in non-police shootings, which impact historically disadvantaged and working class areas, the crime victim is invisible. This council needs to correct this inequity and begin to compile and release data on the victims of non-police shootings, just as we do for police shootings, because those crime victims matter, too. So I must add that there will be a report that has advocated all of these actions constructively and editorially, some for some time, and tonight will show whether the council wants to maintain the status quo or to move to fix things. Thanks very much for letting me be heard. Good evening. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. And thank you so much for public comment. And I also want to give a big thanks to all my residents who have been calling in to my office, who have been meeting with me on on this item and who have sent in any comments as well. First of all, I know that that this is a very intense item for me. So I really want to thank my colleagues for their help in bringing bringing this forward. Thank you so much, Councilwoman Allen. I know that you know how important this is as US council members, our first priority as is. The safety of our residents. And given the recent shootings and other high profile acts of violence in our city, especially in the First District, I felt that I must ensure to my residents that we are doing everything within our power to bring this to an end. And so this is why I brought this item forward. I as I said, I know that this is a complicated issue. And there there are no easy ways of doing this, obviously, because if there were, they would have already been found and done. That being said, the seriousness of this challenge means that we must find new solutions, renew our existing efforts to keep our community safe and free of violence. And law enforcement must be our first partner in this. And and continues to be. But I'm also interested in looking at ways we can work within our neighborhoods to address the root cause of violent crimes. COVID has placed incredible constraints on our ability to maintain programing within communities and provide the necessary opportunities for our residents. But we're all now all aware of these gaps that are deadly consequences to our neighbors. And we must find ways to address these needs. I'm grateful that staff has indicated that they will be able to bring this item back on such a quick turnaround. I know that it's usually a 90 day turnaround, so I'm so grateful for you accepting to bring this back in 30 days. That means a lot to me and to my residents. I want to make sure that my residents and our residents here in the city of Long Beach know that we hear your concerns. And it is absolutely my position and my responsibility as a councilwoman that we find an end to our violent crimes and that we acknowledge that these violent, violent crimes are not acceptable in our city, and they are not and they are intolerable. The first district has had history with with violent crimes. But this is not okay. We cannot and I repeat, we cannot normalize this behavior. We we have been having violent crimes for years. And at the beginning of the of my term here in the first District, I saw a lot of violent shootings. And I've been working really hard to try to find ways to eliminate that. But all we've been seeing is the uptick in these violent crimes, and it is not okay. I know we have lost a lot of officers and our public safety is at risk. You know, for our residents in the first district and I know that, you know, we need more more public safety in in the First District. And I know that that's something that is very important to my residents. And I understand that we we must try to figure out ways to eliminate these violent crimes. One of the things that, you know that really upsets me is that every weekend I or even it doesn't have to be during the weekend. You know, I have to be with my fingers crossed hoping that we don't have a shooting that weekend. We should not live like that. You know, that's not quality of life. We we as leaders have the responsibility to create safety for our residents, safety for our children. Right now, during this city council meeting, we got a council notification that a 16 year old young male was shot, another shooting while we're in city council meeting. This is not acceptable. So I thank the staff for being open to bringing back and bringing back a presentation on what we are already doing to prevent this and and finding new ways and finding new solutions to putting an end to this and also, you know, finding and finding ways to be able to involve the community and bring the community in and work together as partners while we eliminate this this violent crime epidemic that's happening not only in the first District, it is happening throughout our city, but we really need to take care of this. And so I just want to thank all my residents for all of their support on this item. I want to ensure that to them that, you know, I will continue being their strong voice on this matter. And I look forward to the presentation being presented in 30 days. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, I have Councilman Sara. It's full of germs. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank council member Councilwoman Sunday for bringing this item for it with the support of Councilwoman Allen. I definitely hear and reiterate the concern that council members and I have as my district borders hers and we have the same and increased rate in violence, gun violence as well. And I, I believe that we need to make sure we pay attention to this as much as we are doing a lot of work and important needed work around our response to COVID. And but I also want to make sure that they're not separate either, right? That we know that a lot of this is connected and there intersected, and that there's also been an increase in how things lead to violence. And some of these cases are interpersonal dispute. And I so I want us to consider also appreciate stop being willing to do a report back in 30 days. But I want to make sure that we also take into consideration past report that's been done around violence prevention. I know that we want to make sure we have short term, immediate response to the current rising violence. But I also don't want to and I want to acknowledge and honor the work that's been done for many years and what we need to do to prevent and address really also some creating some mid-term and long term approach to this and really also empowering our. Community with. Some kind of resource because they've also been very inspiring during this pandemic to support and demonstrate kindness is that it shouldn't be limited certainly to just, you know, groceries and other, but that everybody's shown other ways of acts of kindness. And I think that this. Pandemic has prevented certain level of support. But I also want to think about can we also include all those other methods that we had explored in something like Safe Long Beach violence prevention plan that was certainly created before I closed it. But are there some ways we can integrate that into this as a way where we can have a response that doesn't only look at it from a public safety perspective, but also a public health and equity perspective as well. So I just wanted to share that and I think staffer, you know, taking this on and your leadership council members and Dana and also to all of the residents and everyone that has been very concerned, we are concerned with you. It's it's not a day that goes by that we all doubt that this isn't care, that this is it doesn't rest heavy. It's all heavy on my heart. And I want my residents and to know that I think about this a lot and and looking into ways that we can work together to decrease it and prevent it . Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I'm hoping that when this item comes back in 30 days, it also has the opportunity to touch upon the technological advances that Ms.. Ericsson has made to allow us future greater capabilities in pulling reports. I know that for each community meeting that our commander and lieutenants joined me at, we pull data and statistics for that specific neighborhood by crime, and we make sure that they know neighborhood by neighborhood zip code, by zip code where we stand as compared to years before and even a decade before, if that's important to them. So we pull that data, but we've also worked on the technology that's necessary to make the changes so that residents can make that pull those reports themselves. I want to thank one of our community members, John, who has worked hand in hand with two of our prior commanders on some of the challenges with the systems that we have, but that there's also progress being made. And I think that that would be a valued part of the of the presentation if a maker of the motion is so open to it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I also was drawn to this item, and I notice that our residents don't feel as safe as they used to. I also want to acknowledge that the 30 days was a, you know, aggressive timeline. And I do appreciate the PD for getting this report back to us so quickly and I to look forward to the presentation. I have recently seen the difference in the quality of life and the feeling of security that many of our residents all over Long Beach have long enjoyed. And like Councilwoman Sun has said, I think we all as a council bear the responsibility and making sure that our community is safe. I took that oath very seriously when I was a police officer and was seriously injured in a line of duty protecting my community. And I take this very seriously now as a councilwoman. And when I look at gun violence is up and I don't want our quality of life and or the feeling of being safe and secure and secure to go back to what I experienced when I was a police officer back in the nineties. So, you know, our kids need to feel safe going to school. People need to feel safe playing at the parks or walking to their stores or whatever they do. We just need to have a sense of safety. So I, I just like I said, I care a lot about this. I care a lot about the safety of our community and and those who are serving on the front lines. And this will always be a priority to me. Thank you so much. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Council member, Sunday House and all the signers on bringing this forward. It's certainly a challenging issue. And Long Beach is committed to violence prevention time and time again and and to the community. I just want to just remind just remind you to let folks know that violence prevention, it's a it's a long term it's a long term strategy. It's the process of looking at the conditions that surround a community. Communities in common that have shootings and look at some of the factors are those communities. They have a lack of investment. They allow the lack of programing, open space opportunities for, you know, investments into education and and poverty is a lot of times the common thread between these communities. So you all you meet violence prevention. Within a public health lens to be coupled with investments into that into those communities. You also need crime suppression, intervention by both law enforcement and and community based organizations that can do intervention. So it is really three dimensional chess. What's happening? I think one thing I would highlight is that I believe that the next city council meeting, we're going to see a presentation about a lot of the work that the community has advocated for in terms of youth development, youth strategic plan, our investments in the youth that will now be boosted with measure us and all of these things that presentations come to council very soon. And City Council has a previous budget in alignment with the reconciliation plan, just funded additional investments into activating our violence prevention plan. So we've had a plan for some time, but it hasn't had the Stafford investment in this recent budget and the reconciliation funding. We funded staff to begin that process of violence prevention. So I think whatever we do in terms of response needs to be balanced with look at the investments we have ongoing. Let's look at the new capacity we built, CARES Act and other things and couple that with the crime suppression strategy. So it should be it should be comprehensive because unfortunately, a lot of times when you hear about crime or violence or shooting, it's already happened and it's already too late. And that family's already impacted, their communities already impacted. And so we have to make sure it's just like, you know, putting, you know, putting some money towards savings for the future and paying for some bills right now. That's how we have the best in violence prevention. We have to really think about that with all the investments that we make. So I look forward to it. Councilmember Sunday House, Thank you for taking the lead on this item. Look forward to supporting this effort. Look forward to jumping in fully and making sure that what we do is real. Thank you so much. Catherine Ashton, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to appreciate also Councilmember de Haas and Allen for bringing this item forward, because I think it's very important that we have an honest conversation at the city council right now. Crime is really on the rise, particularly violent crime and gun crime in our city every day for for several now months , it seems like there's been a shooting or multiple shootings. And we can't sugarcoat that. We can't gloss that over. I don't want to put that responsibility on our health department. I would put that responsibility on on anyone other than the the the the our our police officers. And they need our support to do this to do their jobs. We have had a violence prevention plan for a few years now. Just a few months ago, we supported and voted for a violence into violence intervention strategy. And now we're talking about a crime suppression plan. And I think all our great acronyms and great approaches. And yes, we do need to have a balanced approach, but we need to call this for what it is. You know, this is this is street politics. These are these are this is the illicit market. We have we have a gang culture in our city. And we as a city council cannot make excuses for gun violence. We have to come up with the solutions. We need to move the resources. We need to get prohibited possessors off the streets and get the guns out of their hands. I mean, I think we just have to call it what it is. It's a problem right now and it's a big problem. And and we're not going to get out of it inspired by sugarcoating this. We have to make sure that that our police officers are supported to do their work and to do their jobs and in every area of the city. You know, I've asked for our our acting commander ten is able to to increase and chief of police obviously Chief Luna to put more resources in the north long. It's I mean whatever it takes right now to to suppress the strategy of the crime that's happening right now. We have to do it this this. This is this is a this is a problem. We have not had crime a crime spree. We have not had violent crime like this in our city in many, many years. And so what we are experiencing now is not normal. And and it can't we can't we we have to use unconventional strategies and approaches to to to deal with a very, very unique and unconventional spike in crime. Something is going on. You can see it with the watch commander alerts that we as a city council get every every evening. Right. Something is going on. It's different. And, you know, this is this this impacts our ability to to be the city we want to be. This crime is impacting, you know, the quality of life for our residents. It's impacting our ability to attract economic development in key corridors and key areas of our city that we want to revitalize. It's an issue that we have to come to grips with honestly in how this conversation about the direction that we want to go in as a city. But I'm happy to support the item. That comes from San Diego that you have something additionally. Yes, Mayor. I just wanted to thank all of my colleagues for your support on this item. But I also wanted to see if if Chief Luna was available, I know that he might have had a small, brief presentation that I might have missed. Yes, Chief Luna's available if he'd like to hear from him. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the city council. I am here with all of you tonight listening to every word that all of you are saying very intently. And I did not have a presentation that's going to be set up for 30 days, but I'm available to answer any question you have regarding violent crime or as a matter of fact, almost any crime going on in the city. What I do want to emphasize with the comments being made is that even though this report is due in 30 days, we are not sitting on our hands waiting to report out to you what we're doing. Yes, we are absolutely, extremely concerned about the shooting activity that happened in 2020. We ended the year not in a good place. We didn't begin this year in a good place. I know that not only the members of my command staff, but I personally lose a lot of sleep over the shootings that occur. You have supported us the last several years with neighborhood, safe streets, overtime, money that's already been utilized in some of the locations that you've already spoken about. Some of these hotspots per se, where we're seeing more activity pop up, a very data focus not only on those spots, but individuals that we think are perpetrating a lot of these shootings. And I'm looking forward with more time to brief you on a lot of the things that we're seeing that are very problematic. And I'm going to focus on our city, but I don't think I'd be doing my job if I didn't tell all of you that every major city, almost every major city in the United States right now has experience, assert a surge in violent crime, specifically murders and nonfatal shootings or hit shootings, as we call them. And you will never hear me make excuses. I'm going to focus on our job here. My job is to stop these shootings. Whether I get help or not. That's my job. It's our job in the police department. And I welcome meetings, strategies, community input. When I do speak in 30 days, I'll talk about the strategies that we've come up with working with some of our city partners, and I'm really looking forward with a lot of energy. I'm ready to go right now. Matter of fact, I wouldn't mind going out in the street right now and working. That's just my passion and the passion of the people that I represent on this police department who come out here 24, seven, seven days a week, putting their lives on the line. Shots being fired in a matter what it is. They're taking guns off the street, putting prohibitive possessors. As Councilman Austin stated, he knows because he's worked a lot with me. Our prohibitive possessors, for example, are arrest in 2020 were up over 40%. That's people that are out of prison because of COVID, who are carrying guns, who are have no business carrying guns, who are involved in a lot of the criminal activity in our city. And the councilman has nailed it. And a lot of our efforts are there. And we'll continue that. And I look forward to making this report out in 30 days. Thank you very much. And I stand ready for any questions any of you may have. Thank you very much. Real quick. Well, I'm sorry. I have one more comment. Sure. Go ahead. I just wanted to thank you, Chief Luna. I know that my residents are very, very happy with the interaction that they have with our public safety officers. They're always there. They're always presence there. Are there to answer any questions? I know that I've been able to call on them at the spur of the moment to come meet with my residents. And they've been there. And we also know that you've been overworked. A lot of our public safety has been overworked and continues to be overworked. And yet you still find ways to provide more resources for us in our district, and we are aware of that. And so we do want to thank you for that. And I believe that, you know, I think that when it comes to these violent crimes and we can't put it all on public safety officers. We we as city leaders have to find solutions. This is like. These crimes that are happening. Yes, are happening not only statewide, nationwide, but we need to do something about stopping them in our own backyard. So, you know, I look forward to your presentation in 30 days and I look forward to an action plan for my former city staff as to how we can address these violent crimes. And again, I want to thank my residents for always being so active and and being being great neighbors and making sure that we focus on what's happening out in our neighborhoods. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor, thank you again. Then just a question for the chief in the request on chief. Can we make sure? I'd love to. You mentioned some of the issues with respect to folks being let out early with COVID 19 due to COVID 19. I'd love to hear more specifically how many of the early release folks been perpetuating these approaches. I'd love to. I'd love to know some specifics. If I. Yes. Or vice mayor, if I hear your question, you want to know how many prisoners have been released due to COVID between L.A. County jail and the state prison system? The correlation between that and the violence has happened in the. I don't understand that. So some data to help flesh that point off. Absolutely. I'll be closer to the report if this council chooses to have that information. Thank you. Roll call. Vote, please. District one I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I District five. I. District six. By district, by district seven. By. District eight, district nine. By. Motion carries.

DenverCityCouncil_11072016_16-1095

A bill for an ordinance amending Section 13-2, D.R.M.C. concerning the city council’s weekly meeting schedule and observance of holidays. Revises the Denver Revised Municipal Code to allow Council not to meet between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. This bill was approved for filing by Council President Brooks.

Thank you and welcome to City Council Chambers. And for those in the public council mechanics over the Finance and Governance Committee, which the Ethics Board reports to. And so that is why she is leading that. Okay. Thank you. I'll be calling out Council Bill 1095 just just for a quick comment. This amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning the city council's weekly meeting schedule and observance of holidays is something that we've been trying to address for the six years I've been here and finally doing with this council until 25, when the charter was revised, council met 52 times. The 25 charter amendment approved by Denver voters allow council to determine the council's schedule, including weeks off in observance of holidays. Currently, council does not meet four times per year, but it is required to meet the day after Christmas this year and next. This bill simply changes the ordinance so the council does not meet between December 24th and New Year's to allow the members to spend this week with their families. And if you have attended a council meeting, it has been sparse attendance and we wouldn't want you all to go through that either. So when this legislation is adopted overall mean there will not be a regularly scheduled meeting for council on Monday, December 26, 2016. This last regular scheduled meeting before Council on the holidays and the end of the year will be Monday, December 19th. The first meeting in 2017 will be on Monday, January 2nd. Okay, Madam Secretary, can we please pull up Council Bill 898. Let's see here. Councilman, can each honorable fund consider, as you've called out, 1898, would you like to do with it?

LongBeachCC_06162020_20-0559

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.77, related to short-term rentals, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

Thank you. Moving on to the next item that motion carries, that was item. Now we're going to go to item ten. Madam Kirk, did you have an announcement before we go? Item ten. This is a reminder to all the public speakers. Please stay on topic to the item that you are addressing. We will be cutting off public speakers who are not speaking on the topic or the item that they have signed up to speak on. Thank you. Okay, please. Item ten. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Title five of the Long Beach Municipal Code related to short term rentals. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission citywide. Thank. Thank you, Mayor. This is city attorney Charlie Parker, and I will turn it over to Monica Kalina, deputy city attorney for the staff report. Good evening. At sample recall this matter is before you on January 19th and again on May 19th of this year for the City Council's direction on May 19th, we have prepared a further revised ordinance regarding regulations on short term rental. Under the revised ordinance, all unhosted as cars would be prohibited citywide, although hosted ACR would be permitted subject to the regulations contained in the ordinance as directed by Council. City staff will work with hosting platforms and other regulatory agencies, including the city's health department, to develop cleaning and sanitizing protocols specific to the operations of NCR, with an emphasis on standards for Unhosted speakers, should the Council later amend the ordinance to permit such operations as per the direction of Council? Unhosted ACR will be prohibited for at least six months and will remain prohibited until city staff present the report to the Council to reconsider amending the ordinance to permit the operation of Unhosted, ACR and Council requests and approves such amendment. It is important to note that the provisions related to the petition process to prohibit Unhosted esprits within a census group have been completely removed from the proposed ordinance because Unhosted speakers would no longer be authorized at this time. It should also be noted that unlike most ordinances adopted by the Council, which become effective in 30 days, this ordinance will not become effective for 120 days, which will give staff the time necessary to develop appropriate administrative guidelines to ensure a smooth rollout of the new regulations. Although not specified in the ordinance, any operation of a hosted ACR would be subject to all relevant Long Beach, COVID 19 health orders and any related protocols, as is currently the case with other business activities in the city. Finally, as with all ordinances that have city wide effect, this ordinance will not become effective in the coastal zone areas of the city until it is first certified by the Coastal Commission as being compliant with the city's local coastal program. Thank you. And that concludes my report and we are available for questions. Thank you. I have emotion. Councilmember Pierce, I think you're going to have Councilman Price. It's either the second or the second. Got some repairs? Thank you. I want to thank staff for their work on this. I know that it's been several years. I appreciate that the process. Is has been laid out, as you mentioned. That this would come back in six months, that the staff could come back to the council with the report and at that time evaluate whether or not to an unhosted. And I also want to clarify that I've had conversations with city staff today around the health orders and recognize that those health orders are temporary and recognize that the city staff supports this motion today so that they can be able to move forward to bring on the consultants and start the hard work that we've been waiting on. So I really appreciate everyone's efforts and I ask for a yes vote today. Thank you. Price point. Q I support this item as well. I do have an email from a constituent that I wanted to get further clarification on, and it involves large scale special events. I think we discussed it in the January meeting. Tom Massa, Deputy City Attorney, to clarify for us a little bit of what her understanding is of what the ordinance would allow in terms of large scale special events. Councilmember. This is I believe we have staff from development services on the line for that question. Yes. Lisa Powell Development Services will answer the question. Good evening. Members of the council. Yes, the. Um. Currently, there are the large scale. Events, but those events will be won't occur until the ordinance becomes effective. And there are guidelines are the health health protocols and guidelines will allow such events. Okay. But that's going to be the second phase, which would come after six months when we have a discussion on the topic about on posted, correct? No, it would come after the four months when the ordinance becomes effective, as long as the health protocols and all of those sorts of things are put out by the health department would allow such events. Okay. And can you describe for me a little bit what what those events would look like? What are the parameters of such events? So those events will be required to get what is called an occasional event permit. They would have to describe the event, how many people they anticipate having, and they would be tracked as to the limit of how often that they could occur. And would there be a discretionary process as to the granting of permits for each of those events? At this point in time, very visioning that that occasional event permit process will follow the same process that is used for occasional events that go on on public property. And and this is Linda Tatum. I just wanted to weigh in and describe that process slightly. That is, that process is issued its through the special events in the city manager's office, but it's also reviewed by the business license office and it's brought it to other departments such as development services. My understanding also the police department, so that based upon the nature of the event, appropriate security or precautions or conditions put in place to ensure that there is no negative or to minimize any potential public impacts. So is there any noticing requirement for that? Ms.. Tatum There is no noticing requirement, but those are what we call the ops. They are limited to six events per year per address. Okay. And so those EPS would be granted if all of the departments that are reviewing it recommend they be grants granted under the circumstances. Yes, they all get to weigh in and it is required that they be that all of the concerns that those various department reviews recommend are appropriately addressed. Okay. Because my concern is obviously and I share this with a constituent who reached out to me special events in residential neighborhoods where there's a lot of density and parking impacts that I'm sure this is not what's envisioned in this provision. But if you read the four corners of it, it doesn't preclude EPS in specific neighborhoods, for example. So I just want to make sure that obviously the intent of this is to minimize impacts on residential communities, the intent of all of this legislation that we've talked about at length. And so that that would be something that would be taken into account as part of the intent of allowing staffers in the city. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. I support moving forward tonight. Thank you. And I second things about you. Next up on the list is Concern Mango. Yes, I appreciate the discussion. I heard Councilman Pierce's comment related to the governor's order. I just thought it was important to kind of outline what that order is and staff are. Is your understanding of the governor's order that he believes or the state believes that? Unhosted. Short term rentals are actually safer than hosted. Therefore, the unhosted are currently allowed and hosted are not. This is Tommy. So correct. The current health order does not allow for hosted stars where somebody is in your home and there's the ability to interact and touch items that the person would also touch. It is currently allowing for unhosted. That just came out. We also do see changes to the health order regularly. So this is the first one that we've seen on this year and I would expect that to adapt and change over the next couple of months, if not earlier than that. So this just kind of goes to my previous point that I didn't feel that the comments made by Councilman Pearce last meeting really aligned with what I had understood with the health concerns. Specifically, I mentioned that a lot of the short term rental platforms have requirements and guidance for cleaning. And while hotels also of requirements and guidance for cleaning, the difference, I feel, at least in my reading of the information, is that if a short term rental unit deemed by those rules, they would be suspended from the platform. And we don't currently inspect on a room by room basis, city wide the standards. And while I recognize that a lot of the major brands have those standards rolling out, we really rely on community members to inform us when businesses aren't abiding by the coronavirus initiative. And I know, Mr. Modica, you and I spoke earlier in the week about a couple of reports of violations. And it's always important to remind the community when hearing items like this that if they know of violations to the ground virus standards, that there's a number that they can call 562570. Which one is it, Mr. Mullica? It is 2633. That's 5702633 is the code enforcement task force. And expression is once this is approved by council, does this need to go to another commissioner body or is it a go once development services is. Comfortable? Once the ordinance is approved by the city council, the next step is that four month period for staff to begin the implementation procedures and to bring the consultant online. But the next step is that the because the item is or it requires an amendment to the city's local coastal program. This entire packet would have to go to the Coastal Commission for for review and approval. And what is the wait time on something like that. The the time period for council to respond. It varies anywhere from three months to 12 months. It really depends upon the council's. The Coastal Commission's staffing at any point in time. However, what staff would propose to do would be to submit it to the Coastal Commission immediately after council's ratification, so that during that four month period, while staff is ramping up, preparing the administrative regulations and getting the consultant on board, we will have already submitted it to the coastal so that so that there we don't waste additional time or we get at least a four month lead time for the council to review it and get back to the city. Ms. TAYLOR. But we need to then go back to the Coastal Commission again. If the Council decides to expand this to. And hosted in the fall? That is correct. Any time we change any of the city's zoning code provisions that would apply in the coastal zone, they do need to be ratified by the Coastal Commission. Okay. So I feel like the wording and dancing around of the way in which this has taken place in terms of using the stay at home order to kind of state that that was the reasoning behind going with hosted and hosted. All of that to me just doesn't seem like really in alignment with the current. Data that's coming from the state. And so I would hope that we would then reconsider and join them together, even if it meant starting both of them six months from now instead. Because what I see now is an additional staffing process and an additional delay that will happen in going to the Coastal Commission twice. So that would be my thoughts on the item. And so I'm not supportive of the way that it is today. I'm just from a procedural reason. I think that it doesn't it also strips neighbors of income that they've relied upon for quite some time. And the two neighbors that I talked to, that coast stars in in our communities, they are on hosted stars and that helps them pay their mortgage and when they're not there. And so that that's just a concern for me that we're taking away the income of people in our communities during the time when they've needed this kind of income to kind of get them through. Well, business is not that great. One of them specifically is an employee of the convention center, and it doesn't have any hours right now. And so it's it's just a big concern that we're taking away people's income and approving a C.R. clause that's not even currently allowable by the state. So I wish it could have gone a different way. Again, I support Councilman Price's. Information related to what we can do to restrict and ensure that the communities are safe and that these are good players. And we've talked to do that for months and months. It's just unfortunate that we've split it this way. So I won't be supporting Adam tonight. Thank you. Councilmember Price. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Mr. Miller, I appreciate those comments. Councilwoman Mango, a couple of things on that. This is an issue that, like you, many of us have worked really hard on involving our residents and trying to get feedback. We're trying to do the way it's I don't know the wording it use. But look, this way, I think is what you said. The way the reason for this is because we are trying to support the numerous residents who have hosted stars and many of them are seniors, and they depend upon the income that they get from renting out a room or renting out a back house or renting out some portion of their property as a hosted ACR. We're trying to support them and we're trying to support them while we explore the options and the practices and procedures and work with the providers to hone in and figure out what works best for our city in terms of future enforcement. So I do support moving forward with that piece of it. As a council member who represents the coastal district, I know I can speak for myself and Councilmember Pearce. The fact that it has to go to Coastal Commission for ratification is not at all a concern that I have or I think Councilmember Pearce has. Coastal commissioners focus has always been access to the coastal zones. So us allowing additional access through additional short term stays and hotels and anything that allows for access in the coastal zone is not going to be an issue that I anticipate. We're going to get a lot of resistance from, from the Coastal Commission and I don't expect the process to be so burdensome that we have an efficiency argument to make because of the nature of the task in regards to this particular ratification request. So, you know, sometimes when we're talking about working with Coastal Commission and getting approval from Coastal Commission, we want to make sure that we're efficient in our ask so that we include as much as we can in the ASC so that they can evaluate something in its totality. In this circumstance, we're trying to approach this prudently and we're trying to approach it in phases. And I think that that's not something that's going to have a negative impact on the ultimate ratification decision by Coastal Commission, because ultimately the goal is to enhance access to the coastal areas. But we're doing it in phases because that is what works for our city. So I would urge council to support this item. I do believe that I do anticipate that we will move forward with allowing the UNHOSTED, but we'll have to take a look at the number. We'll have to take a look at the conditions. We'll have to take a look at some of the practices that have been in play for the first six months where we have the hosted scars. And I think those experiences and those opportunities that we have will better inform the decision in terms of what we allow at the next time we vote on this in six months. So I'm supportive of it. I do appreciate that this allows also our residents who live in highly impacted residential communities with parking impacts and such, to have an opportunity to see how we are able to enforce the first phase of this ordinance, which is the hosted stars, because enforcement is going to be a critical piece and I think residents will be much more likely to embrace this program if they see that the city has an enforcement mechanism in place, an enforcement mechanism in place that they can deploy as needed. And having the six months will allow us to develop that infrastructure in the city so that we're able to follow through and execute that in the way that we're promising residents, where sometimes we promise them enforcement, but we really don't have the enforcement infrastructure set up, so we can't follow through. This phasing allows us to do so. So while I appreciate that there are some residents who depend on short term rental income. That's a little bit disappointing for me to hear because they're relying on income based on. An operation that currently is not allowed in the city. So I think if you're relying on income doing something that's prohibited in a city, you kind of take the risk that at some point what you're doing is not allowed and may not be allowed to continue. My hope would be for those folks that they would partner with us so that we could move towards phase two and they can have compliance with what the city ordinance will be because if they've been relying on income running and hosted us here. They're running an operation that's not allowed in the city. So you kind of you take that with some risk. So hopefully the six months departure and allowing us to say is in will allow them to also participate and make sure that they are one of the ones that gets licensed when the time comes. But I think the comments are very, you know, very, very thoughtful. And I think they do take into account a category of folks who rely on income but rely on income for prohibited activity. And so hopefully as we go into phase two, they're able to recoup that income in a way that is legal and lawful through the city. So I would ask my colleagues to support this motion. Thank you. Councilman Muggeridge, you back up again. Is that a second Q or no? Councilman Mongo. Yes. I appreciate that. I guess a lot of these individuals started before we had banned short term rentals. And then when we did, we kind of talked about. And allowing certain organizations to continue to operate until we got some things in order. And we as a city have kind of had to take a lot of time because this is an evolving market that we don't know a lot about. And I do appreciate that there are less than there are hosted. There are less posted. Participants in the city than Unhosted. I also have heard from a lot of people who felt that after the meeting two times ago when we spoke about this, that we were on a track where Councilman's and De Haas had really taken the lead on lifting it to 1000 within the city. And they had hope in all of these things. And then. The city changed direction. And I know that the whole world has kind of been on its head, but I guess that that's why my discussion related to I'm at the last meeting kind of talked about well. Homes that are safer. And that's just not what has come about. And again, I recognize, especially in our communities that hosted our really the primary, but then students are also now not in school, so they don't need those. So I think a lot of things have changed. I appreciate your feedback and I will reconsider and think it over for a few minutes before I thank you. So, Mayor Council, this is Tom. If I can add one thing. Councilman Austin Mayor when I get a second, if you can add if I can add some clarity. Absolutely. So one thing that we talk about in our lingo is hosted versus UN hosted and the state order actually talks about occupied and unoccupied. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. What the state order for COVID is trying to do is prevent people coming together in a shared space. So that would prevent people from coming into your home, from being in any place where you as the resident are interacting with them. It would allow a hosted STR where there's no interaction, where it has a separate entrance, where it has, you know, if it's a duplex, if it's in your backyard. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Those would still be allowed under the health order, even though they're hosted. They're just they're unoccupied. Same thing as if the resident were to leave and not be there. That is then considered an unoccupied unit rather than occupied. Thanks. Thank you. That helps a lot. Councilman Austin. Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate the conversation. I definitely appreciate all of the very detailed work put into this item by our city staff. I appreciate the process that we have gone through to get to this item coming before us this evening. It has been many, many months and, you know, a lot of back and forth between the stakeholders. I'm not sure that we were able and have been able to get to a place where people can 100% agree on the approach moving forward. But I do appreciate the efforts and the level of compromise that has gone into getting us to where we are. I will have to agree with Councilmember Mongo. I do believe that the dynamics have changed, obviously considerably. COVID 19 has really forced everyone in every situation really rethink our matters. I'm concerned with, you know, Long Beach. I'm concerned about what is the best move for our city in terms of, you know, a total strategic thought on this. I want to know, how are we set up to enforce this this ordinance of citations and whether or not we're creating a situation where we're now encouraging property owners in our city to have invested in our city, to go now underground in terms of subleasing their they're their spaces. And so I'm a mom, although, like I said, I'm appreciative of the process. This doesn't feel like it's it's 100% right. And I do have my concerns. I'm likely to support the item before us this evening because I think, you know, six months from now coming back to talk about the Unhosted platform uses is is. It's something that we have to do. We definitely have to do that. And so I just wanted to share my concerns just initially in my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Please go ahead and do any public comment. Madam Kirk. We have one public comment. Victor Boosie, you have 3 minutes. So. The two boozy cold nights at a away. So you all just spent all this time talking about process. All this work went into FDI, short term, short, short term rentals. Now it's Airbnb. Call it what you want. It's a $38 billion company. You're putting all this effort in for more capital when the capital needs to go. One place economy. Housing is a human right. People shouldn't be making money off of housing again. Housing is a human right. So you guys spent all this time and effort. For Airbnb, a $30 billion company. But work on all these rules so people could make more money off of human rights. That's disgusting. Literally disgusting. The money should go to de-fund BTD. That's it. We're coming for your jobs. Either resign, retire, or get voted out. De-Fund the idea of my time. Thank you. That's the end of public comment for this item. Okay, thank you. With good Casper votes. And a reminder as we do that that item will be back in six months for additional obviously council dialog on so. Madam Court. District one. I. District two District three I District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. By District eight. Hi. District nine. I ocean carries. Be. Thank you. Let's see, try to do some of the council items first here that we had a request for. Let's go ahead and do item 15 than 18 because I think our council items.

LongBeachCC_09082020_20-0840

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 16.52.2350 relating to the designation of the property located at 1005 Locust Avenue as a historic landmark, read and adopted as read.

District seven. District eight. District nine. Good motion carries. Thank you, Adam. 21, please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the designee. The designation of the property located at 1005 Locust Avenue as a historic landmark read and adapted as read. Thank you. Can I get a motion in a second, please? Customer by mushroom country ranga second my councilman's and big house. There. Very public comment. There's no public comment on this item. Okay. We'll call the. District one high district to. I District three. I. District four. All right. District five. Yeah. Right on. District six. By. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. My motion carries.

SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CB 118549

AN ORDINANCE related to cable television; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee to enter into a renewed Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC; and authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the renewed franchise.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Report to the full council. Please read item number one. The report at the full council agenda item number one Council 118 549 relating to cable television, authorizing the mayor or the mayor's designee to enter into a renewed cable television franchise agreement with Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC, and authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the renewed franchise held December seven, 2015. Thank you, Councilmember Harrell. Thank you very much. So by way of background, you may recall we held this legislation to have some more discussion. This is basically an ordinance which renews the ten year franchise agreement for Comcast. And I want to go into a little bit of detail about what we're able to get from Comcast for this franchise. And it's important to note that this is not an exclusive franchise. We have other franchises in the city with Wave and CenturyLink as well. I do want to say right at the beginning that I thank all of you for being here on even other issues. It's unfortunate that we don't have enough time for everyone to speak, but your presence here, we are honored by your presence and for you fighting for what you believe in. So do you apologize? We didn't have the opportunity to to hear from all of you. Anyway, let's get back to Comcast. So basically and again, I don't report that everyone sort of understands this. There are certain things the city can regulate and certain things they cannot. For example, the city cannot control Comcast prices. And that's something that always is people are concerned about. The city cannot control Internet service that's regulated by the federal government. And so in our franchise agreement, we're looking at one part of what they provide, which is the the cable piece in this particular agreement, what we were able to basically get in terms of our goal and you may recall that our goal is to improve competition, have strong customer service and consumer protections. So everything we do must be designed to protect the consumer. So we updated the cable code establishing new standards for all cable providers back in March. There you have discussions about our cable, our customer bill of Rights and response times and what a customer's rights are. If they're not being treated fairly by Comcast or others. In this particular agreement, we're able to make sure that Seattle joined Comcast's pilot program that they have for low income seniors. You're eligible for the Internet Essentials discounted Internet program. And so we're able to get that very recently because we observed and I should say we it's the executive of the Department of Information Technology and the City Council observed that similar traction was was occurred had occurred in Philadelphia. We're able to get that here. We're able to get the previously announced digital equity grant offer to Seattle from a one time $50000 to $100000 per year for five years. That's about $500,000 in additional benefits. We will partner with Comcast at the City of Seattle to help risk risk add youth, obtain devices such as laptop computers. We have $8 million in public educational and governmental access channel financial support for those those public services. We have a 30% discount on basic tier, low income subscribers, and we have 600 modems to nonprofit organizations that's valued at about $10 million. In short, we had our Department of Information Technology go toe to toe with Comcast to get as many community benefits and consumer protections as we could. I will sort of close by saying we've had lengthy discussions about Comcast role and obligation. Our community and the city takes those very, very seriously. We hear daily people complaining about Comcast wanting competition, wanting lower rates. And so we have done everything possible in the last several months trying to achieve that. Last, I will say that many of the benefits that we've gotten, because they were not directly cable related, came in this letter agreement that I think all of you now have either talked to legal counsel or have seen the letter. And so we do have opinions that this is about as binding as it can get, given the sort of the hand that we're dealt, the hand being some of these are non cable related through theories of the legal theories such as promissory estoppel or equal to stop and all these fancy terms that sort of describe what Comcast must do. We are comfortable that that letter, that December 7th letter's binding. So the committee recommends passage of this legislation. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Guarded. By. Gonzalez. Harrell I Licata. O'Brien Hi. Rasmussen. So on President Burgess eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items two and three.

LongBeachCC_02152022_22-0152

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Chapter 21.67 relating to Inclusionary Housing, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

Vice Mayor Richardson. I the motion is carried 903. Thank you. Now we have five audiences. Start with number 19. Item 19 is a report from city attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the language municipal code relating to inclusionary housing. Read and adopt it as read city. I write the council now and move several seconds. Any public comment on this? There's any member of the public that would like to speak on this item. Please use the raise hand feature or dial tzaneen. I do. Your time begins now. I appreciate again the opportunity to speak with all of you, particularly at a slower pace pace that this does relate specifically to lower income housing. I address what the three housing has done in District one, and they also run the Cabrillo where veterans live. I need you to understand that I've lived here since May of 2019. I'm beyond asking for accessible accommodations. Instead of providing those accessible accommodations, they did. Things to aggravate me, for instance, has dictated that all of their properties be smoke free since 2017 when I demanded accessibility. What I won't even allow the property management company to do is to create a smoking area right below my window. In addition, HUD protocol specifically says any units that have two bedrooms in them. And here in my complex we have three. So I imagine the other complex of Beachwood, there's another three single one married couple and two single people live there. And the HUD manual specifically says even a married couple must justify why they need a two bedroom apartment. Beyond that, you should understand that normally in order to get into Section eight housing, you need to be on a three year waiting list, probably. I was placed in this housing complex without a single day of waiting period. You need to understand that if any future contracts come up, you need to scrutinize century housing very methodically. Thank you for your time. That concludes public comment. Thank you. Was there a roll call vote? Councilwoman Sandy has. Hi. Councilman Allen. Right. Councilwoman Pryce. I councilman's a bona. Fide. Councilwoman. Mongo. All right. Councilman. Sara. I. Council member Oranga. I. Councilman Alston. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Yes.

DenverCityCouncil_04082019_19-0127

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2535 E. 40th Avenue in Elyria Swansea. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 and I-A to I-MX-3 (light industrial to industrial, mixed-use), located at 2535 E. 40th Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-26-19.

All right. Madam Secretary. Because the voting in the results. 12 hours, 12 hours council bill 19 0246 has passed. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 127 on the floor? Yes, President. Clerk, I move that council bill 127 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Collinsville 19 20127 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Thank you and good evening. I'm Courtney Livingston with Community Planning and Development. This Map Amendment application request is to rezone a single property located at 2535 East 40th Avenue, located in Council District nine in the south portion of the Elyria Swansea statistical neighborhood at the northwest corner of East 40th and Clinton Street. The site is approximately 14 acres in size and has an existing 235,000 square foot warehouse style building, which is currently occupied by a nonprofit dance studio. It was previously home to the AT&T Network Control Center. The applicant is proposing to rezone from the existing IAU vote to an AI zoning two IMX three to allow for adaptive reuse of the existing building and the site enabling for a mixed use redevelopment. The site is currently zoned IAU two and with a portion of that on the eastern portion. AIA is an industrial light industrial zone district that allows for variety uses except for new residential uses. The U. OH to which is the Billboard use overlay is currently applied to the site, however, is proposed to be removed with the rezoning. There is no billboards currently on site to the north is zoned IAU oh two. To the east we have single unit residential with the ECB to the southeast, IAU two. That's where Bruce Randolph High School is. And then to the south and west we have Ivy Yota, which is industrial. So the subject property was previously in industrial use. That's actually the AT&T Network Control Center, but it's now home to the nonprofit dance studio, and their associated administrative offices to the north and south are primarily industrial uses to the east as single unit residential Randolph High schools to the southeast, to the south and west, there's a mix of vacant utilities and industrial uses. So here are some photos of the subject site at the bottom. Photos taken from East 40th Avenue. Looking north, the photo on the left was taken of the subject property looking north in the photo on the right was taken looking east towards the adjacent residential. Additional photos of the site with that residential to the east and then to the second photo on the bottom is the industrial use to the south. So register neighborhood organizations. This is a list of the applicable registered neighborhood organizations that were noticed, according to the Denver zoning code requirements. And then this is an overview of the public process related to this a map amendment postcards were related to this map amendment in both English and Spanish were sent to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. And that was for the informational notice noticing folks that application was sent. And then also of the planning board hearing. We also have sign postings for the planning board hearing and then this council public hearing and then written here written notification was sent at those different touch points. There are five review criterias in the Denver zoning code that were required to review rezoning against a briefly summarize each of them. There's additional detail to be found in the staff report. First it must be sound that rezonings are consistent with adopted plans. There are three adopted plans that apply to this rezoning the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Elyria Swansea Plan. First Comprehensive Plan 2000, which sets a citywide vision. There are a number of strategies that from the Comprehensive Plan 2000 that we found this application is consistent with. It would enable mixed use infill development where infrastructure is already in place and increase density and accommodate new uses near transit. Next is Blueprint Denver. This is Blueprint Denver 2002 and the site is showing to have a concept land use of industrial and within is within an area of change. Blueprint 2010 notes that the need for industrial areas may be decreasing and buildings are suitable for conversion to office and residential. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with blueprint recommendations, as allows for industrial uses as well as some complementary office commercial and residential. And also it's in an area change blueprint provides guidance for area of the change saying to channel growth where it will be beneficial and best improve access to jobs, housing services with fewer and shorter auto trips. This proposed rezoning is consistent with the areas of change, intent and blueprint Denver as it will allow for reinvestment, reuse and industrial mixed use zoning creating access to jobs within a mile of a transit station. It's also located on the northeast corner of East 40th Avenue and Clinton Street. Blueprint designates East 40th Avenue as a mixed use arterial and enhanced transit corridor, while Clayton is on designated local street. Blueprint notes that mixed use arterials like East 40th provide a high degree of mobility, whereas local streets like Clayton are tailored more for local access. That said, the overall street network serving this site is appropriate for the proposed IMAX three zone district and is consistent with plan recommendations. Next, we'll move on to the Elyria Swansea A Plan. That plan was recently adopted in 2015 and identifies the site as industrial mixed use, noting that these light industrial uses are such as light manufacturing and smaller warehouses are compatible with a variety of housing uses and housing types. The proposed Annex Street District is consistent with the plan's development vision for the area that allows for compatible mix, including residential and light industrial. The plan also has a height map and shows the recommended height for this area at three stories and IMAX three has a max height of three stories. So it is consistent with the recommendations of that plan related to that. Next, move on to the next two criteria. Staff finds that the requested zoning meet the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare through its implementation of adopted plans, enabling adaptive reuse and infill redevelopment and a mix of uses within a mile of transit. So the fourth criterion is related to justifying circumstances. And in this case, a neighborhood plan was recently adopted in 2015, and there have been many changes in the area as the 40th, the Colorado and the 30th and Blake stations with the opening of the University of Colorado align. The application also notes that there's been some new investment in the area, such as the nearby Eastside Human Services Center. These changing conditions, along with the recently adopted neighborhood plan, justify the rezoning that's in the public interest. And finally, in order to prove or approve a rezoning, it must be found consistent with the context, district purpose and intent statements found in the Denver zoning code. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the industrial context exist in the surrounding area and is consistent with the purpose and intent statements as it accommodates a variety of uses, including industrial, and it can serve as a transition from that residential to having industrial uses. And the intent of the I am sorry district is to be applied in the industrial areas where there is a maximum of three stories to be desired. In conclusion, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have 31 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to call up five at a time. When I call your name, if you can come to this front bench and be ready to step right up to the microphone when your name is called, and then we'll kind of go through five at a time. So the first five, if you can come up, Bruce O'Donnell. Griselda Calderon, Angelina Torres, Andrew Miele and Raimunda carry on. And normally you have 3 minutes. But if we are doing translation during yours, then we automatically give you 6 minutes. So first up, President. Good evening, Mr. President and members of council. I'm Bruce O'Donnell. I reside at 386 Emerson and I'm the owner's representative for this rezoning application. There's been a lot of discussion about the community outreach process, and I wanted to remind everybody here that the applicant email Lorenzo's requesting to meet and engage with them on July 22nd, October 16th and February 4th. And we received positive feedback from Clayton United and the Elyria, Swansea, Globeville Business Association. We met with Clayton United on December 11th. We had a meeting with the GSE Coalition on March 6th. We hosted a community house on March 18th. Approximately 40 attendees were there, resulting in nine letters of support that you have in your file from immediate neighbors on Clayton Street and Fillmore. We had a meeting and presented to United North Denver on April 25th, and we met with immediate neighbors on April 1st. As you're aware, this rezoning meets the rezoning criteria established in the CLO, in the code in particular plan support. This is an a blueprint Denver area of change in the 2015 and Elyria Swansea neighborhood plan has the most important criteria that designating this as industrial mixed use on page 28 and with a three story height limit on page 31. This explicit plan support identifies IMX three is the exact and only zoned district appropriate for the property because the applicant meets the zoning criteria established in the code. There is staff recommending approval and a unanimous recommendation of approval from the Denver Planning Board. These alone are sufficient reasons to warrant rezoning and for city council to approve the rezoning. In addition, the applicant has executed an agreement to build affordable units with the City of Denver's Office of Economic Development. We're contractually obligated to build a 70 units at 60% AMI or below. We estimate that this was five times the build alternative that would be required under the linkage fee ordinates, the five times the number of units we started out at 80% AMI. But after discussions with the neighborhood moved a 60% to make it more affordable, the applicant is committed to providing significant, publicly accessible open space and has already leased land at Denver Urban Gardens for a community garden. You'll learn more about our arrangement with Wonder down to the nonprofit community ballet in a moment. It is important to state that the applicant is interested in an ongoing dialog with the community, as is evidenced by our commitments to affordability, open space and cultural benefits. Our interests are aligned with the community. An example of this is in motion. Today the GSS Coalition introduced the applicant two brothers redevelopment in the US Community Land Trust. We are exploring opportunities with these entities. I am x three. Zoning opens the door to innovation, ongoing engagement, cooperation and mutually beneficial dialog which we are committed to. For all these reasons, I formally request the Denver City Council vote to approve Council Bill 19 Dash 0127 Rezoning 2535 East 40th Avenue from IEEE to Annex three. And I apologize for my speed reading. Thank you. Next up, Griselda Calderon. Good evening. So how many of you like to be ignored and pushed aside? We don't either. But we have constantly been ignored and pushed aside. My name is CRISELDA Calderon, and I have been a resident of swans here for over 25 years. I attended Swansea Elementary School when it only went up to second grade. And then we we were bused to Whitman Elementary after that. I have seen the changes in our community. However, not as many changes that I have seen since coming back home. After serving my country. Sorry. After being injured and returning to my beloved city of Denver. Gosh, I return to the beginning of a mess in the making. Our mayor, forgetting his past and hungry for more money, allowed and encouraged the destruction of our beautiful city. Instead of helping those suffering in five points, the mayor and the city of Denver allow gentrification to overtake five points. Now we are next. I have seen more and more of my neighbors being forced out of their homes. However, according to what we understand, is that we do not matter and that we are to suffer more and more. If you do not know Illyria songs here were the developer is trying to build their immense complex has already suffered plenty. First, our community is already marginalized and high risk for displacement. Some of the suffering is I-70. We are trapped like rats. Pollution. Dust. Construction of such great project has impacted us greatly. Not to mention the noise. And we still have more than four years left and summer is coming. We are to open our windows now because we do not have air conditioning. So who will rise up for us? Who will fight? I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, we have Angelina Torres. Angelina Torres. When I start, etc.. Selena Torres played Party de la Coliseum. Good evening, everyone. My name is Angelina Taurus. I am part of the coalition. They want to answer. I live in Swansea, you know. Solamente academic beneficios para individuals. Comparado a lugar. Nosotros queremos get competition scenarios. I look at pura for their material. This place ambiental in this unfamiliar and most conservative cultura liberal vecinos it's landless are familias necesitan alien Brasil that is. We don't just want benefits for those individuals that bought the place. We would like them to share with our neighborhood something that could help us deal with the displacement that our families and we have suffered. We would like to conserve our cultures and our neighbors and our community. Hoover did not done this as his address, but I lost my school near Aviles Como para la familia. The letter said that if familias Ingresos feels English knows it as yes. We need to cover the needs for the most vulnerable. For example, the families that have elderly families on fixed income and the rest of our neighbors. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Andrew Mele Gill. Say in your field? It could be, says me on my system, but if that's you, then you can correct it on the record. Thank you. Hello. My name is Andrew Keele. I own and live at 4052 Clayton Street directly across. The street from the Quest property in. Question. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of myself and my neighbors, including Marcio Juan de la Rose, Joey Anthony and Cecil Levi and Jamie Ramirez and my wife, all who live within a few blocks of the proposed rezoning. Some of them are. We are excited about the industrial zoning going away and having a mixed use neighborhood development that complements with and integrates into the neighborhood rezoning to I am x three assures. Lower building at three stories eliminates industrial use that are that are incapable incompatible with a neighborhood and brings in a chance for new housing stock, including affordable housing . In addition, we are excited about opportunities for more public open space and community serving retail as well as the culture promise, as well as the cultural promise of wonder bound. The ballet going in IMAX three is a better fit for the neighborhood, and we embrace the zoning change. The neighborhood plan. The neighborhood plan addresses this. Please vote to approve KB 19 0127 Rezoning 2535 East 40th Avenue from IEA to IMAX three. Thank you. Thank you. And apologies for getting your name in there wrong. Raimunda, carry on and I'll call the next five up if you want to make your way up to the front bench. Rosa maria or to Rick or to Brie, Mercedes Gonzalez, Caitlin Lucas, Maria de Luna Jimenez and Laird Horrigan. And I apologize if I got your name wrong. Go ahead. My mother lets me know that Korean is simply casualness, but a lot of pleasure than been some more important this week. Good evening. My name is Raymond. The Korean. The implications the long term implications are also very important. And this is a promotional solution. I order eagle for Toronto therapy then el mismo la maison my solution them oscar the animals this arroyos easily one gives them a couple samples This place I'm in. And I apologize when you're doing the translation if you could just. There we go. Make sure to speak right in the microphone. Thank you. We need a solution right now and so that in the future we don't see the same situation. We know that there's more developing development coming at the same as these. They're going to cause more displacement. You're revealing a lot in this one. Separate Mazda maintainers. Yeah. With this place out there and you see every crisis, are those in control travesty in the Peru tampoco there's thumbs them as thumbs overalls contemptuous. Bless our mental ill plan the devil's in Dario Necesita save Travis. I sense they will not resume para evitar them to this place. I mean. I live in swans here, and I've lived in Swanson for more than 20 years. I was displaced in December, but thank God I was able to find housing. But we are still not safe. With all of the displacement happening, the neighborhood plan needs to be revised to prevent all of this displacement crisis. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Rosa maria. But. When I started this evening, the most incredible opportunity that my parents and my mother seem to have me and those images that all my children will now. But most important, you'll see when I'm persona, I think this will equal inappropriate testosterone ification where you mix up a little girl and I mean it in a total enrollment number with regard to this, you know, the larger this one case result is. We need to have the opportunity to have improvements in our community without displacement. We have waited for these services in the community for a long time. I'm a person on fixed income and I do not want that with this new zoning that I would be losing my house due to the high taxes that will come with it in the future. This will harm all of us and all of the neighbors surrounding the area. And could you just state your name for the record? Is the Monday. So let's he some more money. In order to stop. Maria. Thank you. Maria. Thank you. Mercedes Gonzalez. When I started this number as mentioned is Gonzalez the sorry party the LA quality Angus la elizabeth as sodium g la connection introduce plus Sarmiento e la salud. Cee lo i. Cee lo are you in this place? Sarmiento in voluntarily exterminate Sandow La Salud Publica Eleazar Syria e la calidad deby. The then was to accompany the. Good evening. My name is Hussein Mercedes and I am part of the Jazz Coalition. There is a connection between displacement and health. Yes, there is. And the displacement, the involuntary displacement has been harassing the health of the public health of our people and the safety and quality of life of our community. El Impacto is good RB accounts are the lost ground is this arroyo's last year? The better scenario is La mesa picked up? Joe is there maybe in single those boring Decatur wines. If we this bluster we just plaza that you meet the more annoying country meet a more middle America. You got to on the at the end you got to climb into gear but can no longer estoy cerca they set into phone I stress to really pardon me, but I'm in particular estava. Yeah, this has been quadrennial. You start yelling Cinco Puntos is me. Comunidad Estaba Agosto. The impact is very severe due to the all of these large developments and it's across the city. But our neighborhood is the most affected. I used to live. I lived in in five points for 24 years and I was displaced from there. And unfortunately I was able to find housing where now we have the I-70 project and this has been a huge stress, but that was the only place that I have found that was able to find. Is I got a really porky outcome. So this is this place. SARMIENTO Nosotros is was as mutually narrow as mutually narrow. But the policy, Tony por la Renta accounts are there. So it's high stress. It's a lot to really postpone the stress to really you crisis ideas go retire Estonian poquito make Corporal Georges circle setanta. But I mean, I got a really personal message into Atropos the atropos the symbol earlier, this salutary blip. But a move will go to replace the can do. And this was terrible. Getting displaced put a crazy amount of stress because it's so expensive to get displaced. You have all of deposits, you have the rent. And now, unfortunately, I have the other stress of being trapped right there by I 70. I really feel trapped and it's really terrible all of this stress and how it's affecting my health. See Wednesday's cameos Galaxy survivor Bonita Garoppolo is a cameo battle with let me set up around those other onset apparel. I can take the wearer. All I can to go must be Nero La Quinta gunman Thomas Dinero lac into the record records us almost as gluey those this dos cambios. Yeah and it's going to be pretty once you make all of this development it's going to be beautiful, but it's not going to be for us. It's going to be for for the people that come in from the outside, people that make more money, but all of us that are low income are forgotten. We're completely excluded from this choice. Be the journalist, be the one to stay this by Wednesday. This was a source. This plan is it this arroyo you Dominic to La Comunidad the la comunidad the recursos la comunidad mas vulnerably ghetto meaning quinta ghetto meaning went up told us this has why Emilia's not when you went to También better than Ecuador and this was like where those who stayed as they went to this como Ciudad Como concert colors European status lost born them that in Paris without a bit of that Paraguayan estar they tanto they hinted that he nero tanto como la quinta must vulnerability look into poverty. So I would just like to ask you when you think about all of this development, please consider the neighbors to please consider the people of low income. Because I believe that you are city council. You guys are here to be worried about the people that make a lot of money, but also the people that are most vulnerable , the people that are low income and the ones that are most affected. And I include myself and hold them. As parochial auto meaning Guinta he in which has great support poor you to me. I hope that you would consider this and thank you very much for listening to me. A plan Betsy Nadia Necesita Honorary CEO for care plan not to be and neither is keep the table but to here he has established our Los Vecinos DeLorean Motor Company that your character Toto then begins to affect other portals as those cameos battle the crookedness that are coming out of this. You know, they they this one's here. Yes. LA must affect the other and not just on greed. Those are some cause they don't. They use the toilet baby in the name. I got a moment I took a moment to choke it ball in traffic coagulate maravilla construction circuit as entered into Damascus. The neighborhood plan needs to be revised because in the plan there is no and there's no there's not an equitable development plan for the neighborhood to protect and stabilize all of the neighbors in the area. And all of Denver is suffering from this. But right here we are the most impacted. I am now a part of the community and swans here. And by right by where I live, there's always car accidents due to all the traffic that's going on. On top of all the noise and I live on BASKAS. We talk a lot. Thank you very much. Next up, caitlin lucas. Good evening. I'm Caitlin Lucas. I live at 4126 Clinton Street, directly across from the property in question. I support the rezoning to Annex three. Contingent upon continued community engagement and a negotiated community benefit agreement that engages registered neighborhood organizations in Olivia's Swansea. I'm generally supportive. Of the rezoning because I realize that the use by right of the property as it currently. Is zoned, as potential to lead to development that is not compatible. With the surrounding. Residential neighborhood. The mixed use. Zoning, on the other hand, has the potential. To act effectively as a transition zone between industrial zoning and the residential zoning. Thoughtful and deliver deliberate. Development of this site could provide a great benefit to the area. However, I'm disappointed in the city and the developer's lack of engagement with the community during the rezoning process. The rezoning of this property without proper. Community engagement sets a precedent that community feedback is not required. Or considered for similar projects in the future. It needs to fall in this city. To require and implement and lead a much more robust community community engagement process, especially in locations that have been noted as areas of change. I believe there's a path to rezoning that can be agreed upon by the community, the developer and the city, but that there needs to be an additional community engagement and buy in before the rezoning can be responsibly approved without conditions. I support the rezoning contingent upon a negotiated community benefit or development agreement that considers affordability, open space and transportation impacts. Prior to the approval of the project site development plan. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Maria de Luna, M.A.. When I start this, I mean. Maria Elena Jimenez, EEOC Bartonella Coalition, the G.S. Entonces Nosotros Como coalition noise. Thomas Encontrado Lozano just goes on. Leave us in the will start giving unmask Sinestro. Good evening. My name is Maria the Luna Jiménez and I am part of the coalition. And we are not against this development. We are all for the new development because we like nice things in our neighborhood. Little Carioca. And this is it almost will not revision their plan, their scenario. But in a planetary scenario we poco they under we poco. That is the biggest of which one of those Milkins and those Milkins say son cuatro and son cuatro. Daniel's and Samuel's son Cuatro Daniel's the K and also Estado Para and the muchos familias. And what I think is that we need to revise the neighborhood plan because it doesn't talk about housing and doesn't talk about displacement. This was done in 2015 and that's been fought. That was four years ago. And since then we have lost so many families, so many neighbors due to all of the displacement. And also Fidel al-Saadi, Puestos and also Fredo Alexandre renters not Apostolos Cambios Ekrem okay on positive was better también get it most sad incluidos como comunidad como la Comunidad Karamazov Hasta pasando Isabella tiempo no cuando yai standards cosas encima. We have suffered increases in taxes, we have suffered increases in rent and we would like to be included. We want to know what's to come because we want the new development that's coming. We just ask to be aware and informed not just before. Right? It's about to happen when they. Tell us. Queremos. Okay, I got a bit of I do not. It will not cause I get that that viva todos caramel beneficio para total no solamente para owners, group personas, personas or origin. Get the animals email. And we want there to be an equitable opportunity for everybody, not just for a certain amount of people, maybe some people that have money. We want it to be equitable for everybody. Not all, says Kokomo Siempre Kay, the Colorado Sun. Bienvenidos. Nosotros is a community that knows will start a civil action Then those will start a civil person and nuevas non will start a civil cosign Leave us Pedro Tambien State dinner party their lunch table either la bueno no Solamente or Malo no solamente that is our local no solamente they outside their rent us simple there I said another year. Okay, so nice to see that they've got a company that they're very corporate. You know, we always we always hear people say that everyone is welcome in Colorado and we do. We welcome people in our community. We accept them. We encourage people to come in and into our community. And now with all of the developments, we want the benefits of that, too. We don't just want the consequences because all we get is an increase in our rent and an increase in displacement. So we don't want just that side of of things. We want the benefits as well. So I must get a cumbia sonification. So I said historian experiment and their como law and the commandments. You'll know those. But I must admit I look with Amazon La Isla McWherter, no rule non-negotiable, no solid common one enclosure paradigm in nosotros as they are then throw them those SRO you'll never get in most cases of Caribbean presented by Dallas Proximas this are all your skate sorry almost given away nil mas. And we know that the zoning is going to happen. We just asked to be included. We would like to continue talking and maybe negotiating a little bit and we want to establish this so that in future developments, once they come, because we know they are, that we are included in all of this. Gracias. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Laird, Corrigan and McCall. The next five up to the front bench Dawn Fey, Ashton Dennard, Kathryn ARD, Dawn Gilmore and Robin Reichert. Good. Good evening, City Council. My name is Laird Horrigan and I live at 4126 Clayton Street, which is directly across from the proposed development. I stand with the GSE Coalition in their position to accept the rezoning contingent upon three conditions. One condition that's particularly meaningful as of late is that a is that the developer conduct a traffic and construction impact analysis and provide the results of the analysis, including mitigations and recommendations to the neighborhood. The reason this is so meaningful is the magnitude and the scale of several construction projects that have impacted the neighborhood and many of the residents here tonight, including the drainage projects in City Park, Park Hill, the 39th Street Greenway, the continued struggles with the RTD line. And the I-70 project. It's a daily adventure trying to get to and from the places we live. And this project would be no different in that it would impact us directly and at the same time as all these other projects are occurring. So I. Just would like to. Support this rezoning, but with the conditions and consideration for the people that it would impact directly today and for the next four years. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Don Faye. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for hearing me out. My name is Dawn Fey. I am the president of Wonder around a501c3 nonprofit professional dance company. We have been in the building now for six and a half months and I will go into that relocation in just a moment. We are in Councilman Brooks's district at 80205 and we do extensive work with the community aside. From being a professional dance company. We do a lot of work in Title One schools, a lot of which are in Elyria, Swansea. We've also implemented a program for the homeless, which is called Pari Paso. I could go on and on about Wonder Brown, but I'd actually like to speak a little bit to the conversations that have been taking place tonight, as well as some of the previous conversations, if I may reference. Councilman Lopez mentioned earlier in an agenda item about creating a place for community and establishing relevance. This was echoed by Councilwoman Ortega. This was also talked about by Councilman Espinosa in terms of creating a place for community. And that's what we've done at Wonder Ground in our past. We were located at 1075 Park Avenue West, literally next door to Saint Francis Center across from Denver, Rescue Mission. And just up the street from Catholic Charities, we implemented a program for our community and our largest daily audience, which was the homeless at that point. And we put this in place in 2015. I have been having conversations with a lot of the people that I see here tonight who have come to our space and been introduced to who we are. And part of our responsibility as a nonprofit is to serve our community, is to create a place where everyone can feel welcome , and that is what we plan to do. The arts are not just for the elite and the wealthy. The arts are for everyone and should be shared by everyone. And what we will do in our new home is create this place for community to gather, for children, for the elderly, for all peoples, regardless of any kind of status in this community. That is our our our guarantee that we will do that with our new home. And as an organization that was displaced previously due to our wonderful booming economy, we understand the relevance of being able to create a place that serves its community, and we want to do so for the long term. And with that, I would ask the council to I respectfully ask the council to approve the rezoning. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Ashton Kennard. Good evening. My name is Ashton Kennard. I speak on behalf of myself as well as young activists in the black, Hispanic and Native American community of the Denver metro area. I am neither for nor against this rezoning because there's positives and negatives to each judgment. I instead am going to take this time to address you find men and women of the Council as well as my community, to say that this is a learning lesson. We need to understand that if we unify and come together to buy our neighborhoods, we can not be displaced and taken advantage of. If we took the time to unify and come together. We will be able to leverage our faculty, our assets and our voice to get wonder bound and the developer to allow us space in order to bring in black and Hispanic contractors so we can bring in money into our community, as well as bring in black and Hispanic entrepreneurs to better facilitate small business, as well as providing afterschool programs for our our children, black and Hispanic children in that space. We need to take this time to realize united we stand, divided. We are gentrified. Our best interests are among ourselves. But these fine and wise people who sit on the council, our elected officials and our public servants. That means if we take our voice and come together on one accord, they are willing to provide us anything that we need. But it all begins at home. If we do not buy our neighborhoods, if we're not taking advantage of the space that we already have. We are going to continue to be dispersed and pushed out. But again, the people who sit before us who are elected by us in order to serve us. So let us continue forward. Whether it's for rezoning to do residential and we can take a part in contracting and building up the space, bringing money into our community, or if it's left as an industrial zone. Because we all know the Swansea area is a food desert. There's no there's no supermarkets in that area. So if it's left industrial, we can still bring in supermarkets, supermarkets in order to facilitate growth in our community. But if we do not unify, if we do not stand together as black, Hispanic, indigenous people, we will be taken advantage of. This is a lesson. Same with the I-70 project. Let's not get angry, not get mad. But whatever happens from this point forward, let's be wise in our decision making and stand together. Unification. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. Next up, Catherine are doing. Good evening. I'm Catherine Arden. And tonight I am here speaking as a resident representative of both the Grow House, a nonprofit in Elyria, Swansea, a really rooted in food access in this neighborhood, and also acting as a. Platform to. Amplify the voices of the folks of this community that often do get overlooked. So both as a representative of the Grow House, but also a resident of the 80205 ZIP code and a resident in walking distance of this this location. And as it stands now, I am opposed to the rezoning, and that is because of the approach that's been taking. That leaves out engagement and consideration of this neighborhood, which has a history of being left out and underserved. I would be willing to change my position if certain conditions were met. And those conditions include. Including a community benefits agreement that is signed with the GSA coalition and at least one Elyria, Swansea, a registered. Neighborhood neighborhood organization. The second piece that I would need to be included would be a complete. And. Full traffic construction impact analysis report on the neighborhood. As we know, there are significant construction and traffic developments. I, again, as somebody who lives right there, I also feel limited in my mobility. And the third piece would be to. Complete a. Transformative project process that includes the anti Displacement Displacement Action. Plan in the neighborhood. If these conditions were met, I would be really interested in seeing how this project could move forward. But at this point, I don't believe. That the the best interests of this historic neighborhood have been met nor considered. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Bill Moore. My name is Bill Moore, the architect for the project. And I think I'm supposed to answer some questions on some dry technical issues. But first, before I field any of those, I just want to let you know I'm actually very excited about the project. Buildings in general aren't so popular these days in Denver, but this is an exciting project. I'm excited to reuse the existing building. I'm excited to design an authentic performing arts space. And I'm also exciting. If this were to pass, to incorporate residential uses into this plan, I think it makes for more vibrant plan and it would be contributing factor a little bit more in the design. The owners are huge supporters of the arts and other nonprofits in Denver. They're also very interested in having Wonder Brown be the heart of this development. It's really the public heart of the development adjacent to it. In the plan would be plaza, a public park, playground, gallery space as well as the Urban Garden. So I really do hope that you approve this and allow residential uses and I'll field some questions if you have any. Thank you. Next up, Robin Reichert and I'll call the next five up, Mauricio Moreno, Noemi go Alma Urbano, Rosa Maria Turvey and Jackie Carranza, if you want to come up to the bench. Good. Good evening. My name is Robin Reichert. I've lived in Swansea. Here for about six years. My family, I've got. Two young boys, love this neighborhood. We're part of the jazz, I'm part of the Jazz Coalition. And we want to see this. We want to see development. We want to see where there hasn't been something come. We want to see improvements. But to the reference some points here that have been previously made, if if you can't afford to stay in the neighborhood, that dance studio means nothing. It's an empty dream. And I think the missing piece in this conversation is the city has lots of data and studies about how investment, private and public investment causes displacement. It's linked in hundreds of. Study across the country, including some of Denver's own studies that private and public investments are directly linked to it, to mass displacement of low income neighbors. And that's what's been happening. That's already happening. We've been up here too many times already talking about this. And so for me, it's I'm just baffled how this process went through for nine however many months. And we didn't find out about it until a month before today's date. And I'm baffled that this that the city ignored their own process, that the general development plan was waived despite that this if you've been on 40th Avenue in New York and you've been stuck between the lighter rail, the the commuter rail and the Union Pacific line, why is there not a traffic plan here? It's astounding. And even more so, it's so frustrating that in the neighborhood plan, the Larry Swanson plan, it explicitly says, I have it here on pages two, 18, 21, 46 and page 126, the critical importance of reaching the neighborhood that has been historically excluded from this process. And so to send out a couple of emails to our no is not good enough. In no world is that good enough. There is ample nonprofits, ample community groups, ample ways to get the. Community involved, and none of that was. Done. So I just got to say, I'm so disappointed. I'm so disappointed with this process. I'm so disappointed with the planning department and what can we do? What are we doing here? If if every one of our pieces of civic engagement has been cut off and I'll tell you, the first public open meeting that the developer had was three weeks ago in the neighborhood, an open house. And I told the city, I told Tim Sanders and Irene Aguilar at that meeting how disappointed that I am. And they apologized and they said, we're sorry. They said the city dropped the ball in, not connecting between CPD, between OED. There was no communication between they told us they found out about this project from the same Denver article that we did. How is that possible? How is it that after years of advocacy, years of study, that it feels like negligence and honestly to the neighborhood, it makes this whole process feel like a joke because we want to be a part of this. We want to see these changes. But if we're not taken, if we're not included before that happens, then we won't be here to enjoy these amenities. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Mauricio Moreno. What they mean. My name is Mauricio Marino. I'm a resident of Swansea. I lived there for the last two years and I'm supporting the signing change in. I just want to point that if it's not because the developer came out with this idea and have a meeting three weeks ago, like my fellows here say. We know we don't know anything about the group that is here opposing the project because they talking about including the community. But I think the community need to work for the community. And this is the first time in two years that I see members of the community talking about the community, caring for the community until this developer and this project come out. That's the first time that they hear from them. So my name is Mauricio Moreno and I support the project. Thank you. Thank you. No, go. Hi. Good evening. My name is Nola Miguel. I'm with the Globally Responsive Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice. Nice to see everyone tonight. As Maria said, we're not anti-development. We're for development without displacement. What this really has felt like and all the things that have been said about the last minute notification, all that is that it's really set us up against this developer. And that's not. What we wanted out of. This or want in the future. But as you can see from all the neighbors that are here, Swansea neighbors are interested in this. So just saying that oh well nobody responded to an email that said I to IMAX three and maybe people didn't understand what that was or the the the hugeness of this project, 700 units, 14 acres that we are interested. There's lots of people in Swansea that love their neighborhood, that care about their neighborhood and want to be. Involved in a. Critical. Project. That equals half of the existing units in Swansea. We want to be part of making that project successful and think that we have a lot to offer the level of this. Massaro saying globally. Swansea there's a lot that's going on in global response here that could offer to a project and benefit a project. I think one thing that's very clear from the amount of affordability that we were able to get out of this is that the linkage fee in the affordable housing fund is not enough. 15 units out of 700. That's insane. In the lowest income. Neighborhood that doesn't have restricted housing in it, like Sun Valley, Swansea, it doesn't have restricted housing. Every almost every single household except the county homes and the habitat homes are are vulnerable to displacement. So this happening in this context, something needs to be tweaked with how that's working. We need those affordable requirements to be higher. This, as Robin said, this at some point should have been flagged before we found out about it in Denver. Right. This should have been flagged. How did we not know about this? Did anyone put in lovely. Response and housing. Because they would have found the gas. Coalition if that had been the case. Or actually reach out and call any of the Arnaud's in the neighborhood, try to build a relationship, talk to some of the neighbors. That's process oriented. But if we want equitable outcomes, we have to have. Equitable. Process. I wanted to get in. You heard what our position is. We're asking for these conditions. You saw the evidence, hopefully in our letter. That evidence in each of the criteria that you are evaluating is backing up those conditions that we need a community benefits agreement, that we need traffic and construction analysis around this. This is adjacent to the train and the property in the concept plans. The housing goes all the way up to the train and I'm really concerned about that as well. Other stuff, but thanks. Thank you. Next up, Alma Urbano. Hello. My name is. Elmer Buono and I am here as myself, but also as a resident of the Swansea neighborhood. I'm also an employee of Project Voice, a youth advocacy and civic training organization that provides afterschool youth development opportunities for first round of school students right across the street from 2535 E 40th Avenue. My experiences growing up, living and now working in Swansea have provided me with a judgment to request our city council representatives to make sure that if the rezoning goes through, the safety, well-being and welfare of our community members is protected and treated with the highest level of dignity. So far, the community engagement process has been a total failure. The developer has refused to create a community benefits agreement with community organizations, and our city officials have come forward to argue in favor of the legality of such project. The developer has in fact done the minimum or just above the minimum. But in times of displacement, rampant homelessness in large investment schemes and previously forgotten neighborhoods like Swansea to the minimum is not only straight up disrespectful and negligent, but also deadly. The project proposal does not address the context of the neighborhood a predominantly brown and black neighborhood with mostly single family homes. It does not address first round of school families and students, 98% of whom are people of color. 98% of students also qualify for free and reduced lunch. Many of these students already travel 40 minutes out because their families have been kicked out of the neighborhood due to rising cost costs of housing. It is hard, I can tell you from my own experience, to concentrate on PSAT and SAT exams when your family cannot afford to pay a monthly rent. It is hard to focus when most of our income goes to pay for housing and there is simply not enough food at the table. I live on the other side of Central so I do not own a car. I have to walk from first round of school where I work along 40th and Clinton every day Monday to Friday. I deal with I-70, construction, traffic, congestion and fear. I encourage city official members, council members to answer the following. Would you allow a 700 unit rezoning plan to go through in your own neighborhood with only 10% affordable units for your own neighbors? Do you accept the terrible community engagement that has happened here? I ask the Council to please create the conditions for community members and developers to work together to develop and implement a community benefits agreement that supports and protects the health and wellbeing of one of our most targeted communities. Valeria Swansea. Thank you. Also Wonder Brown is not part of our community until they stand in favor of participate in the Community Benefits Agreement and leverage their connections to the developer to truly fit into the new space while also connected to the community . Thank you. Thank you. Rosa maria Torres, Jackie Carranza. And I'm going to call the next five up to the front bench, Jim Garcia, Kathy Patchell, Yadira Sanchez, Ruben Sanchez and Carol Briggs. Go ahead. Good afternoon. I'm Jackie Collins. I am one of the residents on 4065 Milwaukee Street. I'm not for or against it. I think gentrification is great, but there is also a limit to where gentrification can be. I'm a single mother of one, so my only concern is to be displaced and I have nowhere to go if taxes am property or property taxes go up. So that is my only concern. So I hope that we can come together and I don't know. Make a great exception. Have more of a realistic ideas for this building to come up for. So I'm sorry for not having anything prepared, but this is kind of what I'm here for because I was kind of lost of what was happening until our first meeting on April 1st. So thank you. Thank you, Jim Garcia. Good evening. My name is Jim Garcia here representing clinical orthopedic clinic. Orthopedic is a community health center that has been located in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood for the past 15 years. And we provide primary health care, mental health services and oral health services to the residents of the Yes community and the surrounding communities . For the past three years or so ago, we started the process of when we realized that we would no longer had capacity at our current facility in the Globeville neighborhood. We made the conscious decision to explore a new site at 48th and raise in the Swansea neighborhood. And when we did so we were very intentional about partnering with the Urban Land Conservancy to work in partnership with the neighborhood, because we know that community health is much more than what happens in the exam room. It's what happens out in the community when we talk about the social determinants of health. One of those being housing. And so it was a very easy decision for our board and our and our team to pursue the project at 48th and raise. And as part of that process, it started I said it, like I said, about three years ago, over the past year, we were able to engage in authentic community engagement with with the residents of Globeville, Elyria, Swansea, and to enter into a partnership for the development of our project that at 40th and raised and when it was brought to our attention to my attention about the proposed project, it seemed to me knowing what we initiated and participated in with the community to do to engage in authentic community engagement, we felt like this is something that's indeed possible and and in fact should be expected of of the community in our in our community leaders. So I would just say that we would like to see a similar process involved involving this project where the community does feel engaged and included in this process. So and that entails a community benefits agreement similar to what we have in place. Thank you. Cathy Patchell. Good evening. My name is Kathy Patchell. I'm a member of the community. And I am neither for or against the rezoning of our neighborhood or the property in question. However, I agree with my community members that it's very important that the rezoning excuse me, is aligned with the community properly. From what I heard at the beginning, the statements coming from the developers sound like they're interested in doing the minimum. They have a certain percentage of housing that they have to accomplish and a minimum amount of space they have to give up. And that's not aligning with our community, is properly that's getting by and then completing your own goal. What we need is a proper comprehensive plan that benefits the community, not just gets by and you know, further communication needs to be had because we haven't had it in the past and the properties already been purchased. And so before deciding on rezoning, I think that needs to be addressed. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Yadira Sanchez. Hi. Good evening. My name is Yadira Sanchez. I am part of Swansea, a neighborhood. I've been living there for about six years. I am also part of the Jazz Coalition, so I have a lot of things to say, but I'm going to try to say them as fast as I can with making as many points as I can, because there's a lot of things that need to be said. We did meet with the developer, like they said, probably the 1st of April, and then we tried to talk to them. They did say that they had an agreement with considering one of our plans, which they did not. We also had the city there who said that they do agree that there is a lot of wrongdoing in their part for allowing a lot of this construction to happen all at the same time, and for not giving this notification in a proper way. However, giving your apologies doesn't fix the problem or being non aware or being there to service your community is also not okay either because that's what you're there for. We are here together united as a group to try to speak to you guys about what is being done, which I don't feel. I don't feel like is right. Wander around is great. However, you're not a school you're you're already a steady dance group and our community needs more more proactive. If you would be a school, that would be wonderful to allow everybody to join. But having this are inviting us to come and visit you guys, seeing you already do all your things well, that's great, but that doesn't help us from saving our community. There are a lot of things happening or going wrong with the zoning. If we allow this to happen, more displacement is going to continue to grow. They are offering units at 60%, but in this neighborhood we need more like 30% to 20% because there is a lot of need. And the city needs to focus, too, on getting together with all of the construction. When they are allowing all of this zoning situations to happen is that we do live there and we are under a lot of stress and it is quite a joke when you wake up one morning and you're going on one side of the road and the following night you're not. Sometimes you end up running into sidewalks and posts because you just don't know where you're going anymore. It's hard to get to our home where we have our lives in allowing this to continue. It's just opening doors for more developments to come in and feel that they could do and destruct and take away what is already there . And they're allowing this to continue and saying that they're here for the community by opening their gardens, but closing their streets or, you know, having a stressed out through all of these situations that are happening. And I don't think they're right. I think that the city needs to take into consideration and working together with the benefits agreement plan and the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Ruben Sanchez. Ruben Sanchez. All right. Next up, Carol Briggs. And I'm going to call the next five up, Bree Ice, Elijah Buford, Virginia Calderon and Jesse Pierce. Go ahead. Hi. My name's Carol Briggs, and I live at 4027 Fillmore, which backs up to Clyde Clayton. And I understand that it's unrealistic to think that no rezoning or construction is going to occur in the Swansea neighborhood. I do believe that I and all my neighbors deserve a voice in this process. The current project will significantly increase the population of my neighborhood, so I would approve a rezoning if a community benefit agreement is developed and signed by by the Clu, Globeville. Elyria, Syria Coalition. A minimum of one other registered neighborhood organization and the developer. The Gas Coalition has been the organization that has ensured that the information has gotten to my door. It has not been the city. They've also provided me the opportunity for me to hear the views of others in the community and the surrounding areas on this project. It is beyond my understanding that a traffic impact report was waived with the already existing traffic challenges in the I-70, I-70, construction, the drainage project, and what is required by this. This construction project will significantly impact traffic. The increase in property value often precedes significant displacement in a neighborhood. It is important that the process include the city led completion of the transformation project, an anti displacement and an anti displacement plan. No site development plan should be approved until these two plans are completed. It is very difficult to separate the rezoning from the project itself. I think as you've heard from my neighbors, the rezoning isn't really our issue. Rezoning is actually a good thing for us because industrial really isn't what the neighborhood needs. But I also know with the process that the city uses that when I say yes to rezoning, I'm almost saying yes to the project. And I'm not saying yes to the project. I, I can't say yes to 700 units that my neighborhood for three of us probably to get together and live together could afford to freakin live in. I can't say that. Would you do it? Would you do it to your neighbor? This neighborhood has been displaced and displaced and displaced, and it has been our lack of care, lack of concern for those who sit in this room that don't look like me. And I know that. And I know I'm privileged to be in this neighborhood and my neighbors need to be heard, just like I need to be heard. I'm sorry that your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. This. Good evening, everyone. My name is Bria Zizi and I am neither for nor against this bill. But I am here to say that we need an equitable development plan. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all. And I work for Project Voice and we've worked with the GSE community for the past 13 years. We train, employ and organize youth and we specifically work with Bruce Randolph High School and middle school students. And this is situated just a block away from this proposed development. And given this proximity to our students school, we need to address the issues of equity in the design, the planning and the process to ensure the well-being of our youth and their families in the GSA community. And that is why we're asking for you to consider the following conditions. One A Community Benefits Agreement developed and signed by the GSA Coalition and Delirious wants your R.A. to complete a full traffic construction impact analysis report and report this back to the neighborhood. I think this is an imperative because we've already seen that mobility in the neighborhood has diminished because of other infrastructure projects that are happening like I-70. And three, completing a transformation project process that includes Anti Displacement Action Plan. Currently, right now, as you've heard from other folks tonight, there is 60 units at 60% AMI. And that does not fit the needs of the community and specifically for youth. Involuntary displacement destabilizes their social networks routines and has directly been linked to decline in school performance. So I would ask that we consider an equitable development plan and that we prioritize the well-being of girls, youth and their families. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next up, Elijah Beaufort. That's me. How you guys doing? So my name's Elijah. I'm a youth leader in social activism community, also known as Young Activists. And I'm neither for nor against the re the rezoning project. And the reason is because, you know, first and foremost, I believe that we are doing the minimum to actually help out these communities of color . I believe that we can actually be doing more as a community to be doing that. And no matter which way you go, if you're for a project against the project or in between with the rezoning, it's not owned by us. It's not owned by people of color. It's based off of a Caucasian mind, you know, just saying the elephant in the room. And it's true. So no matter which way you go, you have to understand that the key element to life is experience. You know, experience is the best education you can have, right? Everybody knows that here. And with this gentrification going on, pushing communities of color and the outskirts of Denver and moving a lot of white people in the middle, we understand that we have to improve our communities, you know, before that happens, because you have to understand your history before you know, the future repeats itself. So we have to understand how to improve communities. And honestly, I challenge all you guys who are not of color in here. If you truly want to see improvement in these type of communities, if you truly want to see change in these type of communities, you have to put your money where your mouth is. You actually have to put your foot down and say, I'm going to help out these communities of color as well. The question is how, if you're going to do these rezoning projects, make it affordable for people like these beautiful individuals to actually be able to live there comfortably, not survive, but live there . Make make sure that their educations there as well. For example, if people want to be doctors, lawyers and be able to actually rebuild their communities, have that as an opportunity, have that as a access point in that area. Also, we have to really understand the only people really fighting for their communities in their areas is people of color, minorities. You're not going to Chinatown is doing the same thing. You're not going to places in the Jewish community doing the same things are not going to the suburbs. It's always a problem in the black and Hispanic communities. And of course, you know why? Because we have no financial freedom. We have no financial literacy. We don't know what we're doing. So if you care as well, also finances and economic classes there. So we could be able to understand how to improve our own communities because you have to love yourself before you love anybody else. So support improvement of us in order for us to actually create economic change in those communities. Because at the end of the day, it's not going to be owned by us. So we have to be able to understand and learn from these experiences in these oppressive systems, how to build within our own. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. Next up, Virginia courtroom. We want to start with you, Michael Barone Precedenti the L.A. Sun support up your show and yours. Good evening. My name is Bettina Calderon. I have been a resident of the Lake Area Swansea neighborhood for 2028 years. For 28 years, ESTELLA, we've been fortunate. I mean, in a state here either so fortunate I mean for two entities operating on Lou and we are saving the Oshawa animals for the animals we need to maintain our aura this are fortunate I mean to them Podemos we rely Espinosa's done incremental on the west Tantalus cost of living and. I've been fortunate to live there for 28 years because 28 years ago we could live there comfortably. And now unfortunately we are facing increases in our rent and unfortunately we are being displaced. Escuchar la palabra ignorant A.The main thing. I've heard the word ignore recently. You know that a lady Tomika Griselda Calderon. Yeah. We be laboring for being disinclined use. Yeah, ahora. No kidding me. Is that in firma e también Potomac? A la construction dragon, though, that I can do la tierra aura Millsap where we really yona see if of Korean mosaic or even that famous proportion and Bebe and as close to slow system will say. And ignored has been said by my daughter Griselda Calderon, who has lived there for 25 years. She is sick and she continues to live. There's we can all continue to live there. And here we swallow this pollution, we swallow this dirt. And now, even besides all of that, we are willing to stay there. We just ask for affordable housing and an opportunity to stay in our neighborhood. So center for Santo the I am it e now is sufficient para nosotros nosotros no analysis. I can tell you that necesitamos must reduce sickness and loss Median. 60% asthma is not good for us We do not make that much money. We need a lower cost of this so that we can afford to live there. Jentleson is telling me Randall story for those sequitur. At the end of that I put the hair in on the photos. Como comunita? You guys have been looking at us for the past two years. For the past two years we have been trying to figure out how to protect ourselves as a community. As soon to be more another neocon condor to Sarajevo. It is on Miembros LSU that. A month ago we had a meeting with the developer and some city council folks. You can respond, they'll ask you a question. Committee Member Reuters If their sorcerer is a stand up at the end. What does the city say? That they're making mistakes and through those mistakes are learning. You know, so. What about us? I saw those customers up at Indian Motel. Also seen alarmism. What are we learning from all of this? Just that we're going to keep following the same thing. Kellogg has done up in the industry, this time being Kellogg in the proportion that will stay the same or sort of. What are you guys learning from all of this? What are you guys going to provide for us? If some Australian dollar is royalties in LA Comunidad, even in my supposedly mountainous area, Ms.. Burton made caramel supper and there there is a caramel formerly sorry caramel to plan, but apparently strangely. And there are already a lot of developers in our in our neighborhood and there's more to come probably. And what we want is a way to be able to communicate and to be involved with all of this development themselves. Those who think cancel them or también or cancel them. A stress reduction. If you guys are tired of us, but we are also tired of our situation. And the stress situation. Espinoza Recitation of the power meal or samples. Dolores Almas Photo narrator. In our situations, awful. It's embarrassing. It's our situation is paying 1800 dollars a month just for rent. You're not a common lady. Show Anteriormente that mythical amicable status put empanadas in, you know, sort of seeping in afterwards. I can tell you that. I've said it before. Maybe you guys can't even afford to pay this and we're supposed to be able to pay that somehow. So center por ciento is the machado para nosotros not freedom of the two. We are in consideration. Capulet run by her was 24. Lamine wasn't quite in town trying to persuade simply I am a. And 60% is way too much for us. Maybe you guys could please consider to lower it that maybe at least a 40 or 30%. Amy and I trust family have made assembly. We do not know that there are no strong family left medicine. They do not come. You don't even lugard on their lives. Our families deserve a home. Our families deserve a bed in a place in which to live. But implementable, to commit their lives. To simply to be able to eat, simply to be able to live them. Because some of lucky. As any of us that are present here. Which are with us. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Chelsea Paris. Mm. Jesse Pierce represent for Denver, home of South Low. Positive action. Commitment for social change. And Black Stars more for self-defense. And I'm also an at large candidate for the At-Large position. I'm on top of the ballot for the May 2019 election. We are against this rezoning for all of the reasons that have been stated tonight. As usual, this current council is going through with rapid gentrification measures that are violating U.N. resolutions. The U.N. was here two months ago. This current council, when mayor is in violation of all kinds of U.N. resolutions and you guys continue to turn a blind eye to it. But the members of the community and those that are running for office are not turning a blind eye to it. And we see it loud and clear for what it is. This is not gentrification. This is communist side. This is ethnic cleansing. We are being ethnically cleansed out of our neighborhoods and our communities. And this current council was not doing anything to mitigate or stop this from happening. So I say as a city council representative, candidates hit candidate at this time. We need to sweep the council like this with the homeless every night. We need to elect new members of council and mayor that actually can empathize. And Mr. Pierce, please talk. To those that are suffering in this town. We need new, bold leadership. We need people that are actually going to have these discussions with the community, not wait for the last minute to have these discussions with the community, not put these things on a community at the very last moment in seconds. This is ridiculous. This council should be ashamed of itself. Sweep the council like they sweep the homeless every night. Vote May 7th. Your ballots drop. Mr. Barrett. Do you have anything to add on the topic of this public hearing? Thank you very much. All right, that concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilman Brooks? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Can we get CPD? I just have a couple of questions. There are a couple of questions regarding the general development plan and that CPD did not require in our development plan. Can we can we talk about that a little bit? And a traffic study, I believe one of the speakers talked about didn't require a traffic study. I can start with the traffic study, then I'll hand it off to Sara Showalter. What? I understand that a traffic study will be required at time of site development plan. I spoke with public works and they were pretty clear about that requirement. Okay. So the developer will be doing a traffic study? That's correct. Thank you. Sir. Good evening, everyone. Sarah Showalter from Community Plan Development. So to address the question about a general development plan, the Denver Zoning Code says that CPD will make the determination whether a general development plan should be required or not. It gives some guidance on things to consider and includes the size of the site. It includes whether there would likely be phase development with multiple owners. It includes whether the site is within 100 feet of a river corridor, whether a neighborhood plan calls for GDP. Those are just examples of the things it says to consider. So CPD at the time that the PRE-APPLICATION happened for this rezoning very early on, considered all of those different factors, things that led to the determination to not require GDP include the fact that there is the neighborhood plan does not call for GDP here. And what the proposed rezoning is is in alignment with what the neighborhood plan does call for an industrial mixed use three storey building the or zone district. The neighborhood plan does not call for any major street connections through the site. If we have a neighborhood plan that calls for street connections will often use the general development plan as a way to make sure that that will happen. But there that wasn't part of the neighborhood plan. And there aren't really there could certainly be street extensions into the site for sure. I don't mean to imply that there isn't any need for connectivity into the site, but there wouldn't be any major connections because of the railroad tracks and lack of connectivity of anything to connect you to the West Side. So through the site development plan process, we are able to ask for those things. And one of the big things that the code says about whether to do a DDP or not is to also consider if there are other regulatory processes available, such as site development plan review, to be able to get what seems adequate for the site, given the fact that the rezoning is actually decreasing the intensity that is allowed on the site. The current zoning idea allows for a lot of heavy uses that the new zoning would not allow. It also has no height limit. It has kind of the older model of zoning we had in the city for a long time called a far floor area ratio with no height limit. The new zoning will limit the entire site to three stories in height. So it's actually another reason we'll think, oh, we might really need a GDP is if there's going to be a significant increase in intensity indicating we might need significant infrastructure improvements. Again, not to imply there will be no infrastructure improvements, but they are could be accomplished through the site development plan review such as the traffic study that was already mentioned. That's a common procedure that would be part of the site development plan review process. You touched on something that was one of my questions and it was the intensity of height that the current zoning idea requires. This is a bit of a, you know, effort. The zoning is depending on what you're trying to do. So can you give in layman's terms to folks who are watching who who are here, what could be built? Under the current zoning with the idea. Yeah, sure. So the way the floor area ratio works is it's basically a multiplier of your how large your property is. And in this case, it allows for up to a maximum of two times the site. So that could be two. Just to keep it simple, there would be some required setbacks, but basically that means you could just build like a two storey building across the entire site ish. This is very, you know, rudimentary description of how a fireworks or you could squeeze it all into a much smaller building because there's no height limit, however, however tall you could get until you'd run out of floor area. So there's a lot of options with a huge site like this because it's 14 acres, obviously would probably be multiple buildings, but collectively, all that floor area could be up to two times the square footage of the site. Okay, great. Thank you for that. Laura Brzezinski question for you regarding this housing we've been talking about this development and regarding some sort of housing requirement. Right now it's 70, 70 units at 60%. Am I do we have a recorded contract that that's deeded with? And also which hasn't been brought up is the developer has agreed, I believe, that if they cannot do this development within two years, that they will give the land to a nonprofit to develop it is that deeded in in the contract. So Laura brzezinski with the Denver Economic Development and Opportunity Office there is a an agreement to provide affordable housing at this site. It is 70 units and that would be affordable at 60% AMI or below. What was it mentioned earlier is there's also a requirement to build at least 30% of those units with two or more bedrooms . So there are some family sized units. What the agreement states is that the developer would be required to build the affordable units within the first phase of development so they can build up to half of the acreage and then they must provide the affordable housing. So we recognize that there are some external factors in terms of development and timing of development. So we wanted to provide some flexibility given market conditions to phase the development of the affordable units in alongside the market without having the specific time constraints of a two year time period. And and if the developer cannot, this is a little bit of complexity on tax credit. There's another tax credit deal at 40th and raise a lot of folks who have been doing developments and geese don't feel like they've been competitive and not been able to get tax credits if they do not get the tax credits, is there another mechanism that's in there that this is what I was told? So I'm seeing if they can't do the development well, they did it to another nonprofit to do that development. So the agreement does not require that they did it to another developer. It's flexible in who develops the affordable units, whether it's this developer or a partner developer. But because the agreement states that there must be 70 units produced at 60% AMI, it doesn't also require that they are developed through tax credits. So those 60% of units could be developed with or without tax credits. Okay. Thank you. I see a lot of folks in the queue, so I'm going to let my colleagues yield my time to my colleagues. And Brooks. We've got Councilman Ortega up next. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. Let me first start with Bill Moore, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So I'm just thinking about some of the infrastructure that is going to be needed on this site. This is a big site and typically a GDP is required on anything that is ten acres or more. This is 14. Talk to me about storm drainage, what street extensions might look like. How how much open space is expected in terms of acres or size of the the open space? Well, currently there is a storm drainage program on the site. It was a little bit. It appears like it may have been cut off by RTD because they they brought their line around. And so they've had to redo it. So that is going to be changed to accommodate the whole site with her. Explain what that. Means. Well, I maybe I almost don't know enough to explain that. What I do realize that the storm drainage was had been recently updated because it was altered when the RTD line cut off what I believe was the historic extents of this parcel, if that makes sense. So in other words, you would tap into the existing storm drainage that was built as part of the RTD line coming in. But does that not require you to have to do more to deal with onsite storm drainage for a property of this size? We will be doing we will be doing a new plan that incorporates what exist and then also new drain, a new addition to that drainage system. Okay. And with regards to the streets 41st and 42nd would cross Clayton. So we're just aligning our access points with 41st and 42nd as well. We're not. And the other along 40th, those access points are staying as they are currently. Okay. And do you anticipate that this would be done in phases? You know, it's it is large. So it's really hard to say at this time. And I guess I'm just trying to understand if just hearing what Mr. Brzezinski said in terms of the phasing and when the affordable units would need to be done. And am I correct in assuming to do this at 60%, the expectation is to access the tax credits. That's one of the avenues that the developer is going to pursue. But there may be others. So is there any chance that if other avenues could be pursued that to secure tax credits could actually achieve a lower emission rate? And is that something the developer is actually considering? That's possible. It's been a fire drill to develop the agreement. And so, you know, I can't speak beyond the way it's worded, but yes, I mean, that is possible. So the agreement right now that exists is just on the affordable housing, and that's with our housing office. Is that correct? I believe that's the sign portion. Okay. And but you made an earlier question about open space, so I didn't speak to that. But go ahead. Currently, we we have a commitment to provide 20% open space. The code requires ten. Okay. And. That's expected to be internal to the project. It will be internal to the project, but a large component of it will be public space. So there is going to be a park. There's a plaza that's adjacent to the underground performance space. So it's the intent is that it is public space. Okay. So, Sarah, would you mind coming up for a moment? Thank you, Bill. If I have any others, I'll call you back. Hi. So, Sara, I'm just looking at the criteria for GDPs. So it talks about large scale. Typically, it's ten acres anticipated to be developed in phases or maybe owned by more than one person or entity, which, you know, may or may not be the case on this project. I know it's not unusual. We saw that with the St Anthony's project. We've seen that with many other properties that were, you know, either similar or smaller in size. I guess I'm trying to understand, looking at the criteria, anticipated infrastructure. I mean, clearly, drainage is one of those the parks that would need to be built, that open space would be considered infrastructure. So why is it that the city made a decision to not require a general development plan as as opposed to. Let me just stop at that. Why did the the city planning staff decide this site, which far exceeds ten acres and has some phasing and has some of the things spelled out in the criteria, but yet did not call for that? Yeah, sure. So size is definitely one of the things it does consider, but we've had other sites that are larger. We have not done a GDP. There's a rezoning recently in front of you for a site well over ten acres, the old city headquarters. There's no general development plan there either. So size is is an important consideration, but it's not the deciding thing. We also look at a lot of other factors. So you brought up the infrastructure needs, which are really important. We worked. We don't just make the decision alone and CPD, we talk to other departments, including public works and parks. And the the input that we got was the likely infrastructure needs for this site, especially given the fact that this is an up zoning and in some ways is even a down zoning would be easy to get through the typical site development plan process that we didn't need a larger planning effort. GDPs. This gets a little bit too the phasing and ownership question as well. GDPs are often really helpful when particularly about the time or there's a definite plan in place. There's multiple owners. GDP is a great way to make sure there's a plan in place for all the infrastructure to get built as needed and potentially even identify phasing. In this case, we had one consistent owner across the entire site and when we talked to the engineers in that area, whether it was about traffic and street connections , whether it's about stormwater, the feedback we got is, although those are important things and they'll definitely be addressed, the requirements and process through site development plan will be adequate to get what's needed. There wasn't a separate need for a bigger framework, Plan B or GDP. And can you just explain what the community input is in the site development plan review process? There's no required community input. If a applicant voluntarily shares information with the community, they can definitely do that, but there's no required process for public input. Okay, I have some other questions, but I know we have people in queue. If you could just put me back in, I'll come back with my others. Sounds good, Councilwoman Black. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for coming out tonight and for your passion for your community. I heard you loud and clear. Your concern is gentrification and displacement. And someone mentioned the Neighborhood Equity Stabilization Team. Is anyone here from that office tonight? Of course. So I'm just very curious why they aren't part of this conversation. That office was started last year and I this is seems like this is what that office was made for was to help deal with situations like this. So. Kevin, I would request that the mayor's office. Get the Neighborhood Equity Stabilization Team involved with this project. I then have a few minor questions. Nola, can you please tell me what you. Would like to see in a. Community benefit agreement. So and it should be in the evidence that we we sent. There's one example that's just kind of a general ask of equitable development. And in in that goes through the affordability, including the ranges of affordability. So it doesn't you know, it doesn't just say 60% AMI and below it says, you know, half of the 70 units , for instance, would be 30 to 50%. And so those types of details around affordability, there would be a creation of a body that has. Ongoing and meaningful participation. Throughout the different stages of the project. So that, for instance, if you had that site plan and you had the traffic report, that. There could be a committee. Made up of community members that would get to hear what that traffic report is and give feedback on it or respond to it, those types of things that would give an ongoing interaction between the development and the neighbors. We also in the 40th and race project, we worked on the creation of a community defense fund where the developer actually donated to a defense fund to support the legal needs of neighbors that are facing displacement in the area. Because that's a big gap is the legal support for neighbors that are facing now trying to remember what else is in there. I don't have it with me. The equitable. That's my forgetting. Oh, neighborhood preference. So that isn't we know it's not a policy yet, but the actually the affirmative marketing plan that says that they would offer those units first to neighbors that have that need and and we would help to promote within the neighborhood accessibility to those neighbors or to those units. So those types of things, local preference for local businesses or at least conversations with local businesses see that as this one, the platform for actual development. Yeah. And then the last ones are a preference for local business facing displacement pressures and also a non-compete clause for existing local businesses so that you're not bringing in businesses that are competing with existing businesses, the neighborhood. 9.25%. And then work the local hiring, too. If there's jobs that are created, that's it. And did you talk to the developer about this when we. The the one meeting that we had with them, not the open house, but we had a meeting just with the GSA coalition. We gave them this. And they were. Interested in it. But we just haven't had time to negotiate anything and. I don't know if you're interested now or not. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Just a few short questions. Courtney. A lot of people said they weren't aware of it. And aren't everyone who lives within a certain distance, 200 feet, supposed to receive notification of what's going on inside? Posted. Did all of that happen? Right. So there was the public process that includes the posting signs on the property, the written notification, Arnaud's, but then also the postcards that are sent out in English and Spanish to all property owners within 200 feet of the subject pre zoning. We always encourage the applicant to do additional outreach to the community and we that's no different than today, you know, and maybe the applicant can speak of their efforts and what they did above and beyond those code requirements. But we did outline in the staff report those code required outreach things that are required. Okay. Thank you. And Bruce, when you started, you did speak really quickly, but you mentioned a number of meetings. Can you go over? Sure, I'd be happy to. This was from your perspective. So we filed the application in October of last year. And prior to that, in July, we contacted some of the RINO's in the neighborhood requesting a chance to get together and brief them and get their input and engage with them. And the only two that responded were Clayton United Neighbors and the Business Association. And in fact, we got positive feedback from them, including, I think in your packets is a support from members of the Clayton United. Clayton pardon me. Um, when the application was turned in. We sent a detailed summary of the, what the rezoning entailed to the RINO's and we also sent them the application itself in a PDF format in the the summary that was kind of like a cover memo to the application addressed the difference between I and I and I. And that's three. It addressed the size of the site. It addressed changes of uses, the introduction of residential. It was quite a lot of detail, again, inviting dialog and participation. And there was no response. We then again followed up a third time in February with these same groups attempting to engage them. And again, no response. And so it wasn't then until after, Ludie, that that things really got going. And so, as I've described earlier, we had a community open house at the site in the wonder bound space. We sent, I think, about 90 invitations to immediate neighbors to that, and I would estimate there were more than 40 people there. But by my count, there were about 40 people that were neighbors that came in response to the invitations. We had, as NOLA described, a meeting with the coalition itself. We've had a meeting with North was a build the United North R.A. and and then we also have sat down in individual home and met with immediate neighbors . And and so we've been out there trying, getting notice out of I personally put up all the signs, that type of thing. So I think that we've made every attempt to get engagement. And regretfully, it was late that the Coalition surfaced on this and has been very clear about what their topics are. And did you send notification to the GSA coalition? Are you an R.A. now? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Black, Councilman Espinosa. Bruce Instagram. Yes, sir. What was the application fee to the city for the rezoning? Well, it was. I'm trying to do math in my head. Probably about $7,000. Okay. And then how did the city get involved? Because this is all private development or did the city have some stake in the land at some point? What do you mean by city? Get involved. Got in. There's machinations about an agreement. I'm still confused by it, but, you know, why would you. What was what was the impetus for that? So about a week after the ludy meeting, we got an email from CPD suggesting that entering into a development agreement would be a desired outcome of all this. And so we started discussions and dialog on that and arrived at the agreement to build affordable units. It's been described tonight with the 70 units. To meet units, which is, you know, I've heard people talk about 700 units, so that would be 10% of a proposed project or is that. That's an accurate estimate? Okay. Yeah. So and then just a question for Greg Moore. I mean, sorry, Mr. Moore, can you direct me to where you're getting the 10% open space request, or is that part of the agreement? It's not part of the agreement. It's it's just a component in the code. Which form standard are you using? You know, I don't I don't know. I'm looking at I mean, it's in the IMAX code and it's a. Maybe staff could could tell me where that is. You know, I could go ahead. So the next three, they will be allowed to build under the townhouse general and industrial building forms. So the residential will probably be under the townhouse building for. Okay. And then this is just sort of a question for both Sarah and yourself because sir, in the response to the GDB question, you said a lot of things that sort of justified, you know, recap the whole justification. And so I'm really perplexed. Yes. It doesn't say anything about GDP being required here, but in the Illyria plan, this sort of small area plan for this area, there is a tab in in this I'm going to call it up so I can have it as a reference called industrial areas, which this is clearly mapped in that plan. Correct. Yes. I mean, it's in the area. It's, in fact, doing exactly what the plan calls, which is to try to phase out the heavy industrial areas and replace them with more mixed use and residential. That's actually not what the plan calls for. If I direct you to pages 94 and 94. Let me grab my copy of the plan. There is absolutely zero reference to housing or residential as a replacement says encourage infill development to improve the quality of built environment, encourage industrial properties lying further away from the station areas and residential areas to develop into higher valley value. Employment and manufacturing facilities encourage industrial properties used for outdoor product stores to invest in vertical racking systems. And it goes on and on and on about these are job centers and industrial and near-zero reference to housing being the the appropriate re-use of these industrial areas that are mapped in this plan. Well, I just want to point out the land use map for this is industrial mixed use in the plan. But this is character area strategies, which is how this area is mapped. Sure. And if you look at the map, do you remember what page the. Here it is, page 28. If you look at the site under question, you see that map, correct? It says the future. The vision for this site is industrial mixed use. And then if you read the strategy for industrial, the description of industrial mixed use, it is exactly aligned with the I am x zone district that they're calling for. So you're right, it still allows for plenty of employment opportunities. It's not saying it only has to be residential. I Emacs is a very diverse zone category has all kinds of permitted uses. It's not saying it has to exclusively be residential, it's just adding that option. You will agree with me, will you? Won't you, that the the 2010 zone districts, which I am x three is one has had a lot of impact in I mean, it has has had a lot to do with the gentrification and displacement that has occurred in other parts of the city. Correct? I don't know enough about where we've mapped I am zoning recently. And I said 2010 zones. I don't know enough about where it was mapped in 2010 to. I'd want to overlay that with our vulnerability to displacement map. To answer that question, I don't have the data in front of me to answer that. Where I'm going, what I'm why I'm asking this question this way about the 2010 zone districts is, as you know, you could build slot homes in an IMX three zone district and that's why it has the townhouse form. Now that we addressed, you could have done it under the general building form previously. And so I'm not talking about IMX in particular, I'm actually talking about the form standards that would have allowed essentially the same things that happened in, say, Jackson Park or West Colfax could be built in an IMX three zone district prior to the Slide Home Text Amendment, correct. Yes, I'm I'm having. I have one right there at 41st and Inga. Right. There's a 26 unit development at 40 at 30/40, an anchor right next to a. Using the IMX three standard. So, I mean, yeah, I mean, it's doable. All right. No further questions. I'll come back. I do want to get back in the queue. Major Espinosa, Councilman Bruce, I've got a couple questions. I just want to go over the the configuration of the project. You know, how many how many total units of 700. And that's the estimate right now is about 700. As you can imagine, we're in a very conceptual planning stage because we don't even have the zoning yet. And so the affordable units are going to be 10% of the 70 units. So yes. And so the rest will be market unit and market rate. Not necessarily. The developer has a goal of doing some below market rate units, mixed income units, artists, live work units. And and so there's a whole some ideas about a whole variety of, of types of units and mixed income. So those types of of units are your number. Is that affordable? Is that in addition to the affordable? That would be in addition to the 70 affordable. Correct. So it would be 60%, Amma? No, it would be a potentially a whole mix of EMI, but there's some a goal of the applicant to not do, to do more than just the 70 units at 60 and then the rest at all market rate. Okay. Okay. Is it rental or ownership? There's a mixture or. Mixture. Likely? Likely. Probably, I would imagine more rental at this time. But the some of the units are an idea is to have the me townhomes, pardon me, townhome townhouse type units. And so it's conceivable that some of those could be for sale or sale. And are you considering the pricing of your rental units versus your for sale? Not yet, no. Do you think it's coming more toward market rate? Well, I think some will be market and some will be less than market. Okay. Community service and retail, are you going to have any? Yes. Right now, we estimate about 25,000 square feet of retail. And it's a community serving in the sense that it's small spaces scattered in various spots around the site and no no big footprints of retail type. And so it will definitely serve the broader community as well as the new development here. What kind of stores you're thinking about? Probably food service a fair amount in the store. Is that a restaurant or. Probably not a grocery store just because the footprints aren't big enough? Mm hmm. Okay. But it's more like a restaurant or. I would think some restaurants. And. But beyond that, again, we just. It's too early to know, Councilman. Okay. Okay. So the community benefits agreement, what would you say? It sounds like a good neighbor agreement to some degree or maybe it's a little bit more than that. Are y'all receptive to that or what? Well, as I said earlier, when I gave the my presentation that we are absolutely open to ongoing discussions and engagement with the community. And a lot of what we heard tonight from the community I think makes good sense in our the right types of goals for all of us to be striving for. What shape that might take tonight. I don't know. Okay. Just don't know yet. Can you get the rezoning tonight? Is that was it going to require me to do this type of agreement? The reasoning itself would not know. It would be voluntary. But. But you're committed to do that? Yes, sir. And the traffic study. That has to be done. Who would pay for that traffic study? The applicant. Applicant? Okay, then how would you share the results of that study with the community? Well, that would be determined through our continued dialog. And she would be sharing it to possibly. Yes. US with. Why would you not share? I can't think of a reason why not right now. But I just again, I'm I'm not going to negotiate anything this evening. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Courtney, let me ask you a question on the on the notification to residence and guess it's to the property owners. And I don't know how many ladies here are the property owners, you know, all property owners or do you rent or how do you how do you handle rental notifications in areas , you know, where you may not have as many property owners as normal? How do we make sure that all those folks are knowing what's going on? Right. So the code. Requirement of the postcards, that information is pulled from the assessor's data. And so we send them to owners of record. So that's who they address essentially that people, you know, who own the property, if the property owner doesn't live at that address and they rented out, then it would be their responsibility to inform their renters. Yeah. Sound like we're probably in a low income area. We may have a problem with that notification for sound like we need to change that maybe then development agreement. You know, we all are supporting that. I mean, you said nobody was suggesting that CPD get involved with that at all. Yeah. Are you're you're supporting that agreement? Yes. We worked together with OED and the applicant for that affordable housing agreement. What about the community benefits agreement? You're in support of it. Yes, there isn't one currently executed that we know of between the applicant and the the community. One gets developed. You can help with that. One guess developing could help with that or support that or. I mean typically that's between the community and the the the applicant that enforcement. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Courtney first let me pick up where Councilman New left off with the development agreement that was suggested by CPD to the applicant after the committee meetings. Is that what I hear that correctly? I believe that we have record of of talking and saying, you know, of, you know, suggesting entering into a voluntary agreement. And we stressed the entire time that this is a voluntary agreement. I think around the beginning of February suggesting that that might be something that they might want to consider. Mr. O'DONNELL Did did I hear you say that you got a call from CPD after the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee to come in and work on a development agreement? It was an email, but it was it was after that. It was after the. Okay, so that was about the end of February. I'll look up the exact date. Real quick. I have it. Okay. Courtney then you answered. Councilman knew by saying that the development agreement was worked out and it's signed. It's done. Correct. Okay. Where is it? Do we have it? I have it. Yeah, I mean, we don't. Do we. Have. Would you like a copy? Yes. It's signed and it's going through our system. Alfresco. That's not. That's what I'm saying. It's not in our record here. As an attachment. But it's not. Okay. I wasn't. There, but that was negotiated with OED. That's correct. Yep. If you want to check in, Laura, I'm sorry. It's Dito now. It's not. Dito now. So I still say Denver General Hospital. So that tells you something. It's an affordable housing agreement that's been signed by the applicant and is working its way through the city signature process. So it has been approved by the office and is still working through the final stages. So the development agreement addresses only the provision of affordable housing, how many units, at what level and nothing else. It is just an affordable housing. Okay. So it doesn't address community concerns or or issues at all. Only the affordable housing agreement is there. So any anything above affordable housing commitment is not contained in the agreement. Okay. Have we done development agreements that also address concerns and issues in the neighborhoods? Fair. So I would say we we typically development agreements are between the city and the applicant. Right. So we include things that are within we feel a fair realm for the city to be asking for in negotiating. Sometimes those overlap with what the community is looking for. Sometimes they don't. Oftentimes where there's an agreement in place, there will also be a private agreement or good neighbor agreement, whatever you want to call it, that will address go well beyond what was in the development agreement to address concerns from the community. Yet you saved us three more questions then, because what I was getting at was why? Why do we have this bifurcated process where we have the development agreement with the applicant and the city, and then we ask the applicant to voluntarily talk to the community to do a demo, you or or some kind of a community benefits agreement separately from that. Have we ever done anything that just combines it all into one process? Node would then be ready for us here at the final. Not to my knowledge. The agreements that the city's city enters into are four things within our purview directly with the applicant and then the commute. There's no requirement for us to be involved or do something that would be a bigger negotiation with the community. Okay. Mr. O'Donnell, then and my screen is going haywire here, but you sent an email out after the community had asked for a delay in the in the public hearing, you sent an email out saying that there shouldn't be a need for a delay. And I don't have the direct quote here because like I said, my my screen is going weird that a delay wouldn't be necessary because by April 8th, which is today, there would have been substantial progress on not just the the agreement with the city, the development agreement, but also on a community benefits agreement or an M.O.. You with the neighborhood. So what is the status of that second item? Has there been you told us that there would be substantial progress by tonight. That doesn't sound like there was. So we contemplated an M or you with the city and that process kind of stalled out because of a preference for making certain that the agreement to build affordable units got completed. Okay. And then there had also been some discussion with the Coalition about some sort of an an M.O. you or an agreement of some type. And we pulled back from that when they started exploring a protest petition. And we just felt that it would be very difficult to negotiate in good faith and have, you know, honest discussion and dialog when faced with a protest petition, obviously trying to get the rezoning killed. Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. A few more questions. Would you prefer I get back in line or move on to other for why don't we get to. Some people have asked first and maybe they'll ask some more questions for you. I doubt that. But they're welcome to try walking. To try councilman. Love it. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Just three three questions I have. First is our our city attorney's office. There's a lot of talk of the of a CBA community benefits agreement. There's even conversation about good neighbor agreement. Is this something that lives within the zoning process or is it something that the city can be a signatory to? Where does it start and where does it end? In terms of what our authority is? I wanted to follow up with Councilman Flynn's question on whether it can be bundled in a deal like this or not. Adam Hernandez, Assistant City Attorney. Most community backed community benefits agreements and good neighbor agreements are negotiated between the the applicants and the neighborhoods. And most of the purpose is, you know, to to garner support for whatever approval is being sought in exchange for, you know, a variety of of issues. But community benefits agreements, good neighbor agreements, do not live in the zoning code. Now, does the city or city council play a role or have a role in that process? Can they be? Signatory to community benefits agreement. It really would depend on what is in the agreement. Let's say, like you said, housing. Use of square footage, breakdown of units, affordability, things like that. So just taking this, this instance, for example, the the agreement that was agreed to by both parties dealt with affordable housing. And that's something that the city does regulate and can enforce. So oftentimes, good neighbor agreements, community benefit agreements have provisions that the city really can't enforce, doesn't have regulatory authority over. And so those things are more applicable to the negotiations that she's. You know, like I think something mentioned today was a preference for local residents to have access to the affordable housing. That's not something that's in our city codes and city regulations. I think there's more good faith marketing requirements. I'd look to Laura just to make sure I'm speaking on that. Could could a community benefits agreement on that know, Adam? Could that community benefits agreement have a provision that would give preference, local preference to residents who are in that area? It, it could, but that specific example possibly could run afoul of what is that an act of through our rules and regs for our affordable housing program? Again, I'm drawing a blank on some specific examples, but I think of things that the city really wouldn't be enforcing or have regular regulatory authority over. Okay. Thank you, Adam. Carol Costello, in your assessment as a nominee and a friend, the mercedes's better than most anticipated when you're on microphone. If you can come to the microphone. So the las cosas masa important piece and so pinion so arrested this arroyo. Baraka left Construir deposit beneficios appointed across the border on Proyecto is that people so and this kind of what this kind of development and what are the what are the priorities what are the priorities that you would see is important for you to actually support something like this. One of the things that are missing, so to speak. Bebe and us as siblings. But a lack of money that this is really the. Affordable element of the community. That would be my priority. Solamente sexy racy fondle liver bananas throw. But the most to me in this the person that stands for free. And though Bautista what I will sustain their interest in which is personal not the end in itself in their opera, but as a process, whatever. I would also ask for legal aid funds. We have a lot of people in our community who are currently struggling and are being abused by landlords and they don't have funds to be able to take care of that legally. Okay. Conor Bezos, Dennis already sent us over the border when officials announced the project. When did you guys start organizing around a community benefits agreement with this and with this or with these kind of aspects of this project? The an eco mode is the besoin in this arroyo then set into a seasonal almost to the UK lack of money. That is the installation though in this place. Other customers see this blazer was. I would say it. Has been since the beginning of the I-70 development. We had a study about how people showing how people were being displaced involuntarily. The north coast, optical states. And, you know, and obviously that battle is today. But again, as a specific, I meant that there's that there's the them. Or there's the proyecto a dinner poquito tiempo that can nosotros no center. I'm just. Wondering, based on. The American mom starts come. My son was single. Mom is working. With this project specifically. It's recent because we just found out about it. So it's been about a month. Como Mr. Smith has always seemed to be primarily on their continues. Yeah. So maybe like a month, maybe two ago that we had the meeting with them. CONAN The convalescence, not a recurrence of that, the less on infection. What we made of is what prevent? When did they notify you at this rezoning? Was I still missed the phenomenon. I've been see a month ago when they had the open house. Excuse to. Those. Guys were not. Yes. And we all participated during that time. Thank you. We're going to Bruce, can you come to the Guzman-Lopez? Do you mind? You've been a little bit over reserve. Some people have. I mean, the translation kind of counted towards that, but I think. That's you mind. We just had a lot of other people went over to one. I've been quiet this whole time. I just have one question for me, but that's fine. Come back to me, please. All right, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. We're still there. You're hiding back behind there. Thank you. The development agreement. So it only addresses the housing piece? That's correct. Compared to what God put together for she died. That's pretty bare bones. I mean, she that talked about a single point of reference on construction. It talked about public meetings when site plans were submitted and drainage plans and so on. I'm wondering why this is just so then. I'd prefer for the applicant answer that question. I mean, on our end we wanted it to include things like open space and there was a very short amount of time and this is what they put on the table. And in a very short period of time for us to commit to, it sounds like they're open to maybe pursuing future conversations. But. Right. But first, let's talk more about what we're looking at now is a development agreement that only addresses the housing piece. So as far as Mr. Moore talked, about 20% open space. Is that part of any? Like I said, we would love to have open space to be part of a development agreement, but it's. Not. The applicant proposal that would be part of an MOU. You at the city and emoji is not enforceable. We never to my knowledge ever done and I'm on your piece. It doesn't really mean anything it's just and what they felt like they could commit to at this time and a voluntary agreement was the 70 units. And so that's what we move forward on. Right. We would love to see an agreement that included open space. Okay. Thank you for that. Let's see. So just I don't know who would answer this. My understanding is that the dance company is moving it or is now in the existing building. Is there anything that requires that to stay indefinitely or that I'm not? Thank you, Councilman. We have actually been given a permanent home by Brooke and Tom Gordon in that building. Right. To be there hopefully is in perpetuity to create a performing arts center and a place for the community to be as well as wander bounds. Permanent home. Right. But that that's just a verb. Some sort of agreement between you and the developer. I'm just trying to. This might not even be appropriate for you. I guess city staff might know better. I mean, can that building go away at some point? The agreement that we have, which is verbal and but there is a lease that is a long term lease. It's 30 years and then is renewed in ten year increments. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much. The community benefits they're talking about is. That's not been resolved. Bruce. To be sure I'm clear. You didn't notify GSC in your original sending out to R and O's and so on. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And then that was about a month ago where here and right. That they came into the conversation. Right. Okay. Thank you. And I guess the last thing whomever wants to answer this, the 70 units of affordable housing. So, as I understand it, 60%. 60% or less. And I think Laura might have said there's some requirement for two bedrooms. Refresh me on that, please. Sure. The agreement does state 70 units at 60% AMI or below with no less than 30% of them that are two bedrooms are larger. And those are the minimum requirements. Under the agreement, certainly the applicant can produce more affordable at deeper affordability levels, more than that as far as bedrooms. But the agreement is what is committed to without the assumption of any city subsidies. Okay. And I think that's all my. Oh, the the 10% open space is a code requirement, correct? That would be a GDP code requirement. So there's no code requirement at this point? No, there is no GDP. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clarke. Mr. Moore. I thought I was going to slip away. You had referenced earlier that you're voluntarily, since it's not in the general development plan, committing to 20% open, open space. Is that open space and a park space? No, it's not a it's not our park space. It's actually our plan right now has 35 are just being conservative, calling it 20. It's just it's a big site. Things are still moving around. So I'm reluctant to specify exactly how that's allocated. But of the 35. The intent is that we're using the nomenclature and the definitions that are in the zoning code. And so we're because it's an existing building, we're just really has creates a lot of physical constraints. And so it it it presents a lot of open space. And so we're using that in any number of ways. So you had said earlier 20%, but now you're saying 35%. What is your. I'm just I'm just illustrating because I know these I mean, this is this zoning is the beginning of the design in a lot of ways. So we really can't move forward. There's just still some things moving around. Our actual plan that we're working on right now are working. Plan has 35% of open space. So what? But as a commitment to the community, we're kind of tempering that by by calling it 20%. And I could say a large part of that is public space. There's a park, there's a plaza outside of Wonder Brown. I mean, there's a lot of different uses for that space. What is this? So if you're using 20%, if you're using 35%, I'm sure that that does not make the community feel any better, knowing that there's vagueness around how much open space they might get. What is your percentage split between park space versus detention and drainage? I don't know. The detention drainage is has only been done at conceptual level. I mean, so are you committing to you said that you are going to double the amount of open space required. It would be 1.4 acres if you're doing the 10%. You said you were going to double that. So that's 2.8 acres of open space. But you can't tell us how much is going to be park land versus how much is going to be detention or drainage. I can't delineate between those right now. I mean, I could do that math if I had the plan. And we just haven't we haven't delineated it like that. Okay. Thank you, Sarah. I have some questions for you, please. You had said something earlier that, you know, in the far northeast, we're right now in the middle of our neighborhood planning initiative. And you had said something that when Councilman Espinosa was asking you questions, you said, well, the a GDP was not required as part of that neighborhood plan. Could you explain what you were meaning? Sure. If I said required, that would have been the wrong verb. It's one of the things the code says to consider when we're determining whether to acquire a GDP or not. It's not whether a neighborhood plan requires it. I don't think it's the right word. But just does the neighborhood plan call for a recommend that a GDP happen for a particular site? So if a neighborhood plan does say that, then the code says, you know, that's an important consideration. Okay. That's very helpful to know because even going through this process, that is very helpful going forward. You had also said that significant intensity would be one of the variables that would require a general development plan. I'm struggling to understand how 700 new units. Doesn't qualify as significant intensity. Yeah, no, it's a great point. I think it's change in intensity as we were thinking about it. So it's compared to what the zoning allows today versus what the requested zoning would allow. Not to imply that that's not a change or not intensity, but that it's to the extent that it's going to require significant new public infrastructure . And that's where we like I said earlier, CPD doesn't make that call on our own. We talk to the engineers, you know, given that this and to be clear, they're evaluating the zoning request, not a particular project. So the what's in front of them is the proposed IMAX three zoning and anything that could be allowed under that , including significant residential development. And is there need to have a coordinated, larger picture conversation about public infrastructure based on the rezoning request or in this case, what was determined, even though there'll be significant development, and that will probably require improvements to the site to serve the residential as well as potential traffic improvements. Those things are commonly addressed through the site development planning process and they didn't see the need, especially because there's one owner in control of the entire parcel. There wasn't concerns about not being able to get the improvements that they need. So I want to understand it. Earlier, it sounded like you were, you know, pushing it off to the applicant that that they chose not to do a general development plan. No, not to do development agreement. Or development. That included open space. So I guess where where is your staff in this equation? I guess pushing back and asking the applicant to show what they're going to do around parks and open space. You know, we've only got an agreement now that only speaks to affordable housing. It doesn't speak to the significant intensity that this development is potentially going to bring. And so I just I'm I'm confused as to why staff didn't, I guess, ask more questions or get more information, especially now, because the only requirement that we have if we approve this rezoning is around the affordable housing. We don't have anything else that we're going to be able to ask this developer to potentially do. Yeah. Yeah. So your point, we we did ask a lot of questions. We encouraged doing an agreement that would address, at a minimum, affordable housing and open space, try and address some of the community surgeons that have been coming up. We are also need to stay within the legal framework of the rezoning process and what we're what we can require an applicant to do versus what we can encourage an applicant to do. So we encourage them to consider taking longer and build time in for a more robust agreement. We were asking those questions. We were trying, but ultimately, particularly under advisement of the attorneys office, we we couldn't require anything more. So we are we were doing what we could within our legally defined role. And I think it's a great example of some of the you're pointing us to improvements that we can be looking to make this this whole rezoning. Like one of the things I wanted to note that came up earlier, I think there is a question about Nest Irene, the director of Nest, is aware of this rezoning and has been very involved responding to community concerns in particular. But an example of one of the things that's come up is that really important community groups like the majority of people are here tonight from the Jazz Coalition just because they're not a registered neighbor or an organization. They were not on the list of required bodies to be notified. And so one of the things that Irene's working on is, you know, long term blueprint Denver and some of the plans that we'll be bringing to you soon for adoption call for we need to make some changes in our process so it is more equitable in terms of how outreach happens and what the requirements are, which requires a little more work. But in the short term, Irene's looking at ways to just at least develop lists and communities, especially those that are her focus that are vulnerable to displacement, to give applicants, even though you aren't required by the code, to notify. These are those. These are other community groups that you should know about in this area and do outreach to them as well. So it's that's an example the the regulatory tools available to us right now when you have. A large rezoning like this, and some of their limitations are also an example of things they want to improve. So then that would get to some of the questions you were asking about, you know, why weren't we requiring or asking for more? There are already underway. Also coming to you soon are the whole GDP process is going to completely change? So large development review or LDR. We are hoping part of what that process does is create a better, more coordinated process at the beginning for all departments to be at the table and be clear on what what is required of a large development. And then Dido and CPD was kicking off an effort to create a more clear triggers and a regulatory way to create and enforce those triggers for large developments to provide affordable housing. So we did get the agreement for the 70 units here. I'm kind of at the last minute, but what we'd like to do in the future through that process is identify where we have large sites. Other triggers might include sites that are receiving TIFF funding, for example. Be a little clearer for everybody involved what are the triggers and what would be requirements? So do want to acknowledge that we see room for improvement and we already have ideas about what some of those improvements could be so we could see better outcomes. But for this particular process, we kind of worked within the regulatory tools available to us, which didn't give us a lot of ability to require things, but we tried to encourage and push where we could go. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Sara. I'll defer. I've got a couple other questions, but thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman each. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to begin with a couple of questions. Well. Let me clarify with Laura. I think let me start with Laura and then I'll follow up the first, if that's okay. Are the affordable housing requirements in an AHP and affordable housing plan or are they in a development agreement, which are two different tools? One is a regulatory thing that has exclusive authority to approve. The other is an agreement with the city that I'm guessing has a different set of signatures on it. So which do we have here? Because we've called it both and I'm not clear. Yeah, good question. And I will take a stab at the first answer. Adam, if you need to step in, please feel free. So an affordable housing plan is an agreement that was negotiated under the historic inclusionary housing ordinance. So we no longer create that exact same plan. This is an affordable housing agreement, which looks more like a development agreement which is signed by all of the city parties, in addition to just the Denver Economic Development and Opportunity Office. So it is signed by those other agencies that would typically execute an agreement like this rather than an affordable housing plan. So is the proper term to use as you have in an affordable housing agreement, you do not have a development agreement that's covering the entire scope of the deal. We would typically have affordable housing requirements in a development agreement if there were other components to the development agreement. But it functions in the same way. Okay. Thank you. So can you clarify what the length of affordability is in there? And I it is I just will say it's very disappointing because several of your memos referenced that it was attached and it was not in the record. So we're all flying blind without actually being able to see the agreement. I understand why you couldn't provide it, but it was referenced in in your memos. Mr. O'Donnell is an attachment. And it was it was indeed not attached to any of the memos that you sent her that you submitted to the record. So we're all making, you know, trying to catch up here 40 years. 40 years is the minimum. Okay. And when was that agreed to before or after the ordinance change going to 60 years. That was agreed to in the last several weeks as we were negotiating this. The affordable housing ordinance that changed the minimum afforded affordability period to six years was adopted in the fall. But there's no city subsidies being utilized for these units required under this agreement. If there were any city subsidies used, any applicable city requirements would also be applicable here. Did you ask for the 60 years? We did and they were refused. The 40 years. What was that was what was negotiated. Okay. And then I want to ask what the agreement says about the ability to layer subsidies. So we talked a little bit before. So if they were to pay a linkage fee, they'd be on the hook for the fee. They're going to get credit for building on site. So there's a certain period, there's a certain amount of money this developer should just be using to pay for this housing. So does the agreement contemplate how much they are just plain on the hook for regardless versus how much they're allowed to seek subsidize city, for example, and competes , frankly, with other projects that are also competing for those resources. So what the agreement states is that the provision of the 70 affordable units below 60% AMI in accordance with the agreement, waives the linkage fee on residential construction. Within this site there is still a commercial linkage fee being collected and any commercial development within the site. Certainly there's an option to build additional units instead of pay that commercial fee. But it is optional, not required as it is on the residential side. And the agreement also requires the 70 units at 60% AMI without the provision of city subsidies, it doesn't prohibit the use of city subsidies or contemplate their use. Say that last part again. I'm sorry I didn't catch it. That the agreement doesn't prohibit their ability to compete for city subsidies, but it does state that if they were to compete for city subsidies, it would be beyond what is required by the 70 units at 60%. Let me say back to you in a different way. They are not eligible for any subsidy from the city to get these 70 units at 60% of. They'd either have to go to a lower AMI, but they can seek state subsidies for them. They could take six states tax credits. It doesn't contemplate any prohibition on other financial tools to build the units other than city subsidies. Okay. And then can I just ask, was OED present at the community meetings that were held? We were. Was Melissa there? Yes. Melissa was there. Or one of our staff members was present. And where were you. When how much negotiation was occurring before versus after the community meetings? Primarily after oak and oak. This is really hard not to go into comments. I'll hold. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Kenny. Councilwoman Sussman. Well, she had. Sorry your husband hasn't gotten in line yet, so. Excuse me, Doctor. Certainly. That's perfectly all right. Thank you all for being here. This has been a just an amazing conversation. Nola, I'd like I'd like to ask you a question if you could go. And I'm I'm going to ask you, because you had sent us a very good email about. Some of the things that the neighborhood. Wanted to have in in. An agreement. And tonight, it's almost as if we can't we don't get a chance to decide what might be. In an agreement. Tonight, we are going to have to decide whether this. Stays as an industrial. Area. Or whether it becomes an industrial mixed. Use. Area. And I. I would. I'd like to know, do you think the community would like it to stay as an industrial area, or do you think the community would like it to become a mixed use area? Because if the zoning fails, they can't come back for a year to ask for the mixed use. Three storey one. They would have the. Zoning as industrial with, you know, 30 foot heights and industrial things. What what would you say that? After hearing all of. The concerns that the neighborhood. Would very much like? Well, I can speak both to the recent conversations that we have and also the conversations that we had in the neighborhood planning process, because I was a part of that as well. Yes. That's why I asked you. I thought you'd be a good representative. During the neighborhood planning process. And I appreciated Councilman Espinoza's question because we really didn't talk about I am x three in the context of housing. And it's also because it was kind of a different time then. In 2014 when we weren't talking. About housing as much generally what the desire from the neighbors was to get rid of industrial uses that people don't want, in particular marijuana growing in their backyard. We since then have fought for a cap on the marijuana licenses for Larry Swanson neighborhood. So we don't have that risk anymore to have new locations of marijuana licenses at the site, for instance. But sure, most neighbors don't want heavy industrial uses right next to them. AT&T hasn't been a heavy industrial user. You know, there's cars in the parking lot, but it's not necessarily use. That was upsetting to the neighborhood. We never talked about this site in the neighborhood planning process back in 2014. Specifically as far as the AT&T site, I would say more recently, that's what's made this path so hard for us to decide. Do do we oppose this, though? We don't really want to oppose it. Because we don't necessarily want industrial uses, but we had no good pathway forward and that's why we really struggled with what do we support? You know, this supporting it with conditions was kind of the makeshift solution that we had because we didn't have another way to move forward. And we didn't we need we we would like some sort of accountability measure for the developer to say, you know, that's why we're saying, you know, before the site development plan is completed and done, if the city could require a community benefits agreement or something like that, so that we at least we know we we have more than just a word that says we're going to engage in this community benefits agreement or have some sort of accountability to that. So I don't know if I answered your question, but. Well, we we don't we don't get those choices. We are either going to pass this zoning or we are not. Which would the neighborhood prefer? Well, let me say one other thing we did when we talked in depth in the neighborhood about the 40th and race site. We did. You know, the zoning that we went for was a35, eight zoning. It wasn't just three stories. And that was because of the compromise with the added. Affordability commitment. By the Urban Land Conservancy. And so I do think that if we had time to have an in-depth conversation around what that zoning could be, we could come up with something that could be better for everyone all around in the long term. But we haven't had the time. And, you know, we asked for the postponement of the hearing to try and work some of these things out and just didn't get that time to do that. So, you know, we're looking to you. For those types of tools. Is there anything that that that. We can do in the circumstances? Because we were like, I wish I had the right answer, but we're stuck. We don't we don't know how to move forward at this point unless there are I mean, if there are conditions that you can put in. But I don't totally understand the answers to that either or what how that would change the process or. So you don't know. Which. Okay. That's all right. You did. You did a good job. Thank you very. Much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sussman. All right. We're going to start going back for a second round here. Councilman Brooks. Oh, okay. Rapid Fire, real quick. I just heard something that was different than. My original understanding, Bruce, for the the term of affordability on these units, what I understood was that the team was okay with them being. For a long time. I didn't understand that it was 40 years. So can someone. Clarify that. And the other thing I want to clarify is it seems as if the conversations that we've had before is you would exceed 70 units of affordability. You would have a range of incomes. This is in concept, and I think a lot of folks don't understand that coming to zoning, like you still have months of detail to work out. There's still a lot of things and we get that. But. It seems like the development agreement that was signed. Is what you're talking about, but you're not talking about your aspirations of what you want to do. And I'm not clear on that because I'm here in two different things. So. Yes, sir. Give me 1/2. All right. I'm going to look something up here. Okay. Okay. So it's correct that the agreement to build affordable units that we've executed is for 40 years. And and that's where we got in working with CPD and Dito. Okay. Is that the are you just doing that as the limit? Limited agreement. Do you do you have a desire to have a longer term of affordability? Do you have desire to have a rate or more affordable housing than 70 units? Yes. So I was trying to explain this earlier. I think when Councilman Nu asked a couple of questions, I must not have done a very good job. We aspire to have many more than these 70 units be at various levels of affordability. These 7070s are locked in contract. This 70 pardon me is locked in contractually. Yeah. And as I was explaining earlier, we were looking at live work studios for artists. We've had discussions about below market rate units that could be marketed to teachers at the Bruce Randolph School and librarians and all that type of kind of workforce housing at below market. So could. Could. Potentially could this reach 20% of affordability. I don't know today. Okay. So let's I think it's important to cut to the chase. There's nothing, you know, obviously, because we're under a quasi judicial state here and there are legal issues. We can't force you to sign an agreement. We can't force you to postpone. Right. But obviously, there's a there's a gap and there's some issues that council is trying to address with the neighborhood. My question is it it seems like and I've been writing the issues that have been with the community. I've been writing what I've heard from you all for the last month. And it seems like you're not far apart on issues, on targeting neighbors who have been displaced and marketing to them to be to have a first refusal on on folks at Bruce Randolph school and teachers to allow them to have the first right refusal, making sure that there are businesses that the community desires that are in the location, you know, making sure that there are a range of incomes that even dip down to 50% or whatever, you know, that kind of conversation making sure and we've done this with other developments, making sure that there's a community group that has a say in the development process or is informed about traffic studies. Can you agree to those ideas conceptually? So that I think council can really feel like the public safety and welfare of our criteria is met? Yes, absolutely. And so I think what we can agree to is to engage with the community, the gas coalition and others that may be appropriate in enter into some sort of a community benefits agreement or an M.O. you and that addresses the tonight's entire discussion, really. And I think that what we would look to in an agreement like this would be procedural things that or sections or topics that are in allow the community to encourage their participation in all of these types of solutions in their ongoing involvement. Okay. Okay. I'll come back. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Ortega. Thank you. I appreciate all the questions that have been asked and the input that we've received from everyone. So let me just look at what has not yet been asked. So was there ever any mediation that was done between the developer and the community? This is very common when we have sort of this conflict or where things have not yet been worked out. Is that something that occurred and is that a role that our Nest office played in this process? Because typically we wouldn't have something coming forward that was still sort of at odds between the community and the developer. So I don't know who could answer that question. Maybe somebody from the plant. Maybe I can start with the first part and you can add on if you'd like. Mediation was offered to the applicant and the community. The applicant declined the mediation in favor of other forms of engagement. If you'd like to speak more, Bruce, about how your engagement and mediation went. So, Bruce, come on up for a second. So when was mediation offered and why was it declined? So like much of everything we're discussing tonight, it came up very late and it was primarily not appealing to us because as I said earlier tonight and has come up a few times, our interests are actually very aligned, we think, with much of the community's view of this. And we're agreeing to the 70 units of affordable that we've now signed the contract for. The other things have come up, the open space, the wonder about all those kind of things and that that that in effect was our offer and that. So but but let me let me make sure I understand this correctly, because what I was hearing was there was really one meeting with the neighborhood. And that one meeting happened after the bill request went to the zoning committee, the land use committee, is that correct? Well, I'm not sure, Councilman, which meeting you were referring to. We had a large community open house. We met with the GSS coalition. We met with Clinton United. We met with United North. And so well. I guess is the Swansea a neighborhood is it's within their statistical boundaries of their neighborhood and and typically you know. It's it's important that the notices go out. But when you are dealing with communities that have language barriers and where. There is a requirement to sit down and walk through the details of what is going on. It's it's not incumbent upon you to do a phone call and to to request a separate meeting, but. I think these are some of the kinds of things that we should be talking about with the planning department, about changes that need to be made to the process so that there is a far more robust kind of effort and engagement so that we don't find ourselves here in this kind of situation because those steps didn't take place. And and I hear that you reached out. You did meet with some people, but you met with some of the neighborhoods who are adjacent, but not the geese, the Swansea community. And and I think that's why you have so many people here tonight and why that concern is, is being expressed about just trying to work through some of these details. And I hear you loud and clear about the commitments that have been made, but the only thing we have in writing will be in the development agreement, which we don't to have. Councilwoman, I just wanna make sure this is restrained a little bit into comments which we'll get to. You want to make sure that we're sticking to questions I. Want to get to. So I asked about the mediation. The Sarah talked a little bit about an overlay with vulnerability displacement map. And I want to know. Specifically. What that is. Is that something that's done by our Environmental Health Office? And was that something that was looked at? Is part of this process? I mean, the whole reason we now have a nest office is to look at situations like this in neighborhoods that are being impacted by various types of issues. And this neighborhood out of all neighborhoods in our entire city and I just pulled up a map a few minutes ago that has at least seven. And let me see if I could just find it real quick. Streets that are closed, so access points getting in and out of the neighborhood. The building may have been posted, but I just drove through the area today and literally had to go all the way around from Colorado Boulevard because you can't go through on 40th Avenue. So I'm not sure how many people are actually even seeing the notification being posted on the property. So help me understand what the overlay with vulnerability displacement map is and how something like that could have, should have, would have been used in this kind of situation. Sure. Well, the map I was referring to is actually originally created by the president, say economic development, Dito. It's in Blueprint Denver. You've seen it several times now and we've done briefings with you. It's a yellow map and it shows the neighborhoods in Denver most vulnerable to displacement. And as you very correctly noted, this neighborhood is one of the most vulnerable. I was referring to that map because Councilman Espinosa asked me, would I confirm that I am zoning has contributed to displacement and gentrification. And I was saying, oh, that's an interesting question. I don't have the data in front of me. One of the things I'd want to look at to answer that question is where is there an intersection or overlay between I am zoning and areas vulnerable to displacement? I don't know. That's why I was referring to that map in the future after we adopt the proposed blueprint. Denver The plan does call for looking for ways, particularly through large rezonings, to use all three equity maps. So one is vulnerability to displacement, but there's also one about housing and jobs diversity and one about access to opportunity, which is the Public Health Department's equity index to consider those maps as we look at large rezonings. So I think in the future, there's a possibility that we might be able to use efforts like this to talk about how to get better tools in place as part of rezonings or other efforts to address concerns in areas vulnerable to displacement. But that was not part of the the process now, because it's not part of our criteria now. So I guess you can't answer this, but then. If we're not. Addressing these as part of zoning, which is a huge part of what impacts neighborhoods. I'm not clear then what Nest is actually doing in in terms of its role in these various neighborhoods across the city. Are vulnerable communities across the city that are being affected by gentrification and displacement. So that's that's not for you to have to answer. I think that's something that we can try to clarify with the administration and the office of Nest. Bruce, one last question for you. So I may be prejudicing my vote here tonight. But when I learned about sort of the disconnect, I reached out to you and said, Will you please meet with GM so you guys can work this out? I wasn't advocating for anything in particular other than to say, I think you guys need to sit down and work through the issues that still need to be talked through. It sounds like the the breakdown happened when you all learned there was an inquiry about the the legal protest process. So it's my understanding a legal protest was never filed. Otherwise we would have that here tonight in front of us. But I am concerned that we're still sort of at this this disconnect between trying to ensure, as we would do in any neighborhood across this city where we have not seen, you know, some of these issues worked out, we would ask that mediation absolutely be incorporated into the process. So I just want to ask about the issue of postponement and. You know, as. Councilwoman Sussman said. We could either, you know, vote this up or vote it down, or we could postpone it in attempts to try to work through and be able to put in writing some of the things that you've talked about, and I don't know what else the neighborhood is asking for, but I think at a minimum, again, the only thing we have is the development agreement on the housing, and that was negotiated between you and the city. You meaning the developer and the city. So I just want to ask about and I don't know how much time would be needed if we looked at a postponement to try to work through some of these issues. It sounds like there's, you know, some consensus on what some of these issues are. But I just wanted to ask what what would be a reasonable amount of time to address these issues between you all and the community? So we cannot postpone and therefore request an up or down vote tonight. And so you would be willing to take the chance that you'd have to wait a whole year or you would just walk away from the project altogether? Well, there's there's no walking away from it because it's owned by the applicant. And who would proceed with development under a zoning. Okay. That that clarifies kind of where you're at. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega sort of took the. The wind out of my sails. That's essentially the question I was going to ask, because it seems pretty clear to me if I read the let me just read it recommendation one in the global meaning the lyrics sponsorship plan plan item B five is improve transition between industrial and residential uses to improve compatibility between residential and more intensive industrial areas. Development between these uses shall be should be consistent with the industrial mixed use land use designation. This is on page 29. So just page after I was in, it's a. C, E, three. E8 and E 22. And that is where you find the language that is consistent with Nola's portrayal, which is that housing was only tangentially referenced here. So my question I'm going to ask the question still again, even though you were really clear, so I'm very confused by everything that has been said tonight by your design team in particular, right? Because the current zoning has a 22.0 IFR. Sara just explained it correctly, which is you can build nearly the entire lot two stores. If you want to build a three storey house structure, then it's going to be 66% of the total site, meaning 33% of the site would be open space or parking or whatever. You're now telling me that you're you're contemplating up to 35% of the site being open space, you know, but you're only going to agree to 20%, but you're not going to put that in writing. So what it seems fairly clear to me then is if you're if your form is, for all intents and purposes, consistent with the EIA. F.A. The whole reason for this rezoning is to build 630 market rate housing units where there's very little plan support. And so I think probably I'm putting words in the CPD's mouth that probably why they encourage you to have this conversation with the community is to address this discrepancy and to figure out a way to actually help you guys get to the outcome you're wanting. But by working with the community so you're not the client, but is your client at all amenable with working with this neighborhood for, say, 60 or 90 days so that we can see if this outcome can be achieved? So the a couple of things in response, Councilman. The are conceptual designs so that switching from idea to IMX is about a 300,000 square foot loss in development potential building failure. And so it's a down zoning in effect by limiting the site to the three stories. And we I agree that some of the discussion tonight was confusing on the open space. Right now, our development program conceptual 35% open space. But we're confident that 20 of that would meet the city's requirements for publicly accessible open space. And so that's why the two numbers are floating around. The as I stated earlier, yes, we are absolutely willing to and will commit tonight to continue to engage and work with the community on all these variety of issues. But that would have to be post rezoning if in fact, the rezoning is approved tonight, and if not, we'll live with it. So I just want to correct the record because what Sarah was describing was AIA zoning, which only allows those industrial uses and use table it. So I'm going to compare apples and apples IMX 3ia has a 20 foot primary street set back and a ten foot side street setback. IMX three has a zero setback and you can cover that entire site to 32 to 3 stories. So so if you're using your townhouse form, I get how you could end up with an open space requirement. But if you're using industrial, if you do the industrial uses, which this plan supports and encourages for jobs, you can actually develop more intensely than what you're describing. Is that true? So I'm I'm sure that may be true. Our plan yields what I've described to you as. Doing a rezoning. That's true. A rezoning that allows this sort of intensity of development. So you're right, we're we're caught up in a plan when the only criteria for the rezoning are the five, including compliance with the plan. And it says I am x three. And so what I'm actually saying is it says industrial makes you use and then it describes what they mean by industrial mixed use, which was exactly as as NOLA had conveyed to Councilwoman Sussman. I'm telling you right now that I don't know how you got this far, because the plan does not seem to support 700 housing units on this property. Councilman, you might receive some of that for comments. Yes. You have some more questions. Councilman? Yeah. Thanks a lot. Just a couple questions. In several rezonings we've had. Boy, you're a tough negotiator, and it seems like we're negotiating more, a lot more than 10% affordable units. Wow. How do we settle on 10% when we probably could have gotten more? So this site has 70 units, which we have some agreements that have between ten and 15%. But these are all below 60% AMI and have no city subsidies being used for them. Was there any negotiation about trying to do less than 60%? You know, the a separate building on the side or some of the things we've been talking about with flexibility. There was an attempt to negotiate a lower affordability level. That is a minimum. Certainly there's more that could be done above that minimum. And I think there's a commitment tonight to continue the conversation about what additional affordable housing may be at the site. Okay. What about displacement tools we've seen like we've talked about displacement tools. Were any of those talked about and discussed with the community or or do we have any displacement tools? So I think it might have been Sarah, who addressed earlier that the development agreement has to contain what we can enforce as a requirement of the developer. So we do have other tools related to displacement where other partner organizations may be involved, but that's not something that we can enforce with the applicant. Nothing that would apply to this situation. I think there are some ideas that there's. Rezoning. There. There are some ideas that have been proposed tonight and as part of the discussions that we would continue to support the dialog around. But the Affordable Housing Agreement just addresses the specific unit requirements. GREGORY Thank you. Bruce, one one last quick question. I know we're going along here. We had a rezoning a year or so back on Colorado Boulevard, where we had a lot of community unrest, you know, and that that rezoning was a nine. They came back with a really good project because it reached agreement with the neighborhood. And I just want to say, I hope you will consider a postponement to reach some kind of agreement and not, you know, risk a denial of a rezoning. But here's something I think what I've heard tonight, it would be great to have that kind of conversation, and I hope you'll consider it. Thank you. Thank you. I think Councilman new councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Courtney, I had a couple questions on the criteria and the staff's analysis of it justifying circumstances. I understand since since the date of the approval of the Zone District 2010, there's been a change to such a degree that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest. Can you explain to me how the staff analyzed the opening of the East Side Human Services Center like seven or eight blocks away as something that justifies this rezoning? And then also the opening of the aligned stations, which this this particular site happens to be exactly, I think midpoint between 38th and Blake and 40th and Colorado stations , both of which are just slightly over one mile away. Mm hmm. So how does that. Justify this reasoning. So that fourth criterion justifying circumstances has sub criterion, a change or changing conditions in a particular area or the city generally or so a particular area or city in general. We're looking at area things in the area change and there's investment and that may, you know, because the there's so much change in the area that may necessitate a different zone district that would better reflect the change in that area because of the different things that we talked about. So the 40th and Colorado station 38th and Blake, these are all things that we look at for justifying circumstances is very standard practice with rezonings in terms of like justifying circumstances and that being a suitable criteria . Okay. That particularly when you say changing conditions in the city generally, that that's that's sort of so murky that you can almost justify any any request. Right. Okay. And then and I understand adoption of the early response to a neighborhood plan that is obviously a a changed condition. And then on criteria three, further public health, safety and welfare. The analysis that's described here seems to be just a repetition of criteria, one which is consistency with adopted plans. And I'm wondering if we're getting we're killing two birds with one stone here. This application furthers the public health, safety and welfare because it implements adopted plans and encourages adaptive reuse. That's exactly the same analysis that was in criteria one, are we not, you know? Killing two birds with one stone. Here it does. So it's a little bit different. We go on to say, too, that not only through the implementation of adopted plans that would further the public health, safety and welfare, also it through encouraging adaptive reuse and infill redevelopment of an underutilized site, can help encourage the public health, safety and welfare in encouraging a mix of uses. Okay. I think we've heard some testimony from the community that they're concerned that this actually imperils the their safety, health and welfare. Was that taken into account in any way? By staff. By. I think we definitely did hear, you know, that there were many concerns related to this rezoning in terms of the the criteria, in evaluating the criteria. There are things looked at and we did find that encouraging the adaptive reuse and infill and the implementation of adaptive plans didn't meet the review criteria for that third one with the public health, safety and welfare. All right. Mr. O'Donnell, just one more question. And Councilman Espinosa was asking something that I wanted to get to after you had said that you would prefer an up or down vote you would develop under AIA if if you didn't get the rezoning, i.e. doesn't allow residential. And so what would you have in mind? So that's correct. I.e. does not allow residential, right. And what I'm about to explain to you is I the first to admit is anecdotal, but since our client is on this property, the industrial brokers and developers have been beating the door down to get to this site in order to do industrial warehouse distribution manufacturing type uses. The client would rather have a 30 year rent free lease with one bound commit to affordable housing. We actually think that the introduction of residential uses here and the commitment to affordable helps mitigate displacement. And all of these things are valuable to the client. But the industrial is economically actually more appealing. If you if all you looked at was financial returns. And so I would be a green light tomorrow. Okay. Thank you. That's Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman McKinney. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to start with asking Kirsten Crawford, our Legislative Council, a question. There seems to be a discussion about whether the applicant is going to consent to a postponement, but it is within the authority of this council to motion for a postponement and vote on it, regardless of the wishes of the applicant . Yes. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Counsel And that's correct. You guys could postpone to a date certain, and if we did so, it would be we should be basing it on something in the rec. We should be leaving the record open. Talk to me about the criteria by which we should be considering why we would be doing that if there was, for example, a criteria that was missing or incomplete or. Well, that's right. I mean. If council moves to postpone the hearing, the hearing would remain open. But the criteria is still going to be the same as it is presented today by staff. Right. But for example, would it be a legally permissible reason to move for a postponement if you felt the record was incomplete or unclear and you wanted to give folks time to submit additional material related to a criteria, it, might that be a legally appropriate reason to move for a postponement? Yes, I think that's appropriate. Okay. So I'd like to check in because I've been cross-referencing some of the plans we have and I want to focus on the criteria about plan conformance. So I've stated the fact that I have no. One of the key plan components is that expanding access to affordable housing and I have no written record submitted for this hearing related to the affordable housing agreement. I've, you know, happy to hear updates from folks. But you notice each time we ask a question, we learn something different. For example, I don't have any information about what happens if they build fewer units than expected, or maybe they build 900 units than does the number of housing units go up. So I just can can anyone clarify for me? Just to make sure that I'm not mistaken, that there's nowhere in this record that I have a written record of this affordable housing commitment that has been described. I've looked through every page I can open on granicus and I see not that it that I do not see that it was submitted. So I want to clarify that if you do not believe you submitted something to Granicus that didn't get uploaded, for example. Until I. Apologize that if you don't have this file, I would be happy to submit. For the record this evening my copy of the agreement to build affordable units that has been signed by our client and Notarized. Well, we're, you know, 1015 here. So I want to ask the staff, maybe, Courtney, if you can answer. There's there are numerous mentions to displacement. There's also mentions to implementing health impact assessments in the plan. The plan calls for that. It says when there's development, we should be impact in implementing health impact assessments and we should be looking to anti displacement. Are you aware of anywhere in the record where those items are addressed for plan conformance? So as I look to see whether this proposal conforms to the plan, whether there's anything in there related to those two pieces specifically that you're aware of that you submitted or reviewed in your staff analysis? No, there is not. We just talk about the land use recommendations of the plan and how this is meeting the specific land use recommendations of IMAX three. But if I was a decision maker, we're looking for conformance with all aspects of the plan and not just that one map. There's no nothing that you know of in the in the record. So the record is is absent. It doesn't mean it doesn't meet it, but there's nothing in the record that demonstrates how it meets it. No. Okay. To either the developer's representative or any of the tenants in the room. Is there any planned or current request that has been made, whether it is informal or has formally been submitted for any subsidies for this site whereby this project might be coming through this Council again in the future? No. So no, no request for subsidies has been discussed with you or any tenant and the city and county of Denver at this time for any aspect of this project. No, not that I'm aware of. Okay. And does any tenant want to discuss anything differently? Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Mm hmm. Excuse me. I still have a few questions. One of them talked about. So in. In the plan. And maybe this is for you, sir. But in the plan, it talked about any kind of development that kind of takes in that surrounding kind of diverse city reflects it. And any kind of new development, have there been any any renderings, anything that anything visual has been produced through all this process? In terms of like height, what buildings look like, some of the things that are required in the zoning and I've seen a lot of rezoning has come here and we've asked those kind of questions we can't consider. But yeah, been out there. Since it's not technically part of the consideration criteria we haven't asked for that required it, but I, I don't know if the applicant. I know. Do you have any 3D renderings or anything. So I'm very curious about that. And then the other to you know, there's regarding the train safety and. Yes, so I've we do have some conceptual renderings and I've shared them in emails with counsel. One of them shows the extensions and the connections of it's a it's a concept site plan and it shows about 30 what we think we would classify as a 35% open space. It shows the 41st and 42nd Avenues where they enter the site. It shows how the buildings on the west half of the site are adaptively, reused and repurposed to accommodate redevelopment and in a home for wander around all those kind of things. Okay. You know. Let me ask about train safety. Still a train track? Yeah, there's still train tracks running through there with heavy rail. What's being done to buffer that? Are you taking that into consideration with that box in terms of any kind of buffers or even noise reduction and things like that from what some of the proposed development. Bill might be able to answer this better than I can. I think there's in the building designs, there's things like windows and special siding and insulation and so forth for sound. There is a at grade crossing obviously at Clayton. Yeah, this site is almost exactly a third of a mile from the two stations for forties in Colorado and and also 38 in Blake. But that's the extent of my what I could speak to this evening on anything to do with regard to the train. At any point in the property, maybe you sir, if I could ask you, is there any what's the closest point of the property to the nearest. Train track. Let's. I'm not sure the exact distance, but it it estimate it curves around the track and it's light rail is the closest to the property and it's probably 30 or 40 feet to the property line. But I, I'm totally guessing based on the surveys. Let me ask one of the. Sara, somebody from CPD. How close can we get legally to a train tracks of that magnitude? For development. Oh, can you. Can you hear me? I'm sorry. Did you ask how close? How close can you legally? Oh, my daughter. Well, I. Mean, so in the zoning, there aren't there aren't additional requirements that relate to the proximity to the rail. So it be whatever the required setback is right there, you. Know what the setback is to look it up. So we can look and see what the zoning requirement is. But there's when they go through site development review, thanks in part to Councilman Ortega, there's now a process for any properties that are close to a rail line to go through extra review. It may not often, I don't think it results in necessarily a larger setback than the rezoning or though it might can also include other things that get at safety and noise. So the proper windows and things like that. The reason I ask is. Because I mean, it's a it's a it's a potential hazard. It's it's an emergency. It's an emergency management question. And it's definitely not the EL and Chicago. I mean, yeah, I think who's around it rattles everything around it. But you live next to the ah. You chose to live there. Right. So it's a little different. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Black. Who's your mike? We can't hear you. I had actually withdrawn my request, but since it didn't go away, I'm just really curious about Councilwoman Sussman question, too, you know, about what the community would prefer, because this is a very difficult decision we're making tonight and. I feel like the applicant is. Going to build something that the community might like that includes affordable housing, or they might have an industrial warehouse there. So. Hey. Do you have any more thoughts on that? If they know. You're going to have to come up to the microphone. They're asking if if, if they don't do IMAX 3D. And we did we came up with a different zoning code together. Could that. But they can can they and at the same they can't apply for a different. Proposal. It was a different proposal. Could they apply for. You mean could they if you if they didn't if this didn't pass tonight, could the applicant come back and apply for a difference? Yeah, I believe that happens. Within before the year. But there's. Can I? Can I? There would have to be plans for. Councilman or councilman. Councilman Brooks, did you have something to add to this? You just call me Espinosa. He was standing up. I apologize that the hours late. So. Bruce. First you want to come up to the what if what if we. You know it it again. We can't force you to do anything. But if there was a group of these folks in the DC Coalition with some of the neighbors who are here who testified to do a month delay. And to agree on these kind of components that we conceptually agree on, but to get them down and to come up with a benefits agreement that everybody could feel like conceptually was the right direction. We we could probably do up to one month. Okay. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Yep. And, Nola, can you can you come to the micro quick? Nola, would you be open to. Obviously, we've worked together. You have great leaders in your group and also some of the folks who live adjacent to the property that it sound like there. I'm forgetting your name, sir. In the back. Yeah. No. In that. Yes. At this gym. Yeah. He has some some folks, some neighbors. And maybe that could be a group that comes together to conceptually come up with an agreement. Okay. A real assigned agreement. A real agreement. A community benefits agreement that everybody can be like, yes, this is this is this is meeting halfway or. Yeah, I mean, a month is rough, but. That's all we can get. Okay. Can can I. Bruce, one of the things you didn't talk about is why you all have not done a delay. And I think. I think it's important. You know, to talk about finances is I mean, that's what you told me as to one of the reasons. And so is there a financial issue? Well, I think that, yes, there's this property is very expensive to hold vacant, largely vacant, while also spending a lot of money on pre-development and planning and design and zoning and those types of things. And it it's. Can you give us an idea of how much architectural plans, things like that, a mortgage on 14 acres would cost? So right now, the what we would kind of call the monthly nut or the monthly burn is about $150,000 a month on the the mortgage and in consultant fees and that type of thing. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Black. You started that line of questioning. Are you good? Yeah. Okay. And Councilman Espinosa, you're still on screen. Do you still need in or are you good? Yeah, it's just sort of elaboration on the question here. So I looked at the plan that you said you sent to us. So is this that document? Yes, it looks familiar. Yeah. Okay. This is interesting to me, right? Because. This is one of those situations where, again, and we've been down this road sort of both in our personal lives prior to our time in council, which is this depicts something that I think could largely be supported by people. But we agree. But the zoning allows this and a whole lot of other things. Do you agree on that? Yes. And so this is but I do see a lot of things here that could, in fact, be codified if you've talked about the plaza. The community might say, well, we want to make sure that a portion or all of that plaza and I can see it here, is publicly accessible because right now it's very introverted and it's not clear in this plan if it would be or not. And so that could be codified. You know, there has been talk about the wonder ban people, and it sounds like it's going to be a real community asset. You could ascribe a minimum percentage of square footage that would be dedicated to that sort of function and codify that as well. And so there's a lot that you've already done that I think could get to the point where there's some sort of there's something written and documented that would would would give us some assurance that the things that you're talking about that address many of the concerns that I have with regard to plans could be captured. So but you've already made it very clear that you're not interested. You want an up or down vote. And yeah, it would cost $150,000 a month. But if this council. Chose to have a question and we're still in questions. Yeah. If this council chose to make a motion of a defined amount of time, would you utilize that time to maybe try to to do the things that I'm talking about, which is to give us some certainty that the outcome that you're depicting would. Yes. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. So, Councilman Brooks, before we close this hearing, it sounds like we may have, you know, an applicant who is willing to delay and a community that is eager for a delay. Would you like to make a motion before I close the hearing? Yes. I want to add one more thing to this, is that we get a neutral mediator to put together a community benefits agreement. And, you know, being someone who's worked with the GSA coalition many times just past the rezoning, worked with the applicant, this is much closer than. Kind of this hearing alluded to. I believe we're really close to an agreement. And so. I got to ask my lawyer what cursor, what motion. I move that we move this hearing to postpone this hearing to May 6th time. And I'm looking at the secretary I'm looking at the president to make sure that May six we have a public hearing available. I mean, that's that's fine. You want to postpone final consideration with its public hearing? Yeah, we want to postpone final consideration with this public hearing to May 6th of counsel Bill 127. Madam Secretary, does that pass muster? Yes, sir. All right. We have the motion in there. Can I get a second? All right. Question Time. Oh. Councilman Ortega, do you have a question about the motion on the floor? Yes, I do. Sorry. Kirsten, do you have clarification about the motion on the floor and then you go first? So. Kirsten covered Legislative Council just to make clear the motion will postpone the final vote to a date certain, but it will continue the hearing as well. So the hearing will remain open. Yes, correct. I haven't closed the hearing yet. So. Okay. That is what's on the floor. Councilman Ortega, do you have a question about the motion? I just wanted to make a request that we include the NEST office in that conversation. All right. Noted. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Councilman Espinosa, do you have a question about the motion on the floor? I just want to confirm what I believe we already know, but let's just get it on the record that since we're extending this public hearing, if the council adopts a new blueprint, Denver and Cobb plan that we are doing it under these current zone, you know, adopted plans. We have. Confirmed with our. Legal team. Somebody should play the Jeopardy! Music while we wait. So, Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Council, the the applicant has voluntarily agreed to the delay. And so the terms and conditions would and the criteria are going to be the same. So it's under the same set of plans. All right. Okay. We've got all the questions answered. We have a motion on the floor. It has been seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on the motion on the floor. Hmm. Black. Hi. Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Cashman. I can reach Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President. I. Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 12 hours 12 IES Council Bill 19 20127. And it's still open. Public hearing will be postponed till. May. Six. Till May six. Thank you all for all of your time staying here so late in those super comfortable seats. Quick announcement on Monday, April 15, 2019. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 19 0349.

DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0810

A bill for an ordinance approving the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Redevelopment Area and the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Tax Increment Area. Approves the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and tax increment areas in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-25-17.

Yep. 12 eyes. Eight or nine has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Councils now convene, reconvene and will resume its regular schedule. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Councilman 18 on the floor? Sorry. I don't know what this little amendment is. I remember that council bill 810 to be placed upon final consideration do pass. It has been moved in second at great. The public hearing for Council Bill 18 is now open. May we have the staff report? Tracy Huggins. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins. I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Bringing forward for your consideration tonight the creation of an urban redevelopment area of the site previously occupied by the Emily Griffith Opportunity School in downtown Denver. And that is not doing what I want it to do. Yeah. The proposed urban redevelopment area is comprised of approximately 2.4 acres and is located in downtown Denver's cultural core, as defined in the 2007 downtown Denver area plan. The area is generally bounded by Welton Street to the northwest, 13th street to the northeast, Glenarm place to the southeast and 12th street to the southwest. The site is located in Council District nine. The urban redevelopment area was occupied by the Emily Griffith Opportunity School, a Denver public school, for nearly 100 years prior to its closure. The vocational school was named for Emily Griffith, a local teacher who advocated that persons of all ages and races should have the opportunity to learn and better themselves. The school was expanded several times and continued to operate at this location until its programs were to reload. Relocated to 1860 Lincoln Street beginning in 2013. Since relocating, the buildings have remained vacant. In May of 2016, the Emily Griffith Opportunity School was designated historic at the local level and restrictions were placed on the amount and nature of the possible redevelopment. Most of the structures fronting the Welton Street must be retained and setbacks were established for new development to ensure that the appearance and massing of the Welton Street buildings are preserved, any future development on the site will be subject to the design standards and guidelines approved by Denver City Council with the designation and must be approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. A fundamental consideration in approving an urban redevelopment area is a finding by council that the area is blighted as required by the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. To this end, Durham commissioned Matrix Design Group to conduct a study to determine if the area is blighted. That study, dated July of 2017, has been filed with the city clerk as part of the record of this public hearing. In summary, the Blight study found the following five factors that constitute blighting conditions. Slum deteriorated or deteriorating structures. At the time, the field study was performed in September of 2016. Structures in the area were found to be in fair condition. Most issues found were related to broken windows in the school buildings. These broken windows were fairly widespread, but all had been boarded. Suggesting that ongoing maintenance is still occurring despite the vacancy of the campus. The frequency of broken windows continues to increase and the campus buildings are becoming increasingly dilapidated. An additional area of concern was noted with the concrete window lintels, which were severely crumbled in many locations, creating small piles of rubble on the ground underneath them. While the buildings on the Emily Griffith campus were not found to be in an advanced state of deterioration, it does remain ongoing and the buildings are receiving only stopgap maintenance rather than repairs. This situation leads to a finding of slum deteriorated or deteriorating structures. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. There is relatively poor circulation in the vicinity of the area relative to the rest of the central business district and civic center area. The area is immediately adjacent to the Colorado Convention Center, which is a sprawling structure occupying more than six full city blocks. The sheer size of the convention center breaks the continuity of the street grid in the area, with the exception of Stout Street, which passes underneath the convention center but does not serve any of the property in the study area. The Convention Center is one of the largest super blocks in the downtown area, but it is also important to note the presence of the courthouse and the detention center to the south, as well as the Denver Center for Performing Arts and Area Campus in the vicinity to the west. All three properties also break the continuity of the street grid, creating dead ends and a lack of redundancy that felt funnels traffic onto certain streets and creates longer walking distance for pedestrians. Overall, the urban renewal area encompasses an area of downtown that is somewhat isolated and removed from the surrounding area, both physically and psychologically. Pedestrian activity and private investment in this section of downtown is far lower than the rest of the central business district to the northeast. Although none of these isolation issues are expected to be corrected by the urban renewal process. They do represent a challenge to the redevelopment of the area because of the lack of connections to the surrounding street grid and poor provisions for local traffic. A finding of inadequate street layout has been made. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Records from the police department show that over the past five years there were 91 reported crimes in the area and in the surrounding rights of way, not including minor traffic incidents. Emergency responses are more frequent still, with one in fact being observed during the field study by our consultant. But it was not recorded as a reported crime of incidents that were recorded. Nine were various forms of assault. Three were street robberies, 23 vehicular hitting runs, and three were business burglaries. The remaining crimes were mostly related to drugs, criminal trespassing and larceny. These crime statistics represent an elevated of both violent and nonviolent crime, given the study area finding of unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Environmental contamination of buildings or property. The condition study notes the former Emily Griffith Griffith facility had an onsite body shop, including paint facilities, which is a use that is commonly associated with environmental contamination. The use of hazardous substances over many years technically represents a recognized environmental condition. In addition, an appraisal commissioned by the city and county of Denver in 2014 noted that, quote, The building contains asbestos and lead based paint, and the cost of remediation and repurposing while retaining the existing structure would be very significant and economically counterproductive. And quote the former presence of the auto body shop and the noted presence of asbestos and lead based paint support. A finding of environmental contamination of buildings or property. The existence of health, safety or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements. Elevated crime levels revealed in police records already discussed coincide with high levels of municipal services. Emergency responses from the Denver Police Department are common in the study area. Additionally, relative to the rest of the central business district, the study area is substantially underutilized. The formerly the former Emily Griffith campus is a full city block that lies vacant compared to the rest of the central business district. There is very little history of private investment in the vicinity of the study area. Therefore, there is a finding of the existence of health, safety or welfare factories factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements in the study area. These blight factors individually and collectively impair or arrest the sound growth of the municipality and constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare of this area. In bringing forward this urban redevelopment plan, Dürer has sought to align the goals and objectives of the plan with the existing city plans and their approved supplements for the area, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the 27 Downtown Area Plan and reviewing the Urban Redevelopment Plan. City planning staff found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to Plan 2000 by furthering several citywide objectives, policy and action in the plan, including the conservation of raw materials by promoting efforts to adapt existing buildings for new uses rather than destroying them. Conservation of land by promoting infill development within Denver at sites where service and infrastructure are already in place. Encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, that offers opportunities for increased density and more amenities. And that broadens the variety of compatible uses, promotion of standards and incentives for design that enhance the quality and character of the city, including the preservation of significant historic structures and features. Preservation of Denver's architectural and design legacies while allowing new ones to evolve. Leveraging city resources to protect Denver's landmarks and eligible historic buildings. And to avoid their demolition. And ensuring downtown's future as Denver's preeminent center for business, tourism and entertainment, including through continued support of the re-use of historic buildings in and around downtown. Blueprint. DENVER Denver's Integrated Land Use and transportation plan adopted by the City Council in 2002, identifies the urban redevelopment area as being located within within an area of change with the concept land use of downtown. Blueprint Denver recognizes downtown as the centerpiece of the city and region with the highest intensity of uses in Colorado. Blueprint Denver further states that downtown has the most intense land use, development and transportation systems, and the vision is to continue more of the same type of high quality office, hotel, retail, residential and mixed use development. The Urban Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the intent and vision for areas of change and the downtown concept land use. The Downtown Area plan identifies several strategies and objectives to serve as a tool to help community leaders, decision makers and citizens build upon downtown's assets and guide future development. The long term vision seeks to achieve a vibrant, economically healthy, growing and vital downtown through a sustained effort in each of these elements. Prosperous, walkable, diverse. Distinctive and green. The Urban Redevelopment area is located within the cultural core, which is generally defined in the downtown area plan as the area encompassing the convention center. Denver Performing Arts Center, Civic Center Park, Denver Public Library, Denver Art Museum and various municipal and governmental buildings. A key recommendation identified in the plan calls for the creation of a mixed use public private development that includes the Emily Griffith Opportunity School and other complementary uses. Though the Opportunity School moved to another location. The Urban Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the recommendation for mixed use development in this area. The proposed urban redevelopment plan seeks to eliminate blight through the creation of the Emily Griffith Upper Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Area. Creation of the area authorizes Dora to seek property owner and developer interest in redevelopment projects within the area and provide tax increment financing in support of those efforts. The main goals of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to eliminate blight, renew and improve the character of the area, encourage commercial, residential and retail development. Encourage and protect existing development more effectively. Use underutilized land. Encourage land use patterns that result in a more environmentally sustainable city. Encourage land use patterns where pedestrians are safe and welcome. Encourage participation of existing property owners in the redevelopment of their property. Encourage high and moderate density development where appropriate. Encourage the re-use of existing buildings, including historic preservation and adaptive reuse. And improve. And provide employment centers near transit. This urban redevelopment plan does not include any approved projects. The entire site was purchased by Stonebridge Companies in May of 2017. Stonebridge, who is a hotel developer, is in the process of working with a variety of stakeholders to determine the optimal development plan for this site. Once this process is complete and to the extent the proposed project is determined to require tax increment assistance, an amendment to this urban redevelopment plan, along with new agreements with the other taxing entities, would be required to add an approved project in order to preserve the opportunity to fully utilized tax increment. The plan approves the use of sales and property tax increment financing. The plan is presented this evening, approves a property tax increment area and sales tax increment that is coterminous with the urban redevelopment area. So it's really important to note that even though we are asking you to approve the plan and approve the use of tax increment , we are not authorized to use any tax increment until such time as we would come forward and ask for an amendment to the plan to add an approved project. We are preserving the opportunity to allow for the tax increment to be an available tool. But again, we are asking you to take this action. Are not authorized to actually spend any of the increment that we may collect. There are a number of other findings required by the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, and those include that the urban redevelopment area described in the plan is found and declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. And the conditions of blight constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. This is a legislative finding by City Council. Based upon the blight study and other evidence that has presented, has been presented to you that the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan. If any individuals or families are displaced from dwelling units as a result of adoption or implementation of the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan. A feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals or families in accordance with the Act. If business concerns are displaced by the adoption or implementation of the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business current business concerns in accordance with the ACT. This area in does not contain any residents nor businesses. Therefore, they will not be displaced as a result of any project that would be undertaken. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns. In the resident in the resolution setting this public hearing, city council requested Dura to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment area at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. No more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this plan. This is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site. And this the city council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site. Again, this is the first consideration by City Council of an urban redevelopment plan for this site. And as such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months into any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan on July July 19, 2017, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and applicable supplements. A letter to the effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing, and Dura would request that City Council concur with that finding. The Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Emily Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Area by Private Enterprise. And again, while we are not requesting approval of a project tonight, the site is owned by a private entity that intends to redevelop the property once a redevelopment project has been determined. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of an area of open land which is to be developed for residential uses or any any agricultural land. The Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each other taxing entity whose incremental property tax revenue would be allocated under the Urban Redevelopment Plan, and an agreement has been negotiated governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue. There are two other property taxing districts. Denver Public Schools and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District during has negotiated agreements with both DPS and urban drainage, which allow DAERA to collect any increment in any incremental property taxes generated in the urban redevelopment area, but does not authorize the use of their respective portions of the property tax increment on any future project. Similar to the way that we would work with City Council at such time, if ever as a project is identified. These agreements will be renegotiated to reflect the impact the project may have on the their respective ability to deliver services to the urban redevelopment area. Additionally, if the Urban Redevelopment Plan is not amended to add a project by December 31st of 2020, the agreements terminate and any amount of incremental property taxes collected by DRA would be returned to the original taxing entities. The city and county of Denver can adequately adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for a cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, it is important to note that no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the plan. The slide you've been waiting for. In closing, Dora is very pleased to be working with the city to bring forward this urban redevelopment plan for this very important site. The Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan captures many citywide goals, objectives and strategies that are found in the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Downtown Area Plan. We look forward to working with all parties to bring about the revitalization opportunities outlined in these plans, and I would thank you for your favorable consideration and I will be happy to answer any questions when the time is appropriate. All right. Thank you, Tracy Huggins. Efficient, effective as always. All right. We have no speakers this evening, so I'm going to call you up, Tracy, because we're in the question portion. Once you confer with. Hello. Okay. Yes, sir. Yes. So you made this abundantly clear. But I think it's important for folks who are, you know, at home listening and been following this project that we are simply setting the base for the tax increment financing option, but we are not actually focusing on a project. That is correct. I just want you to and tell folks what setting the base actually means. Sure. So under urban renewal law, we are able to capture the incremental sales and property taxes that a project area generates in order to provide a mechanism for financing a future project. This is a fairly unique circumstance where the property right now is is tax exempt and is is has been has a taxable assessed value of zero because of its previous ownership by Denver Public Schools under the law. There are two times when the assessor looks to determine what the actual taxable value is. One is in late December, the other is August 25th because the purchase transaction occurred in May. By taking action tonight, they at the assessor will look back to the value last certified in December of 2016 and find that the value is zero. If we wait until after August, that sale transaction will be recorded against the property and the property will have lost its tax exempt status. So the value related to the sale will then instead go into the base as opposed to the increment. That's right. All right. Thank you, Joan. Okay. Okay, great. That concludes our questions. Counsel Bill 818 is now closed. Look for comments by members of council. So this is this project is in my district. I have been a part of it from the very beginning, working with stakeholders, working with the Denver Public Schools and historic Denver to ensure that the preservation of this building stays intact. Yet revitalization and opportunities are also a part of it. I am in favor of this because I think this is a good, good move for us as a city, and it allows us to move forward with possible plans of expansion of tourism and our downtown revitalization in this part of the area. So we want to remind council we get another crack at this when a project is actually before us, a project is not before us. Again, we are just setting the base. We are setting the area. So with that, no, no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Clare by Espinosa, i Flynn. I. Gilmore i. Herndon, i. Cashman Can Eat. Lopez All right. New Ortega like I black. Mr. President. I put Kosovo voting in thus results. 13 Eyes. 13 eyes council bill 810 has passed. Thank you, Tracey. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the.

LongBeachCC_04162019_19-0323

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 5.54.010.F and 5.54.030.B, relating to Hotel Worker Safety Precautions, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

Motion carries. How to request to move 19. Communication from city attorney recommendation declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending sections relating to hotel workers safety precautions red and adopted. As read citywide. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment? Nicholson. But perhaps my better. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Andrew's Council members. Administrators, citizens of Long Beach, one of the first towns. I ever commented here was in support of the United Nations Initiative to Protect Women, March 1st, 2016. And I remember, in fact, that it was Councilwoman Price who sponsored that. I think by now you know how deeply I'm dedicated to the welfare, well-being and safety of women. I've been active in the American women's movement now for over 50 years. I'm an era and Alice Paul scholar. When I moved here, I met Claudia's parents. I began to pick it on Ocean Avenue with the women telling the truth about sexual assault in the city's hotels. And for the first time in my life, Time magazine agreed with me on something. They were truth tellers, and actually they were here earlier tonight at that first council meeting addressing Claudia's law, one of the council members mentioned his concern that adopting the hotel housekeepers concern would dampen the booming party of the Grand Prix. You can only imagine what I thought when I went home that night. Have a fun weekend. See a race. Assault your housekeeper in the friendly city of Long Beach. After your testimony and city council majority entrenched in voting against women's protections, the people spoke. And I'm filled with inspiration by the wholesome heart of the vote of the people. I stand here and in bold enough to thank you and welcome you to the right side of this issue. For all women, no matter the size of the hotel, no matter the circumstances, no matter the management. Because you see, as I told you three years ago, women hold up more than half the sky. Women carry water from shore to home all over the world, across the globe, women bear, feed, clothe and educate the young. And you tonight care for the sick, the aging, the dying, your mothers. Thank you. The grandmothers of all directions. Thank you. We stand together in the clear light of day that you have protected. All women tonight. And I'm here tonight to say thank you very much. Thank you, senor. The public comment. Councilman Price. Well, just just. For clarification, this item is about hotel and motel panic buttons and nothing more, which I will say every council member was always in support of. Thank you. Councilman Gonzales. Happy to move this forward. Thank you very much for being here. Please cast your votes. Motion carries cane excited please. We'll go back to item number 12.

DenverCityCouncil_11082021_21-1192

A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 591, Series of 2021, as amended by Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021, as amended by Ordinance No. 1145, Series of 2021, to allocate spending in the American Rescue Plan Act Grant Fund for Recovery, Revenue Loss, and Administration. Amends Ordinance No. 591, Series of 2021, previously amended by Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021, to allocate a total of $100.1 million in spending in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant Fund, including $25.3 million in the “Revenue Loss” category to accommodate the 2022 portion of the allocation approved in Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021 that will continue to be supported by ARPA, $73.5 million in the “Recovery” category, $1.3 million in the Administration spending category, which will be reallocated from unspent dollars in the initial Revenue Loss category, and approves a capital equipment purchase of a van for the Wellness Winnie program. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-12-21.

One day 12 eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-1, two, four, four and 20 1-1, two, four, five have been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 1192 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Council President. I move the Council Bill 21 dash 1190 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1192. Council Member Sawyer. Thanks on President. I made my comments last week, so nothing really to add. Just wanted to again thank Finance for their thoughtful decision making process and really appreciate all of their partnership, but just not willing to support $4 million for social services, something that my district feels really strongly about. You know, this is meant this money meant for long term investments. And so US sites are not a long term solution. So I'm going to be a no thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, dash 1192, please. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. So, you know. For us, I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flinn. I. Herndon. Hi. Cashman. I can eat. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One 812 Eyes. 12 Eyes. Counsel build 20 1-1192 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or bloc vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Council President. I move the resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a bloc for the following items. All series of 2021 1242 1243 1244 Excuse me 1224 1225 1241 1236 1237 1238 1080 1228 1233 1240 1246 1205 1209 1000 and that should do it. All right. Thank you, sir. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Ortega. By Sandoval. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. FLine, my friend. In hindsight. Cashman. I can age. I. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Madam President, i. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement this evening. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 1-1030, changing the zoning classification for 1090 South Dayton Street in Windsor.

LongBeachCC_05032016_16-0380

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or his designee, to accept a donation of 350 electric vehicle charging stations from Mercedes Benz USA; execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate the donation; and, direct staff to develop a program to distribute the charging stations free of charge, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. (Citywide)

Item 19 Report. From Development Services recommendation to accept a donation of 350 electric vehicle charging stations from Mercedes-Benz and direct staff to develop a program to distribute the charging stations free of charge citywide. Madam Vice Mayor, you'll see a theme here. So not only are we going to be boosting our EV requirements in the triennial building code update, but now we have the benefit of a donation by Mercedes-Benz USA of 350 high speed charging stations. If you accept this donation, we will be working with the Office of Sustainability to create a program to donate these to eligible property owners. They would be these are residential grade EV charging stations. The property owner would have to pay for the electrical permits. Some properties may require upgrades to their electrical panel because these this is to 40, not to 20 and not 110. So we would have to deal with that as well. But the value of this donation is is fairly considerable. And we do want to thank Mercedes Benz for their consideration in allowing us to to bring this opportunity to you. Great. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Yes. I just am so thankful that Mercedes Benz has continued to be a good community partner since they've moved into the district. They are continually striving to support our neighborhoods, and I think this is just another great example of the work that they're doing. So I look forward to that. I do have a quick question. If someone wants to change their. Electrical, what would it cost of a permit of that magnitude? B It's about a seven $52,000, but it depends on whether you have to change out your electric panel as well. So if it's an older house, you might have to change out your electrical panel as well and upgrade it. Well, I think that considering what a charging station would have cost the homeowner, I still think this is a significant value. So I look forward to hearing the distribution model that will be considered. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilman Price. Councilmember Richardson. This is this. Is a pretty cool program, I think. I just want to say that. I. Would I would hope that when we craft the program to give them away, we do consider and I have to say this, we do consider equity. I mean, this is a huge investment. Somebody might potentially get 20 $500 charging station. So we should think about, you know, making this available to, you know, community, you know, low income communities or communities who may not be able to afford it and afford it otherwise and may consider an electric vehicle because we make this available. I don't know how we do that, but I think we should certainly explore it when we craft this program. Certainly, I think the Office of Sustainability is very good at providing resources throughout the city, so I'm sure that they're going to come up with something creative. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for raising that. Would you like those metrics or the program design brought back to the council? Not not formally, but as you know to for from. I think we should when this happens, we should launch this thing. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So Councilman Mongo and Councilwoman Gonzalez, as part of the instruction to staff, would you be okay with asking them to outline what the lottery program. Framework is and and then have the council involved and in being supportive and active in the launch of the program. Okay. Sure. Is that fine, Ms.. Burdick? Absolutely. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on Item 19? CNN members cast your vote. Motion carries. Okay. Item 20 Report.

DenverCityCouncil_05162022_22-0401

A bill for an ordinance amending the weapons and missiles division of the offenses chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code and the parks and recreation chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit firearms in city-owned or leased buildings and city parks. Amends Chapters 38 & 39 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit concealed carry within city parks and buildings owned by, leased by, or leased to the city. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-27-22.

Ten Eyes Resolution 20 2-1 20 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 401 on the floor for final passage. And move the Council Bill 22 to 0 401 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Abarca. Your motion to amend. I move that council bill 20 2-0401 be placed upon final oops be amended in the following particulars on page three strike lines 13 through 33 and replace with it shall be unlawful for any person other than authorized personnel to possess, display, flourish or discharge any firearm within any park, parkway or mountain park b except as provided in section 38, dash 131. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a firearm within any recreational facility that the city owns leases or is leased to the city. It shall be unlawful for any person other than authorized personnel to possess, display, flourish or use any weapon other than a firearm within any park, parkway, mountain, park or other recreational facility. And it shall be unlawful for any person other than an authorized personnel to hunt or kill wildlife or other animals within any park, parkway, mountain park or other recreational facility. It shall not be an offense under subsection A of this section to possess a firearm within any park, parkway or mountain park. And on page four, strike lines one through 11. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. This amendment removes parks from the scope of this ordinance for several reason reasons. First, there are major concerns about the ability to enforce in open space without profiling. Other cities have banned guns in city owned buildings because it is enforceable. Given the national and historical data about law enforcement's racial bias in relation to pretextual interactions, removing parks from this ordinance would reduce potential for law enforcement to racially profile people and use unwarranted force on suspected violators of this ordinance. Second, if parks are not removed from this ordinance, open space, including mountain park parking lots could become targets for car break ins when firearms are left in vehicles. The amount of stolen guns from cars is increasing, and the current ordinance would encourage CCW carriers to leave their guns in their cars in these potentially targeted parking lots. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Anshul, I have a question. As I read through the bill that includes mountain parks and I've been curious, I know there was an answer maybe several years ago. I forget what it was. But can we cite for a Denver ordinance violation in in a Jefferson County or a Douglas County location where most of our parks or our mountain parks are located at? Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Honorable assistant city attorney. We can presume at the state level we have regulatory authority over mountain parks that we've annexed. Okay, that's interesting. Can Jefferson County Sheriff Cite. In a mountain park for a Denver code violation. That is a good question. I don't know the answer to that question. I know that the state law, we have regulatory authority over those areas. I don't know if they have concurrent jurisdiction in those areas. All right. Thank you. Because I know we don't have enough officers right now to patrol certain areas of the city, let alone let alone our mountain parks. I don't think I've ever seen a Denver officer in a mountain park. We have gotten a ton of email on both sides on this issue for the last month or so. Madam President and colleagues and I found that a lot of it is based on a misunderstanding. At the very foundation of it. It is already illegal. To carry concealed weapons, firearms in city parks. Which this amendment would which this amendment speaks to, by the way. It's already illegal. The emails that we've gotten seem to be addressed from that that point of view. And in fact, during our general public comment session here, just before the council meeting, we heard testimony about some recent incidents in parks where in one case, a man was killed in llama park. And there was a young a young man killed outside or near the skate park over on, I think, 20th Street. And neither of those was committed by a concealed carry permit holder. So of all these emails that we got, I found one that was very. Interesting because I don't think she was making the point she thought she was making. A woman emailed all of us. I don't know if y'all remember it. She said she lived in Denver before, moved away, but she wants to move back now. And while she was on a visit a few years back, I think it was 2017, she was shopping in a Wal-Mart in Thornton that turned out to be the Wal-Mart that a day after her shopping trip, a gunman went in and, I believe, shot and killed three people and wounded others. And she pointed out that the police investigation into that shooting was hampered by the fact that there were other there were concealed handgun permit holders in that Wal-Mart who drew their weapons. And, of course, on video, police had to clear all of those people as suspects and that it complicated the case. And she promoted that as a reason not to permit concealed carry anywhere. And I thought what that says to me, ma'am, is that everywhere you have gone almost every day of your life, whether it's in a Wal-Mart or in a park or at a shopping center, you have had people around you, concealed handgun permit holders who've been carrying a concealed weapon, and you never knew about it. And what that Wal-Mart shooting showed was that, in fact, there are a lot of folks out there who have permits and who do carry, and you never hear from them. They're not being arrested. We asked the city attorney's office and DPD for evidence that any concealed handgun permit holders have been behind any of the firearms crimes and the incidents of which we've seen too many in this city. And we haven't had any. We didn't get any in return. Mostly because we don't even keep such data. If it were happening frequent with any degree of frequency, we'd have some data on it, you would think. It makes sense that what we're doing here is it's already illegal to carry concealed weapons in a city park. There is an exception in the ordinance that if you have a valid permit, concealed handgun permit, you may and that's an exception to it. This ordinance tonight is not about making it illegal to carry concealed weapons in a park. It's about removing the exception for people who have permits to do so. This makes about as much sense to me as addressing drunk driving by taking car keys away from teetotalers. Simply because it would reduce the number of cars on the road. So I asked for data on a number of firearms related crimes committed by permit holders. We found out there is none. We asked for demographic data on who holds these permits. Councilwoman CdeBaca Thank you for asking for that. I don't know if you intended to address it, but what I saw on that date is that one of the highest percentage increases in permit holders being approved is among the African-American population in Denver. Finally, in an effort to find out if there's any foundation for removing the exemption, I asked late last week. I asked DPD for any data on the renewals every five years. Permit holders have to come in and have it renewed if they wish to keep it every five years. So I asked last week, do we have any data that would show if any permit holders have been rejected for renewal because of a firearm violation? And what I found out is there is no such data. What we do know is that since 2017, there have been 17 occasions when a permit has been revoked. Among a total population of permit holders over that time period of 16,718. The data don't show whether any of these revocations were related to a firearms violation. So in essence, we don't have any we don't have any foundation to pass this other than to feel good about trying to reduce the number of weapons in a park, when, in fact, there's no indication that any permit holders ever cause a problem . I feel like I'm in the Bermuda Triangle, a political Bermuda Triangle right now, because I find myself in agreement with Councilwoman CdeBaca. But not only with her, because I rarely find myself in agreement with her, as you saw in the last item. But we are also in agreement with David Kopel of the Independence Institute. And I don't think you could find two more opposite individuals on this issue than Councilwoman CdeBaca and the Independence Institute and David Kopel in particular. I think I said on one occasion, if Councilwoman CdeBaca and I were in agreement on something, it was either the best idea in the world or the absolute worst. I'm not sure which one this one this is, but it feels like this is something that I should support with this amendment. And so I will I will support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I'm I'm in agreement on this as well. I feel the removal of parks is an important aspect. And I, while I support the rest of the bill, as realistically enforceable, as understandable, as important, I think I appreciate, councilman, to the bill because willingness to tailor her, her amendment to keep rec centers in the bill, I think is a major employer. We have an obligation to keep our buildings gun free. Our parks. Are more a more. Opaque space for me. And I also kind of reference, I think, learning from the data that Councilman Flynn. Referenced as well. And we don't just have parks in Denver there throughout this region, which also. Creates a. Bit of a complexity in enforcement. I will be. Supporting the amendment. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President regarding record keeping of concealed carry permit holders in crime. So a question for probably the city attorney's office. I don't know exactly who, but I know that there are a lot of legal restrictions on record keeping anything related to firearms. Are we legally allowed to carry records on crimes committed by concealed carry? Hold back concealed carry permit holders? Then the nature of the question is maybe we don't have any data because we can't collect the data. So Reggie Ngubane, on behalf of the City Attorney's Office, so we did request that information. The city attorney's office did request that information from DPD that keeps that data. And we were informed that that that's not information that they that they collect. They don't collect information related to this whether or not a CCW permit here has committed a crime when the crime has actually been committed. That's just not that's just not a statistic that they were able to give us. I'm not sure if they're legally able legally able to or not, but that's that's something that we would. Yeah. That's we don't really know of anything that would prohibit them from keeping that information, though. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And I'd like to recommend a recognized council member Herndon to the meeting as well. And I will go ahead and go at the end of comments. And so, Councilmember CdeBaca, we have you and Councilmember Flynn back up. Thank you. And and as Councilman Flynn said, it's a rare occasion when he makes my case for me. He hit all of my points. But one of the points that I want to highlight, because I can get to supporting the ban if we amend it in this way. But the main reason I think that we need to make this amendment is because I requested an enforcement plan. How would we do this in parks when by nature a concealed carry permit holder is not? Brandishing or showing you their weapon. And there was no enforcement plan provided to us. And this is a question that came up last year or two years ago when this exact situation happened. Somebody called in and alleged that someone had a gun on them. And the police response to that kind of allegation is to show up, guns drawn. Regardless of whether that person has a weapon or not. And we watched it. Community members watched this happen. And this is what doesn't sit right with me. We just spent the last two years. Learning by use of excessive force is inappropriate and what it can lead to. And this policy single handedly justifies an excessive use of force in any case where there's an allegation that someone has a gun on them. So imagine your family barbecue kids running around. You have something tucked into your shirt. Could be an iPad, could be a wallet, could be anything, your kids toys, whatever it is. And someone sees you and thinks that that's a gun and they call the cops and report that someone has a weapon in this park. There is no plan on how this can be addressed in a way that doesn't bring cops to the scene with guns drawn on whoever. The subject is of this allegation. And so because of all the reasons that Councilman Flynn mentioned, on top of the simple fact that we have no enforcement plan that looks different than reporting, or then when we have a report, someone who is brandishing a gun or is an active shooter, that is a problem. And I hope that my colleagues take that into consideration because this is exactly what we have been saying. We were committed to ending over the last couple of years. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to address something that came up after my remarks, and that is the data. I want to commend Matt Lunn from Denver Police Department. He's a really fantastic wizard and guru of all the data that they have over there. And of the 17 permanent revocations that I referenced in the one, two, three, four since 2017 through 2021, over five years, 16,700 some odd permit holders. Of those 17, ten were revoked two in 2017, six in 18 and two in 2019, because the permit holder had been arrested for something. But for what? We don't know what sort of firearms violation. It's not noted on the record. So I just wanted to put that out on the table since someone had asked about it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, and appreciate you asking the question, Councilmember Hines, that took care of my question. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. Torres. CdeBaca, I. Clark. No. Flynn. I. HERNDON No. HINES No. Cashman No. Can each. No. Ortega. Sawyer? No. Black? No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Three eyes, nine nose. Three eyes, nine nays. The amendment to 20 2-41 has failed. Council Bill 22, Dash four one is on the floor for final passage. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22. Dash or one. Council members say to Barca. And then we'll go to Councilmember Flynn. Thank you. I'm really disappointed in my colleagues today. And. This is a common sentiment that I have when I leave this place. But this one in particular is painful. As a person of color, as someone who has been affected by police, excessive use of force in our family, in our community. We just open the doors to justify it. And when the first case happens, I hope that everyone on this dais knows that there is blood on their hands. So for those reasons, I won't be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I would just add to that that. Being no data, no foundation, that this actually does anything at all to improve our safety. I will join Councilwoman Sheila Bark in voting no. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash four one, please. Torres. May. Black. I. See tobacco? No. Clark. All right. Flynn may. Herndon High. Haynes High. Cashman. Can each. I. Ortega. Sawyer. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results. Three days. Nine eyes. Nine Eyes. Council Bill. 22 dash for one has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I.

DenverCityCouncil_12222014_14-0950

Amends the contract with Xerox State and Local Solutions to add $81,000, for a new total of $1,104,272, and extend it for 6 months, through 6-30-15, to continue the Automated Photo Red Light Program during the request for proposal process (CE-01061-06). (SAFETY & WELL-BEING) Amends the contract with Xerox State and Local Solutions to add $81,000, for a new total of $1,104,272, and extend it for 6 months, through 6-30-15, to continue the Automated Photo Red Light Program during the request for proposal process (CE-01061-06). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-22-14. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-25-14.

Certainly can. Councilwoman Candace, can you please have 950 placed on final consideration and do pass? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 950 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council and Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance which extends the contract for the photo red light program for six months. I am even thinking beyond that because my colleagues are asking to have them and photo red light intersections be spread more throughout the city. And I want you to think and when I say you, I'm thinking of the administration before it comes to us and says it's ready to do so. There are some key things I think need to be decided. First of all, has each intersection had a thorough engineering examination? Perhaps there are other issues creating safety hazards. Have yellow lights been extended as much as the traffic code allows? Have we installed highly visible countdown clocks to give drivers ample warning? Are the crosswalks freshly painted so they are easily visible by all? Have studies documented reduction and absence from these safety measures before we ever get around to installing red light cameras? I don't place faith in the numbers that I am given on the current photo red light locations because at the time that they were put in, we also requested that the yellow lights be extended. When you have multiple variables, you don't know what is causing an outcome. I believe that this work needs to be done before considering additional installations. And I also would like people to think about if the white line violation is about changing behavior, not revenue raising. Try issuing warnings instead, when the auditor is also raising questions about voter enforcement, we should listen. Our residents and any visitor to our fine city deserves our performing this due diligence. I will be voting no on the extension of the contract. Thank you. Councilwoman thoughts? Councilwoman in each. Thank you, Mr. President. I did not comment on this bill last week when many of my colleagues did an extensive discussion. And so I just wanted to raise a few similar calls to action for the process going forward. I will be supporting this bill. It's an extension of our existing system. So it doesn't include expansions, it doesn't include any new services or designs because it's simply just extending our current contract. But I do think that we have heard a lot of very good feedback, and I believe that this Council should be very engaged in the process by which we debate the what we want in the new contract and the new RFP. So just to highlight a few of the areas that I would also like to ask that we consider is on the speed side, we really should be measuring average speeds in the corridors where we use the speed cameras. I do believe the goal is changing behavior. The statistic of 80% of citations being first time and only citations and not having a repeat. Shows me that we're being effective in changing behavior. But I'd like us to measure that more intentionally in terms of average speeds, and the technology should exist for that. I also think that we have heard a lot of concerns about where the revenue is going. And in a situation like this, where we have such a safety oriented program, I don't see any reason why we can't trace perhaps where we use this revenue for things like pedestrian safety and infrastructure, since that's the number one folks we're trying to protect. Certainly folks are injured in car upon car accidents, but a car on a pedestrian or a car and bicyclist accident is is far more dangerous. And so red light violations in particular, those pedestrians are the first line of folks that I want to protect. And so if we can find a way to make sure that some of these revenues are being used for that kind of safety. So I do hope that the administration takes seriously the ideas from my colleague, as well as any others that this council has. It incorporates those. Before you bring us a new contract, I would like to see rounds of meetings and some real analysis of what types of approaches we can change in the new contract rather than simply a recycling of the current contract. So with those caveats for the next round, I'm happy to support this tonight again based on the fact that 80% of the folks who are cited change their behavior. And that's a pretty effective statistic. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Canete, any other comments or questions on 950? Seen not manner secretary roll call votes no. Can each Montero I nevett i Ortega i rob i shepherd i. Susman I. Brooks, I. Brown, i. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please Thursday announced the results. Ten Eyes one nay. Ten Eyes one day 950 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. That was all the bills that were call out. We are now ready for the black vote. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman, can each where you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block? Yes, Mr. President. It appears that our technology up there it comes. All right. I move that the final following resolutions be adopted 1070, 1082, 1083 and 1134. All series of 2014.

DenverCityCouncil_08012022_22-0832

A bill for an ordinance making an appropriation in and a rescission from General Fund Contingency and making an appropriation in the General Fund budget for the City Attorney’s Office. Rescinds $154,000 from General Fund Contingency and makes a supplemental appropriation in the City Attorney’s Office General Fund appropriation to support limited staff positions serving as Special Assistant United States Attorneys, managed through a memorandum of understanding with the United States Attorney’s Office and focusing on prosecuting violations of illegal possession of a firearm under United States law. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-19-22.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 39, 23, 39, 29 and 20 and West 28th Avenue and 3838. North Perry Street in Berkeley. 22 821 A Bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 479 North Knox Court in Burnham. 22 822 A Bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 715 North Adams Street in Congress Park. 22 841 A bill for an ordinance amending Article one of Chapter 30 of the Revised Municipal Code Altering City Council. Procedures for designating structures and Districts for preservation and for Safety, Housing, Education and Homelessness. 22 834 A bill for an ordinance amending Articles three and six of Chapter 45 the Denver Revised Municipal Code to address catalytic converter thefts within the city and county of Denver. Thank you, Councilmembers. This is your last opportunity to call out an item. Councilmember Hines, will you be making the motions for us this evening? Yes, Council. President. Right now, do a recap under resolutions. No items have been called out under bills for introduction. Council members say the book is called Out Council Bill 832 for a vote under bills for Final Consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 22, dash 032 on the floor for publication. I move that council bill 22 does 083 to be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Council members say the Barker Thank you. I'd like to go on record. Voting no. For this. I don't think that I. Was provided evidence that compelled me to believe that we were not subsidizing another level of government's responsibilities. And so just want.

LongBeachCC_05022017_17-0321

Recommendation to request City Attorney to report back within 30 days with a draft ordinance allowing the City to apply penalties on property owners and to shut off utility services to unlicensed and illegally operating marijuana businesses.

Item 14 is communication from Councilwoman Praise. Councilmember Pierce. Councilmember Urunga. Recommendation to request the city attorney to report back within 30 days with a draft ordinance allowing the city to apply penalties on property owners and to shut off utility services to unlicensed and illegally operating marijuana business. That's one price. Thank you. Just a few comments on this. As I know, we've been here a long time. So as we all know, medical marijuana will be returning to Long Beach due to the passage of Measure M. And with that, there's an opportunity for us as a council to make sure that patients, businesses and impacted communities are protected from unlicensed and illegally operating marijuana businesses. The measure and businesses will have a series of regulatory policies to ensure safe access for patients and quality of life safeguards for communities. Illegal businesses also cost the city money as they pursue inspections, follow up, legal action, prosecution and ultimately shutting down of those businesses all while the business is able to sometimes defer action and or delay while still making money without being permitted, licensed or paying any taxes. That the toll that these businesses take across go across many city departments, including the police department, code enforcement and the city prosecutor's office. This item seeks to apply penalties that will reduce the city costs associated associated with addressing unlicensed illegal businesses by applying penalties to property owners who lease or rent to unlicensed medical marijuana businesses rather than just the business themselves, which would encourage the property owners to work to resolve these issues or be preventative and vetting out their future tenants. This also looks at shutting off utilities to unlicensed marijuana businesses in order to further enforce their need to be properly permitted, licensed and compliant. We want to be able to reallocate any resources that would be otherwise used for these efforts to the community at large. We all know as a council that this council and many other cities in the region have had problems with illegal dispensaries that have really drained the city of millions of dollars, cities of millions of dollars. We've experienced that ourselves in Long Beach, and we recently had an issue before council that dealt with millions of dollars spent trying to regulate actually trying to enforce laws against an illegal operation. We need enforceable tools as a city that reduce the likelihood of having illegal marijuana operations. Adoption of this ordinance is necessary to limit the number of illegal businesses that would drain or limit our city resources. Now, I understand that this is a report asking for the city attorney to come back with a draft ordinance that includes financial penalties and utility disruptions. But of course, if there are best practices that have been utilized by other cities and the city attorney wants to include those. The intent behind this item is to make it more efficient for the city to be able to tackle the illegal dispensaries in order to make sure that we continue to protect patients, communities and, of course, businesses that are operating within the legal realm. It's only fair to businesses that go through that, jump through the hoops, do what they're supposed to do, that they have protection and partnership from the city when illegal competitive operations show up. And so I want to make sure that we're we're really being aggressive with illegal operations. Some people have said to me, well, this should apply to all illegal businesses. I absolutely agree with that. And that's probably a conversation we can have another day. But it doesn't cost the city millions of dollars to shut down other illegal businesses. There's something about the nature of these types of businesses. I was talking with a good friend of mine who is a city attorney for the city of Santa Ana. She specializes in these cases. And, you know, the problems that they have, even when they go to try to shut down utilities, is there's generators in place. The business is operating within a few minutes or even the next day after the police were there. So I think being able to go after the commercial property owner is huge because that's an area and I think those fines should be significant. Like in the thousands of dollars. I don't think we should be applying $150 fine to people who are illegally renting the location. So I would ask that this item look at what other cities have done. The city of L.A. will be doing this with their passage of measure. M, Riverside and Anaheim have also used similar concepts in their cities. So I look to the city attorney to incorporate some of the best practices and give us, in my opinion, the most aggressive enforcement tool that we can have as a city to go after illegal operations. And I asked my colleagues for their support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Price for bringing this item up. I know that you've worked with a lot of stakeholders to make sure that we're drafting and looking at the right issues. I think highlighting the dispensaries that will get licenses and all the things that they have opted to do, which include everything from security , making sure that, you know, they have the properly trained employees. But I think also that there's a community point person for each one of those dispensaries or businesses it's going. Be out in the community, going to neighborhood associations really says that there is a legal operation where people are trying to do the right thing and going above and beyond to be good neighbors. And I think that's been the biggest issue with dispensaries in the past, is what kind of neighbors are they for our communities? And so I wholeheartedly support this item and I look forward to seeing what options our staff brings back for us to ensure that illegal operations aren't impacting our neighborhoods. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. Councilwoman Price, have you ever heard a councilmember come up with a really good idea, so good that it makes you a little mad and jealous? You didn't come up with the First Avenue. It just happened to me right now, this is this is a no brainer. Ideas. Oh, it's our collective idea. It's not my idea. Oh, come on. Come on, now. This is. No, seriously, this is this is a no brainer. I'm happy I'm happy to support it. I remember, you know, being around for the last round when there were so many illegal operations and seeing the challenges that folks had dealt with from just impacts on neighborhoods and all that, we need every tool we can absolutely get to, you know, to to make sure we, you know, protect quality of life, our neighborhoods. The the other thing is it's just not fair. You know, folks are living through, you know, leaps and bounds to go through and and sort of play by the rules. And people are opening up shops right now. Just, you know, forget the rules. We just got to open it up. So I think you're spot on and you have my support completely and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Thank you. Any public comment? Good evening. I'm Sylvia Contreras from District eight. And I just would like to add to Mr. Price's comments. A few years ago, I was a high. Was in the role of a private investigator for a marijuana Grow It event. Evidently, it was a cartel girl. So what I see here, it was a major, major grow. What I saw here is that the owner. Rented this area on the outskirts of town and the tenants were coming into town to pay him the rent. He normally would go up and collect and they said, No, no, no, we will come down to you. And he thought, Great, save me a trip. After about a year and a half, he ends up in jail because the owners were growing marijuana. What I would not like to see is that on a smaller scale that if the commercial brokers or the owners of these properties, if they have no idea that something like that is going on, something maybe to educate them. You know what? Since you had this kind of business. Make make some sort of a plan that those particular landlords don't get caught up in that. That owner. He got in jail. And the ones that actually did, the girl, they never got caught. And I say that because I was investigated for that for that for that particular case. So what made me think about a long time ago, we had those barber shops with the with the trolley things. This is a crazy idea. But those those particular businesses like that are going to be opened. Something to tell the public that that is a legal facility. I go through all these places in Long Beach. I never ask their business license. I know it's a little green certificate like that, but I don't walk in. Let me see your license. I wouldn't do that for marijuana either, but something to identify. I don't know. A red a red window or red or something to say. This is illegal from city of Long Beach. It's just my that's my only comment. As a scarlet letter clause. Mr. City attorney, can you include that in there? Although the window of the business is red. Thank you. Next week, please. Hello. My name is Elliot Lewis. I'm a dispensary owner in the city of Long Beach, or soon to be dispensary owner in the city of Long Beach. I wanted to touch on a almost we're almost almost got approval about to start the buildout. I just want to thank Councilwoman Price for bringing this issue up. I think it's a very important issue and the rest of the council who supported it. I just want to put a color on a few of the issues and then maybe throw in a couple of extra suggestions. You know, number one, the way I see it, it's a public safety issue. And there's a lot of bad actors that are still out there that are cultivating marijuana that has betrayed is powdery mildew, pesticides, etc.. These dispensaries are not required to do any testing, and the clientele that walk in there are ingesting all these different possible chemicals, mildew, things that are harmful. You know, we're going through all the right steps to make sure that our patients have safe access. Also, when it comes to edibles and different things, people don't know what they're getting. They don't know the dosage. You know, that's that's a major issue. Also, the city is losing large amounts of tax revenue by allowing these places to exist. It's estimated in the city of Santa Ana. I know they're trying to throw out trying to throw them under the bus, but I know they're trying to do some working on it now. But there's been some reports done. I've heard anywhere from 5000 to 12000 patients daily are getting their medication at illegal dispensaries. This is costing the city tens of thousands and tens of thousands of dollars. And the other thing I want to touch on, what we're trying to bring to Long Beach is good paying jobs. They're union jobs. They're jobs with benefits. And by allowing in illegal dispensaries, these guys aren't paying taxes. They're not hiring union jobs. They're paying, you know, slave wages. And they could sell their product at less than we can because they're unregulated it. So I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. I know of another jurisdiction. I can't remember the city by name, but what they started doing is when they made a this is all the money thing. These guys, the owners are playing a cat and mouse game. If it's in their interest to take the higher rent and they can game it out with assist the city and it's monetarily beneficial, they're going to continue to do it. So I think this is price is right on with, you know, trying to hit them in the pocketbook and in other jurisdiction. What they're doing is they're picking the guys up. They aren't charging them with any severe crimes, but they're setting the bail amounts really high. So if three or four of your guys get picked up, it's $10,000 a bail. You know, per guy, you start to see after two or three busts, it's not worth it to keep open. And the last thing I wanted to touch on and, you know, I'm not sure exactly, you know, how this gets addresses today and they continue to be there is delivery service. There's a lot of illegal delivery services. They're here right now. I'm sure they're here to stay. So something to think about when we're addressing the measure. But all in all, you know, the LBC, everybody I know that's a legal operator really supports this. I'm really, really glad you guys are tackling this issue. I want to say thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Very good. You clerk as the addressed upfront, I view any any pot dispensary. Operator or a landlord. The rents just a slight step above. Sex trafficking. Period. What needs to be done? And I know there's rumors about one going down in Belmont Shore. That ain't going to happen. Period. The douchebag publisher of that paper. Hopefully we can get deported. That individual, those individuals have essentially for the past year been operating a sanctuary. For two members of an insidious criminal syndicate. One of which threatened to kill. Threatened to kill. A store owner less than two block and a half away because she reported the use of their use of crack cocaine. The female. Is equally dangerous. Threatened to kill people, kicked and stomp people that thought. And she thought they had taken up their panhandling space that it had been down to them by a certain element within the police department. They champion they champion these people that spit at the Long Beach librarian because they had for their conduct been banned from the library. Period. So you go back to you look at the record of the landlord. And in this particular case, the building that the grunion is in and where the poster line is the same people they could have a year ago undertaken a very simple step. What the responsible person, they're all in this Polly restaurant that is put up a simple gate across that, an attractive black black gate. They could have put it up in a in a 2 hours period. But for over a year, over a year, they've been catering to this criminal syndicate. That's an irresponsible landlord. And anybody like that should not be given a permit that's separate and distinct from the fact that the area itself, Second Street, is a de facto adjunct to playgrounds for K through 12 kids, period. It's something that cannot and will not happen. I know the. Councilperson is operating a good faith, but I would come down much, much stronger and absolutely none of them in Second Street area and the correlative areas of any district like that. Thank you. Q Next speaker, please. Good evening, counsel. My name is Matt Bell. I'm executive vice president of U of CW Local 324. We represent cannabis workers in Orange County and throughout L.A. But one of the things in L.A. County as well. One of the things that we'd like to bring up. With some of the other speakers mentioned is workers that are affected by this underground economy. When there's these. Rogue shops throughout cities, they're not paying insurance, they're not paying wages. Everything's under the table. And these workers are exposed to all kinds of different abuses. And it's imperative that not only when these cannabis businesses come in the medical cannabis, that it's not just unfair to the owners that they have to compete against the black market. It really exposes the workforce to abuse. And I know the council members have brought up. We want to bring good jobs to Long Beach. And it's imperative that we put a stop to these rogue shops and whatever methods that we can use to stop them. We're in full support of Councilmember Price's agenda item, and we look forward to getting workers good wages, good benefits in this industry, not only in Long Beach, but throughout California. And to bring this black market and these out of the shadows and and regulate this business and make it what we know it can be to bring medicine to people that desperately need it and to also to supply good jobs. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Diana alleging advocates for disability rights. First of all, I agree with everything that everyone has said before me. My concerns are a number. First of all, I. It shouldn't. What I really don't appreciate is the medical marijuana being targeted. If it included all businesses, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Any illegal businesses? But it seems to me that. Whenever there's an opportunity, Miss Price targets marijuana, demonizes it. We've got it. It's they're horrible, horrible businesses. Or we have to educate people about marijuana. But forgetting and I did, by the way, put in a an article from the county Register basically saying that 82% rise in deaths and abuse of drugs and alcohol had nothing to do with marijuana. So everything is targeted towards marijuana. It's not a bad thing. It is medical. There is goodness in it. So to keep targeting it now, I do support this particular issue. But at the same time, I don't like the idea that it's been targeted just for the marijuana businesses. It should be any illegal business and I hope that you will put protections in that will protect owners. Some days maybe somebody rents to someone they don't know what they're going to be doing there, or they go in, they live, whatever. So I just don't want to see someone. And also I have been getting some phone calls from patients who are concerned because this police department has been known very, very well known to abuse their power. And I can see something like this, them abusing it and using it as a way to target the patients, people who are growing their own. So these things, I mean, the patients need to be separated from this. Let's see if there is anything else. And last but not least, demonizing marijuana only makes it only serves to whet appetites. So you can keep on demonizing it all you want. But it's all it does is increase the use. And that's exactly what has happened. So with those changes, if you can make them, I do support the idea of it and I think the legitimate dispensary owners will be responsible. They've certainly gone through enough to get here. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nick Speaker. Good evening, Honorable Mayor City Council. My name is Adam Hijazi. I'm on the board of directors for the Long Beach Collective Association. First off, I want to thank Councilmember Pearce Pryce Pearce, very close to Councilmember Pryce and Councilmember Pearce and Councilmember Rangel for bringing this item forward. I don't want take too much of your time. It has been a lengthy night, but it is it is really important to be able to differentiate between the legal the sanctioned operators versus the unsanctioned operators. In the past, I think that was one of the biggest issues that happened in the city that we were not able to differentiate. And what ends up happening is the community gets confused and then they see the actions of a unsanctioned operator versus the actions of a sanctioned operator, and then they get to mix them all up. So we've been working really hard on bringing forward best practices, self-policing and security systems to be able to bring the best that we can to the city of Long Beach. So we're definitely in favor of this, and we thank you very much for bringing this item forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Stephanie Dawson Solo. Second District Resident Grassroots Governance Strategies. I just want to thank again council members, price and peers for working on this particular issue. I never thought I'd be coming up endorsing a particular agenda item for Councilwoman Pryce, but I'm very glad to do so. In this particular case, I would call it in the the the reason that this particular measure against property owners is so necessary is frankly, just because of the economics of the black market cannabis world. One of my first cases as an attorney in this business was representing a security guard who was caught in a well-intentioned action by the Long Beach Police Department against an illegal operator. The security guard in this particular case had no idea that he was working for an illegal dispensary, but he was essentially caught holding the metaphorical, metaphorical criminal bag of charges while the landlord was, you know, nowhere to be seen. Again, I don't want to be harping on commercial landlords too much, but, you know, when you're when you're asking for six or $10,000 a month for rent for a otherwise empty warehouse in northern Long Beach, you know, it's somewhat to say that you probably had a pretty good idea about what's going on, what sort of activity is going on in that particular area. I will say that in terms of looking at the different areas that the different jurisdictions for inspiration on good policy, Anaheim is not one that has a particularly great reputation within the cannabis field, but that's purely because they don't allow access for any sort of commercial activity, unlike here in Long Beach , thus going for the utility shut down practice model that they have there I think is a good idea, along with the developments for Measure M in Los Angeles. I will say, though, the two one jurisdiction I would completely avoid in terms of trying to model your legislation up over the city of Whittier, for whatever reason that council there is decided that they're going to be going after personal cultivation, which makes no sense, not just from a public policy standpoint. I mean, why go after somebody who's trying to grow six plants in their backyard orchard from a police, from a utilization of resources standpoint? That's a bad idea. But frankly, the bigger issue that the city of Whittier kind of ignored in going after personal cultivation was the fact that there's a plethora of case law supporting kind of the ability to personally cultivate as a patient as well as, you know, the Prop 64 statutory allowance of six plants per person. If we have police going after people for their backyard, for the backyard grows, it's a really just counterproductive and extremely expensive litigation invitation for litigation by slightly unethical marijuana lawyers. You're going to be going after that. So I would just say focus again on the commercial activities. You now have a supply chain that you're able to differentiate that sort of thing. So putting some sort of arbitrary plant count on what differentiates that versus the actual intent and the profits that are going to that are going to be a lot. You're going to be able to focus your investigations on, frankly, the people who matter most on that particular issue that you'll have a good day. Thank you. And our last speaker. Hello. My name is Matthew Houston. I actually have a medical marijuana card, and. And I found that it's. It's a little bit hard to figure out, you know, what what exactly? I think the I guess the government's a little bit schizophrenic on the issue. It's kind of on both sides. At the same time. It makes it very difficult for someone to figure out exactly, you know, what is what is the best way to go about things. And I think and maybe it's because on the federal level, it's still considered illegal. And so something that would normally be in place to to kind of fine tune how the production is going on is something like the FDA, which of course, can't get involved. So, I mean, that's that's just something that's that's missing. And someone like me who doesn't really care one way or another whether I'm using medical marijuana or not, is, you know, it's I'd I'd love to see some results, but where do I look? You know, where it seems like, you know, it would be like, for example, I'm I'm planning to run across the country and so I'm I'm utilizing a as clean a, you know, medical marijuana product as I can. And I'm noticing that. And and this is all just from my own evidence is that my back injury, the vertebrae in my back are slowly straightening out. Now, I have no one to report this to because the medical community can't you know, the medical community can't endorse it. So then you can't research it. So then you can have evidence so that, you know, it's it's a circle of just ridiculousness that doesn't make sense to me. And yeah. So I'm planning to run 1600 miles, if I can, to, um, Galveston, Texas, maybe from Long Beach to crowdsource a reconciliation flag after the Civil War. And and I was thinking, I don't know, what do I do when I get there, you know, going across state lines and then you have it just seems like a perfect opportunity. I mean, if there is something with the back thing that I think, you know, and then I would be going to a state with a guy who that had a tree fall on his back. I mean, and they're considering I don't know, it just. I'd like to see more research done. And I don't know how to do it because it's like like I say, the government is kind of schizophrenic on the issue. It's like. Thank you. Thank you. There's been a motion in a second. And Councilman Austin. Just really quick back to the subject. I wanted to just just tell Councilmember Pryce that this is a brilliant idea. I think this is if we had this tool maybe four years ago, how many millions of dollars would have been saved? I think, you know, this this is an issue that has been evolving over several years. It seems like we're getting smarter as a as a body here. But also the actions of the state and the voters have actually helped us become smarter on this issue. And so either the groundwork has been laid, you know, lessons have been learned. I think this is an excellent item and I'm happy to support it. Great. Thank you very much. See no other public comment. Members, please cast your votes. I just want to clarify one thing. The intent behind this item and just so I don't think there'll be any objection from anyone on the council, but we have no interest in going after people who are growing things in their backyard. I mean, that's the last thing we have time to be worried about right now. What I'm worried about is the stuff that's going to cost us millions of dollars to go after. So, you know, I just want to make sure that the city attorney's office doesn't waste too much time on the six plants. I'm more concerned about the million dollar operations that disrupt our neighborhoods. So thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Version carries. Thank you. Next item, please. I believe it's 16 is going to be tabled to another. Day, I believe. Right? Mr. Olsson. Okay. 20.

DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0589

A bill for an ordinance approving the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan, the creation of the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Area and the 3015 East Colfax Street Property Tax Increment Area and Sales Tax Increment Area. Approves the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan and authorizes the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and sales and property tax increment areas in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-24-22.

I Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the result. 12 Eyes 12 Eyes Council Bill 22 Task Force 70 has passed. Councilmember Black, would you please put council bill 20 2-5, eight, nine on the floor for final passage. I move that council bill 20 2-0589 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-589 is open. May we please have the staff report? Good evening, Madam President, members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins and I am the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority here this evening requesting Council's approval of the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan to facilitate development of the 3015 Colfax Urban Redevelopment Area. The proposed urban redevelopment area is 37,000, square is a 30 is a 37,000 square foot site comprised of three parcels situated along East Colfax Avenue between Milwaukee and St Paul streets in the City Park statistical neighborhood. The urban redevelopment area consists primarily of the All End Motel and its parking lot. The motel is no longer operating, having closed to new patrons in March of 2022. The Island Motel. Originally, the Fountain Inn was built in 1959 and was one of the earliest motels developed along Colfax Avenue. It offered patrons Premiere accommodations for its time, including rooms fitted with radios, televisions and music equipment and was an attraction for tourists and locals due to the extravagant Gold Room restaurant and cocktail lounge located on the motel's first floor. The Gold Room was a popular choice for concert goers due to its proximity to several of Denver's well-known theaters and musical venues, many of which are still active today. Unfortunately, tourism and commercial activity steeply declined along Colfax Avenue following the completion of Interstate 70 in the mid 1960s. Many local establishments along the once bustling Colfax Avenue closed due to the loss in tourism business, including the Fountain Inn and Gold Room in 1969. The Fountain Inn underwent several management and ownership changes after its closure. The motel's business continued to decline throughout the late 20th century due to travelers preference of I-70 and exodus of nearby residents moving to the suburbs and an increase in criminal activity along Colfax Avenue. The property was rebranded as the only motel in 2003 and a new bar opened in the first floor restaurant space until it also closed in 2012. The restaurant space remains vacant today. Despite the multiple changes of ownership, the property has remained remained a motel. The only motel has operated for several years at well below its capacity, while displaying significant signs of physical deterioration. The all in motels deteriorating condition erodes the integrity of the historical property and is a detriment to Colfax Avenue, contributing to an inhospitable pedestrian environment inconsistent with the vision and goals for Colfax Avenue as described in Plan 2040 . The objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to stimulate the continued growth and development of the urban redevelopment area. The proposed proposed project meets the following objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan to renew and improve the character and environment of the area and its surroundings by preventing or ameliorating economic, physical and environmental deterioration. Encourage the re-use of existing buildings, including historic preservation and adaptive reuse. To protect and enhance the character of structures designated for historic preservation. To promote a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy, including mixed use and commercial development opportunities within the area. To assist the city in cultivating complete and inclusive neighborhoods. Encourage land use patterns where pedestrians are safe and welcome to improve the economy of the city by stabilizing and upgrading property values and to achieve the goals as outlined in adopted city plans. A condition study was commenced in August of 2019 and finalized in June of 2020. This study supported a finding applied based on the presence of the following four conditions. Slum. Deteriorated or deteriorating structures. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Deterioration of sight or other improvements. And the existence of substantial physical underutilization. Or vacancy of sites. Buildings or other improvements. Defining a blight is a legislative finding by city council based upon the Blade study, which has been filed with the city clerk and other evidence presented at this public hearing. The redevelopment project will rehabilitate and adaptively reuse the historic motel building and construct a new four story approximately 15,000 square foot building on the southeastern portion of the site. When completed, the project will feature an 81 room hotel. Ground level commercial uses, including a restaurant, coffee shop, pool and lounge that would be situated between these two buildings that will be available not only by the hotel guests but also by the public via guest passes and approximately 700 square feet of affordable space for community serving users or businesses that may be vulnerable to displacement. In addition, there will be 56 surface parking stalls located behind the buildings. The project will be undertaken by a local developer, Ryan Tauber, with Inspire Colfax LLC, who purchased the property out of bankruptcy in 2016. Once completed, the whole hotel will be managed by New Waterloo, a hospitality and restaurant group from Austin, Texas, with extensive experience managing this type of project. The Fountain in was designed by well-known local architect Aubrey B Brailsford in the popular international style of the 1950s and sixties. In July of 2020, the current owner owner was successful in their effort to have the property listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Denver's history. As noted in this rendering of the project from 1958, the project will not only return the original building to its prior state, but will add new construction that is complementary to the historic structure. Any urban redevelopment plan and project must be determined to further the goals and objectives of Plan 2040 and its approved supplements. As this diagram intends to show, not every goal and objective of each plan can ever be achieved through urban renewal activities. However, we believe this plan and project does meet several key criteria of the city plan's. As this project is focused on historic preservation and quality infill development, we have summarized the relevant sections of Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the East Central Area Plan, with an emphasis on these key incomes are key outcomes. Sorry. So starting with historic preservation and these are intended to be color coded to be able to indicate which document they are coming from. So from Plan 2040, the prioritization of the reuse of existing buildings from Blueprint Denver states to incentivize the preservation of structures and features that contribute to the established character of an area and from the East Central Area plan. Encourage high quality design and character preservation in centers and corridors. Looking to those goals related to quality in-fill development plan 2040 states encourage quality infill development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and offers opportunities for increased amenities. Blueprint Denver seeks to ensure an active and pedestrian friendly environment that provides a true mixed use character in centers and corridors and the East Central Area Area Plan notes to provide additional support to community serving retail businesses and improve the development environment along Colfax. Blueprint. Denver also incorporates equity in the planning process by measuring three key indicators across the city. Access to opportunity. Vulnerability to displacement and housing and jobs. Diversity. An existing analysis from Blueprint Denver indicates that the urban redevelopment area lies within a context that is high access to opportunity, moderate vulnerability to displacement, and low job and housing diversity . The plan will foster development that will improve the area's equitable outcomes, including creating businesses that will bring new employment opportunities to the neighborhood. A specific addition to the project, based on the potential vulnerability to displacement of businesses along Colfax Avenue, is approximately 700 square feet of affordable commercial space designated for use by local businesses, artists, non-profits or other community serving users. In addition, there is involvement in this project has presented an opportunity to provide relocation assistance to the existing motel occupants. Colorado Urban Renewal Law requires urban renewal authorities to provide a feasible method for the relocation of individuals and families who may be displaced by an urban renewal project to adhere to this statutory requirement . Dora adopted a relocation assistance policy which closely mirrors the federal relocation requirements and outlines a process for Dora to follow when an approved urban renewal project will displace individuals. When the motel closed in March of this year, there were 37 individuals utilizing the property. To be clear, there were no families in the property. From the beginning, our efforts were not intended to simply relocate individuals from the motel to like housing, but instead to actively pursue much more suitable and stable housing for each occupant. To achieve this effort, we engaged a housing team comprised of Local Coffee LLC to serve as the relocation coordinator, be Connected LLC to provide housing navigator services as well as the Mental Health Center of Denver to provide occupant support services specifically for their clients occupying the motel. This slide outlines the process and benefits of the housing stability efforts, including preparation of individualized assessments, application and list support, as well as follow up support after lease signing to assure the housing plan is meeting the occupants needs. The assistance benefits include 42 months of rental assistance consistent with the relocation policy, which ensures that low income occupants will not be spending more than 30% of their income on replacement housing. Moving expenses are also covered, and every one of the 37 occupants were offered this assistance, regardless of their tenure at the motel. The relocation and housing stability efforts began when the motel closed in March and are continuing today. This slides provides this slide provides the status of our efforts to date. 13 of the 37 original occupants or 34, 34% have secured stable housing with another three or an additional 8% with lease applications pending. Four occupants have completed their assessments and are actively working with the Relocation and Housing Navigator team to identify units to meet their needs, including proximity to their employment. Since our briefing at Council Committee on May 24th, an additional three occupants who were previously nonresponsive have commenced the assessment process. Today, there are three individuals who were completed that process but have additional considerations that are making the ability to identify units more challenging. Two persons have been removed from the motel. Five individuals who are aware of but who have declined the relocation services have moved to other motels along the corridor. Three occupants moved from the motel at the beginning of this process and provided no forwarding information. And finally, one person remains at the all in and has not yet engaged in the relocation process. And as I noted, Ms.. Coffey is present to answer any additional questions related to this process. The Urban Redevelopment Plan was submitted to the Denver Planning Board on May 4th of this year with a staff recommendation to find the plan to be in conformance with the comp plan. 2040 Planning Board voted 4 to 1 to find the plan to be in conformance with Plan 2040 and its adopted supplement. The bylaws of the 11 member Planning Board require all actions of the board must be taken by the concurring votes of the majority of the members present. Or five votes, whichever is greater. As the Board was unable to pass the motion to find the plan to be in conformance with the plan 2040. Due to not meeting the required concurring votes. The matter has been forwarded to the City Council as, quote. Planning Board provides no recommendation on this matter and quote, A letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. Per the urban renewal statute, if no recommendation is received from Planning Board within 30 days from their review, City Council may proceed with the public hearing on the proposed plan. This plan and project seek to remedy the biting conditions of the area through the adaptive reuse of a historic building, thereby providing clearly needed economic revitalization along the East Colfax corridor, all while supporting the collective goals of seeking housing stability. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will authorize JIRA to finance projects within the urban redevelopment area by the use of tax increment financing. The need for public financial assistance is directly related to the extraordinary cost to eliminate the blighting conditions and support the adaptive reuse of the historically significant structure. Jurist staff has reviewed the development, budget and performance submitted by the developer and believes there is a financial gap in the $31.2 million development budget of approximately $3.5 million. This represents approximately 11% of the total project development budget. This financing gap will be addressed by reimbursing eligible costs through any property tax and sales tax increment generated only from within the tax increment area, which is coterminous with the urban redevelopment area for a period not to exceed 25 years. The utilization of property tax increment invokes the requirement that before City Council can approve a new urban redevelopment plan, they must find that an agreement has been entered into between Dura and the affected taxing entities in regard to the allocation of property tax increment to the project. There are two other property taxing entities Denver Public Schools and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, now known as the Mile High Flood District. Both taxing entities were notified of the proposed urban redevelopment plan following that notification. Both evaluated the impact the project may have on their ability to deliver services. Based on the project information provided, both DPS and Mile High Flood District have determined that the project will have limited impact on their ability to deliver services and have agreed to allow all increment derived from their respective mill levies to be paid to direct to support the project. In addition, there is a cooperation agreement between the city and Durham, which governs the collection and remittance of both the property and sales tax increment to support the redevelopment project. It also limits the term of the tax increment area to the earlier of repayment of the DURA obligation or 25 years. In considering the approval of the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan, City Council must make the following additional legislative findings that the boundaries of the area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan. That written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns within the urban redevelopment area. Written notice was mailed on May 20th of this year, at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. No more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan, and this is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site. And thus the City Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site, that the urban redevelopment plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the redevelopment or rehabilitation of the area by private enterprise. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of any area of open land which is to be developed for residential or nonresidential uses or any agricultural land that the city and county of Denver can adequately finance. And agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the 3015 East Caltex Urban Redevelopment Area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and DRA to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by this plan. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority has worked closely with the city and county of Denver, the developer, the Housing Stabilization Team and the neighborhood interests to bring forward this project. The redevelopment of this site, in addition to eliminating blighting conditions, will bring a new and exciting use to the historically significant building and generate new energy to this location along East Colfax Avenue. And we ask for your favorable consideration of this request. All right. Thank you, Tracy, for the staff report. We have 19 individuals signed up to speak. I'm going to call the first few speakers and then we'll alternate back and forth. Our first speaker in person in chambers is Brian Tauber. He. Hmm. Good evening, city council. Thank you, Tracy. It's a pleasure to be here with you this evening. My name is Brian Tauber, and I represent the owners of the Island Motel. We purchased the motel out of bankruptcy in 2016 with plans to redevelop the site. Throughout our evaluation and review of various redevelopment options, we decided to move forward with the full renovation of the existing building as a hotel redevelopment project. Our evaluation lasted several years as we fully engaged with the community to hear firsthand what their idea of a successful outcome at this site would be. We've had multiple discussions with various foreigners, stakeholders, neighbors, business improvement districts and have received several letters of support from each to move forward with a hotel renovation project. Throughout the process, it was apparent a hotel would fill a void in the community as local neighborhood hotel accommodations weren't available, and it would further benefit National Jewish Hospital with the thousands of out-of-state visitors they have visiting their hotel annually. At the ground level, the hotel will incorporate a full service, restaurant service in three meals a day, a pool, a pool for hotel guests and the neighborhood to enjoy a neighborhood, coffee and pastry shop. We'll have a hotel lobby bar for locals. To use throughout the day to work or visit with friends and family. And we'll establish a partnership with local artists traveling through Denver and performing at the many music venues along Colfax for local accommodations for them. We have a total of 81 hotel guestrooms and 56 parking spaces. The hotel will employ approximately 120 people, many of which will be full time jobs with full benefits. Vacation and retirement benefits. We successfully added the project to the National Historic Register of Historic Places in 2020 as we felt it was a contributing structure of Colfax Avenue and it added to its rich history. The preservation of historic structures are also called out for in the newly adopted East Area Central Plan and a community benefit. Furthermore, we redesigned the ground level to accommodate commercially affordable space to be reserved for local businesses in need of affordable space for their small business to thrive. I'm happy to address any questions and ask for your support tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is joining us virtually. Jeff Harbaugh. Thank you. My name is Jeff Harbor, and I'm asking you to vote no on the tax increment financing for 3015 Colfax Avenue. The luxury hotel is not necessary at this time because it is not a community asset and it provides no community benefits. The developer has admitted that his own development plans are financially risky so that many lenders have turned him down, both before the pandemic ensued. Tracy Huggins of Durham said the corridors trouble and has been for some time. I have lived a block away from the motel for many years and disagree with this assertion. While his business may be troubled, the corridor is not. This is not a suitable investment property for him and it only extends to one property because the developer has no experience in developing or running a hotel. Mr. Turner has said that he has received criticism from lenders that boutique hotels don't have national reservation systems and cannot operationalize any efficiencies. Secondly, Mr. Turner has told that short term rentals this year are impacting boutique hotel stays, to be exact. A quick check of the city's database of short term rentals shows that there are more than 300 stores already in the city park and Congress park neighborhoods within walking distance of the site, according to the city's SDR database. A luxury hotel is not needed in the area. I recently toured the property today and met residents who have not been contacted for housing. We are working to connect them. With resources, not Denver Urban or not. Mr. Turner purchased the property. He told the city and county of Denver the residents and improvements will be made at the property instead. He made few, if any, repairs and was cited a handful of times for safety and health violations from the city and in Denver. The photos of the property on a research watch of more than six years shows the individual willing to let the property fall to total disrespect. Mr. Turner has cited in 2019 for the kitchen being in disrepair and electrical being out of code and safety issue. Again, in 2019, the elevator was out of compliance. In 2020, cited for fire alarm issues, constant pest infestations of bedbugs and rats has also been an issue during several meetings with Congress neighbors R.A. and South City Park Arno. Mr. Tober admitted displacing current residents who depend on city issued housing vouchers, which all in motel access. Some are still living there without any new housing identified. The motel is on a bus line and is centrally located, so residents are able to access community based services and travel to and from work. To shutter the motel would further victimize residents who call this home. Please vote no on this two. Our next speaker is in person in chambers. Timothy Swanson. Good evening. Thank you for letting me talk here at 9:00 on a monday night, and thank you for engaging in this process. My name is Tim Swanson. I was born and raised in Denver. Proud to call this place my home. Five years ago, I moved into the neighborhood and live on the 1500 block of Saint Paul. Importantly, I live in the neighborhood. With my wife and two small children. We live about 200 yards from the island motel. Our block is an eclectic block. Besides my family, there are other small other families of small children, long term residents, even tenants with leases. Since we moved. To the neighborhood. Five years ago, we have been waiting for a transformational project to change the all and to uplift the all in motel from its obvious blight and disrepair to something that the whole neighborhood can be proud of and enjoy. For five years, the entire neighborhood has been waiting for this vote and for this project to move forward. As you know, the South City Park neighborhood has already voted in favor of this project twice, overwhelmingly. It's part of the materials that were submitted with you for approval. This vote took place after the developer submitted the project, submitted the concept to questioning and to scrutiny from the neighborhood, people who have a vested interest. He made himself available and took anyone up on a phone call who called. This project has numerous benefits to improve the safety of the neighborhood and will help remove a long standing negative stigma of Colfax and the All in motel that will retain the building's historic and unique character. And also provide lodging for out-of-town guests. Importantly important, this can't. Be lost that this developer's. Local. He's not seeking to plant a best Western flag or American flag or some other cookie cutter hotel that is not unique to this neighborhood. He's here. He's local. All the neighbors in my neighborhood who have a vested interest in who live there are strongly supportive of this project. We are the ones who have to deal with the project or with the status of it now day to day, and we'll have to deal with it in the future. If there was ever a project for Tiff, I ask you all drive by, walk by. Tell me that this project isn't blighted and isn't deserving of Tiff. Because if not, I don't know why we have a tiff or urban renewal statute. It makes no sense. My family and my neighborhood, we strongly support this project. We urge you to vote unanimously in favor of this project. Will move our neighborhood forward. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mariana Thompson on Zoom. Can I be her? Can I be heard? What? Hello? Can I be heard? How are you? Good evening, counsel. And all watching Mariana Thompson as a volunteer advocate of our unhoused neighbors. I am very familiar with all in and I am speaking like Jeff before me said, against the approval of 20 2-0590. In the last three years, numerous people have been temporarily housed at all in and have received housing. Jesse Paris and myself have advocated for poor people and to people out of those four that we advocated for had gotten housing. Now, I, I am very familiar what the inside looked up like compared to the pictures. And I can say if this is that this is the owner and he would allow me, the tenant on our unhoused neighbors to live in these deplorable conditions. No, no. We do not need a luxury a luxury hotel. Urban renewal is the old fashioned name of. Gentrification. We do not. I do not believe in in in paying my taxpayer money towards this. And what about the unhoused people that got displaced council? Do you understand that, that some of them are being displaced as far as Lakewood went down the street. They had the bus lines. Down the street was a 7-Eleven. This was a perfect place, just like the Fusion studios a couple of years ago. That you guys. Approved up to be permanent housing. We need permanent housing from old motels. I, I am very upset with this. I live down the street on Park Avenue and called backs. And this these bids Colfax village is just trying to make everything luxury, luxury, luxury. When? Right now we are all suffering. We, you know, even people right now in low income housing are, you know, one step to this to the tent city. If you don't want tents in our city council, I would appreciate if you all vote no on this. Not just one person. Do the right thing. Remember, we can do better. Let's do better tonight. Thank you. Ted. Easter Lucky. All right. Hello. Good afternoon. Good evening. Thank you. City council. First for for allowing me to voice my opinion. I appreciate the time. And. My name is Teddy. Three Lucky. I am my fiancee. Ellie purchased our home. We are four houses away from all in. We are extremely close. This is something we are passionate about. And we unanimously support the proposed renovations for all in hotel. Brian Tauber purchased the Island Hotel with the intent to keep the classic landmark, improve the quality of the hotel and to benefit local neighborhoods. Ryan needs city council approval to move forward with these hotel renovations. This project will add a hotel option for the region of Denver. Looking on Google Maps, you can see between the neighborhoods of Cole, Clayton, Park Hill, Whittier, Skyline City Park, South City Park, Congress Park, Montclair. There are little to no hotels available. Given the amount of hospitals in the area, we would benefit from providing families and friends of patients staying at the hospitals with a place to stay when they visit their loved ones. This project will also improve the beauty of the neighborhood. This project includes keeping the existing structure and adding an additional structure to increase capacity and improve the exterior of the buildings and remove this blight that we walk by every single day. This project will also add additional businesses along Colfax. As Bryan mentioned, he intends to add small businesses a coffee shop bakery. This brings in this business 1 to 1. It'll bring in additional businesses. This will help increase the safety. And when we bring a child to our neighborhood, this will help us feel more safe in the area. In conclusion, we're all in for supporting Bryan Tauber in the hotel renovation. I urge city council to approve this project. Thank you again for your time and your support for this renovation. Thank you. Our next speaker joining us virtually is Tyrese Howard. Counsel. I'm curious, Howard. Excuse Action Network Member. I'm here to ask you all to vote against this bill, this proposed check and finance. I have known many people over the years that have stayed at the all in and time of desperation without housing. And it has been one of the critical hotels that is accessible for folks who are needing that kind of an emergency housing situation. They have been more accessible in terms of, you know, folks that don't have IDs and the city as well as other service providers have utilized them a great deal for putting people in temporary hotel voucher situations to get rid of this hotel and turn it into a luxury apartment. Is baffling to me that. We are actually considering using our tax dollars, public tax dollars to destroy low income emergency housing and turn it into luxury hotel. That is literally what we talking about right now at a time in Denver when we have the largest housing crisis ever, when housing is the big issue we're talking about, when you have hundreds and thousands of folks on the streets and shelters and so on and so forth every day. This is the biggest thing we're talking about. And meanwhile, it's before council to vote to turn one of the the viable options we have into a luxury a luxury hotel. This is very disturbing. I think it's really important to note also that even if all of the current residents of this hotel are moved into a great housing situation, which is much needed and very much. Hope, that that is something the city and partners can achieve in this time frame. Even if that were to be the case, that doesn't change the situation that this is a a low income, a cheap, attainable, temporary housing option, that that is badly needed in our city that would then be gone, would be off the table, would no longer be an option. We can't just be looking at the immediate situation. We have to be looking at the long haul. And the long haul we should be looking at is what what what is needed in this property. This property is needed to be retained as a quality property for low income folks. The city could have bought this property in 2016. It should buy it now and retain it for low income people. And I ask that the city vote no on this and. Instead move to buying the island and turning it. Into low income housing. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Costa in chambers. Good evening, City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you guys tonight. I would like to start off by saying I come from a very large Italian family. We've made a lot of sausage in our days and this is quite an impressive process. So thank you for what you guys do for the city and thank you for your time. I'm hoping to win an award. I live three houses behind me, all in my with my wife Emily and our two small children. I have a five year old son and a two and a half year old little girl. We spend a lot of our time in the alley, riding bikes and teaching my son how to ride his bike and water in the plants and the bushes in the alley. And this neighborhood is really important to us. I've lived in Denver since 1995 and we've lived in this current house for about six years. And this would mean. A lot to us. I know from a macro level there's been a lot of good data and information presented of how this alliance with the City Youth Development Plan. How this generates jobs. How this reduces blight. But I just kind of wanted to address the micro aspect of this and the fact that it has overwhelming support from our Self City Park Neighborhood Organization. We attend meetings regularly. This also has strong support from the Congress Park Neighborhood Association as well. And like I said before, you know, for the people that live on that street and in the surrounding blocks, this is a big deal for us. We live with this every single day. And it will make this area a lot. Safer. And a much. Welcome area to raise our children and enjoy the city and. Why we live in the city. So thank you very much for your time. Great. Thank you. Would you introduce yourself for the public record? I apologize. My name is Jason Curtis. All right. I want to quick with the Italian joke. I think. Now. All good. All good. We appreciate it. Thank you. Our next speaker is joining us via Zoom Brandy any minute. Sorry, everybody. I'm very aggressive right now on what I try to be brief. Apologies about the of women, the black Muslims. They were too close to each other. That's what I want to say. This is. This is, like, ridiculous, you know? I was on house. Sharif that got me in the lane due to my heart condition in the beginning before COVID hit and a winter storm. It has. It served its purpose for what I needed it for. Mariana Thompson and person who helped me receive housing after that due to some some other nonsense that happened at all in . Like after I kept my my room for almost like six, eight months of like that. I can't remember. Um, that I received shortly after. Now, what I want to say about this is it. To. What do you say restoration restoration means to me? That you're going to fix the actual building, not tear it down and build a new building? Is luxury okay for. Whatever new vacation you're going to bring into the community? Okay. I don't care about this that there's the National Jewish Hospital, all that stuff. Everything's been rebuilt to suit one group of people. Gentrification is only for one class of people. I must say it again, like I said it last week. This only suits white people. White people. LGB. GQ People with a high paying jobs. That's what's here. That's what it supports. It does not support the black community that used to live in that area. It used to go to East High School, used to be all around that area. It doesn't. What have you added? Like, you know, pushing our people out. You know, you push our black community out, you push our Hispanic community out, and you only bring in more. High paying, upper class white people. That's what this is for. Now, if the building is messed up, you only have to blame the owner if you're not bringing enough money to that area. Blame yourself. The city of Denver. When you decide it's build I-70 and you took the tourism money from that area, then it became how it is. This is your fault. Not the city, not the people that live in the city, but the actual city. Well. And they decided to transform the city to suit financial needs. Make this building for what it is. We started building. He the humans there. You do not have a place with them. You know that. Thank you. Our next speaker. Was Charles. Nussbaum, but we're not seeing him online. So we'll go to Jesse Paris. Hello. Hello. You're in person. Thank you so much. Even in council. I'm Charles Nussbaum. I live in the 1400 block of Detroit Street for the last. Nine years. And for that I was in the 14 in block of Clayton Street. So I've traveled Colfax between New York, Josephine and Colorado Boulevard segment for 22 years now. And I, I really support all the people that are speaking against it. However, I beg you to support this proposal. It's a critical need for and this catalyst of the redevelopment in this stretch. For years, we didn't have a rec center. Now we do. For years, we didn't have a walkable grocery store. Now we do. The national and local opioid crisis has caused a need for methadone clinics. We have to. We need a hotel to serve the general surrounding neighborhoods in a way that is not being met. I do sympathize with the housing shortage and I do support the efforts that have been made to re locate the people and the employees at this location. I've got a new East graduate. But during his years in high school, my son has seen drugs being thrown from the window when the police have been at the bottom of the hotel reading activity there, that shouldn't be happening on Kovacs or anywhere. I don't think that we want to continue that activity. And I think the surrounding neighbors. Deserve that. I think that. Overall positive redevelopment of this historic building is needed and appreciated. And the restaurant and the bakery and the spaces being offered for small business and artists, I think is important. I think there is no walkable hotel. It is time for people that are attending events or productions there. I think. National Jewish deserves to have a hotel within walking distance for visitors. I think the neighbors need a hotel for guests to stay and be able to walk. I think people going to City Park Jazz need a place to stay. If they want to stay and enjoy the community. So I thank you for your time and I hope that you'll support this proposal. Thank you so much. I will go back online for Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening. Members of council and those watching at home. My name is just personal representative for Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive action can work for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council, front line black news. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. And I reside in District eight in Christopher Herndon's district. I am definitely against this rezoning tonight. As previous speakers have already spoken. I am. I am still currently housing advocates. I have helped several people throughout the years. Some of them have actually spoken tonight. And. The organization of the part of the homicidal world has went out of our way to house people that were. And homelessness at this location. One person in particular I used to advocate for Preach. He has been house for two years. Prior to this he stayed at the all in. And I can attest to the deterioration. Of the building. Because I witnessed it firsthand. People have almost got electrocuted to death in that building. The elevator was very. So the building is definitely, definitely in disrepair. What I would like to be made into another fusion studio or something of the sort, because we have a housing crisis. And. Instead of turning into luxury apartments like Howard spoke earlier. We have a housing crisis in luxury apartments in the area of Denver. It's not a solution or a means toward a solution to our housing crisis that we are under. This is just more gentrification as usual. Urban renewal is just sort of for all the undesirables out. It's a lot of keep talking about crime. And and. It's unsafe over here because they allow this area to go into blighted conditions just so they can have a reason to tear it down and build luxury hotel 1881 room hotel. That's not going to be for people that are currently experiencing homelessness. So I'm definitely against this. Please vote no on this tonight so that you have a heart and a conscience. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. Our next speaker is Megan Wieland. Online. My name is Megan Whalen. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I am a resident of the Capitol Hill area, and I'm here on behalf of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, otherwise known as chair. And I'm the chair of the Urban Planning Committee. And I'm just here to to report on our RINO's position on this and that. On Thursday, October 28th, 2021, our Board of Directors held a regularly scheduled board meeting, and at that meeting we discussed this project and had a presentation. 20 board members voted in favor of lending our support to this project as described, none opposed. And we had two members, board members that abstained. And without belaboring all of the points that you've heard, I know it's been a long evening. I'll just give a quick summary. The reasons are, number one, we do feel public private partnerships are essential to Denver's future and in particular with regard to this project. Number two, this investment group has appropriately engaged with us. They've demonstrated a commitment to working with the R and O's and community investments with neighborhood organization. Input is paramount and we feel like we've been heard in terms of our concerns. Number three, our board believes in preserving historic properties throughout Tron's ten neighborhoods, and the redevelopment of this property is consistent with our organizational goals to save older architecture. Number four Activating community spaces and bringing Denver sites together is critical. That's part of our mission. This project will provide unique public spaces along the Colfax Avenue corridor, and the neighborhoods serving amenities are to be recognized. And finally, innovative design and creating multiple uses in the South City Park neighborhood make sense. Uses such as hotel accommodations, which we have heard a number of times are in need. A café and a pool with some access to our neighborhood will be permitted in an area of the city requiring activation. And in closing, I'd just say, you know, we've been promised a number of things over decades with regard to this property . And this feels like a partnership with Dora that we're we're very supportive of and at the same time acknowledging all of the the concerns as represented here. So thanks for your time this evening. Thank you. Our next speaker online is Jerry Burton. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead, Mr. Burke. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. My name is Derek Burnham. We have house after network number. I was like, I'm a veteran. This is where I do not understand what you are. We have a housing crisis here. We came out that unhoused neighborhood that we already have and those that live in transitional housing and those that are living in shelter. But yet you want to take taxpayer dollars. To make a luxury apartment. Luxury apartment. This. If you live in a tent. If you live in a shelter. And you get apartment. That's luxury. I don't know what y'all are thinking about, but it seemed to me that y'all are perpetuating the homeless crisis for every. Valerie. I know. However, the city council is going to be running for other offices or they no longer can run for these offices. But the point is, the city could have bought that building and they could do it now if another monument or anything like that and put low, affordable housing on that property. Now we got more. Luxury apartment. Yeah, we know what to do with. But we still have homelessness in our city. I don't know what you are doing. But it does not take a rocket scientist to make a rocket. But y'all have to understand that in order for people to have some stability, they must have a place first. And y'all figured that equation. And y'all need to really think about this. And I want you to vote no on this, because at the same time, we are going to have more on how neighbor living on the streets and the city and county of Denver. Think about it. Think about it. We just we get celebrate Juneteenth. And let me tell you something. It's the same B.S. that will going on in 1865. That is going on in 2022. Y'all don't care about people. I have put more value in my and brand businesses to this. Establish to the city that y'all don't have a conscious. And with that being said, I would say to vote no, simply vote no. And bodybuilding and make a low income. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jim J. It looks like we don't have Jim Jay with us. And so we're going to go ahead and move on. Very. In. Hello there. My name is V Reeves. I'm calling to vote to urge that the vote is a no on creating this property into a luxury hotel using taxpayer money. I'd like to focus on two terms that have been used. And really think about what that means. One of them is light. Unfortunately, people have talked about how this is a blight in the neighborhood, suggesting that it spoils or damages the neighborhood with its existence. It has been an asset to the community to, again, as people have mentioned before. Support housing and support the you know, the the trajectory that people have to take in order to get that stability, to get permanent housing. I am also a former case manager and have myself used this hotel as a means for some of my clients to seek refuge. When you take this away, you take away another tool that case managers have to be able to offer a temporary support and relief while we're searching for other options. And I can promise you that case managers are searching like crazy for beds and for, you know, temporary protection from the elements while we try to find permanent housing . Unfortunately, we've seen from the Department of Housing Stability own numbers that we're just not having any additional housing being built. What was happening since since the year of. 2015, there was no new market housing without government assistance that was being built below 60%. Am I in Denver since 2015? That's seven years. Through service providers. They have plans this year to build 523 housing units for under 30%. But there is a need of 32,000. When you have a viable option, a location that works by the bus lines, by the service organizations, by the resources that people need. When you talk about another word, integrity. The very first speaker talked about preserving the integrity of the neighborhood. This is called facts, and we are displacing people at alarming rates. We are forgetting the integrity definition originally, which is moral, upstanding ness. And here you are choosing to this place further and continuing to ask yourselves why we have a housing crisis to begin with. So I urge the city instead reconsider purchasing this building and allowing it to remain a viable option for people as it has for so long and do not continue to contribute to the displacement of our community. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Emily Clarke. Hello. Good evening. My name is Emily Clark. I'm a Denver resident, and I live on Monroe Street. I'm here today to express my strong support of the redevelopment plan for the Allen Hotel. I live in the South City Park neighborhood in which this property is located. I truly believe this plan will contribute many benefits to our community and is consistent with the East Central Area Plan. It will reduce blight, become a catalyst for other improvements, and provide services that are currently missing. It will create many jobs and provide an important piece of. Infrastructure. To. Carfax and the Blue Bird District. All while preserving an historic structure. I was able to visit the Austin, Texas Hotel managed by New Waterloo, the same company that will oversee this hotel. It was a beautiful building. Well maintained and included a thriving restaurant and retail store. If this hotel is to be anything like it, we'd be incredibly lucky. I would like to encourage City Council to approve the redevelopment plan as well as the associated funding mechanisms. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. Our next speaker is Lenny Sorrels. Members of Denver City Council. My name's Lenny Cyrus. I live in the Congress Park neighborhood. I'm requesting that you vote no on the tax increment financing proposition for 3015, it's Colfax Avenue, which is operated as the Oakland Motel. For the record, it's correct that a previous speaker said by the name of Jason Mentally Covers Park neighborhood R.A. has now provided support for this project. The current owner, Brian Herbert, wishes to build a boutique hotel. He has informed me and others that he has repeatedly been turned down for financing because the project was deemed too risky prior to the onset of the pandemic due to the lack of branding, his own lack of experience in managing a hotel and the project's lack of a universal hotel reservation system as well as the proliferation of short term rentals. Once the developer realized that his dream of owning a boutique hotel and a changing dynamic of short term rentals was problematic. He decided to defer all maintenance and have his property deemed as white in order to secure tax increment financing. What is trouble is that the so called blight is confined to his property only because of the lack of attention. To make repairs. That Mr. Torba promised to take care of in 2016. Tax increment financing should not be used to assist a developer with a project that is otherwise not viable due to a lack of business acumen, community need or benefit or market demand within walking distance. There are many short term rentals. There are over 300. And there are also several ends in bed and breakfast. The site currently accepts temporary housing vouchers from the city county of Denver, Denver Police Department and Mental Health Center of Denver. How do I know this? Because I work with a group of volunteers and service providers who have referred displaced neighbors to the motel. What is the tax increment financing proposal was initiated. The management of the hotel notified residents of their impending evictions. Your vote to affirmative will result in dozens of vulnerable people being displaced. I toured the property recently this month and talked to several people who have been told that they must move no later than July 1st. They have no place to move to and no housing. Has been. Identified for them. They state that there was one initial contact about moving from the Alton Motel, and. That is all they have heard since that time. I gave these residents my personal email address so I can follow up with them to get them assistance. The state of the facility on the inside and outside has not been maintained that conditions are absolutely deplorable. However, Mr. Travers management company continues to collect residents from the continues to collect rent from residents living there. I made notes of several Denver code violations of the property that are present today. There are very few motels that accept housing vouchers and even fewer places that accept tenants without identification whose documents may have been lost in a move displacement or suite of assets such as hotel vouchers for city hall immediately. We're going to go ahead. And. Move on. That was the time we have allotted for each speaker. Our next speaker is Cathy Price. So. My name is Cathy Price. I live on Monroe Street as well. I am a resident of South City Park, but I'm here to represent and speak on behalf of the City Park Neighborhood Association, for which I am the current Treasurer. I just wanted to address the members of Council to say that I am here on behalf of the City Park Neighborhood Association in support of the redevelopment of the Allan Motel property. As proposed by Inspire. Investment Group. We have performed, we being the Neighborhood Association, have performed several surveys of our membership once in 2019 and again recently in March of 2022. And those survey results have shown overwhelming results and support from our neighbors, from our members of this redevelopment. In 2019, the membership voted at 9090 5%. I do not have the number that voted at that time, but 95% of members voted in support in March of 2022, after Bryan and Inspire Investment Group came to the South City Park Neighborhood Association meeting to address proposed changes. Provide a presentation along with Dora. In March 2022, we sent out their second survey. That survey was open from March 28 through April 10th, so significant period of time to obtain the opinions of our members. And the results of that showed 88% of the current membership are remain in favor of this project. So with that being said, again, just showing the support on behalf of the R.A. that the neighborhood or excuse me, that the hotel sits within. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Katie Blakey. Oh, hello, council members. My name is Katie Blakey. I'm also a member of ten and 11 District ten. I send up to speak to ask that you please vote no on this bill. I don't think it's appropriate to use tax increment financing for this project, which provides limited community benefit. The owner purchased the property in foreclosure, understanding how much work the building needed and has allowed the property to fallen into further disrepair in the six years they've owned it. This type of funding mechanism should be reserved for special projects that will deliver a significant. Benefit to the community. According to a report from the American Hotel and Lodging Association. Denver Hotel occupancy rates year to date are averaging about 58%, which is well behind the 74% occupancy rates of 2019. Boutique hotels in particular are risky business. Venture restaurants, cafes and even pools are facing significant staffing shortages. In light of this, it's inappropriate for the city to take on this additional risk when we're facing increasing costs, inflation and record levels of homelessness and displacement. Also, and listening to the presentation, it sounds like this project will take money away from Denver Public Schools from the deep levy. If you could please clarify what exactly that all means. Like many. Others who've spoken, I'm concerned about the people. Who are being displaced from the hotel and wish we lived in the kind of city where that consideration carried a real weight. Thank you for your time and please vote no on 20 20589 and 20 2-0590. Thank you. Our next speaker is Christopher Johnston. Yes. Good evening, City Council. Thank you so much for this time. I am asking you to vote yes and I am. Testifying in support of the Borough Proposal for 3015 Colfax. I also live with my wife, young children on the 1400 block of Milwaukee Street. So just across the street. From this property. We need to be taking plywood down from Colfax windows, not putting more up. The request being put forth by Dora will help accelerate the Greektown business district out of the stagnation that COVID created and anchor it for many years to come. As has been mentioned, the hotels that this will be modeled after have been extremely successful, whether. It's in Austin. Washington, D.C.. In my discussion with what local businesses still are present, at least in the Greektown business district from Lake Steele down to York. The excitement and possibilities this project creates are obvious. I won't belabor the points with regards to hospital support, local residents support commercial space that has been. Mentioned and how. The growth will help support the tax base for our city. This has been in its state for decades. This is not Brian doing that. It it's in this current state. And I think his proposal has been the only one for a very, very long time that will actually bring back some activation to the Greektown business district in this area of Colfax. I know that is being used for small number of housing. Vouchers, but I. Think we shouldn't withhold future municipal support from a business just because they. Participate in the voucher program. That seems more like a punishment to me. I think voting no will actually disincentivize future voucher enrollment and resources. And as has been presented, there's been extensive work to that. No one will be displaced. It's also been said that the planning board, though, coming forth with no recommendation, was merely because there weren't enough people present to show what was overall a supportive vote in favor . So yeah, please vote yes to help this area of Colfax. Vote yes for your constituents who want to see Colfax thrive. And don't let this. Property remain in its blighted state for decades to come. Without your support, this is sure to happen. Thank you so much for your time and for your service. Appreciate you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 589. Council member. Sawyer thinks that a President Tracy, one of the speakers did bring up a great question that I think is important to clarify for everyone, and that is exactly kind of what tax increment finance financing does in relation to the three taxing entities in the city and county of Denver. So if I may, Councilwoman, I'd like to both answer that question and maybe give an additional little bit of additional context to maybe clarify some other agreements as well. So so tax increment financing is a mechanism by which only newly created revenues as a result of the redevelopment are made available to Doura. To help reimburse. Costs that the developer is incurring. So when the other taxing entities evaluate the project, they have to first decide is the project going to occur? And if so, what would those new revenues be? That again, but for this project wouldn't be there. And then more importantly, what does the project itself do as far as impact their delivery services? So taking Denver Public Schools, this is proposed to be a hotel project. So therefore there are not new residents that are coming in to the school district system that they would need to assist. And so very, very frequently, when it is a commercial only project, that is the viewpoint of DPS. Conversely, when it is a project that has a significant amount of residential or just any residential, they look at that evaluation differently. When it comes to urban drainage, this is part of an existing network of of utilities that they participate in. And so they also agree that given the size and scope and scale of this project, it was not going to have an impact. I want to circle back to again those revenues that and the and the structure that we are pursuing, which is that the developer has to finance all of the project. He only stands to benefit if the project is successful and therefore actually generates an increase in property taxes as well as sales taxes. So there is no risk to the city. This is only capturing those taxes that are generated within the boundaries of the urban renewal area. So it would be any sales tax generated by the project as well as property tax above what is currently being generated. I hope that helps. Yep. Really appreciate that explanation. Thank you so much for that and just don't go anywhere. One more quick question. Just wanted to also clarify, a number of the speakers had said I had felt very strongly that they did not want this to be an apartment building. It is going to be a hotel. Is that correct? That is correct. Is going to be a hotel, not an apartment building. Okay. And historically, up until the time when the current owners offered it to the city to use as temporary temporary housing for residents who were at risk to COVID. Is that correct? Or just temporary housing in general? I may have to defer to the owner on that question in that it is my understanding that there are no city vouchers currently being deployed at the motel. Oh, great. Okay. That clarifies that for me then. Is that correct? Do you want to do you want to come up and respond to that? Please introduce yourself for the public record. Yes. Thank you. Brian Tauber, the owner, representative, owner of the property. I believe I heard the question was, was the motel offered as temporary housing during the pandemic? The answer is yes. I did reach out to at the time it was marketed by Denver to say we need some housing help here. I reached out to I think it was Nestor hosted and offered the apartment because we had plenty of rooms available. We interchanged with a couple of emails and they declined respectfully that it just didn't check enough of their boxes. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Really appreciate that clarification. So what happens if we agree and vote to create this urban renewal area? We agree to allow the financing and the project fails. What? What happens? I hope it doesn't, for your sake. But what then? This may need to be a tag team answer and I will give the Urban Renewal Authority answer and then Brian put you on the spot as far as what your your answer may be. The risk is borne by the developer. So, again, in putting together this project, he has already put a significant amount of equity into the project and is securing loans that will be serviced in part through the performance of the project just from normal cash flow as well as then by the amount of incremental taxes that the project generates. If those if the amount of tip is not that that was expected to be generated, isn't there. There just needs to be additional resources brought forward by the developer to continue to to repay the obligation and or take a reduction in the amount of equity returns that they would otherwise be seeking to achieve. Okay, great. I hope that doesn't happen, for your sake. If this ends up being approved. But I really want to know what is the city's risk? What are what are we looking at in terms of, you know, if we agree to this, then what comes next? So really appreciate that explanation. I think that's it for me. Thanks, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilor Pro-Tem Tem. Thank you, Madam President. A lot of people asked why the city didn't purchase this. Was it offered up? Was there any interest? Was that a play at hand at all? Hmm. So that's a good question. In December of 2015, this proved this property, as well as the other property that was in bankruptcy, went to auction, public auction. I wasn't a participant at that time. We weren't in a situation to pursue it. The stalking horse bidder, they call it, would have been awarded the project. There were no competing bids to purchase it. He was the only one at that time that had even advanced an offer because there wasn't a competing bid. The trust, the judge of the court said, Well, in exchange for allowing you the 10% discount because nobody bid against you, we have to take it back out to the public market. I was at that case hearing and when that happened, I decided, well, maybe now that it's going to be re offered at a future auction that maybe at that point I would be interested to to make an offer for it. April of 2016, four months later, that auction was conducted. There were four individuals or representatives at that particular auction. One was a stalking horse bidder. One was an individual behind me. I don't know what the intent was. There was a third that declined to bid, and I was the fourth. I believe all of them were individual developer representatives that had an interest in it. I haven't met anybody that was a representative city that had any intent to buy. Okay. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Counsel for Tim Torres, Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President So this is also a question for I have a few questions for Mr. Tauber, and I'm sorry that I'm not there in person, but hopefully we can figure this out. My being virtual and you in person. I want to read a quote from Congress Park resident Vicky Eppler. Brian Tauber. And as partners have invested considerable time and money in an effort to create a project that would fit the context of Colfax and add community benefits. This is not a luxury motel. This is not a chain hotel, but a local business. So that's the end of the quote. We certainly heard in public comment from multiple people who say that this will be a luxury motel. Help me understand if the people in public comment are right or and this letter, by the way, is in granicus. So this is this isn't it's publicly available for anyone to read it. But help me understand either why this is a luxury motel or why Miss Epler believes it is not a luxury motel, but just a local business. Somewhere the narrative got put forth that this was a luxury hotel. I'm not quite sure where that came from. It didn't come from anybody that I represent. This this hotel is designed and has been designed to be kind of a community in which it runs. It's probably going to sit somewhere squarely in a three star. It's designed to be an affordable housing or affordable accommodation. It's not something you would see down in Cherry Creek. It's independently owned, independently branded hotel and. Luxury, I guess, means different things to different people. I guess because it's cleaned up, maybe somebody thought it was luxury, but we're looking to fit within the fabric of the community and of Colfax. And I think that the business and the brand that we've designed is just that. If you're familiar with other types of boutique hotels that are small in nature, they're really they're they're just hotels that kind of speak of the local culture. And that's kind of how we designed it and branded it. So it's not a luxury hotel. It's it's really kind of just a understated place where people can kind of come enjoy time, kind of work and relax and have fun. Thank you for that. And the same in the same letter, Ms.. Mentions that she's on the board of Congress park neighbors. But she but that she is writing specifically on her own behalf, not on the board of of CBN. I know that you've given multiple presentations to Congress neighbors. Could you tell me a little bit about your the presentation and the expectations that the Board of Congress party neighbors had for you? Did they do they share that they were intending to take a position or were they inviting you to present so that TBN attendees could be better informed or, you know, help me understand what KPMG's expectations of you were and your expectations as a result of your presentation. So my recollection is two conversations. The first conversation was just with the board members. I gave them a personal tour. Vicki was part of that personal tour. I remember there are five or six individuals. I remember they were all board members and I toured the property with them and explained what what we were doing and it was support. It was that we like it. The reason why it wasn't in front of the neighborhood is because we didn't have a meeting that I could fit on their agenda back then. And we were getting ready back in 2000. And I don't know if the year was 2019 or or 2020, but we were getting ready to move forward. That and then the pandemic hit and everything just kind of shut down. We then with Jeff, with with Darragh and myself formally were met with a Congress Park neighborhood association where the neighbors are. And they had. Support of our project. I mean, it wasn't 100% support. Nothing ever really is. But I we left that meeting and I think we felt very confident that we had support. So that was with regard to Congress part or the. Yeah. And I guess the determent question is, I don't recall Congress neighbors taking official positions on on a lot of rezonings or in this case I do a presentation. And so, um, but I, but I figured I would ask you specifically what your, what your conversations were in case, you know, CPN had mentioned that it did intend to take a position as a result of the. Conversation. With you. An official position on it. If they. So explain in our plans and we took a question in Parliament. So I have one other kind of thought process I'm going to go down. Tell me about the pool you intend to build there. Who gets to visit the pool? And what are your community goals for the pool? Yeah. Great question. We we are trying to model. A successful offering that new Waterloo has had in some of their other hotels, and Austin, where they have pools that are available for the community for day pass. So we felt that this was an opportunity to activate that ground level. We couldn't put the pool up top for cost concerns, but we wanted to activate it. So we thought that it would be a nice benefit for those that would like to take an afternoon and sit around the pool and relax, that this would be a offering, an amenity and for the community that they could indeed come and use the pool in addition to the hotel guests via daily passes. It's been done in new water, lose other hotels successfully, South Park as well as El Rey. I know for sure and I'm sure they've got others that they do it at. So we're we're pretty excited about that. I think that there's there are some community pools that I'm aware of, but I think this pool will just be more of an activated opportunity to to come and just relax and hang out and have fun . Yeah. Thank you for that. The last question that I have is very similar. I think you mentioned it in your in your testimony. You talked about the community space. But like for you to go into little more detail about the there's a community space that you intend to build there. And what are your goals for that community space? Are who do you intend to offer it to, etc.? So through our discussions with community planning and development and Denver Urban Renewal, we felt it very important to offer additional community benefits in addition to the preservation of historic structure. This was important for community planning and development, and we hadn't had space allocated within the ground level that we could offer. But during those conversations, I identified an area that was actually going to be the laundry facility for the hotel and said perhaps this particular space will reimagine, we'll get rid of it or remove it. We'll do it off site or we'll move it to the basement. So community planning development actually really appreciated the negotiation between that and it was understood if you do this, this needs to be a commercially affordable space. So I sat down actually a Bluebird bid and some other stakeholders and I said, What would be something that's missing ? People in the arts were brought up that this would be great for those people that are part of the arts group. There were a couple specific art. Art related businesses or non-profits that that that I actually reached out to and and tried to dialog what would work within a hotel that would be a benefit to both. That would be a use that would make sense but would really be something that a small business or somebody that was looking at displacement of their business could come in and take as a tenant and we would offer that to them as a for. An affordable commercial space. So we have about 695 square feet on that ground level. We re-engineered some access and access to that space. We sent our architect back to the drawing board to redesign it, and we went back into planning with the city to get that relooked at and permitted. So we felt really good about it. We know there's a lot of companies that are at risk of displacement. We're just hoping to do a small part. Q For your for your answers and thank you. Council President. No further questions. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. I have a few questions probably for both of you. Tracy, I'll start with you. I know you answered a lot of questions about what tax increment financing is for. Councilman Sawyer, I just wanted to clarify for some of the people who spoke. Several people stated that we were somehow taking money away from from the city or taking money away from our ability to help people. We're taking money away from housing. So can you maybe clarify that so people understand again that this this is the incremental benefit and we're not actually taking our city tax dollars. Correct? Sure. I am happy to do that. When an urban renewal plan is approved, that includes tax increment financing. The state law requires that there be a calculation of the amount of taxes that the project is currently generating, both on sales tax as well as property tax referred to very simply as the base amount of taxes. That amount is always first collected and then paid to the city or DPS or urban drainage. So in doing a project, it isn't taking anything away from the city or the other taxing entities from what they already were receiving. It's only the amounts above that base that become the increment that are available to the Urban Renewal Authority to invest in the project. And that that will also expire. It doesn't go on indefinitely. Correct. And the term of that would be the earlier of repayment of the amount that we commit to reimburse the developer or 25 years, whichever comes first. Okay. And I know I think it was last year we had a number of them expire. Yes. Yes. Some big ones. Okay. I had a question about the planning board vote. And so only five members were present out of 11. Correct. Okay. And four were in support and one was not. But they needed five votes because that would have been quorum. Yes, they as I am reading their their bylaws and I'm going to look for others who may have to to weigh in here, that the the requirement for approval of any item come before them is either a majority of those present or five. And so since they there were only five present, the majority clearly was met, but they needed to get that baseline of five, which is the majority of the total count of the board. Okay. So do that. Right, Andrew. So it's not the planning board voted it down. It's just literally there weren't enough people there. Correct, that the outcome was such that they could not make a recommendation. Okay. And then I have a few other questions and I'm just trying to better understand, um, what a lot of our speakers talked about, that we were taking housing away from people. So I just wanted to better understand what that housing is. And I know in our your presentation of finance and government, we talked you talked about the rent that people were paying and the number of days who were there. So I don't know if you want to answer that or Mr. Tauber, but, um, how many rooms are there. At the. Motel? There are 54. Okay. And how many people are living there now. As of today or on an average today? I believe there are somewhere between five and seven. Michelle. Ma'am, the actual number, she's here tonight. Okay. And and before you stop accepting new people in March, what was the typical occupancy? So typically there was, according to my tenant that has been managing it for 19 years around mid twenties and that's what we were expecting about 24 people because we had asked for a rent rule several months before and that was also on the record. In March there were 37, so there was a surprise increase over what we were expecting. Which wasn't consistent with the history of it. But for I would assume I believe that there was another site that closed down voluntarily and they moved in here temporarily. So you weren't normally full. You didn't have those rooms, right? Correct. Okay. And I saw a chart somewhere about how much people were paying. And it was would tell me how much how like a monthly. Yeah. Because a lot of people were saying there long term. Correct. Are they paying? I believe. And another great question for the show. I believe that the individuals were paying the motel tenant an average of 350 or $380 a week. We don't collect any rent. A couple of things that I'll share. When we purchased it, we kept my rent to the operating company the same that was negotiated by the bankruptcy estate . And I haven't raised it in six years because I thought raising it would only put more burden on their business that would eventually potentially lead to their closing of their business. It was important for me to say, we won't raise your in six years and you're well below market rent to me. Now their business was their business and they worked with Mental Health Center in Denver and others to collect. Reps for the people that were being placed there. Now, from what I understand, even the rents they were collecting were below market. And I think that comes from Michele. I think maybe you can add some color around that. Sure. Good evening, City Council members Michelle Coffey, relocation coordinator for the Island Motel. To answer your first question, Councilmember Black. There are eight occupants remaining onsite as of, I would say, 5 p.m. today. So. And I believe one of those is an onsite employee. That works for the Island Motel. On average, the occupants are paying anywhere from $330 to $380 per week. And those are cold. Those rents are calculated and collected on a weekly basis. I can't recall the last question, if you don't mind repeating that. I have more questions. So, um. Do the rooms have kitchens? They do not. Okay. So the rent is maybe around 1400 dollars a month. Ranging anywhere from 13, 2013, 20 per month, 1400. Okay. And just for some context. So let's just say it's 1300 dollars a month that I just Google the average rent in Denver and it is about 1700 and that's average and those include kitchens. So I would not say that the Orland Motel is a bargain and there's probably, you know, some better places for people that people could live. So I'm just trying to put this in context. And you're telling me that typically there's only around 25 rooms that are occupied. But I did have another question for you. So that the the people who you've been helping. So thank you for doing that. They it's my understanding that they are being held or they're declining your assistance. Is that the case or are there some other situations? So, no, we have not received any declines of our assistance. It's been welcomed the assistance that we've provided. We've also been since March 21st when we issued our general information notices to the occupants. We've maintained on site hours and sweet to I'm sorry room to 15 months with 250 room tip to 15 Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. until 5:00 pm. And then that effective the first week of June as the occupancy started to decline, we were we've been there maybe 2. To 3 weeks. 2 to 3 days out of the week. So we've made our presence known with the occupants that are there on site, as well as working alongside of the management team that works for the motel. Okay. And the eight that you have left, are you competent? Yeah. I would say of the eight we have left, we have four that have applications that are pending and then probably four that we're still trying to complete some sort of assessment to determine their financial I'm sorry, their financial means as well as housing criterias that need to be resolved. So. And we'll continue on site there. And how. We've met with everyone in an attempt to relocate them all successfully. Great. Thank you. Mr. Tauber, I have a question for you. If this does not pass tonight, what what would you do with the property? Would you continue using it as it is being used today? No, the motel's closing. It's just the deferred maintenance. We've just kind of tried to keep it together for as long as we can. We invested in a new elevator so that it wouldn't have to close. We adhered to all the public health criteria for demand to cure and and to fix just so we could keep it open and keep it used as housing. But the motel operator just can't make any money anymore. So they asked to move on and they're managing a site down the street for us as well. So that's where they want to move to and focus on that. And this project just became too expensive for them to keep it going. So if this didn't pass, we would have a boarded up, closed building that we would literally have to go back to the drawing board and figure out what now what? All right. Thank you very. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Mr. Turban. Just so I'd be sure I understand the. The plan is to renovate the existing building and build the second that's on the side. So what if 57 did you say in the new. In the. Old building? 54 in the old building. 27 in the new. Okay. Now, the current situation, you're renting it simply to individuals or are there agreements with the agencies that these individuals are being referred by? How does your. How would you like to phone a friend? Yeah. Can I call a friend? She has more information on the conversation. Thank you. Again. Michele copy relocation coordinators. So the rooms. Are there were they were being rented to individuals that. Were. Some were employed some receiving some government assistance like Social Security benefits. And the only agency that was receiving or placing occupants at the island motel was the mental health center of Denver. And they were paying with. Something that we refer to as a voucher, but it was a weekly payment slip that they had an arrangement with the management. In place. At the Island Hotel. And so what percentage of your people would you say came through? And they said we. Had a total of five occupants from MH. As of March. 21st. Thank you. And to thank you, Michelle, Mr. Tauber, again. So, Jim, sounds it sounds like the building is not in great shape, though, and so have you. You own it six years. Is that what I remember? Six years. Okay. Give me an idea of how much money you've put in. I mean, have you made any attempts to repair? Yeah. So I personally invested $75,000 on new elevator. The Kims. Their lease agreement is a triple net lease, so they're responsible for 100% of the maintenance and pure triple net. When in 2019, we had a visit from the fire department, the public health department. I immediately went to them and said, You have an obligation to correct these items. So they invested their own dollars. I was informed that they invested over $100,000 to do all that, but I didn't I didn't check any of their invoices. So they did all the maintenance required by the various agencies that wanted things corrected at their expense. So collectively, I am assuming my 75 plus whatever they've invested just to keep it open somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000. Not a lot of dough. Really for that type of property. I mean, if you want to write me a check for 175, I'll take it. But in the scope of what it sounds like, it doesn't sound like a huge effort was made to bring things up to a higher standard. I think from our perspective, we knew that. We only have a finite amount of money and we wanted to. After talking with an, he would deliver on the promise that they had always wanted, which was a renovation of a hotel. Any dollars that would go towards fixing rooms or so many systems that would have to be redone, all the electricity would have to be rewired and the plumbing, they became apparent that it wouldn't be a good use of dollars to try to do all that work when the intent really is to reposition it as something that's more of a contributing business to the community. So although we missed a lot, it would take a significant amount of money to bring that up to a level that I would feel comfortable anybody using as permanent housing. But you did you or the lessee met requirements presented by the city? Absolutely. 100%. Thank you, sir. That's all I've got. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember CdeBaca. Think you. Ryan, can you help. Me clarify a couple of things? First of all, what was and is Sage Hospitality's involvement in this project? I have an involvement. They were introduced to me when I purchased it within about a week or two of my purchase to discuss their feeling about a hotel renovation here and whether or not it was a viable project to do such because they're a large hospitality management company in Denver. So I sat down with their executives and discussed it, and they do have a relationship and know national groups very well. And it was indicated to me that National Jewish would keep it full, that there was a need for that. So their interest and their involvement was a brief two or three conversations. But at the end of the day, they elected not to pursue any additional conversation with me, to have them manage a future hotel because it didn't check enough of their strategic boxes. And help me understand, you've said a couple of times that the hotel was. The community's idea after visioning processes, but this conversation happened two weeks after your purchase. If not. Within a shorter period of time after your purchase. And you and I had a conversation when I first got in. Office about where this idea came from. Can you clarify where this hotel idea came from? The way I understand it, before I owned it, the previous owner had discussed with the community his intent to renovate this into a hotel, and that plan didn't move forward. So when I came on board, those discussions had already occurred. I sat down with a former councilman and he indicated to me that the community was desired it, that it would be a good benefit and they would love it and it would be a benefit for National Jewish as well. So I kind of was informed at that time that was the first I had ever heard that a hotel development was kind of of previous conversation with those people that were involved in it. I didn't have any hotel experience. It wasn't what I had planned to do here. I wasn't comfortable with a hotel. But as a commitment to to him and the city, I felt obligated to investigate it and have conversations and see if it was viable. And it sent me down a three year rabbit hole of a lot of self-reflect and risk and conversation. And that's when the community engagement really started in earnest on my behalf because I was a multifamily and multifamily developer. So that was my intent. I was not not not that. But it sounds like the risk has been primarily absorbed by the Kim family. Correct? Well, the risk of operating would be borne by the Kims with regard to liability risk of the hotel, as is the risk of the asset in the event that they can't maintain their business would certainly be borne by me because then I would be in a situation, I would have a vacant building and, you know, trying to figure out what next. So, yeah, we share different risk. You get the. Funding. And the project doesn't meet your needs as far as what. It needs to generate in profit. What is the potential that you will sell. To Sage hospitality? I don't have any relationship with Sage. I would say the potential would be zero. If I were to sell it. It would be something that I would want to sell it to a partner. New Honolulu. I don't. I wouldn't. I wouldn't be working with Sage. I don't have a relationship with Sage. And what is the likelihood that if the boutique hotel. Traditional format. Doesn't work, that you would turn it into. An extended. Stay. Hotel. We're seeing those pop up. Sage Hotel. Sage has one of them in my district that originally started out as a boutique hotel and then turned to extended stay. What's the potential or likelihood that that would happen in this project? And does any of the agreement for TIFF funding. Prohibit. It from happening? Can't speak to the turf, but I can speak to the what if scenario if our plan doesn't work. In a situation where that were to happen, we'd be we'd be probably talking about a default situation with the lender. And that default would the lender would tear the default by foreclosure. And I would assume they would take the asset and auction it to the highest bidder and they would move in at pennies on the dollar and probably keep the same plan in place. That would be what I would assume would happen. And so when we were. Asking for clarity earlier. About luxury hotel versus. Market hotel market rate, I didn't hear prices. And sizes of rooms. Can you kind of give us an idea of how big the. Rooms are going to be and what you're going to be charging. For? Nightly stays at this hotel. What, 54 of the rooms or 265 square feet and 27 or 335 square feet. Those are the ones in the new building. Those are all double queens and the existing building, those are all single kings, was in the neighborhood of 265 square feet. The appraisal of 80 are expectation, which stands for average daily rate came in at about $181 a night on average. And what was the current. Average daily rate? So the average daily rate as a hospitality term for the average that somebody would pay throughout a year, some nights it might be higher than 181, some nights that might be lower than 181. It's seasonal. And the average for the first year of operations and this appraisal that we had conducted was $181. No, I'm actually asking for the current hotel. Motel? What is the current. Average daily rate? That I do not know, since I do not manage it. But I will ask Michelle and see if she has that information. So based on our assessments with the occupants, they were not paying a daily rate. Rather, they were paying a weekly rate. And those weekly rates range from $320 per week to $400. $400 per week. So that would be about $45, $46 a night. Versus $181 a night. Okay. That's it for my questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-589. Council members say the Baucus. Thank you. We've heard a really divided set of community members almost evenly split down the middle on this project. And we've heard everything from assumptions that people living in poverty get some kind of deal when they're in hotels, when in fact. It is often the most impoverished people who end up paying a premium on things that we. Take for granted because it is cheaper to be in a hotel. Or a motel when you are unable to meet all of the requirements for a lease, when you are unable to show proof of employment. All of those things that typically are required when you engage in a lease are not required in these weekly, monthly. Daily situations of. Motels and hotels. We've heard confusion about what. Financing is or is. Not, whether there's a loss in the future or a loss currently. But what I think this all boils down. To is that. When we. Allow someone to use a. Public financing tool. There should be significant public gain. A pool with a daily pass for some people, 600 square feet or so of a. Community space without a current. Rate on what that space will cost or who will be in it. A rate jump from approximately $45 a. Night to $181 a night. It doesn't sound like there's a substantial community benefit at a time like the one we're experiencing. This is about a public financing mechanism being used for private profit. Yes. Public private partnerships are always very. Useful when we're trying to do things like create affordable housing. This is not one of those instances. This is an instance where someone bought a piece of land. Significantly discounted. They did not invest very much. They passed on the burden of ownership to a small. Business operator who we should be. Thinking, who did commendable work. To. House the most vulnerable among us while keeping their business alive. And investing in someone. Else's asset. Yet they get nothing from this situation. Those are the people who we should have been figuring out how to create a TIFF financing scheme for. But that's not the case here. And we will be creating a public financing mechanism to benefit someone. Personally their bottom. Line, not our community. It would be great to have a pool. It would be great. To have. A boutique hotel in the neighborhood. But not. On the taxpayer dime, whether it's current taxpayer dollars or future forgone taxpayer dollars. So tonight I will be a no on this. I don't think it's ready. I think there are still residents who are not housed. We talked about this in committee, and I hope that my colleagues who are concerned about those residents getting housed. Stick to their guns and their commitment from committee. So I will be a no on this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate, Councilwoman say, the Baucus comments just now and those of our speakers. And I do understand the need for motels. I know that for a lot of our most at risk and residents who have the greatest needs, it's very difficult to lease a traditional apartment. And so I do understand that and I know we've lost a lot of those properties in our city and along Colfax. I also understand the people who live in the area and and why they would like to see some improvement in the area. I do think it's interesting that how much people pay to live in motels and. We all know that they're they're not they're not usually places where a lot of us would want to live, and they're paying quite a lot of money. There are apartments in Denver. There's a lot in my district that cost a lot less than the Allen Motel. And there's coffee you probably know about some of them in far southeast Denver. And so hopefully you can get every single one of those people into a better living situation where they have a kitchen also. Uh, so of course that is a goal of everyone here. We all want that to happen. This is an interesting example of the city trying to balance multiple goals, housing the desires of a neighborhood, neighborhood safety, community building, addressing blight. But one thing we haven't talked about is the fact that they're preserving an existing building. And so on different nights you might sit here until 11:00 at night and we're talking about preserving buildings, either designate them as a landmark or reusing buildings in another way. And it's something that we all think is very, very important not to tear a building down, because in a lot of instances in Denver, buildings have been torn down. And there's some regret for our community because we've torn down buildings we wish we hadn't torn down. So I appreciate the fact that you're going to reuse the existing building. It's good for our environment, it's bad for our climate to tear down a building and send it to the landfill. So I think that's something that's very different about this project that we than we usually see. Adaptive reuse is challenging and expensive, and I consider this as sort of an incentive, as an incentive to reuse the building. I know in a lot of cases it's cheaper for a developer just to tear down and build, you know, a massive apartment building. I know we've seen that all over the city, including in my district. So I just wanted to bring up that added benefit that I think is very important is the fact that the building would be reused. That's all I have things. Thank you. Councilmember Black. Councilmember Hines. EU Council President. As many of you know, I lived at 92 Logan in the Uptown neighborhood for 13 years. I would regularly go to City Park or through the City Park neighborhoods and along Colfax as I walk my dog between Uptown and City Park. So I visited this motel and would go by it a lot and also went to the Associated Rock Bar years ago when the bar was still open. It was interesting even back then. Still, it's it's great to see this motel up for consideration today, considering I visited this specific location many times and in previous years before I even considered serving in public office. It really helps me to give get some additional context with which to consider the future of 3015 East Colfax. I do want to point out that this is in District nine. However, as of July 2023, when redistricting is complete, this plot will be located in District ten. I think it's also relevant or interesting to note that the District nine sponsored map Map A, even though it wasn't adopted, would also have placed this location into District ten. So I want to thank the neighbors and multiple Arnaud's for their support for this project, including South City Park neighbors, Capitol Hill, United Neighbors and multiple board members at Congress Park Neighbors. As I mentioned in the questions, often Congress park neighbors doesn't take positions. So I think that's part of the reason why Miss Eppler was was specific about how she did not. Her letter was not meant to be representative of KPN, but more on her personal behalf. And I also want to recognize and celebrate the letter of support from. Historic Denver, too. So some constituents have reached out reached out to expressed concern about why this would be a hotel and not affordable housing. After all, that was the original plan for this location. As Mr. Tauber had mentioned, and it was because of the District nine councilmember at the time that this project's focus changed from apartments to hotel rooms. With that new direction, the owner moved forward with hotel rooms. We're in an affordable housing crisis in our mile high income city, that is for sure. The vast majority of new projects in District ten are apartments in Golden Triangle. 14 of the 15 projects currently on the CPD radar are apartments in Cherry Creek. There's a similar picture of the 11 developments currently on the radar in Cherry Creek. In many ways, this is definitely in line with the priorities we've heard about and Guidance Council has given to developers. As in more apartments, please. We need them because because of the housing crisis. But even though we have a housing crisis, it doesn't mean we must devote all resources to housing. It's okay that this project intends to add hotel rooms, particularly because of my next point. This project intends to add multiple amenities designed for the community. Known as the third place. City Park West is in need of a third place where neighbors can meet one another in a public space. I want to thank Mr. Tauber and the project's sponsors for listening to community and prioritizing meeting spaces for the community in their project . This hotel is close to National Jewish, as has been mentioned. And in case people don't already know, perfect ten because it's in my district. And Denver's own national Jewish is the nation's leading respiratory hospital. People come from all over the U.S. for appointments at National Jewish, and loved ones deserve a nearby place to stay when they've come from other states or even countries. I think it's great that our public oversight that will release public tax dollars will create public gathering places on this project. Put another way, we are putting money from the people to work to create community gathering spaces for the people. There are comments showing concerns about the success or lack thereof for boutique hotels or potentially for this hotel. I just mentioned that council shouldn't vote based on opinion of the business plans viability. That's not our business. That is totally fair in this case, Mr. Torbay's success or lack thereof. And and and it's not really up to us to weigh in on whether we think that business model will be successful. But I would just mention that there is another boutique hotel on 11th on Capitol Hill that has had strong success, or at least success, as we would expect given the pandemic of the last couple of years . Finally, considering our long conversation about waste in our city, I am excited to hear and happy to hear that the developers have chosen to rehabilitate the existing structure instead of dumping it all into our landfill. It will help our planet well. And it will also help us remember the hotel from its heyday back in the 1950s and sixties and even 1970s. So I intend to vote for this and I hope my colleagues will as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hines, councilmember each. Thank you. Council President I've listened carefully to the presentation tonight and to the testimony. I want to thank Tracy Huggins, in part, who reached out very early when this project was being contemplated to ask what is the best standards that could be used? And I sent the recommendation of using be connected someone who's not a professional relocation assistance provider in the realm of urban renewal, but is in the business of placing people who are deeply low income and contingent housing into safer and more stable housing. And so I can't find flaws with the process that was used here to assist these residents with the stability that they might be gaining. I can't find supply with residents who may be on the move and less interested in the services that are being offered. And I can't find flaw necessarily with the project. I think I understand why the neighborhoods nearby have supported it. I think it's a worthy project in terms of trying to provide a hotel in a neighborhood that can use something of this scale, whether it's for medical visits or entertainment visits. All of that is no criticism and lots of good reasons to for my colleagues who will be supporting it. I have a long and nuanced history with the tool of tax increment financing. When before I was a council member, I was a watchdog of this tool, and I believe that it is neither good nor bad on its own. It's about how it's used, and I have really high standards. I believe that our public financing is rare. It's a privilege. It's not something that every project that's struggling to make ends meet can get. And even though each project is evaluated individually, it's not an infinite tool. There would be a limit to how many projects our finance department would be comfortable with in terms of the tax revenue that goes off the books rather than coming in when that project is completed. It would have limits in terms of the. The. Board's willingness to adopt those projects. And so when a tool is rare and it's a privilege, it has to be used on the highest and most important uses. And and there are uses that I don't think it's appropriate for. And so in this case, in spite of feeling that this team has done everything it can for vulnerable residents, I think about this project like I do some of the early urban renewal, which was single room occupancy housing, and that was raised in Mass in places like LoDo and replaced with other types of uses that certainly are nice and lovely. But that to me is just not the legacy of what public financing tools should be focused on. And so in spite of the fact that there was a good process here and that this is substandard housing, I don't romanticize it. Keeping it would not serve those residents necessarily in terms of their long term stability, certainly not their financial stability. In spite of all of those reasons, I just don't think this is an appropriate use of our public taxpayer dollars, particularly at this time. So I can't support the project tonight. I'll be a no, but I respect those who evaluated things differently, and I hope that we can continue to prioritize the use of tests and projects that are delivering the types of housing and the types of long term sustainable housing that our city needs when we're vetting projects. So that would be a higher priority for me than this type of project. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Kinney. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to express why I'm going to be voting yes for this tonight. Dora has historically been a tool used for lots of different kinds of projects. If you all remember, we voted on Costco, which previously was assigned for a Lowe's project. And then I think you got reassigned, if I remember that correctly. I can remember the Broadway marketplace was done with TIFF, and at that time that didn't include housing. That was, you know, to bring some commercial to that area of the city that didn't that was desperately needed. It did displace some residents, but they were relocated. The Dora funds were used for that purpose, as they have been for many, many projects. The 38th the Denver Post site near the 41st and Fox project included tax increment financing. That's a mixed use project that will include some housing. I could go on and on. The Stapleton had $300 million in tax increment financing, and that did include some affordable housing that was negotiated with the developer to ensure that we were working to include low income residents in that development. So the tool and you all know about downtown and how much that was used throughout our downtown for various projects. So I wouldn't say that it solely has to be used for residential projects. Historically, it's been a mixed bag and I think this is an appropriate use. I appreciate that each of the tenants who have been in that building were being relocated. And again, that's part of the use or has been can be reimbursed. Use of the funds that allow these projects to happen. Typically tip has been used as a gap financing in in many cases the developer would not be able to do a project without the tax increment financing to help close the gap and allow the project to exist. So those are reasons why I think we have to look at each one based on the merits of the project in front of us and not always try to compare one to another, because the geography and some of the issues with the site are all very different from one another. And this one has its own circumstances that I believe justify the need for us moving this forward. So I will be a yes vote today. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And I do appreciate all of the public speakers who shared their perspective tonight as well. And based on the merits of the project and the current state of the property, I am in favor of this tonight and we'll be voting on it affirmatively as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash five, eight, nine. CDEBACA No. Can each. No. Hines. Yes. Black eye. Clark. Eye for an. Eye. Herndon, i. Cashman. May. Ortega. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President. I am secretary. Closed the voting and announce the results. Three days. Nine eyes. Nine eyes. Counselor Bill 20 2-5, eight, nine has passed. Again. Thank you to our speakers. Councilmember Black, will you please put Bill 590 on the floor for final passage? Yes. I move that council bill 20 20590 will be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It got us moved and seconded. Thank you. Comments by members of Council. Council Member State Abarca. You know, for this one. Okay. I don't have any other members of council in the queue. And so Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 590, please. Sorry. We have the wrong thing.

LongBeachCC_11132018_18-1007

Recommendation to approve renaming the Uptown Dog Park as the "Gayle Carter Uptown Dog Park".

Thank you. Great work. Next up is item 30. Communication from Councilman Austin. Recommendation to refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee. The request to consider and make a recommendation on renaming the Uptown Dog Park as the Gail Carter Uptown Dog Park. Councilman. Thank you. So I'm honored to bring forward this recommendation to recognize the many contributions of Gail Carter to the Long Beach animal loving community since its opening. Gail Carter became an unquestioned champion and leader of the Uptown Dark Park community. Since she organized, she organized the friends of the Uptown Dog Park to raise more money for improvements at the dog park. She organized numerous events to foster a strong sense of community around the dog park, including wiener dog races, potlucks, canine fashion shows, photos with Santa. She also arranged obedience training, agility classes and spay and neuter clinics to be offered at the Uptown Dog Park. She helped create and establish dog parks at the Jackson Park and Coolidge Park. Her compassion and determination endeared her with many in the animal community and throughout the city of Long Beach. Gail was a tenacious advocate in her efforts, but her passion for the dog park community and caring for pets and people was really infectious. She worked to make all users of the dog park feel welcome, but also ensured that they understood their responsibilities as pet owners. She enforce the rules. She was generous in helping others when they or their pets were in need. Gail helped those who are experiencing homelessness, who had trouble taking care of their animals, and organized fundraisers for pet owners. They needed help and rescue efforts. She passed away on September seven, 2017, of congestive heart failure at the age of 69. And given the tremendous impact that Gail Carter had on the Uptown Dog Park and the compassion and support she provided so many pet owners throughout the city of Long Beach. It is only fitting that we honor her legacy by renaming the Uptown Dog Park as the Gail Carter Uptown Dog Park. I ask my colleagues for the support of this motion. This motion is long overdue, and there were a number of people who signed petitions and asked us to actually bring this forward. And so I ask my colleagues support. Thank you. And this item is referring this item to the committee, of course, and Councilman Price. The comments. Okay. Any public comment? Please come forward. My name is Brandy Gaunt, and I am here as a representative of the Friends of Uptown Dog Park. Councilman Austin, thank you so much for taking this motion forward and and for helping us see this. Potentially actually happen in. Honor of our friend Gail. When Gail left us. 14 months ago, we lost. A really vital life force. In the pet owning community. In Long Beach. She really reached out and touched not just Uptown Dog Park, but Coolidge Jackson. You couldn't go to any place Rosie's Dog Beach, even. You couldn't go anywhere with your dog without without feeling Gayle's. Influence and knowing that she was there and she had influenced dog owners and and had a lot to do with training pet. Parent behaviors. Uptown was her base of operations. That's where her heart and soul was with the dog park activities. From it being the central hub of all of the social activities she arranged for the pet parents and their and their babies. To actually putting her. Own sweat equity into the upkeep and and TLC from her that went into that park from painting the benches to, you know, buying the chairs. And she did a lot. She formed Friends of Uptown Dog Park. We we try to to. Carry that on in her honor. And, of course, we fall very, very short because, you know, Gail was a rock star. I thank you for considering this. It's it's so fitting that her. Base of operations be named in her honor. And again, Councilman Austin, thank you. Councilman Richardson, thank. You for your support in this as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Moving back to the council, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you all for for bringing this forward. And, you know, Gail was an amazing individual, and many of us knew her, and we were all shocked when she passed away. But I think this is appropriate. This is a great time moment to name our facilities after Gail. Brandi mentioned it. You know, I first met Gail. It was at Uptown Dog Park, but I built a relationship with Gail as she helped us to create the Coolidge Dog Park and to build a community around the Coolidge dog park. And that's the kind of person she was. She would you know, she this wasn't her dog park. This wasn't her neighborhood. But she was she knew that most of us were coming to her dog park. She said, you need your own, you know. And we ended up with a very beautiful, nice dog park and and an amazing legacy on her part. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Often bringing this forward, it clearly has my support and I look forward to this coming back to council. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Pierce. Yes. Similar story. I got to meet Gail twice. We were just in the conversations around our Bixby dog park and we had a lot of it was contentious, that dog park. And so we knew we had to build a community around it and we knew we wanted to engage people early on. And she really stepped up and met with Second District residents and and third District residents. So really congratulations to the community for having a place to honor her and Councilmember Austin for bringing this item forward. Thank you. With that, we'll go ahead and do the roll call vote. Madam Clerk. Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember. All right. Councilwoman Mongo, I. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilmember Urunga. I. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson.

BostonCC_10272021_2021-0600

On the Ordinance, referred on April 28, 2021, Docket #0600, to Create a Task Force to Address Literacy Rates in the City of Boston, the committee submitted a report recommending the ordinance ought to pass in a new draft.

Docket 0734 shall remain in the Committee on Civil Rights. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 0600? Certainly I could 0600 council zero off of the following wardens to create a task force to address literacy rates in the city of Boston. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the chair of the Committee on Governance Operations, Councilor Lydia Edwards. The floor is yours. Thank very much. I, I unfortunately could not chair this hearing. So I want to thank my vice chair, councilor at large, Michael Flaherty, for doing that. I do know that this is the conversation is to continue, however, and that the matter would stay in committee and work. We would have a working session to talk about the composition responsibilities of the task force. So now I'm going to turn it over to the vice chair and then, of course, the lead sponsor. Thank you, Madam Chair. The chair recognizes the vice chair of the Committee on Governance Operations, Counselor Michael and Vice Chair Michael Flaherty. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a very important issue in our city. This will establish this ordinance will establish a literacy literacy task force to examine literacy rates. They will study the rates of literacy across Boston among adults and children, and also help develop a plan that will also put programs and policies in place to address literacy in the city. There's also a task force membership where non city Boston employees would be able to get a $100 stipend not to exceed a certain amount. And we had a great conversation with the administration and with the panelists that the lead sponsor had assembled. And questions remain. Of course, we put to put a series of questions in front of the administration. So we look forward to further discussion with the administration alongside our colleague and lead sponsor, Julie. Me here. Through. Through the chair to the lead sponsor. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Chair now recognizes the lead sponsor and the At-Large Council from Dorchester Council. Julie May here. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to Council Clarity for chairing a great hearing. It was incredibly inspiring to be able to sit in a meeting with so many experts in their fields uniting around a common cause. Thank you to the advocates who made their voices heard Edith Bazile, Elizabeth Santiago, Lee Harlan, as well as members of the administration who came to offer their support, including during wind use of valley, Jennifer Viola Wang, Christine Duvalier. And we learned a lot about people. We learned a lot about we learned a lot about people who this ordinance was designed to help and how we can make our efforts even stronger. The first thing we learned is that this is a pathway to literacy is different for everyone. And while some people it may take a matter of months, for others it may be years before they are able to get on that path. This is why it's so important to ensure that one of the responsibilities of this task force is to find ways to make access to services easier for people who cannot read or write in any language. Because while people are learning to read and write, they also still need help with the services that our city provides. The second thing we learned is that people who are relying on these literacy services are coming from all back to all types of backgrounds in need services that are catered to their lived experiences. Some people are coming as doctors and lawyers from their homeland who can read and write in their native language but have very limited English proficiency. Other people have never learned to read or write, even in their native language, because of war, lack of funds, family obligations, physical abilities and more. We need services that cater to each of these groups that allow them to thrive. It seems like forming this task force will be the best way to ensure that we're coordinating and consolidating our services in the best way possible. And I also just want to take a quick moment to acknowledge that, you know, we talk a lot about the school to prison pipeline here in the city of Boston. And I think this is a key opportunity to really look into how a lot of our young people are struggling to read and write and showing up with social and emotional issues in class. And oftentimes they end up in d y. Yes. So if we can tackle the issue of literacy and get a handle of it, we might be able to address the school to prison pipeline. Then we also have our returning citizens who are coming back from incarceration and struggle with reading and writing and are unable to fill out a job application. So I think about those folks. It's a really serious about addressing the issues of violence and poverty. And this will be an opportunity for us to really look at some of the root causes of what some of our returning citizens are experiencing. And then we're thinking about those who are coming to this country and juggling to make their ends meet, who've come here with interrupted education and are struggling to read and write. So I see this task force as an opportunity to address a lot of the issues that we've been talking about here in the city of Boston, and do so in a way that's going to look at some of the root causes. So I'm really looking forward. Or to this conversation. And I'm looking forward to working alongside my partners here to move this as quickly as possible so that we can file this ordinance and get it passed through the council. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, councilman here. DUCAT 0600 shall remain in the Committee on Government Operations, but motions, orders and resolutions. Madam Clerk, would you please read Docket 1135?

KingCountyCC_07282020_2020-0249

A MOTION approving the implementation plan for investment of Puget Sound Taxpayer Accountability Account proceeds, in compliance with Motion 15492 and the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18835, as amended by Ordinance 19022, Section 1, Proviso P1, as amended.

Member I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we really have voted and it's time to move on. There will be another opportunity. A full council. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving on to item eight. This is discussion and possible action regarding the positive implementation plan. And we have Patrick Hamacher and Erin Aria from council staff to give a staff report. I should probably say for purposes of the public who don't understand what we're talking about when we suddenly turn to the master implementation plan. There's an acronym. It stands for the Puget Sound Taxpayer Accountability Account. That would hardly you would hardly be the blamed if that didn't tell you much more. This is a it is a funding source that is going to be passed through to King County. The money comes from essentially sales tax, like payment from sound transit as they build their construction of stage three, the third sound transit capital program. And it is intended for educational purposes. So we're going to have a staff report today. I understand we also have executive staff here to answer questions. We've heard a lot of really good public comment in support of this. But based on what I understand as the second backup chair here today, the chair wasn't intending to move this out today, but that put it on the agenda again for action on August 25th. So with that understanding of the plan, I'm going to call on Patrick Hamacher first to begin the presentation. Please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Patrick Hamacher, and you did an excellent job of covering much of what I was going to cover. And with respect to the time I think we are on. Just to orient you, we're on page 149 and going to 100, page 150 and your staff report. The only part I will add to the background section is that the reason we're here today is that last November you passed an ordinance, while last August and last November you passed legislation that together required an implementation plan for the use of pastor funds to be transmitted to the Council for your approval. There was also a request for funding and for staffing to begin rolling out the pastor funds, and that has been rolled into an omnibus that was taken up by Councilmember Kowalski's Budget Committee. And so what's before you today is the implementation plan. And Aaron is going to begin the discussion of the elements that were required to be in the plan and how well the transmitted plan comports with those. So that concludes my remarks. Aaron I had staff. The analysis section of the staff report begins on page 151 of your packet. You'll notice in the section a series of tables designed to compare the direction given by Council in motion 15492 with the various elements of the implementation plan. At a high level, the plan identifies four main cost centers visualized in table two on page 153 of your packet administration and evaluation accounts for 7% of the total over the life of the account, with 10% each year available for technical assistance and capacity building. After accounting for that expense, the remainder is divided by only 52% for early learning facilities, 38% for King County Promise, and 10% for community based organizations. Table three on page one, 53 of the packet outlines the motion criteria for governance. The plan recommends the establishment of a CAIB as a subcommittee to serve as the advisory group to the UAB, which is the King County Children and Youth Advisory Board. It appears that the governance section includes the elements required by the motion. The financial plan previously covered the introduction, and the financial plan is basically what you would expect using transit during projections from April of this year. So I will not get into that more at this time unless you would like me to, and I will keep going for time sake. We found that. Those requirements. Were largely met and then areas of note will be discussed in the next section of funding. Category one and early learning facilities are E.L.F. Begins on page 156 of your packet. The recommendations of this category were derived from the work of the E.L.F. Work Group. The membership is listed in attachment three on page 2 to 67 packet. But again, we're on page 156 right now. The left hand column of table six remains the direction to the executive branch outlined in motion 15492. For the sake of time, I'll only highlight areas of discrepancy. The motion directs the executive branch to set appropriate target enrollment figures based on income level, local cost of living and payment makes and strategies to sustainably maximize services to prioritize populations. Prioritized populations are defined in section eight of motion 15492 on page 244 of your packet. The plan notes that this work was postponed due to the impact of COVID 19 on the childcare industry, and DCH has plans to explore enrollment targets once industry has been able to recover. The motion directs the creation of strategies to ensure facilities are built with project labor agreements or other labor friendly practices. TCHC contracts will require activities financed by passive pasta proceeds to comply with applicable prevailing wage requirements and labor agreements. And the county may consider implementing a project labor agreement if deemed applicable. Additionally, the motion stipulates that grants for family daycare providers will not exceed $20,000 per facility. However, the plan raises the maximum grant for this category from $20000 to $75000 per award, and that's in order to sufficiently meet the needs of the facilities. The ALF work group recommended this change and it aligns with the State Department of Commerce Technical Assistance Plan that they commissioned in 2019. Moving to funding Category two. Unless there are questions on that section, I'm going to keep rolling. That is stopping if you would like to. Madam Chair, funding category to me, does it say to my colleagues, I am very happy to let Erin finish the entire presentation, but if you do have a question at any point that it would be best asked in a moment, please just speak out and we'll call on you. Thanks. Please go ahead, Erin. Thank you. Funding Category two King County Promise begins on page 158 of your packet. The recommendations of this category were derived from the work of the Promise Work Group. The membership for that work group is listed on attachment and attachment for on page 269 of your packet. While funding for this category aligns with the structure set forth in motion 15492 with the King County Promise Fund split with 45% for K through 12, 45% for post-secondary and 10% for community based organizations. The plan provides for two programs to be created. So the first is called Promise Partnerships, where K through 12 districts, community and technical colleges and community based organizations will be asked to co-design the strategy and submit a proposal for funding through a competitive RFP process administered by King County. Through the Partnership through the Promise Partnerships, TCHC seeks to create a fund, a cohesive pipeline of services for the grantees, and to partner and collaborate with other organizations so that each application includes at least two of the following one or more public community or technical college, one or more public K-through-12 district and or one or more youth serving community based organization. The second sort of funding program that is envisioned is a system supporting organization which the plan envisions would focus on ensuring a functional pipeline. Excuse me, a functional pipeline is created for student support in order to achieve the target outcomes. According to the plan, the systems supporting organization will provide direct services to the Promised Partnership Funding recipients, including working to develop a system building effort that fosters collaboration among the funding partners. Table eight looks at the King County or the K through 12 promised dedication and can be found on page 158 of your packet. This section is largely consistent with the motion. However, the motion directs that investments be made in career and advising, including through trade and apprenticeship programs. The plan represents that these these as potential commitments that could be agreed to. Noting that the first group of promised partnerships will collaborate and design a set of shared commitments and working to achieve the outcome targets set forth in the motion. Table nine reviews the post-secondary promise dedication beginning on page 160. The motion directs the development of policies for funding services for students pursuing post-secondary educational opportunities that include higher education and careers in the trades and apprenticeships, and that provide greater system alignment. Student supports and reduction in barriers and completing a post-secondary degree or credential according to the plan. Children, Youth and Young Adult Division staff will bring funded entities together to co-develop a set of commitments that may include the items just mentioned. And funding category three begins on page 161 of your packet. You'll know the left hand column of 211 outline instructions given then the motion for the remainder and the remaining 10% dedicated to community based organizations. Our analysis showed that the plan largely met that direction, differing in terms of procurement and the time planned for the recommendations for this funding category were developed by the Racial Equity Coalition, known as the RTC, which served as the work group for this funding category. The 15 member organization is provided an Attachment five on page 21, which is also the last page of your packet break immediately. And then the plan envisions a three year pilot called Love and Liberation, or L.A. for Short, where RTC organizations would perform direct work with youth, including out-of-school time or expanded learning opportunities, access to physical education , mentoring and case management. According to executive staff, these positive funds would allow for new and new, but existing L.A. services through the United Way King County, to be scaled so that they may be offered more widely throughout the county. And according to the plan, L.A. providers will focus on geographic areas with high numbers of youth and young adults from passive, prioritized populations and monitor for relevant demographic changes. The RNC recommends use of participatory grantmaking for this funding category. According to the plan participants, participatory grantmaking explicitly and intentionally brings together communities impacted by funding decisions together with funders to shift traditional power dynamics and funding decisions with the goal of empowering communities and creating lasting change. Council staff is working to determine how this aligns with county's procurement rules. And on page 163 of your packet, you'll find table 12 in the Evaluation Criteria section. The plan recommends that DHS Performance Measurement and Evaluation Team lead a related evaluation work. The plan notes that initial outcome targets will be set at a later time in collaboration with funded partners and by passive staff. And that more or less concludes our staff report. We would be happy to take any questions you may have. And in addition, we have Sheila Capps, Danny, director of C D, Jackie Moynihan, Deputy Division Director for Housing, Homelessness, Community Development Division, and on a further mcconney implication manager. Madam Chair, thank you so much, Erin and Patrick. But mostly Erin did most of the work and council members questions for our staff or executive staff. This is a first briefing. You will come back in August, but it's a good opportunity to ask questions you have right now. I'm sure we will have questions. We're taking it on board. I will say while people decide whether they're going to ask or not, that I really appreciate the work that's gone in. This has been such a stepwise process, starting with the I mean, back to the very first time I heard from Justin Farrell about the compromise in Olympia that put this funding source into the stage three authorization legislation. And then there was just a not a lot of debate about it during the election, but afterwards it became clear that this was going to be a resource that would be unique. I'm really proud of the work that this council did to try to make the most out of it, and especially to, for not the first time we've done this before, but in a really significant way, explicitly call out racial equity as something that we are going to to fund towards. And then there was, of course, really hard work about the different buckets and levels of funding for each level of for each level of education. We set ourselves a goal of trying to spend this money deeply and not peanut butter and all over the place so that it has deep impact. And that's one of the things I'm going to be looking for in looking at the spending plan. I think the engagement with the community has been outstanding in the creation of this and of this plan that's in front of us today. And it shows in the amount of support that it received in from all the different folks who have been really advocating hard for investment in things that will help to improve outcomes for youth at all levels. So and I start the analysis of this program with it, it's just there's a lot of good work that's gone into it. The community support is really important to me. There may be little things here or there as we move forward, but I just speaking for myself, I don't I'm not feeling the need sitting here to do major amendments or major changes because we've really walked up to this point together. So councilmembers, anybody care to opine or ask? Council Chairman Eldridge, Councilmember Raquel Welch, please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions that I know when we take this up later as well. For one, I really appreciate the work that's been done by the community groups who have put in a great amount of time. And I know that our staff, our district staff have been working on this for a long time as well. So I really commend the implementation plan that we have before us and of course also the executive staff and all of their work. One question that I have is so with regard to United Way and I maybe Sheila knows the answer to this, but of Will United Way are. B How much of the funding that will go to United Way will. Be. Retained as part of the administrative costs? Or is it something that United Way will be covering on there and. Thank you for that question, Councilmember. And hello. The the United Way what this project is actually. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Could you say that you didn't just realize that I was talking through myself and Sheila Capps, Danny and the director of the Children, Youth and Young Adults Division and the Strategic Advisor for Revenue. And so I the Love and Liberation is a pilot project and it has these partnerships to it. United Way is a partner will be providing capacity building and staffing for the Racial Equity Coalition to make sure that they have the foundation and the structure they need to get the work done. So the county will be will be funding that work that the United Way is doing. The United Way is not asking for a percentage and we're not giving a percentage to administration. I think. And Madam Chair, on a continuum, another question is that we know that the funding that we get from Southern Transit will be uneven. It will not be the same year by year. And depending on the construction that's underway on the part of some transit, there may be some years in which we have more revenue generated than other years. And I'm just wondering how this will affect the administrative process. I think it gives us some challenges. And I'm wondering if, Hannah, do you have an answer to that one? Yes. For the record, my name is Hannah. Honey, I work at sea my way. I am the custom being. Good afternoon, everybody. I would say we have looked at this 15 year budget really thoroughly and have based our assumptions on the latest estimates that we received from Sound Transit, which are from the end of April. So. So a couple of months back, we know that that is the latest information that we have and are moving forward with it. I would say about how we will handle handle the uneven distribution, which will probably still change as 15 years pass. So one thing is for administrative funding. We are planning and even spend down. So we are spreading the funds anticipating that our standard will be even across the years. And that's one one way we're handling our administrative and evaluate expenses. And then when we work with partners, once we have awarded contracts, then we will talk with them about how they want to handle their budgets. The one one strategy that we're employing from the get go is that we are thinking that implementation will be gradual and as such we will be accruing some a remainder funds at the end of each year that could be spent on one year and may be useful as a strategy as the fund itself starts to wind down towards the end of the 15 year period. Thank you. And one final question. Madam Chair, please go ahead. Thank you. Currently, we have a 7% administrative fee going to the county, and I'm wondering if that seems to be the right amount. I have actually offered an amendment that did not get approved by the council that would be at 5% so that we would have more funding going into the actual programs. But we do this 7%, and I'm wondering if that seems to be the appropriate amount thus far, or does it seem like we need more or less would do. Any feedback at this point? I think it's important to remember that that admin bucket is actually administration evaluation and capacity building. So it's 7% to accomplish all of those tasks. We're probably right at the edge of what is a good amount to do that. And so is as we hold admin steady, hopefully if if the income in that bucket changes or we can put out to community around capacity building. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Szabo, please go ahead. Thanks, Madam Chair. Hey, Sheila. How you doing? Hi there. I have some pretty elementary questions. So the implementation plan just confirming this is agreeing to the bucket or categories of spending and not allocating anything to specific organizations. Is that right? Well, that's for two of the buckets. That is true. What we are with the third bucket around the community. The community supports that 10%. That pilot project is already a predetermined group for the pilot project. That's similar to a couple of projects we did under BSC. So that is a closed amount. That is 10% of the 93% after admin eval and AC that was taken out. Gotcha. And who who are those neighbors that I don't think I see them yet. Do you happen to have that list in front of you? A lot of them testified today for public comment. Yeah. Aaron, as of 258, what's the pitch number? I actually have them right in front of me if you'd like to agree it. I'm sure the four C Coalition, all girl, everything. Ultimate program, also known as Age Up Education. Excuse me. Asian Counseling and Referral Services, Community Passageways, Education with Purpose Foundation for Pacific Islanders. El Centro de la Raza Follis Community Services. East Federal Way Youth Action Team, Filipino Community of Seattle Glover Empowering Mentoring Open Doors for Multicultural Families Para Los Ninos Powerful Voices. Red Eagle Soaring and United Way of King County. That's how I was at the end of, you know, organizations that belong to the Racial Equity Coalition. Any more questions? They're like, maybe we lost him. I think we may have lost control resolve. You know, let's take a quick moment here. Are they are high. Sorry, Councilmember, I couldn't hear if you had. If that was the end. I think I lost everybody. No. Can you hear me now? It can't hear us. In. Okay. Let's carry on and we'll see if we can help Rosalie with you. No. It's okay. I'm so sorry. Anybody else? Counselor Rizal, I'm going to pause you for a second. Anyone else have questions. About the growth. Of the growth? Please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's more of just a comment. One of the areas I'm interested in continuing to explore is within the college career and technical education section. We've called the promise that Sorry is making sure that the way that is structured allows for as robust as possible community based decision making. I think we do a really good job of that in the K-12, and there may be some ideas to kind of clarify or strengthen the wording in a couple of areas so that the the community based organization envisioned. There are things called the systems supporting organization will be really a true partner with the department in developing recommendations. And so I wanted to flag that as an issue. I chatted briefly with with Sheila about that, and I don't have specific recommendations at this point, but I'm talking with the stakeholders and we'll be talking with the department and may have some amendments to bring forward. So that was a comment and a question. Not a question. Got it. Okay. Other members. I'm not hearing any. Let me just state again for the record that this is the first briefing. We will have a second, according to counsel to committee of the whole chair. MCDERMOTT That is probably going to be the time for amendments. So there will be some time between now and then with the caveat that we're on break and at the direction of leadership, many staff members are going to be taking some time off. So probably we'll be working on amendments the first two weeks of August, but we will have more time after that. All right. Any further questions? I'm going to pause this for a second because I have a message here that I was trying to get back in. And there he is. Cancer marsala in years. Hmm. I think it'll take just a second for him to cut their incomes. Councilmember ally. The system. Is also. Sorry. Everyone, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Please continue. Well, we got to. Worry about that. I completely missed that the whole answer, but I think I got an email with the list. So I'll I'll look into that and I'll let me collect myself for a second. And you can please go ahead without me for now. Thank you. Yeah. So I was just I was just repeating for purposes of hopefully setting the expectation that there will be more time to ask questions, get answers. This is scheduled to come back August 25th, a committee of the whole. And that means that there will be not time plus plus a final council passage. So even if we can't get to today due to technical glitches, which are always so disappointing when they happen and you wish you could do something about them, but they happen, we will have time to get back to to those any issues that members want to raise. So I would. Ask one follow up question. Yes, please go ahead. And as many as you need to. Thank you, Sheila. If your organization or project want to access some of the early learnings that are capital funds in that bucket, from what what is the process like for that? What do they need to have in order to do that? Well, we will have we'll have an RFP process and there's going to be a lot of support around getting information out in our communities about that opportunity and also being able to help people as they think about is this the type of funding source that's going to be useful for them? I'd love to see actually if if Jacqueline, if you have any more information about how that might happen, nothing is written in stone yet, but how we've done it in the past with capital projects. Sure happy to. Jackie Moynihan, assistant Division Director for Housing, Homelessness and Community Development Division. And hopefully my Internet stays stable while I'm talking to you. So we would, for the new construction strategy that is in the implementation plan, will be running an RFP to select a third party intermediary to do those larger projects. But there would be an RFP and procurement process that would be run in coordination with DHS. So she was bringing there would be significant outreach of getting the word out into the community and also assistance provided to them to work with folks to make sure that that is appropriate. And I think part of the plan that is before you also includes a phase where there is some pre-development work that happens that helps test whether the project is a feasible project before you move into committing the multiple millions of dollars that would be needed to construct and facility. Thank you. Further questions. Okay. I believe we will have more discussion, undoubtedly. And we thank you for this opening briefing. And the good questions and answers will be back to those together in earnest. So. That concludes the action item on our agenda today.

DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0818

A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the Loretto Heights Small Area Plan, which plan shall become a part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Approves the Loretto Heights Small Area Plan, as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-20-19.

In Singapore. Our system to catch up. Looks like we still need a second round secretary on a real set here. Here we go. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council councilmen. Savarkar just wanted to call this one out for a separate vote. All right. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, Roll call CdeBaca. No. Black I. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I Herndon. I kind. I. Cashman i. Kinnick I. Ortega, i. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. To advise one nay. 12 eyes one nay council bill 818 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. Councilman Herndon, would you please put Bill 874 on the floor?

LongBeachCC_09162014_14-0717

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare amendments to Long Beach Municipal Code Sections 2.01.380 and 2.01.1020, relating to Officeholder accounts. (Citywide)

Item 25 Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez and the Chair of Elections Oversight Committee recommendation to receive a report from the City Attorney regarding proposed amendment to the Long Beach Municipal Code. In regards to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and campaign disclosure statement and adopters recommendations. Thank you. I'm going to begin by turning this over to Councilwoman Gonzalez, who chairs the Elections Oversight Committee for a committee update and then some recommendations. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Okay. So first, in general, I want to thank the city clerk for all their work. And in this past election season, I also want to thank the city attorney for bringing this to light with outside perspective. And so as the chair of the Elections Oversight Committee, serving with Vice Chair Turanga and Councilmember Mongo, we've been very busy . Our last meeting took 2 hours, but it was an in-depth discussion around the discussion of campaign finance reform with our city attorney and outside expert perspectives from campaign treasurers from around the city who work daily on campaign finance. Their input offered clarity, updated information, and identified overall deficiencies in our current city of Long Beach campaign finance, municipal codes. It was agreed that the time is now to reform some of these issues, as they are still fresh in our minds, and so that we can better align ourselves with similar cities of our size and again, update our codes for efficiency, clarity and more importantly, wider transparency. After discussing at the Elections Oversight Committee, we directed the city attorney to organize information and determine the following. We identified that each issue fit into one of two categories the first Council approval with two thirds vote items that can be approved tonight. Secondly, pending items. Most of this of these items require more information from our city attorney and or more discussion at the Elections Oversight Committee level to then be brought back to council, as some of these items also may require a ballot measure. So some of these items refer to the following compliance with state campaign campaign finance laws, deletion of information, amendments to the language, equalizing elements to align ourselves with similar sized cities. And so I'll invite any questions and have our city attorney loop in whenever there's a question or an answer or something, he can clarify. But I would certainly like to make a motion to approve the council two thirds vote items and then also refer back the pending items to our Elections Oversight Committee. Second. There's been a motion on a second. We're going to turn this over now to the city attorney who will review some of the documents that he's prepared, and then we'll go from there. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzales. Actually, just a point of clarity this evening before you is the recommendation from the Election Oversight Committee to make certain changes to the Long Beach municipal code. So procedurally, the recommendation tonight would be to request if if you so choose to request the city attorney to prepare the amendments and bring them back to the city council for first reading, at which time you would be given the language that would be changed, a red line version, and then what the new language would say. So this evening were conceptually talking about multiple changes that can be adopted by the city council. So with that, just real quickly, the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act was passed as Proposition M by the voters in 1994 as an initiative ordinance. The importance of the initiative ordinance is that the act can only be amended by a vote of the people unless the City Council makes a finding that the amendment is consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of the original act. There has been amendments over the years by the City Council. They have. The major change was the addition of provisions of officeholder accounts, which was amended and added in 1995. And since the officeholder accounts were added by council, the council may change the officeholder rules without a vote of the people. In 99, there was a passage of an ordinance to clarify some of the sections. Clarifying officeholder accounts can't be used for contributions to any campaign. Clarify how acceptance of expenditure ceilings is done and clarify how matching funds are done. It also discussed special elections, which were not included in the original ballot measure. So with that, after the recent campaign, our office met with a group, as the mayor indicated, of treasurers, political advisers and attorneys that are that are truly the experts in the area, not just with Long Beach, and they handle campaigns all over, and those included Mr. David Gould, Mr. Gary Crumpet, Betty Ann Downing, Jane Lederman, Stacy Shinn, Chris Thomas and Ingrid all Alana. Well, they were kind enough to sit down with our office and we went through the municipal code section by section and with input. We made the following recommendations, and I'll just summarize them and then open it up for questions from the Council. But in the definitions section, we were recommending that two changes occur, one to the election cycle, which would amend the term of the election cycle, and second which would require additional information for the reporting of corporate donations. We've had some issues there that we think we can clear up with that under the return of contributions, we're recommending that that be deleted the city provision. And uses use a city law which is stricter in that particular case. There's a loan requirement currently. We would we would revise that. All loans are reported on the form for 60. I think it's important to note that since this was passed in 1994, this was a very cutting edge in 94. But state law has caught up in past us in many ways on some of these provisions. So with that, the office holder accounts, we are recommending that you consider increasing the limits of those office holder accounts, eliminate some of the redundant reporting requirements that are required on the state forms and then the city form. Also, the city form asks for less information that's required under the state forms the time period for expenditures. We provide some clarifying language. There's been a couple of different interpretations of those sections. Remove the concept, the contribution limitations which have been found unconstitutional by the Citizens United case and also the Long Beach Chamber cases, specifically as to language, the reproduction of materials. That section is very broad wording and we think we can comply with state law. State law stricter. The notice of IEEE expenditures, we believe is redundant, as the state law requires on form 496, the same information we report, actually more information be reported. So you're causing the treasurers to file two reports. And so we think there's some economies there. The disclosures of occupation and employer state law requires that that the refund, the refund. And if you can't refund it, the money has to go to the state. And the city's ordinance just says it has to be returned within 60 days. Retention of the over officeholder accounts, we're recommending that be consistent if you consider raising those limits. And then the inflation calculation, we're recommending that you move the effective date of the implementation of that inflation calculation so that during the election cycle you don't have two different dollar amounts. We believe that's obviously consistent with the ordinance and it would save both the public and the and the candidates time and would eliminate some confusion and cost expense for everybody. And then we would also add recommend adding a requirement for e-filing and then also consider new language to clarify the intra candidate transfer language to clarify that those are subject to the individual donor rules. With that, I stand ready to answer questions. Thank you, Mr. Parking. I want to just add I think it's important just to note I want to just think also the city attorney, he's actually done extensive amount of work, him and his office on this item with the work of the Elections Oversight Committee. And I know that you've had numerous meetings with all sorts of of treasurers, as well as some legal advice that you've received both internally and externally, on what's unconstitutional that we have in our current code, as well as changes that you in the committee believe would strengthen our municipal code. And just to clarify on the motion as part of the motion, I believe it would essentially it would send back any any items that would require a vote of the people. Those items would all be sent back to committee. So none of those would be would come back to the council. It would go back to committee. And at that point, the committee could further debate or discuss and bring those to the council at a later time. Is that. Correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay. And it would also do the same thing for pending items, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So the pending and then also that were originally two thirds I'm sorry, a ballot measure and then the pending items would go back to the committee. If I may, that on two of the pending items that could be adopted by council, we could if it's the desire of the council, I think if depending on what council, how they adopt on the other items above it, we could clarify that language and correct those and bring them back. They were pending from my standpoint and from I think from the folks in the public who have been helping us with this to to see and get policy direction from the council on where they wanted to go on these. And so if the desire is to accept the proposals as currently written or drafted, then we could fix two of those and we would recommend that the consideration of a legal defense fund be sent back to your committee for further deliberation. There were questions that we were unable to answer on that that we'd need to do additional research on. That's correct. Okay. That's that's some good clarification there. So with that, I'm going to open this up for any council questions on the issue. And I do want to thank you for for adding the issue about the the dollar amount changing midway an election because that that that's a very difficult for for us midway through. So let me start this off with Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Parking. And this may have been in there and I missed it, so I don't know. But was there any consideration given? To having a legal and compliance fund that would be exempt from contribution limits and or spending limits. For example, hypothetically speaking, if you are a candidate in an election and you believe that an IEEE has been established and perhaps some of the legal parameters that govern these were not followed. And you wanted to challenge that right now you'd have to use your campaign moneys correct to challenge that. And so that would cut into your spending limits for those who choose to follow a spending limit. That's correct. And I think one of the things that we want to look at, I'm not sure that legally we can do what as I understand your question, establish a separate committee and I don't have the citation for you or the case law on that. But that's one of the things when we would we were going to send back to the committee on the establishment of a legal defense fund. From that position, we saw it as if, in fact, a candidate is sued and to defend you would be able to have a separate fund to raise money to defend the allegation or lawsuit against you. I use myself as an example. I was sued during the committee, during the campaign, and I had to pay for those either out of my pocket or out of the campaign thing. If there was a legal defense fund. And I don't know if I could ever raise money for it, but you could actually go out and solicit money and pay for those defense costs. So the the idea is we would look at other jurisdictions, the limits and and what they can be used for. And then we would vet that with the Election Oversight Committee to see where they are on that and then come back at a later date with a recommendation of counsel. And I appreciate that answer. I think for me, it wasn't so much a legal defense. It would be for any sort of legal and compliance issues that would come up because that so much of that has to do with the campaign process is just paying all the different compliance officers and things associated with making sure your forms are right. But then again, if you feel you've been victimized by an illegal IEEE, you should also be considered in terms of that same spirit of a legal defense fund. You should also have the tools at your disposal to be able to pursue some sort of remedy. And so I think that I mean, I would ask that maybe that's something that's looked at as well, because those costs can be excessive. You know, lawyers charge a lot of money. So I think that's just one of the things to think about. So and then the other thing I wanted to ask before. We get to the second one, Councilman Price, could I ask Councilwoman Gonzalez if as part of this motion, could we send that a request from Councilwoman Price? Sure. Right back to elections oversight. Well, go. Ahead. And I think that's an a I, I, I totally understand what you're saying there. And so I think those particular discussed by the committee and maybe Mr. City Attorney, we can be prepared for that at the next meeting as well. That issue at least to get a little more information. On our elections over. At the election. Yeah, absolutely. Yes, we will address that. And then back to Councilwoman Price. The the dollar amounts that we're coming up with in terms of the things that we are suggesting as amendments, either office holder, contribution amounts, etc., you know, are those specific dollar amounts. I'm sure there's a process involved in determining what is appropriate for a city of this size. But I am sensitive to making those dollar amounts so high that, you know, the average person really doesn't have a chance if they're if not, our last presenter used a phrase repeatedly that he had friends in high places. So if you happen to not have friends in high places, you should still be allowed to participate in this process. You know, if you just happen to be an average Jane in the neighborhood. So if we're setting the amounts to that, too, to such an extent that it makes it unreachable for people who aren't politically connected, that would concern me. Thank you. The the amounts that we are discussing tonight were amounts that we talked to the committees about. And there is no magic to the numbers that we have placed before you today. This is a policy decision for the council to decide. I believe the last time that the council in 2007 passed Ordinance 070037 increased the amounts which can be raised annually for officeholder accounts to 25,000 for citywide and 10,000 for council persons. So those numbers haven't been addressed or adjusted since 2007. And there are it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For those cities that have officeholder accounts. So clearly, we are here to take direction from you to see if those numbers are where you're you're comfortable at. But clearly, the numbers we're recommending, I think, are in the realm of reality. Not too high. Not too low, but. We it's it's the desire of the Council on on the dollar amounts. The other important thing I think here is in changing the dollar amounts by a council action, I just reemphasize that office officeholder accounts were added by the council, not by the proposition. And so you are free on any Tuesday to change those amounts. But I also think that Councilman Price was referring to election contributions, campaign contributions. And I think correct me if I'm wrong, city attorney, but on that issue, that has to go back to elections oversight because that would actually require a change to the vote of the people. Is that right? That is correct. So so that issue would not be decided today, but it would go back to elections oversight. From what I understand, they're going to review and kind of see what other jurisdictions are at, and then that would eventually come back to the council. Separate of the other items. Yep. Yeah. We asked for specific information for comparable cities as well, so we'll be getting that information among us. Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. Yes. With regard to the office holder accounts. Those moneys would not be. Able to be rolled. Into a campaign. Correct. Those would stay as office holder dollars? That is correct. Thank you. And well, you know, one other question with regard to the timeline. Or the. The period in which one can raise funds for a specific office. What are you contemplating this evening? What would. Is there a change you're suggesting a change that there's. Or if you're referring to the election cycle? Yes, we are. We're contemplating a change to the election cycle. It's the and I use the word consensus. I'm not sure if the entire committee agreed to that, but there is a feeling that the current election cycle for the city of Long Beach is too short when looked at other jurisdictions. I believe the city have lost the time. Period to raise funds. The time period in which the election cycle closes is short when compared to other cities. I believe the city of Los Angeles is 12 months. Post the general election date. So on the back end. On the back end, not. Necessarily the front end. That's correct. At this time. Are certainly seeking to address the back end at the front end. Is that correct? That is correct. Because the the interstate. Good enough. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Council member asked him. I didn't have. But I'm going to take the opportunity to speak at. I just want to thank the Elections Oversight Commission Committee for bringing these items forward. I think there is great value to having a brand new council here. Most of you are fresh off of a campaign. And so you've dealt with these the aggravation of these. So some of these archaic policies that we have set forth in terms of campaign finance. I do think that it's long overdue to have many of these issues addressed. I commend you all for consulting with some of the best and brightest campaign treasurers in the state. And I know we have one here, Betty, and thank you for for your or Linda, your expertize to this committee as well. I'm unclear about what we are seeking to do here tonight. What is the the the actual ask? Are we approving anything specific? Yes. Let me sure. If you want to me to clarify. Mr. Turner, do you want to clarify what what exactly would happen at the vote and what would that would trigger? Yes. Thank you, Mayor Councilmember. Thank you. The as I understand the direction from the council member in the motion this evening would be to direct the city attorney to prepare amendments to Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.01 and Chapter 2.02. In the Council report, there was a spreadsheet, and then around noon today, I sent to the mayor and council officers an additional report that added some additional language that will come back to you. So tonight, if if, if directed, we would go back our office would go back, draft the language for the amendments to the municipal code and then resubmit that to the city council under ordinances for first reading and then a subsequent second reading. So there'll be two more votes on this item and you'll have all of the language, specific language and dollar amounts in front of you at that time for your consideration. And the second piece of that, Mr. City Attorney, is the motion would also then take any items that would require a vote of the people back to elections oversight. So that that's part of the motion as well as as I heard it from the councilwoman. That's correct. Okay. Councilmember so to clarify, we are we're not taking any action to to raise any limit. No, no, not at all. Not at this time. Okay. Got it. Councilmember Richardson. So thank you, because I was I was unclear on that as well. So I guess what I hear is that they that the city attorney would need direction from the council specific directions so that he can come back with red line examples and something we language that we can approve. So if that's the case, we're talking about section 2.01 and 2.2. These are things that are in the spirit of the campaign finance reform of 90, whatever it was, things that are in that same spirit along with office officeholder stuff. Correct. Those are the two things. We can give direction on today, right? Am I right? You're correct. Okay. So if that's the case, I'll weigh in on certain issues to get some direction from me. I personally didn't have an issue with the adequate time for, you know, for raising money. But I'd like to hear like some anecdotal evidence, you know, let me know. I want to understand how that's been an issue, the time period issue. I mean, I it simply it makes sense. I would imagine if it's if there's like a debt issue and it doesn't give us enough time to raise debt, is that what the spirit of this is? And would it be good if we asked Brian to come up? I know that she. So I'm picking on you, Betty. And but she was really thorough and she was great in our Elections Oversight Committee and giving us some anecdotal information. So good evening, councilors. Betty Ann Downing with California political law. I'm not here representing any of our clients. I'm here just provide any information that might be helpful. With regard to the post-election fundraising window. It occurs, you know, if the election is in June, the fundraising window closes September one. If you've got some debt from your primary election, you wouldn't have had time to fundraise to retire that debt if you got to retire debt and a general election that gives you just a couple of months in which to do that. And during that time, you're competing with candidates for state office and or federal office. So your donor base is going to be pretty tapped. And then after the November election, you run into holiday season, which people don't like to give during that time. So the idea was to extend the fundraising window to one year after the election to give folks a chance to retire the debt and make sure that their vendors are taken care of. Great. I guess the other question is in terms of. And I would. Having served as a chief of staff, I understand the many uses for an officeholder account. It really opens up your ability to really be involved in engage in the community. And so, you know, I'm hoping to increase in the the the officeholder stuff. But what I mean, I want to understand better. It sounds like this 10,020 5000 now. Right. That's the existing limit. Exactly. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. So are we talking about doubling it? Are we talking about like what direction have you been given or what what do you need from us tonight? That the direction from the Oversight Committee was to change the amounts. And I'm going to find out. But I believe. And increased them to. 25,000 for counsel and 75,000 for city. Work. Right. Okay. So from 10 to 20 5025 to 75. 10 to 20 5025 to 75000. To me, those the ratios are off now. It goes from two and a half times a margin to a three times margin between the the council office and the citywide elected. So how do we I mean, was there a formula for that or was this a off the cuff number? What did the direction for those numbers come from? I'm a citywide no. I mean, this came from the committee. And again. Between and those. Right. Would you like would you like to weigh in on how you derived those numbers? You want to tell us again, buddy? So it went from again? Yeah, certainly. There are no magic numbers involved here. Just to look at what council members typically spend their money on and how much more they can serve their community by increasing those limits. And as far as a citywide same issue, a citywide program, citywide events to attend. And so those are lots of opportunities to be in the community, make good in the community, and just try to look at the numbers that those that that would be reasonable. That's a strictly a policy decision by the council. Sure. So if I were to give some feedback on that, in my opinion, having been a chief of staff, I would I would think. Now, I've never been a city wide elected or I've never worked for a citywide elected, but from a council office perspective, doubling those numbers, going to the 20,000 or 25,000 range. It's it's enough. That's that's good. The number 75,000 scares me a little bit so that I just want to put that out there. I'd be more comfortable just maintaining the ratio that we have, the 2.5, you know, two and a half, even though it's I don't want to seem like we're creating a larger disparity between two different classes of of elected officials. And then the other thing is we're setting policy not for the people in these seats, but we're setting a standard that people are going to evaluate for the future. So if we have a 2.5 threshold now, we should hold it. We should hold it or equalize it a little more as opposed to to widening it. So that that's that's my feedback also that some of these items I haven't had a chance to really look into and they're very unclear. But the question I have is, would any of this impact of the the past folks who participated in this past election will be voting on anything that directly impact impacted our circumstances from the last election? Or is there a clear firewall that this is moving forward? You know, this is like starting 2016 elections. Mayor, members of the council, Councilmember Richardson, this as the item is before you and as recommended by the election oversight committee, would not be retroactive. So it would not impact anyone from the campaign of 2014 as those periods are closing. And again, the ordinance would would not come back to you probably until after the reporting period in October. You'd have a second reading and then after it's 31 days after the mayor signs it. So and it would be on a go forward basis only. Great. And then lastly, the last thing I have and I think the things we can handle now, let's knock them out. So it's a question about timing. So how soon? So the things that miss the city attorney, the things you've heard tonight, you're going to come back in red, line them for this council to take action on . When should we expect that? I believe we could have something back to you at the October 7th meeting for first. Reading, and that would take those things. So officeholder related things would be in effect as soon as we we pass it. With know there would be at the first reading October 7th second reading. And then, you know, the final reading. Correct. We would it would take the majority of the items off and all of the items that would require a vote of the people would be back at the Election Oversight Committee for further study. Thank you. Thank you. And I think we have councilwoman mango. So to since we are setting direction today, I'm going to propose a friendly amendment to incorporate Councilmember Richardson's thoughts. And so let me ask one quick question of clarity to the city attorney before I make this recommendation. Currently, when you can raise up to $10,000 for your officeholder account, it can carry over, but not to exceed the total limit if that or it can carry over. And each independent year has its own amount. Okay. So to maintain the ratios is that I see Notting Hill. Okay. So to maintain the ratios we could modify the direction to include it to triple. So council would go from 10 to 30 and city wide would go 25 to 75. Is that what you're. Saying. Right now? You want to go? So what you're saying is three. You're saying. Well, I didn't want the council not to have the same representation. So if 25 times three is 75, then ten times three is 30. So they would be increasing proportionally. Was that your request? So I was thinking about the gap, the two and a half gap. So if we're going if we're going from ten to to 25, then you would take the 25 and multiply that by two and a half. It still is because 30 plus 30 plus 15 is 75. So this would be something that we can include in our motion as well to be referred back to the Elections Oversight Committee. The way I understand it, there was a friendly amendment on the floor to address the dollar amount of the office holder account. And I think the discussion now is what that ratio should be. So there's that. So let me yes, let me bring it back real quick. So there is a friendly amendment on the floor and the friendly member on the floor is to change the ratio from 10 to 30. And I'm sorry, 10 to 30 from 10 to 30. And keep that 75 number where it's at four citywide. So that's been a friendly amendment to Councilwoman Gonzalez. Do you accept that friendly amendment? Yes. Okay. So that's the motion on the floor council. Bewildered. Ten plus ten plus half of ten is five is 25. You got it. Okay, let me. And then just as a side note to that. So all council offices run very differently and the usage of our funds can be used for staffing or for supplies or streets or sidewalks or trees. And if I was able to raise a little bit more money so that I could replace a few more trees or throw a few more events in the community, this is not for. Personal gain in power. That's not what officeholder accounts are used for. They're used to enrich our communities. And I think that that's been demonstrated by some of our predecessors. And so if we're good at the proportions you're good at. I'm good with the proportions that I want to be clear. 25, which is the existing citywide limit now. Uh huh. Right now. Today. Right. Citywide. It's 25. It's 25. So 25 times two and a half is 62.5, not 75. So we're going from 10 to 25 right now. Four on the like on the council and on citywide, we're going from 25 to 75. So the council is getting 2.5 in the city, in the state, citywide is getting three. So now I'm saying I'm okay taking it to three. But the concern was about increasing increasing it from 2.5 to 2 to three. And it's oh, we're fine, we're okay. I'm okay where we are. But I wanted to be clear because I think it was a little confusion there. I, I will be very impressed with our council if, while doing all of our real jobs and our community service, that any of us has the ability to raise that kind of money. But I wouldn't want it to have to come back to the council year after year after year. So Council Councilwoman Price. I'm. I have nothing but complete, total respect for my council colleagues. I will say I just I think the issue deserves a little bit more study. I really do. I mean, some of you may love fund raising for me. I think it kind of takes away from some of the work that we need to be doing. And frankly, knowing that there's an increased limit puts a lot of pressure to do things for your district that maybe another councilperson is going to be able to do for their district. And if you were just a better fundraiser, you could do for your district, too. I just we're talking about some big dollars here. So I just say let's just proceed with caution. Let's I respect every single person here. I am enjoying the comments I'm hearing. There's a lot of good points being made. I agree with Councilman Richardson's comments regarding proportionality. But I'm just saying before we go there, let's really talk about, you know, what that kind of fundraising entails on an annual basis and whether or not that's a priority that we want to set for us. You know, this is about service, and I don't want to spend a lot of time fundraising. I want to do the work, you know. Council council member Austin. I agree with every point that has actually been been made here. And I don't think any of us relishes fundraising for officeholder or for campaigns or anything like that. But I do think this is a healthy discussion. Just curious for the Madam Committee chair, Councilmember Gonzalez, did you all look at comparable officeholder accounts and how other cities are doing this? And we actually are we where we kind of fit in to it in comparison. We asked for that information, so we're expecting it back in our October 17th meeting because those are some of the questions we we had. Exactly. We didn't get it at that meeting two weeks ago. But October 17th, we're expected to get that information, which hopefully will answer some questions. With that said, I mean, I do see the need to to raise our officeholder limits. I don't know if we necessarily have to do that tonight. I'm okay with would be taking a patient approach and allowing the committee to to do some some further work on on that particular matter. So if I could offer a friendly amendment to table that portion of the recommendation until to the committee. So that the friendly members would take the issue of officeholder limits back to the elections oversight, along with the other items you're going to go back through. Already, correct? Can we accept that from the amendment, Councilwoman? Okay, great. So there is a motion on the floor, as as mentioned by the city attorney, with the items that are going back to elections oversight. Is there any additional council comment? Councilman Richardson. Okay, so half of what we were doing was officeholder and half of it was issues that further the spirit and update campaign finance. Yes. So now we're sending everything back to where it just came from. No, no. Just the limit set for. So if that's the case. So so those things are come back and be red line for us to discuss. Yes. I got it. I want to speak against the motion then because I would like to see us discuss. I think we can as a council discuss both officeholder and those issues because it doesn't seem like it's it's it seems like very simply we can have that discussion but not necessarily take action because I'm unclear with this item . There's no specifics in this item. And so we're saying we're going to come back with specifics on half of it, half of the subject matter, instead of coming back with specific. Well, the specifics were in the memo that was provided. So there's specifics on what needs to be deleted, what's redundant, what's out of compliance. Like the genesis we talked about what cities where use this comparables like how we derive that. The information we're requesting to send back to the elections oversight committee so we can review that information and then come back to you. And those are often the things that I'll wrote. Thank you. I'm going to go to council. I'm going to take one or two public comment and a vote. Additional item. In addition to taking the officeholder account back to committee, I'd also like to take back the additional information that was provided regarding a person has changed since the prior meeting. I think, or at least I've received some concerns from individuals who had some specifics related to how this might align with the unconstitutional nature of a previous comment. So if just item de of section 12.01.210 could go back to committee. But the rest of it I would feel comfortable with moving forward because my bigger concern is and I really want to see a direction from this counsel to the city attorney to remove unconstitutional statements from our ordinance. And so that one I'm not completely comfortable with related to some emails I've received. So maybe we could talk about that one more time at committee before that one word comes back. Great. That was 2.01.21. The definition of a person we're adding in. Six additional criteria by which you determine who could or could not give a donation. And there was some the definition of who can give a donation is a person well, a person can be a legal entity. It can be a corporation. It can be a lot of things. And the business community had raised a couple of concerns about what they would need to provide to exercise their freedom of speech, to make a contribution within that limit. And so I'd just like some time on that one component, but I think the rest of it would be would that be a good, friendly amendment you'd be willing to accept today? Sure. Thanks. Okay. So with that, going to go to any public comment on the item. Any members of the public that want to speak before we go to a vote? Councilmember. Okay. There's no public comment. So I just want you to reiterate the motion. So we're going to read the motion one last time before the vote. Mr. City. Attorney. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council. As I understand it, the motion would be to direct the city attorney to prepare a amendment to Chapter 2.01 and 2.0 to on those items that can be adopted by the Council with the items that are subject to a vote of the people to be referred back to committee. In addition to that, referred back to committee is 2.01. 210d as in David a 2.01380 contributions to for officeholder expenses. And those are two to changes, one to a and one to see which was the deletion of that entire paragraph. And then with the other items our office would then bring back for first reading, proposed amendments, and then two. I'm sorry. Following the election oversight direction, we possibly return again. Thank you. Also to include information about the legal defense fund as well, I think that was included. But that that's to be done. You're going to work on that at the committee level. We don't need to. That's correct. That business here. Okay. Thank you. Counsel. I think there was a minor error, only that 2.01.630 was also supposed to go back to committee per the election's oversight. We did not forward that to the council yet. We were waiting on information. It's not only has. Actually, I did have that on here. And so we need to make sure that that is referred back then. That would be the friendly amendment because that was the email that we were waiting on that Roberto and I had asked to hold back. Okay. Okay, great. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor and we have no public comment. Members, please raise your hands for all those in favor. And it's unanimous. No opposition. Thank you very much and thanks. Let's also give a thank you to all the the treasurers and the committee that Mr. Parker can help put together as well. So thank you all for for your input on that. And I also I just also want to note that I know there was a lot of information, but I do want to thank the committee and that's why we have committees so that they're able to do this kind of in-depth analysis on on topics. And so I think that's important to know. We all have committees for on on a variety of topics. So I want to thank the members for, for all of their work. And next item, Mr. Clerk. Item 26 Report from Council member Council Member Urunga recommendation to confirm the nomination of Council Member Roberta Ranga to the South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board Western Region.

DenverCityCouncil_10202014_14-0866

A proclamation celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 15th Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day.

We do have two proclamations this evening, and we'll start with the first one. Proclamation 866. Councilman Lopez, will you please read proclamation 866 will do. Mr. President. Proclamation number 866 series of 2014, celebrating Denver after school programs and the 15th Annual National Lights on after school day. Whereas the Denver City Council is is committed to quality afterschool programs and the opportunities they provide children and youth engaging and challenging them through learning experiences that help develop their social, emotional, physical and academic skills . In addition to supporting working families by ensuring their children are safe and productive after the regular school day ends. And. Whereas, quality afterschool programs provide students with activities such as academic support, music, arts, sports, leadership, development and conflict resolution, and other 21st century skills, and inspire. Increase confidence, improve social skills and connections to the future, education and career opportunities. And. WHEREAS, Quality afterschool programs have a proven track record of increasing school attendance, improving student engagement and achievement are resulting in higher proficiency in academic subjects and fewer behavioral issues. And students who are parties who participate are less likely to repeat a grade, be placed in remedial courses or to drop out, but more likely to perform at a grade level and to be prepared for their future. And. Whereas, the city and county of Denver, the Denver Afterschool Alliance, Denver Public Schools and many of Denver's funding and community based organizations work together to develop a sustainable citywide afterschool system to increase access to and participation in quality afterschool programs for all of Denver's. Youth. In order to keep kids safe, inspire them to learn and prepare them for the future. And. Whereas, Denver is home to over 93,000 school age youth, producing a significant need for afterschool programs to support their academic, social and physical development. And we're as lights on afterschool a national celebration of afterschool programs on October 23rd, 2014 highlights the critical importance of quality afterschool programs in the lives of children, their families and their communities. And. Whereas, the Denver City Council pledges to support afterschool programs so that Denver's children and families benefit from quality afterschool programs that help them close the achievement gap and prepare young people to come pee and to succeed. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one at the Denver City Council recognizes the outstanding leadership of the Denver Afterschool Alliance and the quality and the Denver Quality Afterschool connection for their innovative afterschool programs for Denver children and recognizes the 15th Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day. Thursday, October 23rd, 2014. Section two that the Clerk of the of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix the seal of the city and county Denver to this proclamation. And. Transmit it to the Office of Education and Children. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt. I move that proclamation number 866 series of 2014 be adopted. It has been moved and second it comments from members of council councilman lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. It is a delight to be able to read this proclamation, but to do it in front of these beautiful kids who are sitting in our council chambers. And if you take notice. They're all sitting up front. Not one space is empty. And the front row and any of these are us. And they come from all over Denver for Emanuel High from West High School, which is my personal favorite. From South, even though she's wearing a cowboy orange from D.C., she's from Greenlee. Where were you from? I forgot. And this is Fairmont. Right. So they are kids from all over the place. And these after school programs are essential. They're essential because nowadays families work and they're working one or two jobs and they're switching off back and forth. And they're essential also because these kids just love homework and they love school and they just cannot get enough of it. And they even told me, perhaps we should pass an ordinance that creates more homework. Right. Didn't you guys told me that? Oh, yeah. Oh, okay. Well. It might have been the opposite. It might have been the opposite. It might have been the opposite where I was being lobbied really hard since they were here. So we know that we won't pass that ordinance, but it is amazing. It's a great program. The city has been a member of the Denver Afterschool Alliance for a long time, already under the leadership of MAXINE Quintana, who's in the Mayor's Office of Education and Children and DPS. And I'll have John Albright come up here, along with Enrique Garcia, who's a a young, young man and a participant in the Boys and Girls Club activities. So without further ado, I'd like to have them come up afterwards, um, to, to get this proclamation after we do the vote. So thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. And and thanks to Councilman Lopez for bringing this forward. You know, I say this time and time again, but the most important work that we can do in this city is with these with these young folks. And you're looking at our future city right now. And it is a distinct pleasure and honor to have you guys here in this building. I know you're bored out of your minds, but we need we, as decision makers and policymakers, need to continually be reminded of of what's the most important asset in our city. And that's you guys. And yeah, you know, I'm so supportive of this and I hope that we can continue to work with DPS and work with other stakeholders in other sectors, business sector, to to figure out how we can continue to make our afterschool programs a little bit more robust and interesting and diverse for all of the different needs that we have in the community. We know that we're cutting many different programs within our educational system, especially the arts. And we know that the arts is what engages our young people. Right, and shows them like, wow, this is this is what I was created for. I was born to do this. And all of a sudden they start seeing their grades go up because they're engaged and they're ready to go and they have a vision for life. And so I hope that we can continue to invest in that, and I hope that we can continue to support programs like that. And I hope you guys are reading your shirt and you're reading it deeply because each of you matter and man, you're beautiful, godly, good looking kids. But we appreciate you. We support you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman Sheppard. Thank you. I remember fondly when I was a little girl that I participated in Girls Club programing, and it was really I just remember it being really fun and really cool and I really looked forward to it and I looked forward to participating. So I really support the programing. And then later, as an adult, when my son was born, I did a lot of volunteering in the after school program at Lake IB. They have an after school gardening program and we worked to help get vegetable and flower beds built there so that the kids could participate and learn how to grow some of their own food, which they later used to sell in a farmer's market program at the school. And like got to learn how to start a business and learn some entrepreneurial skills about marketing and interacting with customers and customer service. And I think that that the skills that children can be exposed to and learn in these afterschool programs really go, you know, above and beyond what might be taught in the curriculum at school. And I sort of want to echo what Councilman Brooks was saying, is that with all the cuts to our education systems, so much of the the core curriculum is really being narrowed into very specific bands of learning. And through the after school programs, I think you can really get exposed to, you know, a whole range of things that you might not have the opportunity to learn about. During your regular school days. So I'm a huge fan and very supportive of the programing and of this proclamation. Thank you so much, Councilman Lopez, for bringing it forward. Then Councilwoman Schaeffer. Councilman Lopez, you have another comment? You know. I forgot to mention something and the reason why and I further mention the reason why there was sit in the front and there was a particular reason why they did. And I think we had a little discussion earlier, and they they realize that there's so many people around this world, so many kids their age in this world that would do anything at risk their lives to do anything just so that they can come have an opportunity to learn and to be at their same schools. And I don't think they'd be sitting in the back now, would we? It'd be sitting up in front. And there are so many people who fought throughout our history so that they could sit in the front and not the back. And I, I think I heard them say something about I mean, I asked them where they were going to sit when they were going to go to college. And I forgot, what are you guys going to sit in the front? Were they not going to sit by? And when they go back to Greenly, where are they going to go in the front? So I wanted to provide some context. I'm just blown away by these kids. And you're right, Councilman, we are going to have a bright future with these children. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, do we have any other comments from members of council seen on Madam Secretary, roll call. LOPEZ Hi. Montero. NEVITT Hi, Rob. Shepherd Hi. SUSSMAN Hi. BROOKS Hi. Brown. I thought I can eat. Lemon Ortega. Mr. President. Hi. Councilman Ortega. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and now the results. 3939. 866 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, is there someone you like to come to the podium to receive the proclamation? Yeah. Two amazing individuals I like that have come up. One is John Albright, who was co-chair of the Denver After-School Alliance and from DPS school district number one. And then also Enrique Garcia, who a participant in the Boys and Girls Club activities. And Cesar headed to what's cool. USC, right? Yeah, USC. All right. Good. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Thank you. City council. And want to express just a few words of appreciation for on behalf of the school district and also the Denver Afterschool Alliance board for the city council, the mayor, Mayor Hancock support and the support of Denver residents for the work we're doing across the city to improve the quality and access to very high quality afterschool programs for all of Denver's youth. So, Councilman Lopez, you know, piggyback a little bit on what you said they were telling me earlier. They're coming to the school board Thursday night and they're advocating for a policy for more homework for for at the board level. So maybe we'll be hearing more about that. I think everybody's really excited. So a couple of words about the Denver Afterschool Alliance. It's a collaborative of stakeholders, including the city and county of Denver, Denver Public Schools, many of Denver's community based funding groups, as well as afterschool providers. And the work we're doing is focused around a vision that every child in Denver who needs afterschool programs has access to them so that we create a city where kids are safe, they're inspired to learn, they're prepared for success now and in the future. What we do in the Denver After School Alliance is we serve as an intermediary. What that means is we're a group that provides insight and technical assistance, and we are driving improvements across the after school space that are focused around data driven decision making, quality improvements, and the use of tools that allow us to chart access to high quality programs across the city and improve outcomes for kids. So that's really what our work is about. Don't to just say it's an honor to receive the proclamation. As the co-chair of the Denver Afterschool Alliance Board before you, you have a packet of material that's about the work we're doing. You have information in there that you may share with your constituents about how to find access to afterschool programs. In the city and county of Denver, we have an online locator system that can be found conveniently on the city's website at WW dot Denver Gov Dawg Slash Denver Afterschool Alliance. So again, thank you very much for the recognition of National Light's on after school day. We're proud that Denver is one of 7500 communities across the country celebrating this. And I would like to introduce someone who has been attending the Boys and Girls Clubs here in Denver for a long time now and wants to tell you a little bit about his experience. This is Denver Center for International Studies senior Enrique Garcia. Hello. I am Enrique Garcia. I am a senior at the Denver Center for International Studies, and I've been a member of the Boys and Girls Club for about six years now. The Boys and Girls Club is the Boys and Girls Club is a place where I go to, where I go after school and in the summer to participate in many programs. Without the club, I wouldn't be the person I am today. The club helped shape me. The club gave me social skills, confidence, leadership and happiness that I didn't know I had with all the opportunities that arose from becoming a member of the Boys and Girls Club. I attend the club on a regular basis 3 to 4 times a week because it gives me a chance to relax, hang out with friends, play basketball. Stay on top of all my schoolwork. And it's also a safe place to call home. The first word that comes to mind when the Boys and Girls Club is brought up is family. That's what the Boys and Girls Club means to me. It means coming together as a community, disregarding race, age, gender, and any differences that make us human. With the Boys and Girls Club, we come together as a whole to better ourselves and our community so that we are able to get something out of life. The second word that comes to mind is future. And that's also what the club means to me. It means preparing yourself for the future in the real world so you don't have to struggle throughout life, all with the helping hand to guide you there, of course. I started at the Boys and Girls Club looking for a signature from Marcus can be former Nuggets player. I did not expect to walk out with a great future ahead of me. I participated, accomplished and done so many things with the club, from sports to the team leadership program to community service to homework help to to being a role model to the younger members. I've done it, and I'm glad to say that it is only a little part of what I've done. Without the club, I. Without the club, I don't know where I would be. And probably I'll run in the streets or at home sleeping, probably doing something that I shouldn't be doing. So I have to thank the Boys and Girls Club and the director, Julio, for that, for being there, taking me in and helping me realize what I want out of life. Quality afterschool programs really do make a difference and are important for kids and teens like me. If you don't believe me, look at Smokey Robinson, Denzel Washington, or even Shaq, all alumni of the Boys and Girls Club. I would like to close this off by saying A great future starts off with the positive attitude to stay positive and productive, and you too shall have a great future ahead of you. Thank you for listening and have a good evening. Great job. Thank you both. And thank you. Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward. We are moving on to Proclamation 917 and we will have Councilwoman Sheperd, will you please read a proclamation 917.

DenverCityCouncil_06222020_20-0508

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Sixth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado Judicial Department, to pay for personnel to provide a school based gang prevention program. Amends an agreement with the Colorado State Judicial Department by adding $75,807.82 for a new total of $999,637.73 and six months for a new end date of 6-30-20 to continue the work of the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver (GRID) program, citywide (SAFTY-201100301; SAFTY-201952991). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-29-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-3-20.

Advise by his council. Bill 504 has passed. Councilmember candidate, will you please vote? Council Bill 508 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 20 20508 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of council is called up by two members. So, Councilmember Gilmore, you wanna go first on this one? Sure. Thank you, President. Clerk. We talked about this last week when it was on first reading, and I was very supportive of school board director Tate Anderson and Jennifer Bacon in ending the contract with the Denver Police Department for police officers to be within our schools and in learning more about this contract. There's no way I can support it. This will put two full time probation officers within Denver public schools, and there's no place for probation officers to be within our schools. If it was shared that, you know, we have a long history of kids who are having maybe issues at home, being bullied at school. We take away the very things that give them joy. Maybe, you know, hanging out at recess with their friends, being able to go to afterschool programs, even being in gym. And that was a question that I posed last week. Shouldn't these students be in school? They should be in their class. They shouldn't have that added stigma of when you're out of class, everybody else knows you're going to see your probation officer. That is not the sort of system that I want to support that I will support anymore. And so that's why I'm voting against this. Thank you, President. Council member. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Called it out again because I don't believe we need probation officers in schools. I don't believe that this is the way we should be doing gang reduction and intervention. And I think we need a new model. There's not enough pieces of data to prove to us that this program has worked over the years, and the fact that none of the data is public is the problem. And so I'm a no again. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember. Sorry. Thank you. I have to echo exactly what both of my fellow councilmembers just said, but I do share a concern when the DPS contract for Saros was canceled. What they did was they they gave it a year rate. So it's canceled as of end of June 2021. And the reason that they did that was to have some lead time to prepare responsibly for what comes next. And I'm and not having had a conversation in committee on what comes next here, if it were not to pass, I'm wondering if it's possible, if my councilmembers would be willing to have an entertain a discussion about potentially re referring this to committee to have a discussion about whether it's worthwhile to move this forward or put a different end date on it or something like that, so that there's the potential to ensure that there's an ending that makes sense as opposed to just canceling it without something filled in. If not, that's okay. I don't support it, but I just wanted to put it out there as a potential option on the table. So thanks. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Torres. Thank you so much, Michael. Thanks for coming up. If you can answer a couple questions that I have about this contract, what funding source funds it? Great question. Council President Clark, Members of Council Michael Sapp, Department of Safety. This is a contract with the Colorado State Judicial and we contract with them to fund our two FTE positions in probation. So the state passes funding to us that we then employ two folks. That is correct. And do they operate in the capacity of probation officers? Yeah. And I actually I have colleagues here who administer the program. We we consider it. And more peace officers. And. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. So. So. So. It's more than just this. This is actually. And this is the honest to God truth. Our ability to try to in that school to prison pipeline. Because this contract is embedded with a network of community providers like struggle of like the Dream Center, nonprofits that do the work every day, that can go into the home, assess a family, need to understand is a is a is a child are a chore because they don't have food or they don't have a good family structure. This this contract goes above and beyond to provide those services. And that's because it's a part of the grid network. And so that that's the more than just probation officers. And and if folks have if folks have questions or need more clarification on the scope of work, I have folks here from state judicial that can answer that question on their scope. So my my my problem with this is that the timeline has already it's coming up next week for the end of this contract. Yes. Councilman, I'm glad you brought that up. I actually think commit, commit, Councilman Sawyer, for that suggestion. This contract that you all are voting on, it's not a new contract. So this doesn't this isn't the alternative to sanral's. This is paying for. Scope of work from January one through June 30th. So this is just to pay off our invoice. And I get that we're we're being asked to fund something that's already been happening. And for a contract to come through that after the work has started puts us in a difficult position. I know one of the great staff members among the council districts, they're more often in line and and that both has me concerned for the state of those schools as well as the state of this contract. I'm. I'm troubled that we're being asked to approve a contract when it's already over. You are already need to pay the invoices. This is paying people's salaries, right? What happens if. There's a reason for that? And I appreciate Councilman CdeBaca calling this out, because we do need more context with the grant, with the great wealth, with these programs, especially in light of the SRO conversation. But because of the coronavirus, we were actually in conversations to take this contract to city council back in February. And the goal was because we reached that million dollar threshold, we were going to split the two contracts out. Right now we're at we're asking you all to fund the two FTE. We were going to split the great program in the gun case, probation officer, into two separate contracts. But we're going to do an RFP, we're going to do a sole source contract and the pandemic hit. And that's honest to God, truth. And so it delayed or delayed our efforts. And then with school calls end, we really are probation officers really had until like January. It's about mid-March until the stay at home orders hit. And so that that's. And in that sense, that's kind of why the contract is here today. And will you correct me if I'm wrong about the the role of the Greeks staff members? The one that I spoke to did not verify that they do probation work. They're doing curriculum directly with teachers in the classroom. So they're not pulling kids out to have a probation meeting with kids. It's curriculum within the school district's curriculum. Am I correct. That? Yeah. I'm actually going to bring my colleague up from the state to talk about the great program. Good evening. Araceli Raskin, probation supervisor. I supervised Miss Deborah Garcia Sandoval, who has been in in in the school district since 2011, 2012. When we started, we've been in 40 different schools, and total numbers of students that we've impacted is 9523 students. In response to Councilwoman Torres's question is we do not pool. And I think there was some miscommunication information last week. We don't pull the children out of the the school. And it's an extracurricular activity. This is actually part of their regular curriculum throughout the the day we get credit, we get the National Great Program. The model is has been given credit to be a certified program. So they get their social studies credit. And this is up to the point of teaching the curriculum. We've developed the relationships with the schools. Sometimes schools call us because maybe they have some bullying issues going on or some type of different for one reason or another . So that's why they they reach out to us, the probation officer in that capacity, Ms.. Garcia Sandoval, is not there as the role of the probation officer. She's there delivering this curriculum that she's been trained in. And if you look at the great model, that's the best concept is its most effective one. It's part of the school program we've tried doing like afterschool programing and it just doesn't work. And we also do part of this is also the great officer does a lot of stuff with the families and in the summer we've been in, I believe you guys received an email earlier today and I know you've heard a lot of information, but I just want to reiterate reiterate that we are in in different districts all over the city. We have Council Gilmore's school district nine schools. The store is nine schools. We were recently in. Mr. CASHMAN'S School District. Mr. FLYNN So another six schools. So out of these 40, 40 schools, we've seen a lot of positive results. And I would just encourage you guys and to support this program because it is beneficial to the community and to the students. Thank you. I'll just end with me. Ladies and gentlemen, please. This is the councilmembers turn to ask questions, please. Councilman Torres's homework. Just a commentary. Just knowing Miss Deborah, having met her and worked with her for a number of years. She's an incredible individual. Where I feel like we're put into a corner is approving a timeframe that's nearly done. And I'd like to make sure that we're looking at both the curriculum, some of the testing and feedback that you've gotten. And I know that you did testing that was done by Temple University. I'd like to see the results of that and what was asked and how timely it's been before we consider a renewal. Councilwoman tours are happy, too, to provide that information to you. Happy to provide that information to you. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else, Councilmember Torres? Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. So for, uh, for the people in the audience, we have talked about how this is a strong mayor city and we have limited authority. One of the things that is a limitation of city council is we either say yes or no to this contract. We can't amend it. So what Councilmember Sawyer is considering is is referring it back to committee so that we could then talk about it and potentially bring amendments. So just to say, you know, like that's that's part of our our frustration and to Councilmember CdeBaca is point about private prisons. We had that conversation. We said, can we amend it? Can we change the terms? And the answer was no. So we ultimately said no to private prisons in the city. So. You know, Councilman Hines, I normally I normally don't disagree. I'd like to reserve my disagreements in private, but I respectfully disagree. I think that what we're seeing here is a paradigm between executive and the legislative branch and the power that you all have. We're standing here for two FTE positions and you have the power to vote that contract down and you have the power to call the executive branch back in to a committee meeting. Well, we can work on language together. And so that's the beauty ness of our city that doesn't quite honestly get talked about. And I would hope that we're such a divided country right now. US versus them, you've got to pick a side. Yeah, I'm a black man. Well, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, we let everyone have their time at the microphone. Please. But I can take it, though. I'm a black man for my bill. I've been called an Uncle Tom because I work for the Department of Safety, and I'm good with it because it takes people in the system to fix the system. And that's all I'm trying to do. Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, please. The microphone blowing out my self. Sounds good. So, Councilman Hines, that's all I'm saying. And I respect you, sir. We've been on. We demonstrated together. I just. I just want to this some point figure out how do we heal to Councilwoman Sandoval point? How do we deal? How do we come together? I'm looking to try to get us there. That's all I want to say. The ladies and gentlemen, please are you have more. I just one one more comment. I think I would echo Councilmember Torres his point about when we get contracts at the end of it passing us, that doesn't really sound like collaboration. That sounds like. We're going to need. It and we're going to like it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilmember CAVANAUGH. Councilman Hines, that's fair. And I and I own that. We can do better. We will do better. We got hit with a pandemic and that and then that. I own it and I own that. And I accept that we could have did better. I think. Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Mr.. Mr. President. Michael. So we're being asked tonight to pay for the past six months of work, correct? Correct. Okay. So when would were we looking to get a contract? I'm assuming you would like this program to continue. So I'm wondering when that contract was going to come before us. Yeah. And that's why I like Councilman Sawyer's proposal of getting this contract through, paying for invoice, and then going back to the safety committee, which he chair and having a dialog around what a sole source contract looks like, what an RFP contract looks like. What does it look like to have probation officers in our schools? Because the reality is the reality is, is that there are young people, unfortunately, that do bring guns into our schools. And so I want to have that conversation. Sounds good. Please allow. This is my time to ask questions. Yes, please. Yeah. So that sounds good. So. So I'm looking forward to that conversation, right? Because we do want to come back to city council. I do want to have a conversation in committee with what the future of the great what the future of our gun case probation officer looks like moving forward. Well, if I can clarify with my my colleague, Councilman Sawyer. What I hear. Mr. Sharp saying is that you wanted to approve this and then go back to committee. Is that correct? Or do you want to just send this whole this contract back to committee rather than approve it? That's actually why I rang and again and I'm right behind you in the queue because I wanted to ask whether like how exactly we would do this because of the fact that this is I don't I don't want people who've done work to not get paid. We if we've if people have done work, they need to get paid for the work that they have done. It's not fair for us to withhold money from people who have done a hard day's work or hard six months work for political reasons. That's not okay. So if that's what we're talking about doing here, then that's not acceptable to me. So then I think that what we need to do is support this contract and then have a conversation about how we come to safety committee and, and, and have this conversation about how we make this change moving forward. If that's what if that's the option here based on the situation we've been put in, which I'm going to go on record as saying is not okay. Yeah, I get it and I get all the things. But it's it's also not okay that people have done a hard day's work and that we're not going to we're talking about not paying them for it. Yeah. So. So. So. Councilwoman Sawyer. Ladies and gentlemen, this is time for council to ask questions. And for the person out there, I please ask that you keep your comments. We. We listened to you. Please let us listen to them. You are. Mr. Sapp, did you have anything that I just. I just wanted to say. I just wanted to say for the record, too, Councilman Sawyer. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Torres, I apologize for putting this branch in this particular situation. I own it, too. Councilwoman Gilmer, we've got to do better and we must do better. And so we hear you. And I think we get these contracts, too, so we can pay our invoices. And we have the difficult conversation in committee about what the future of Grid looks like. In particular, these two probation contracts. Councilmember Cashman, do you have follow up to your answer from Councilmember Sawyer or from. Councilman Sawyer's position is clear to me. And I would just tell Mr. Sharpe that we need to get this thing to safety as soon as possible. And if this does pass tonight, which is as much heartburn as it presents. Being asked to either pay people who've already done work or not. I'm inclined to pay them. But excuse me if this is my time on the dais. Excuse me. This is my time. Ladies and gentlemen, please, please, please. Councilmember Cashman, the floor. Is trying to do the work you want us to do. Thank you. You had your turn. So. Michael. I will. Ladies and gentlemen, please. Please. Councilmember Cashman. Ready when you're ready. We will work with you and get it on the agenda right away. But my. I'm not going to be blackmailed again. Yeah, okay. So if. When now. We're gonna. Hades and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen, please. Not not not paying people who have done work for. Come in, please. Unfortunately. Unfortunately, unfortunately. Well, while I understand. Ladies and gentlemen. Well, I. Understand. Well, I understand the heartburn that this creates there. There's not an option to ask Mr. Sapp to pay out of his pocket for the work that was done. I. But. All right. I think I think I think it's I think it's fair to say I think it's fair to say that the frustration shouldn't be directed at Councilman Cashman, Hines said. All right. I can take it. Yup. Can't remember Kashmir. Anything further? Oh, no. We'll get we'll get this matter on the safety agenda. Thank you for that. If you will be in touch with staff tomorrow to get that set up. Councilmember Flynn, fingers are present. Michael what happens on July 1st with this program? It comes to a conclusion. I mean, at least the contract stuff's right. So what happens to the program? The program, the great program will carry on. The two FTE positions will no longer. They will pretty much cease. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. Have a number of council members back in the queue. Councilmember CdeBaca. A couple of questions. So this. So last week you told us when we mentioned other nonprofit organizations that are doing this work, you mentioned that they are doing the work just under. You guys are paying them out of your professional services budget and not out of a contract. Is there not a way that you guys could pay out of your professional services budget rather than a contract that implies that we had some kind of approval over this? Yes. Yes, yes. Second question. Second question. Considering this was for the last five months and we've been in quarantine for months and schools have been canceled since March. What did we pay them to do exactly? Great question. So I'm asking. I'm answer your first part and then I'm as shot calling our chief probation officer to answer your second part. So, yes, so part of part of this program is paid out of out of our professional funds. That's circle of impact, empowerment, the drink center. And a lot a lot of times those organizations, for example, struggle to love. I know they've worked with Councilman Gilmore to provide full PPE gear to folks of Marbella Grande Valley Ranch. We're always looking for providers and to kind of help fill those voids. And so I do I do echoed the sentiment around how do we how do we increase that bench of nonprofit providers to help close those gaps, particularly in Globeville or Swansea or Marbella or the southwest quadrant of our city? Well, I've shared this concern here because, you know, I went to a school that was, you know, the only school that had metal detectors at the time. You know, we had excessive amounts of cops in there. I, I taught I ran programing for students at that same school. And when we had situations where kids were wrongly accused of having a gun. No amount of surveillance in their school, no amount of sorrows or probation officers working with them or curriculum that they received helped us get the data and information to exonerate them. It you know what it all did? It helped fast track their case and criminalized them with records that they carried for the rest of their life. And. And so. And so if we have a curriculum here, I don't know what it looks like. And I don't 100% believe that gang reduction is done through curriculum. If we have a curriculum, why don't we just pay for the curriculum and give it to our teachers for them to implement? Perhaps that's where Sean can explain to us what they were doing for the last six months. So when COVID hit. I'm sorry, could you just introduce yourself with. Our Sean Penn? With probation? When COVID hit and the schools closed, we pulled that. Position and we no longer were funding it through the city. So in the information. That Michael sent you on the budget, you could see there was like that. I think it was around $23,000. That was unused because I didn't feel I. Agree with you. It was not it didn't feel ethical by any means for us to be still receiving money when we could not do the curriculum. And so. Ladies and gentlemen, please, please, please. So the other. Piece about this program in this curriculum. Is that none. Of these kids are on probation. These are elementary school kids that were in there trying to do a curriculum. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot hear the answer to the council members question. I think I'm not asking about the curriculum at this point. At this point, if you canceled the posting and we've been in quarantine and schools been canceled and this contract was supposed to have been executed and completed by next week and we're signing it today. Can you explain to me what this $75,000 is paying for? It is paying for the other position. That is the intensive supervision for our youth that have picked up handgun cases. So those kids are they are probation kids. We are working with community agencies, partnering with them to help slow that progression into division of youth services and out-of-home placement. And we have seen a tremendous increase in our success rate with that population, which I can share that data since you had asked for some more back, but it's retroactive. You're saying that that one person did the work between now and quarantine, starting now, that one person we we have still been actively supervising those handgun case kids on probation all throughout quarantine. We have been conducting home visits. We have been doing Zoom Skype similar to what the rest of the world is doing. They were still all receiving therapy. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot hear the answer to the question. The council member has. Continued that position, continue to go because we couldn't just stop the services for those youth. It was the in-school position that did the curriculum, the great curriculum that we suspended those services due to COVID. So the $75,000 is not for two FTE, as I mentioned earlier, it is for two FTE up until was it March and then it's just the remainder is for the one. So. We entered into this under the guise that we had a contract. And so we started the services and we worked knowing that the contract was going through the process. And so that's kind of where we are today. And so just a quick question for Mr. Sapp. During COVID, we processed many contracts that were non-covid related, including multimillion dollar contracts for entertainment companies while all of their events were being canceled. And so can you explain to me why this didn't get on that laundry list of things to do that was being sent to us by the mayor during COVID? Yeah, I mean, that's a great question, Councilwoman. And I can I could say everything that comes to my head, and I just I want to be completely transparent. We missed the mark and. Ladies and gentlemen, please. Thank you. And so, yeah, I can give you a whole laundry list I can give you. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot hear the answer to the question. Please. I'm good. You're good to Councilwoman. Thank you, Councilmember Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. So we're elementary schools. The only schools that these fees are located in. No middle middle school curriculum as well. So the main a majority is elementary school. But I can list all the names of the schools. Could you please? I think that. The audience misunderstands what the great program is. I feel like they're giving us a lot of misinformation. Please list out the school. Ladies and gentlemen, we can't hear the question. Please list out the schools in District 11 that these two individuals who are state of Colorado employees that I can assure you they have been paid. They are not waiting for city council to vote on this before those employees get paid. And I would just appreciate you listing out the schools in District 11. Please tell me the names of the council people. Stacy Gilmore, District 11. Oh, okay. So District 11, sorry, I have them by name. Gilmore eight schools. MLK Early College. Middle School. Strive Montebello. DCI Montebello. Oakland Elementary, Florida. Pitt. Waller Elementary, Florida. Pitt Waller Middle School. KIPP Northeast Middle School. And Then Vista Academy. And Vista Academy. Thank you. So I have never been contacted by a parent, by a student, by anyone associated with this program telling me they saved our family. They made a difference in our lives. And if this program is supposed to be the be all, end all, it's missing the mark. Because I can tell you, for the last nine months, we have dealt with serious. Serious. And Michael, you know this. We've been at the vigils together in Green Valley Ranch with what's been happening at Martin Luther King in GR so and were asked to retroactively vote on this. You could have brought this to us in October or November, December. And we could have and we could have through our committee process of asked these questions of gotten your data, the evaluation, how much of a difference this makes. And it's so disrespectful. Like, we're not even respected as a councilperson that you're going to trust us to ask these questions. It's brought to us when it's almost up and then we're expected. I mean, I don't even have enough information now because if you're telling me January, February, March, we had two lefties on an April, May and June because of COVID. We had one left. I've looked through all the documentation. I don't know what those lefties are paid. I don't have a pro-rated amount of anything. I mean, I. I will defer my time. President Clark, I'm still a no on this, and I'm not quite sure how we refrain. This back to committee is going to make a difference because it's retroactive. I would suggest that the Department of Safety eat this cost. I don't remember Councilmember Hines. Well. Did you have a question in there or did you? I'm good, thanks. Will you please list the schools in District ten? Chris Hines. You might as well read all of them. Oh, can. I read them all? And that way, Councilwoman Sandoval, I have Horace Mann, Middle School, Travis, the Sunnyside Stripe Middle School. Can you see that one more time? The palm tree vista. Horace Mann, Middle School. Trey Vista and Sunnyside Strive Middle School. We can send you all. Yeah. Councilwoman Torres. And this is one of our bigger districts that we've been in. CMS, Castro Elementary, Kepner Monroe, Cheltenham. Eagleton, who we have a very well established restorative justice program with the relationship with them as well. Farnham Elementary. Kellogg Elementary. Fairview Elementary. But see, Gilmore, I already read them. Or do you want me to repeat? Okay. Councilwoman CdeBaca White Middle School and Summer Academy. Garden Place Elementary. Whittier Middle School. Harrington International Academy. Columbine Elementary. Barrett Elementary. Gilpin Montessori Cole and Bruce Randolph. And we also do a lot of summer programing there as well. In that district, uh, Councilman Flynn Force Elementary. Johnson Elementary. Henry Middle School, Coons. Miller Creative Arts Academy, DST College View Middle School, DST College View Middle School. I think we had four different semesters. Council man had. HENDREN Herndon sorry. Smith Elementary Academy. Stegman Elementary. Um, Councilman Clark, Guardsman Elementary and College View Elementary Summer School. And like I said earlier, we had just gotten into a new school with Councilman Cashman's at Ellis Elementary. So no, there's no Hines in there at all. No Polaris. I think I think that's the one I think that that's the the beauty of of if we get these contracts through tonight and we we go back to safety committee this like we were able to add a school in Councilman Casamance district. If there are schools in District ten or District five that you all say, hey, you know, you might want to look at that school. They have this. They can, they can go into those schools. So. Mr.. Mr.. Sepp, I want to thank you you very much, sir. You are in the messenger. I mean, you know, like it's thank you for accepting accountability. You are the messenger. If if this were to be voted down the to FTE and then the one FTE, they've already gotten their paychecks, right? Yeah. I'm a bring city attorney. I'll bring an Adam Hernandez up this too. Like we're not going to go take money out of their. Account right now. Okay. I'm a big I'm going get you guys a legal illegal and to. Oh, absolutely. Actually, so I can speak to that. I'm sorry. Okay. So, yes, they have been paid through judicial in funds that are reserved, because generally when we'd get grants or contracts with the city, it takes a while for them to be approved and go through the process. So Judicial has some reserved funds in order to. Pay people so that when the contract comes through, we ritually ask for. That money to be reestablished back. Into judicial budget. So we were under the impression, based on the letters we got from the previous director and ongoing, that this was in the process. So yes, we in good faith continue to do that work in hopes that we could you know. We're all in a in a in a budget situation. And that's kind of where it is. If these positions are not funded, those two people will be laid off next Tuesday. So. Yeah. But the but the contract ends on the 30th, which is in a week or. Yes. So they're either laid off next Tuesday or in a week? Yes. So either way, you're right. Yeah. Okay, gentlemen, please. Yeah. Thank you. And originally, we were told the. Contract would go a year, and then it was. It was changed to the six months, which is. You know, where we're at now. So I apologize. I was thinking of the previous. No, it's fine. So, Mr. Sapp, I thank you for your indulgence and your willing to willingness to, you know, drop in your or fall on your sword. I know that we have had contract discussions with safety in the past, particularly like community corrections. So this isn't the first time. And and again, I'm not. You are just the messenger. This isn't the first time. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. So, Sapp. How come this wasn't brought to us? Like in December or January? COVID hit. March 16, Wright and DPS let out of school. I'll never forget it was Friday the 13th and it was my daughter's last day of her senior year ever. So why wasn't this brought to us in January? Why wasn't this brought to us in February? So I'm having a hard time. I understand COVID hit all of our lives, right? And we did our best to get this working. Why is this here now? Why wasn't this even done? When we first started meeting, we had Zoom meetings and we didn't have committee. I will admit that, but I just don't understand why we're here now. When COVID like you could have been here in December. I totally agree, Councilwoman. And I will say I will say this. So this just to give more context and be completely transparent, we had the manager of our grid office resigned on December 14th. At that point, we went into transition mode where we really began in January looking at how we could reimagine the great contract and the State Garden probation contract. And so we spent time in the laboratory in January and February trying to figure out what, like I said earlier, what a potential RFP or sole source contract could look like. And then all of that requires conversations with the state. And so I'm not I'm not here to lay anyone under the bus. But sometimes those conversations, it takes a little long for emails that go back and forth. It was our it was our intent to be in safety committee in mid-March on these two only two FTE positions. Not I guess I get how bureaucracy works, right? Yeah. I'm not new to too bureaucracy. I'm not new to red tape and I'm not new to how slow things move and then how quick we have to act. Right. That's why I feel like we're being asked as this was moving along while all these conversations are happening. But yet at the same time, when I'm doing outreach, it's really important that we do what I call in my office back work. So if my staff were having these conversations with people, I would say, you need to reach out while these conversations are simultaneously happening so that we're better prepared. And that's just something that we've all learned that through the process. And this is something that we just like when we first got up here in August. All of a sudden we were supposed to like boat on the industrial prison complex without any information. And so there has to be a better way where you can set us up for success with giving us information. Because the two schools that you just listed. I just have to say, man, Travis, that it's not horsemen anymore. It used to be it used to be a junior high school, but now is turned into a elementary school that has that has toilets that are for junior high schools, not elementary school kids. It's right next to the Craig Newham projects. My lowest income neighborhood and then to Vista, Sunnyside is like one of the most failing neighborhood schools in these two areas. So these. The fact that it's in these two schools. Mm hmm. Means that we're targeting our most vulnerable. Low income. People in my district. And so had you not read out that to me, that should have been something that he. Sandoval wanted you to know. We're bringing in this contract. Here's where these people are. Here's who the families were helping. So then I could have been better prepared, appear to have more resources. But learning about this right now at the last hour and that it's in true Vista and Sunnyside Prep. Gives me great pause. And so with that, I can't support something like that. And it's so. Councilmember, did you have a question in there that I would like to respond. Or I just that my question was, I don't understand why they weren't here in December. And I just want to make sure that you're okay. He's responding. Yeah. I. I just. These contracts go back. Our relationship with state. Your district goes back to 2011. Yeah, for sure. And they predate a lot of the councilmembers here. And it's not lost on me that, um, the previous body, there were actual resolutions congratulating the great these programs for the work that they're doing in the schools. I get the equitable representation and I think that if we, if we get the opportunity to go back to the safety committee, this like what we're doing with the curfew amendment, um, looking at ways to not just target far north these, not just target southwest Denver, but look at it really from an equitable lens, just a geographical equitable lens. I think that we can shift where we are in some of our schools so that we're not targeting our schools. And that's why I do applaud Councilman CdeBaca for calling it out, because we're having these conversations now. I prefer to have them on in committee, but nevertheless, we're here now, and so we get an opportunity to do it right this time and that and that's us. And I totally respect you. I would be there if I had the information. You know me well. I know we we have a long history together and you know me well that if there is something to give accolades to, I will give it. But in this situation, we are not given the information to be able to give the accolades that are needed. So now we're up here questioning. So yes, I worked I was the chief of staff for Councilman Espinosa. I wrote his talking points. I know what he said. I worked in Judi Montero's office. I know what she said. I helped her get there. But it was always we had a little bit more information to help them get there. And when we didn't, we we had to have it out in committee, which we haven't had the luxury of doing because of COVID. But it's a new things have to shift. Like I keep talking about our zoning, right? Our zoning, our landscape has changed. And so we can't go back in time. All we can do is do better. And so now we have to just we have to have a lesson learned. Thank you. Thank you. Can't remember Councilmember Torres. What I'm. Struggling with is. The impression that we're being given of great versus grid versus the gun offender program. Great is valued in my district by my principals and my teachers. They actually appreciate it. And it's not probation work. It's not a cop coming in in uniform. It is working on conflict resolution tactics. On bullying. On upstander versus bystander. I know this. And what I want to see is more of that and less of its association with criminal justice system. So that's what that's what I'm hoping for, the separation of these contracts and more clarification of the rules and. I'm getting the reach out from folks, mostly the educators, who are saying this is something that we appreciate in our school and it's an elementary school. But I need to hear more of that. If you're if you're as heavily involved in my district, the same. The same question that I asked in October of the SRO presentation is how you're working your way out of my district. And that's what I also want to know. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call on 508. CDEBACA No. FLYNN All right. GILMORE No. Herndon, I think to. Hynes. No Cashman, no can each pass. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. No. Torres. No. Black. I can eat. No. Council president. By secretary. Please close voting out the results. Okay. Secretary. Are we missing somebody? Yes. Councilmember Cashman. I'm sorry. Cashman we didn't get your button. Didn't come up on my screen. Screen is stuck. I'm a no, but it didn't come up. It's a no. That was a four I's. Eight names comfortable. 508 has failed. All right. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Our bills for introduction are ordered published, except for Bill 536, which will be voted on after its hearing. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an amount for a separate vote. Customer Can you you pleased with the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that. The resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration. Do pass in a block for the following items of all series of 2024. 9525. 526 527 528 529. 523 502 512. 532 548 499 515 516 507. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Black CdeBaca. I. Flynn, I Gilmer. I. Herndon, i. I. Cashman. I can h ry Sandoval. Hi, Sawyer. I Torres. I Council President. Bye, Madam Secretary, please close voting in the results. 12 hours, 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a 30 minute courtesy hearing on Council Bill 536, submitting to a vote of the registered electors of the city and county of Denver, a proposed

SeattleCityCouncil_05042020_CB 119785

AN ORDINANCE relating to funding for housing and community development programs; adopting The City of Seattle 2020 Annual Action Plan to the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and authorizing its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; authorizing acceptance of grant funds from that department for programs and activities included in the Annual Action Plan; amending Ordinance 126000 which adopted the 2020 Budget, by modifying appropriations to various departments and budget control levels in the 2020 Adopted Budget; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

Agenda Item one Capital 119 769 Relief Funding for Housing and Community Development Program. Adopting the City of Seattle 2020 Annual Action Plan through the 2018 through 2022 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and operating its submission to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thank you so much. So before our council colleagues, this is the bill that requires a public hearing. Before I open the public hearing on this item, I am going to turn it over to Councilmember Mosqueda, who is the sponsor of the bill, to provide us with introductory remarks to Councilmember Mosquito Resource. Thank you, Madam President. As I mentioned during council briefing this morning, this bill adopts the annual action plan and details how the city will spend its annual entitlements for federal grants. This includes, first, the Community Development BLOCK grants for CDBG. Second, the housing opportunities for people with AIDS or Hoppa. There are the Emergency Solutions Grants or ESG, and for the Home Investment Partnerships Program, otherwise known as the Home Grants. A draft of this plan based on our best estimates of how much funding we would receive, and that was included in the 2020 adopted budget, were both heard in the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee in December of 2019. We have now received notice of the actual grant amounts. So this Council needs to adopt a final plan for submittal to federal HUD. One small technical piece. The plan was originally transmitted and has been updated by the executive. There is now a proposed substitute which reflects the very latest information on the federal grant funds and the projects they support. You can find the link to the proposed substitute on the council's agenda. Just very briefly, this plan includes over 25 million of funds for supporting people in Seattle, including 3.4 million to provide emergency shelter options, operations and case management to move people to permanent housing. 7.8 million to provide housing for persons living with AIDS and their families. 1 million to improve fire safety at Seattle Housing Authority. 6.4 million for affordable housing preservation and development. 2.8 million for small business stabilization. While most of these funds were included in the 2020 budget. This plan reflects that we received more grant money than expected, and these funds were added to the Affordable Housing Program and the Small Business Stabilization Fund. That's the quick overview, Madam President. Thank you so much for those introductory remarks. I am juggling between screens colleagues, so I appreciate your patience. I am acquiring the public hearing list and making sure that it is accurate for our staff. That is listening as I open up, make the comments to open up the public hearing. If you can look through the spreadsheet of folks who have signed up for public comment to make sure that they are have indicated that they're speaking on Council Bill 119785 as opposed to any other matter. I appreciate you cleaning up the list accordingly as I make the introductory remarks for the public hearing. As Presiding Officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 119785 relating to the adoption of the 2020 Annual Action Plan. The online registration is to sign up to speak at this hearing opened at 12 noon today, and I will call on speakers in the order of registration. The online registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing. The rules will apply to the public comment period also applied to this public hearing. Each speaker will be provided 2 minutes and a 10/2 warning to wrap up comments. Speakers microphones will be muted at the end of the allotted public comment time. Public comment relating to Council Bill 119785 is only been accepted at this public hearing, so speakers will be asked to begin their comments by stating their name. And again. I know we had a couple of different public comment pre-registration sheets going around this public hearing. Then I'm about to open up is only to accept comments on Council Bill 119785 relating to the adoption of the 2020 Annual Action Plan as described by Councilmember Mosqueda. And so my hope is that staff have worked on the signup sheet to make sure that we've got folks who are on the list only as it relates to Council Bill 119785. Okay. I will go ahead and begin the public comment period. I t if we can get the timer up on the screen, that would be great. Thank you so much. Okay. Let's go ahead and call the first speaker up who appears to be. Looks like everybody who's signed up for council. All 119785 is not present. We have one person who's president. I'm going to call on him and see if he's got testimony related to this matter. John Wisdom. I'm going to pass. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. And the only other person just testified about the eviction reform bill, and it doesn't appear that he's interested in testifying about this issue. Okay. So we don't have anyone else that has signed up for public comment on Council Bill 119785. Based on the registration sheet that I am looking at, so I'm going to go ahead and close out the public hearing. And the public hearing comes, Bill 11975 is now closed. Written public comment is still being accepted on this item. And for those who are interested, you can email us at council at Seattle Dot Goldie. Until the council passes this bill, which is scheduled to occur on Monday, May 11th, 2020, at our 2:00 PM, regularly scheduled meeting. Okay. So and just to confirm double confirm, I want to make sure that staff confirms that there's not a member of the public in the queue before closing the public hearing. I'm not. Not here. Yes, I don't see anybody. Council member. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. So being that there is not a member of the club formally present for the public hearing on council's own items, but we will now officially close the public hearing period and we'll move into agenda item two. Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

DenverCityCouncil_06272016_16-0437

Approves the Mayoral reappointments of Charlie Brown, Cheryl Cohen-Vader, and Ronald Younger to the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Board of Directors for terms immediately and expiring on 6-30-18, or until successors are duly appointed. (GOVERNANCE & CHARTER REVIEW) Approves the Mayoral reappointments of Charlie Brown, Cheryl Cohen-Vader, and Ronald Younger to the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Board of Directors for terms immediately and expiring on 6-30-18, or until successors are duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 6-16-16.

I did. And so I think, Councilman, until you would like me to read the current members of the board. Yes, please. Okay. So there are eight. And they are Charlie Brown, Ronald Younger, Sheryl Crow Invader, Andrew Johnson, Barbara Pols, Peter Berlin, Steve Garcia and Sally Vander Loop. Councilman, I take it you have come? Yes, I do. So I understand that the three that are up tonight are for renewal because they expire in a couple of weeks. There are a number that are scheduled to expire in 2017. And I would like to forward the conversation with the administration that because city council has always had a representative on this board that we should advocate to continue to do that. Councilman Flynn's predecessor, predecessor, served on that board for gosh, I can't even remember how many years he was the council representative for many years on this board. And then we had Charlie Brown serving representing city council. And it was a way to make sure that city council knew what was going on. It's not to say the administration doesn't always share things with us, but by having a representative, I think it's it's just another way to ensure that's part of the discussion when we have retreats and, you know, just general discussions about the current conditions of the city. So I am okay voting for these to move forward. But I think it's important that we have the conversation with the administration to advocate for a city council member, seated city council member on this board. Thank you. Councilman. I'll tell you, Councilman Lopez. Oh. Saying those comments. Okay. Think you can come up with any of the comments for three seven? Seen none. Madam Secretary, welcome to Ortega. I. Black eye. Brooks. I. Espinosa. I'm going to ask for a repeat of what the motion is again. The councilmen. It's the resolution that's on the floor. Pass. Flynn I. Gillmor I. Cashman Canete, Lopez, I. Espinosa. Hi. Mr. President. All right. Madam Secretary, please close Winehouse's results tonight. Ten Eyes for 37 has been adopted due to the Independence Day holiday Council will not meet next week. Our next meeting will be Monday, July 11th. We wish everyone a safe and happy 4th of July weekend. See, you know the business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

BostonCC_02162022_2022-0186

On the Petition, referred on January 26, 2022, Docket #0186, for a Special Law re: An Act Providing Certain Retirement Benefits for the Widow of a Former Firefighter of the City of Boston, the Committee submitted a petition ought to pass in a new draft.

Mr. Couric, please read. 201860186 petition for a special law relative to an act providing certain retirement benefits for the widow of a former firefighter of the city of Boston. Thank you. The chair recognizes counsel. Royal Chair of the Committee on Government Operations. Counselor Arroyo, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. This docket was sponsored by myself and referred to the committee on January 26, 2022. The committee held a hearing on February 15, 2022, and I want to thank my council colleagues who attended that hearing. Counselors Murphy. Counselor Edwards. Counselor Lui. Gen. Counselor Flynn. Counsel. President Flynn. Counselor. Well. And Counselor. I also want to thank Mr. O'Reilly from the Boston Firefighters Local 718 and Maria Rodriguez for their attendance and participation. Docket number 10186 would authorize the Boston Retirement Board to pay a line of duty death benefit to Maria Rodriguez, the widow of Leroy Rodriguez. Lieutenant Leroy Rodriguez was a former Boston firefighter who died as a result of injuries sustained while responding to a fire as part of the Rapid Intervention Team. Under this proposal, the benefits will be paid and administered pursuant to Section 100 of Chapter 32 of the General Laws. The proposal outlines the amount of the benefit and provides that surviving children shall be eligible for original appointment to the Boston Fire Department and considered survivors under Section 26 of Chapter 31 of the General Laws. The line of duty benefit will be paid to Maria Rodriguez and an annual amount of pension equal to the amount of salary salary which would have been paid to fire Lieutenant Leroy Rodriguez had he continued in service of the Boston firefighter. This docket is a refile from last year. Lieutenant Leroy Rodriguez died of a heart attack during surgery to repair an injury to his Achilles tendon, which he received while responding to a fire incident. Heroically after receiving that injury. He actually proceeded at the station coming down the pole. He actually proceeded to fight a fire in Mattapan with the torn Achilles tendon until about 6 a.m. in the morning when he was relieved receiving surgery for his injury. He died of a heart attack on the operating table. Following his death, Maria Rodriguez applied for and received Section nine death benefits known as accidental death benefits, which only allow for a 72% annual rate of compensation. Due to the confusing nature of applying for benefits and the grief that Ms.. Rodriguez was under at the time. She mistakenly applied for Section nine benefits, but is now requesting Section one Section 100 death benefits known as Death in the Line of Duty Benefits. The committee discussed the difference between Section nine benefits and Section 100 benefits and inquired about the process for applying for the benefits. Section 100 benefits would raise the compensation rate to 100% and provide survivor benefits. The committee discussed the special circumstances of this case. Leroy Rodriguez died during surgery for an injury which occurred immediately in the in the line of duty. And after sustaining the injuries and performing his essential duties of a firefighter, if not for sustaining that injury, Leroy Rodriguez would not have been at that surgery or on that surgery table. Miss Rodriguez discussed the impact that her husband's death had on her family. She also explained that she was unaware at the time of the different types of benefits and discussed the difficulty in dealing with the administrative process. There is just one small formatting amendment to this docket. The title of the petition is being changed from Retirement Benefits to Death Benefits, as follows I petition for a special law regarding an act providing certain death benefits for the widow of former firefighter of the city of Boston. This will maintain consistency with the text of the legislation. This is an extraordinary case. It will not shift all Section nine death benefits to Section 100 benefits. But in this particular case, the circumstances for this case allow for the Section 100 benefits specific to this incident. Passage of this docket will allow the surviving spouse and children to receive the appropriate and full benefits that they deserve. Among those benefits, Leroy Rodriguez Jr is seeking to follow in his father's footsteps as a firefighter. This would, as one of the death benefits, allow for him to be on the priority list to become a firefighter like his father. As chair of the Committee on Government Operations, I recommend that this docket ought to pass in a new draft. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilor Arroyo, the chair of the Committee on Government Operations, seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of Docket 0186 in a new draft. All those in favor say aye. I oppose nay. The ayes have it. Mr. Kirk, please do a roll call vote. Roll Call vote on docket 0186 Council Arroyo. Yes. Council Arroyo Yes. Council A Baker Council A Baker Yes. Council Council the yes. Council. Brighton Council. Brighton Yes. Council. Edwards Councilor Edwards yes Council. Fernandes Anderson Council. Fernandes. Hands and yes Council. Clarity. Yes. Council Clarity. Yes. Council. Flynn. Yes. Council. Flynn. Yes. Council. Council. Ah. Yes. Council. Louisiana Council. Yes. Council. Let me hear. Council. Let me hear. Yes. Councilor Murphy. Councilor Murphy. Yes. Council. World Council of Warrell. Yes. Unanimous vote. Thank you. Docket 0186 passed in a new draft amended draft. Motions, orders and resolutions. Mr. Clarke, please read your code. 02900290 Council of Flynn and Council on Me here offered the following order for a hearing to discuss ways for the city to increase communications access for people with disability to public facing televisions.

DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0922

A proclamation recognizing the annual Brother's Redevelopment and Denver Employee Volunteer Opportunities Paint-A-Thon Day in the City and County of Denver on Saturday, August 19, 2017.

All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Okay, we are on to communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications? None. Mr. President. All right. We have two proclamations that I'll be reading tonight. And the first one is Proclamation 17 092 to recognize in the annual Brothers Redevelopment and Denver employee volunteer opportunities. Paine Nathan Day in the city in county of Denver on Saturday, August 19th. Whereas, through the Partnership of Denver Employees Volunteer Opportunities Deveaux and Denver Redevelopment 100 plus Denver City employees will volunteer their time to paint homes of deserving senior homeowners in the agency's 39th annual paint a thon, whereas all painting will be completed free of charge for homeowners saving the city's fixed income seniors thousands of dollars in home maintenance repairs. And. Whereas, volunteers will be beautifying homes and preserving home values in Denver area neighborhoods as a result of their participation. And. Whereas, the paint often is a great way to show the city employees take pride in the community and take care of their residents that they care so much about. Whereas a paint a thon truly makes a difference in the lives of many, many Denver residents, now therefore be of a claim for the city and county of Denver, Section one that the Denver City Council recognizes the day August 19, 2017 as brothers redevelopment paint a fun day in the city and county of Denver, and that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affix the seal the city, county, Denver to the this proclamation and a copy be transmitted to the to the devil board. And I move that proclamation 920 to be adopted. It has been moved by me. And second it I'll make a couple of comments here. I first of all, you know, I want to give a lot of credit to brothers redevelopment and all of these city employees that are so involved in their community. But I got to tell you, you don't realize how many elderly people who are not connected with folks are shut in their homes until you start going door to door. And this summer, I spent a lot of time going door to door. And just this last weekend I was in North City Park in the Skyland neighborhood, and I could not believe the number of elderly individuals who lived in the neighborhood 40, 50, 60 years, but just alone and no one spending time with them. And so I know there's several folks on this council. I know we do this with the Hiawatha Davis senior luncheon and things like that, where we try and honor our elders in our community. But something like this where you fix up an elders home in their community, can transform your life, can be so incredible because they just cannot get out and improve their home like they used to. And so I want to thank Brothers redevelopment. I want to thank the 100 plus city employees who will get out of their cubicles, get out of the building and hang out with some constituents and really give back. So with that, Madam Secretary, it's been moved. The second row, Cardinal Clark. Espinosa, Flynn, AI Gilmore, Herndon, Cashman, Kenny Lopez all knew. Ortega i susman i black eye. Mr. President. I please close voting as results 3913 as proclamation 922 has been adopted. I would like to call out Jeff Martinez, the president, and tell them to come to the front here. Jeff Martinez, president of Brothers Redevelopment and derrick hoyt of the denver county court. To receive this proclamation. There he is. How you doing, Miss Martinez? Very good. This is a DVD. So. First and foremost, good evening and thank you. For the seven sponsors for this proclamation. Also, this. Vote is now a big thing that we do as Denver employee. Volunteer opportunities is exactly that. We try. To find volunteer opportunities. For the city and county of Denver. And with that, we're able to partner with area nonprofits. So if you ever know of a nonprofit that needs assistance or needs volunteers. Please contact Deveaux. Deveaux Denver Gov dawg. And then moving on to the program or. To the proclamation itself in Pennington, I want to make sure I say thank you to Brothers redevelopment for the work that they put into this event. We went from painting three houses last year to now eight houses. This year, and we couldn't have. Done that without them. Additionally, with our DEVEAUX board, it's the same thing. We have unpaid board members that are out there putting in their time and effort extra curricular work to make sure that we can do events like this. And we've had about 140 volunteers sign up for this event. So it's a big thing for us. And it's also our 100th home with brothers paint a thon. So we've now. Done 100 homes. For 12. Years. So. Right. Good evening. Thanks for having me. Council President Brooks in Denver, City Council, we appreciate the opportunity. This is a big weekend for the paint athon and the historic milestone that we're gonna surpass in our partnership with the city employees and city of Denver. And so we're really excited and we're just so grateful to be in this spot to provide a place for employees to serve. And they've certainly taken us up on that for more than I think this is our 12th year, 12th straight year that we've worked on this. And yeah, we're going to surpass this huge milestone this Saturday, the 100th home. I think it's going to be next door to Councilmember Brooks. Right? I think it's next door to you. It is. We're coming to you. So to see you on a. Ladder with a brush, some gear, getting, you know, full of paint on Saturday. And we're looking forward to it. And we're going to be painting. There's eight sites, I think I counted in several districts and several neighborhoods over the past 12 years that we've worked together with city employees. We've painted 99 homes and we're going to make that milestone on Saturday. But that's total savings, collective savings for those homeowners of $225,000. And for fixed income, low income senior. Struggling to make ends meet, living month to month. That gives them the ability to use those resources toward grocery bills, utilities, going to the doctor, paying for prescriptions, whatever. And so we're just so grateful. And this really underscores and demonstrates the spirit of service that exists among our hardworking city employees, but also that exists here in the Mile High City. So, again, we're just so appreciative and looking forward to seeing you on Saturday at a house near you and see on those ladders. Hey, thank you so much. And, you know, I just want to say, there are a lot of reporters in here and they're probably thinking about cover India and some other things. Cover this. This is kind of cool. This is incredible. And it's some it's some cool stuff that we're doing in the city that doesn't get a lot of coverage. I mean, $225,000, we're saving elderly individuals. So thank you, guys for what you do. Thank you.

DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0381

A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Turner-Flatiron Joint Venture concerning additional construction services associated with the Concourse Expansion Program at Denver International Airport. Amends a contract with Turner-Flatiron Joint Venture to add $185,000,000 for a new contract total of $1,125,000,000 and 2 years for a new end date of 12-31-2024 for additional construction services associated with the Concourse Expansion Program at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202262567). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-9-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-6-22.

11 eyes. 11 Eyes. Resolutions 377 through 380 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens for us this evening. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolution 381 on the floor for adoption? I move that resolution 381 be adopted. Thank you. And we have it moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. I am going to make the first comment. I've called this out because I am going to abstain on this tonight. My brothers, my brother in law excuse me, brother in law is construction company Gilmore. Construction is a sub on this particular contract and so I will be abstaining this evening. Councilmember Sawyer, did you have any additional comments to make? Thanks, Madam President. I made my comments earlier. This is one of the the previous block, but because you had called it out to abstain, it is just being voted on separately. So I'll be a no on this one as well. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 22, dash 381, please. Oh, I'm sorry. We will go ahead and pause. Councilmember Ortega. We're. And right before he made that statement, sir, I saw that. I just want to add that I was in Councilman Sawyer's shoes a number of years ago before we started receiving reports from primarily three of our department's public works, which is now known as the Department of Transportation, Infrastructure and Parks and Recreation and Denver International Airport, known as Den. We first got reports from Public Works on all their uncalled contracts because we started seeing waves of them coming through where, you know, some of them had very high ticket prices and that was the only time we would see those contracts. They would have many bids after that, and we weren't seeing any data on how they were being used, how many were being used, which ones were not being used at all. So. Those reports really have helped significantly. Parks and Rec then followed and we got the first report from then this week on their uncalled contracts. And I think if council members have concerns about data that we're not getting, we should express that. But. That has helped tremendously in terms of making sure that we know how those are being used. And there's that tracking system. Any of those that are using women in minority businesses, we get that additional data from our Office of Contract Compliance, now known as the SBA. There's all these acronyms for our agencies. It's hard to keep keep track because the names change from time to time. But we are now getting the data. And I just have to say that Phil Washington and his team have been doing an incredible job with being very transparent about the projects or being that are being brought before us for approval, as well as answering all the financial questions, which was one of the missing pieces when we had the Great Hall brought before us, when some of us got the contract on the Great Hall, the financials were not part of that. How do you make a decision when the heart of the deal are the financials and you don't get to see that? That hasn't been the case with these projects that are being brought forward. The expansion of the gates are very important to the growth of the airport. I just flew in on Saturday on a flight that had to wait and sort of fly over a little further north of the airport because the gate wasn't ready. And these gate expansions are very critical to being able to get the planes to the gates on time so that people can be, you know, move through the airport. And I also appreciate the work and the discussion that we had at our last meeting about just how all the assets are being tracked. And we will be getting a complete report on that. There's an updated management system that is being used to ensure that we're tracking which of those actually have warranties on them. So we're not paying for work that is still warranted and we're taking advantage of of those things when we have any of those assets that break down . So I just am saying all of this didn't say that with the previous bills that I will be supporting this tonight because I think we have a leader that is being very thorough and attentive to the expectations that we have and wanting to see more information before we're making decisions about what we're voting on. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, and see no other speakers in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Resolution 22, dash 381, please. BLACK Hi. CDEBACA No. All right. Flynn. Hi. Herndon. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Hi. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. No. Torres. Madam President. Epstein. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. One abstention. Two nays. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes. Resolution 22, dash 381 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolution three, six, six on the floor for adoption?

DenverCityCouncil_02122018_18-0091

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation for ongoing maintenance of State Highways. Approves an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for $750,000 and for one year to reimburse the City for costs associated with the ongoing maintenance, snow removal, pothole patching, crack seal, and minor subgrade repair of state highways within the City including sections of Colorado Boulevard, Alameda Avenue, Colfax Avenue, and Federal Boulevard (201839397). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-5-18. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 1-30-18.

Just when it smells. I'm sorry I didn't see you. Well, I wanted to. Ask Mr. Kennedy. Yeah, but I do want to second counsel news comments. Just, you know, I thought about this the other day when, you know, we always sort of have that day where we honor public works and they just sort of wanted to randomly thank them. So you're going to get that praise. They have been doing a stellar job in District one, really bringing some some novel solutions. And and but in and the roads are have never been better than at this point in my term. Hey, I appreciate that. We still have a lot of work to do. And yes. Well, what. Were you doing with that? Bond will help a lot. So, yeah. The the question I had, though, is this 750. So I'm comfortable that we're getting reimbursed for work that we're doing. But does this come at the expense of I mean, do we have essentially man hours and vehicles that are sort of sitting there idle or are we not doing other things to sort of take on this work for, you. Know, this is we're doing the same level of service that we provided in the past. The previous DGA, which was a five year figure, had a fixed dollar amount. It was X number of dollars per mile of road that the city was received from the state. No matter how much work we did the last year of that contract, the previous fiscal year was about $291,000 is what we received from the state. And so when we did that math, that math I just went through, well, we're paying 500 to $600000 out of the city's pockets to do that work on the state highways. When that contract came due, we sat down to renegotiate so we could get the funds that we were expending for that work on their highways. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman McKinney, we have more kudos. Go trying to sneak out of here, Councilman Flynn. Oh, thanks, Rose. I actually clicked to to remove my name, but I. Steve Oh, okay. I just wanted to thank them very much also so I can get some streets because. Our program will be published here pretty soon. All right. Seeing no other comment, I just want to say, you look really good today. I mean, this was just about something about you, Pat Kennedy. Okay. Thank you. We're done. All right, Madam Secretary, please, for the next item on our screen.

LongBeachCC_07242018_18-0617

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation on the Century Villages at Cabrillo 2018 Social Impact Report.

Thank you and thank you, everyone, for coming out. We're going to move on to item 11, please. Item 11 is Communication from Council Member Muranga recommendation to receive and file presentation on the Century Villages at Cabrillo 2018 Social Impact Report. Thank you. There's a can I get a motion in a second, please? Councilor Murray Ringa. Thank you very much. How fitting in the timing of the discussion to have villagers Cabrillo after a discussion we just had right now. So I'm going to pass it over to the villages of Cabrillo, make a presentation and I'll have some comments afterwards. Thank you. Good evening or good morning, I should say. Not quite. My name is Kimberly. I'm the director of residential services at Century Villages at Cabrillo. And I want to thank you all for taking the time to hear our presentation and have an opportunity to see our 2018 Social Impact report. We're here. I'm here with my posse, my colleagues. And don't worry, we're not all going to speak. But we're here to support each other because the social impact report that's in front of you is is a product of a year long process of hard work at the villages, at Cabrillo. The agencies and the executive directors behind me represent all the agencies that are doing the hard work with our residents at the Villages and the hard work to put it into a report. So you can see that there are some results and so that it's not just all about numbers, but there is some success stories which after a conversation like today, sometimes it's really helpful to hear that there are some best practices and there are some things that are working. So it is it is my pleasure to go through a few of the highlights of this report for you today. So this year and there the Social Impact Report 2018 reviews our 2017 year and we've had a pretty good year of lots of growth and lots of milestones. We opened the anchor place permanent supportive housing, 120 units for veterans and families. We celebrated our 20th anniversary. Many of you were there to help us see 20 years of the villages at Cabrillo, and we saw growth in our community as you as, you know, the villages that Cabrillo was previously a Navy housing site serving the Long Beach shipyards. And in 1997 the property was conveyed to CVC for the purpose of benefiting the homeless. Today we serve more than 1500 formerly homeless veterans, individuals and families. On any given day, we think of ourselves as the backbone or the steward to the villages. And while it's an important role, we want to give credit to our 20 plus partners. Many of them are standing behind me today who help advance the mission of restoring health and hope and ending homelessness. I'd also like to thank the city for supporting our efforts from its continuum of care funding, capital funding for our developments. Like. Anchor place. To serving as the backbone. Of this larger community effort to end homelessness. The city should be very proud of its involvement in its contributions. As I said, each year that we look back at our accomplishments and we put it in writing now through our Social Impact report, and the process takes a tremendous amount of coordination across all of the people that you see behind me. All of our agencies bring together the numbers and our successes. This is overseen by the supervision of an independent evaluator, Dr. Beth Menke from Cal State, Long Beach. And so some just a few things that you'll see in the 2018 Social Impact Report this year. Each year we have a theme and it usually reflects some new initiative or something that we are we have accomplished over the year. This year, as you can see from the cover with yoga on the front was Pathways to Health. It's a collaborative started with the help of our St Mary's Dignity Health Grant and many on and off site partners such as Cal State, Dominguez Hills, Cal State, Long Beach, the children's clinic, the city's health department and many more got together to form a health collaborative. We know that social determinants of health are conditions in the environment where people are born, live and work that affect a wide range of health, functioning and quality of life outcomes. Pathways to Health is our answer at the villages that Cabrera addressing these social determinants of health by creating easily accessible social and healthy opportunities and an environment that promotes good health of our residents. Together our health collaborative partners, we were able to offer daily fitness classes, yoga, healthy cooking classes, weekly, onsite, farmstand gardening classes, stress relief workshops, music groups, art workshops, and much more to help promote help. This is in addition to our regular case management, mental health and substance abuse services, because we feel that offering these healthy choices in a neighborhood that is often called the food desert, and it makes it difficult for our clients because of their barriers to get these healthy options. We find that that is going to overall improve their health, their ability to go to work, and their ability to improve their life and their family's life. We know that going to a yoga class is not just about fitness and stress relief, but it's also about socialization and getting out of the house and making their villages like a real their home in their community. We're happy to say that over the past year, our efforts has allowed us to have 369 of our adult residents sign up for the Pathways to Health Program and participate in these programs. So this year is all about health, and we are really proud to say that this is not a one year initiative. Funding comes and goes. Funding came in, went for the Pathways to Health Initiative. But we have made a commitment to embedding health and wellness into our everyday programing in our everyday life at the Villages. DiCaprio Because we're more than about just providing a a house for people. We want them to feel happy and healthy in their community. So I am really pleased that this year we were able to spotlight that program. Now I just want to introduce one of my colleagues that will go through a couple quick more points in the Social Impact Report. Nancy Alban, the chair of our villages that Gabrielle's collaborative. Gave me before. But before you continue, I don't think all of us got that report. Do you have a copy? No. Okay. So you might want to redistribute them if you have copies now so that the council can follow that report. Good evening. We'll get you more copies. I don't know if we're I think we have some with us that. We will distribute. So thank you for pointing that out. My name is Nancy, and I'm pleased to be here tonight and address you as one of the service providers on campus. We try to invite everyone you see here behind me represent some organization that is providing services within century villages at Cabrillo. We wanted to try to visually show you our collaborative, which we think is a key to success for many of. The issues that have been brought up tonight and. To make those services successful for so many people in need. I want to share with you our mission, which is to collaborate, promote the healthy transformation of individuals, families and our communities. I also want to share that last year we provided housing to more than 2000 individuals. About a thousand are half of those are veterans. And we have about 240 staff working on sites. And we are very pleased to say we have about 30000 hours of volunteer time, which when you look at the equation, that's about $877,000 worth of support and services. We have 868 adults who are personally housed. 99% of them remained in permanent housing for a six month period. After moving in and 97 were still housed after a year. I definitely think that's a very concrete response to a need for the services as well as housing for many people who are in need. Again, we just want to thank you tonight. We really appreciate all the support that this council has given in the city, has given all the various departments. And it really does take. A lot of people, as we've been hearing tonight. And so we really appreciate the discussion that's starting here. We totally agree that it is important and that we also value your input and how to improve and grow, because we know that doing a little bit more really will make a difference in a few people's lives. So thank you again very much. Thank you very much. And I just want to turn this back to Councilmember Wingard, but I just wanted to just thank all of you. I obviously, I think The Villages career was one of the best things that we have going in Long Beach or just really in the whole region. And you guys are just are just working everyday to contribute and are providing real results to ensure that people that are experiencing homelessness have dignity and a place to live and to stay and and the work that you do beyond just the issue of veterans, because it's so much more it's about families and youth and it's really amazing. So it's it's been an honor to be supportive and just to get to know all of you and and many of the the people you serve. So thank you very much, Councilmember. Thank you for your comments. And truly, it takes a village. Villages are real. As I was talking earlier, the other item that we look at, the whole issue of homelessness in affordable housing and the holistic approach, and you are the perfect example of what I meant in terms of being holistic with behavioral health, with also drug and substance abuse and as well as with homelessness and job training. You provide it all. And it's a perfect example of what I was talking about, and it's another good example as to how we can repurpose some of our land uses or similar dilapidated buildings. We all we all know already that redevelopment went away. So it's it's we're more challenged in a way to be repurpose and restructure, reorganize some of those properties. But this is a perfect example of how that can be done in a way that would be honorable for those who end up in those kinds of housing. So I want to thank you so much, Steve Coleman's your executive director. I know he's not here tonight, but please extend our our congratulations and job well done. And, of course, Renee Castro right there. You know, you're fairly new to the to the job there, but you're doing a wonderful job there as well. And every time I step on that campus, I get a big smile. Big. Hello, how you been? And it's beginning to feel like I'm a regular fixture there for my council members and colleagues. If you haven't had an opportunity to visit the campus, I strongly encourage you to do so. I think you'll be amazed at all the wonderful work that goes on there. And of course, nothing like that happens without having a good staff and and it's a great staff that they have ability to Cabrillo. So thank you for your presentation take for being here. Thank you very much, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I'll be very sure I very much appreciate the presentation and enjoy it every time you guys come and give this economic impact report. I'm definitely going to dig in and review this and just echo the comments of my seventh District colleague. Council member You're Enga I've toured the villages. I'm very impressed with the work, the dedication and the the services that you provide there. There 2000 or over 2000 people housed there. I mean, that's a that's the magic number that we're looking for here. And and you guys certainly represent, I think, a best practice for us to to work toward and to to build upon here in the city of Long Beach. So we look to you as a resource, but also as a guide for our future endeavors here to deal with our housing challenges. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Absolutely. I echo my colleague's statements and I think, you know, it's often that we have organizations in front of us that we all respect and we all appreciate their contributions to our communities. But it's rare that we have an organization in front of us that does so much that really you guys and your wraparound services and the impact you guys have is showing. Stepping on the campus is an amazing experience, you know, and I said to my colleagues, let's just give them, you know, let's do the bond measure and give it all to you guys because we know what the outcome is going to be. Right. And so I just want to say thank you not only for the efforts that you do with those clients that need services, but for having an open mind in partnering with us. Whenever I come up with crazy ideas, even if they don't go all the way through that. You guys are. Yeah, let's do it. Let's figure out that looks like in the motel issue and everything else you guys have have been willing to have those conversations from talking about the shipping containers, you know, which is still not an idea that's fully fleshed out, but it's there more than it was before. And I'm really excited about having people like you at the table to kind of flush it out with. And also looking at your impact report, you talk about how many volunteers you have. And I think that that is the heartbeat of any organization outside of those that they help, knowing that some of those volunteers are likely clients . But even if they're not, that you have that many people, that you're touching their lives, that they get to have a one on one experience with somebody and have a life changing moment with them is what social change is. It's not a policy and policies can help, but it's those one on one interactions that we have with individuals that changes our world. And so just thank you guys for really putting your heart where your hands are, you know, and really getting getting dirty with it. So we love you guys. Thank you so much for this and keep doing great work. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. I just want to chime in and just add to the kudos. Thanks, Councilmember Ranga, for bringing this up. I think he's got a fantastic jewel in his in his community in the seventh District. And I got to tell you, you're regional leader when I'm at the conference when. We're at SAG and the conversation around cap and trade came up. Long Beach continued to win because of century villages at Cabrillo. Other communities are trying to figure out your model, and I think that's amazing. And, you know, and another example is the social impact report. I get it every year. Brian I told you I model last year's ninth district Nelson and back report based on this exact same two years ago goes model and I'll share that with you. I think what you're doing is great. I think we have to continue to highlight it. But I really wanted to just say, your leadership in the region, your leadership in Long Beach, your leadership on the issues that matter. Long Beach is better off for it. So continue the great work that you're doing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Bass. Thank you. I want to echo what everyone said as well. And thank you for the work that you do. And this is a little bit unusual because we don't normally ask questions, but you're all here. So I did want to ask a question in terms of, you know, we talk a lot about substance or you're dealing with it every day. We're hearing things and reading reports and things that we hear a lot about. Substance abuse. Have you seen an increase in the people that you interact with having a substance abuse issue. In. Recent years? Or is that anecdotal, maybe not supported by the experience you're seeing? I would say we have a we work with American-Indian changing spirits. We work with American-Indian changing spirits, which is a Native American program. But anyone is welcome to it as long. As they understand it's culturally relevant. And we have seen, yes, people are sicker. We've seen a lot more and we've we've had a lot more deaths. And to the. Programs that you offer, the holistic nature of those programs, do you? I'm sure there are many success stories of people who, with that support, have been able to overcome some of the substance abuse issues. Have seen people overcome the issue who had been through as many as. Eight rehabs before. Because they tell me that speaking to the spiritual nature. Of the issue is what really helps them. Mm hmm. Mental issue. Mm hmm. Hi. I'm Gina. Lela alone with the children's clinic. And we serve adults as well. And we're part of the partnership with Villages A. And yes, we are experiencing increases mostly around opiates. So the good news is that we are bringing federal funding into the local community. So the children's clinic is bringing in or we're trying to bring in a substance abuse counselor at the Villages, a Cooper, as well as behavioral health. And we are going to be using federal dollars for that. That's fantastic. Thank you, you guys, for everything that you do. I, I would like I know my staff has been there for many, many times, but I'd like to personally come and I think it's it's it's important. And I love what you're doing. And I'd love to be able to model what you're doing all throughout the city, replicate it. I mean, it seems to be very positive. So thank you for making a dent in a really complex issue that many people are grappling with. So thank you. Based on your address? Yes, I'd like to. First of all, I'd like to thank Councilman Ewing for this fantastic, you know, item that you brought here on the diocese's today and the center and the central village as an excellent model for the affordable housing opportunity. You know, really, if you take a look at I think we should all look at this. You know, the situation here, and I'm grateful that the city has developed and are promoting self-sufficiency of residents, providing a hand up and those who are really, truly in need. Because I've heard the community garden over there is great and that the community area is heavily utilized and the residents actually pride that are complex. So we started a garden way back in the days, but you guys have really, you know, done that and do you have a great job? Because the fact I make a grill, so if you find somebody, jump in the fence, I'm right there. So that's me. Okay. So thank you, Mr. Miranda, for putting this on. And amazing job. Fantastic. Councilwoman Gonzalez. I just simply want to say thanks. I know you all work so very hard. And, you know, I've talked to many of you on various occasions on different components of your your model. And I just can't express how much gratitude we have as city council members that we can look to to you to, to really provide solutions for our residents. And a lot of like Council member Price said that there's a lot of issues that our average residents don't understand, whether it's the issue of substance abuse or homelessness and merging it all together are families that are in need. And I really oftentimes give them this report and say, look at what the what we are doing in the city that is very positive. And sometimes they don't look at that, you know, look at the positivity in the issue and just the negative elements to it in the city. But I think that we have a lot of positive due to you. So thank you very much. And councilmember willing to. Get to put an asterix on this whole presentation? We were visited by the National League of Cities a couple of weeks ago regarding what city can do with with the homeless and housing and the services they could provide. And they chose stability to give real to the police as a place to visit. And we also had a a were to a car how to home tunnel and tunnel discussion with HUD with the associate director, the deputy the deputy secretary of HUD to talk about villages in Rio and the tours that they offer there. So no question you are the at the cutting edge of what we need to do to address our homelessness issues as well as our affordable housing issue. So congratulations to you guys. You're doing a great job. Keep moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I know we we have our presentation. There's no other additional public comment. Okay. Thank you guys very much. Let's give them a round of applause for their great work. So we still have a full agenda, which we're going to try to get through now in front of us. So let me go back to the mayor. We still need to vote on that. Yes, I'm sorry. Is the vote coming up? On the screens. Please cast votes. Motion carries. Great. So we're going to just go through the agenda now, item 13. And you can read item 13.

DenverCityCouncil_11262018_18-1292

A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supervised use site pilot program contingent upon the state General Assembly passing legislation authorizing the operation of supervised use sites in the state of Colorado. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-7-18.

with Winter Park. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Madam Secretary, please for the next item on our screens. And Councilwoman Canete, will you please put Council Bill 1292 on the floor? Yes, I move that council bill 1218 Dash 1290 to be placed upon final consideration and you pass. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I called this out as I did last week because I intend to vote no on it again. And I want to just explain a little bit about the week between last Monday and today. And I said last week that this was probably the most difficult vote I've ever faced up here in a three plus years because of the the very serious life and death issues that it involves that don't usually attend to our our normal business. Over the intervening week, I've heard from numerous constituents, some of whom have stopped me, actually, my wife and me at a at a restaurant over the weekend, a woman who just put her son into drug rehab at a cost of $25,000, who begged me not to not to vote for this because of her fear that had there been such a site available to her son, she might he might not have chosen to go into rehab when he did. Whether that's true or not, that's that's that's what she believed. So I voted last week against it and I intend to vote no also. And I wanted to explain a little more. We like to make data driven decisions. And in this, as with a lot of our our issues, there's a lot of data available, but it's raw data. And some of it's not sliced and diced and analyzed very, very usefully. For us, it's not you know, a good regression analysis would really help here to say to help us know whether these facilities around the world are actually reducing the opioid crisis when it's occurring in an atmosphere where there's other factors that are creating a surge in deaths and a surge in usage. It's hard to know what is the right path forward. And so we like to think that data tells us what to do. It leads us in a certain direction. And a lot of times that's just not so. There has to be human judgment. If data alone could tell us what the right thing to do is. You wouldn't need 13 of us up here. You could just feed it into a computer and we'll tell you what the right policy choices. Don't get any ideas about that, by the way, not replacing us with a computer. But there has to be human judgment that that is applied to this data. And so I want to say at the outset, Mr. President, that I have great respect for every single one of my colleagues who voted the other way last week and who will vote that way tonight, because they've applied their judgment as well to the facts and have reached what I consider an equally valid course of action to do. And it's just not one that I can that I can personally support. But I do want to say that I have great respect for the judgment of my colleagues who have applied to this. But I also want to say that my judgment on this is that it's not the path that I think this city ought to be taking to establish a designated area where dangerous drugs, illegal drugs, heroin can be consumed. I don't make this judgment based on any inaccurate reading of the data, nor out of any pretense that it's not occurring on our streets or near alleys or in our parks. I have it in my own district. I'm fully aware of this. And as I said last week, I've had several overdose deaths just within a stone's throw of my office in Bear Valley. So I'm fully aware that this is happening on the streets. I've simply concluded that a supervised injection site isn't the way to combat the crisis. I think it enables it without reducing it. This is a two year pilot program. We end the two years with, let's say there are no overdose deaths, as we fully expect, because I don't think there's been one in any of these facilities around the world. So what's the end game? Does that mean, Mr. President, that we will then put a facility such as this in every district in the city or everywhere where we've experienced opioid deaths? Is that the way to really prevent the deaths is to put these safe injection facilities elsewhere in the city if this pilot program proves successful. I believe, though, if we want to be more effective instead of establishing a safe use site, I think we should follow the lead that the state of Utah has taken, and that is with a very robust distribution, free distribution of naloxone, of Narcan kits to the communities that are affected by this, to the providers, to nonprofits, to family members, family members whose sons, brothers, sisters, daughters, mothers are struggling with addiction, provide them and prevent that. That's where they're occurring. And don't expect them to come down to a single site, but go out to the to the bike paths and the parks and the library and the the public restrooms where we know where we've had these things occurring. And I think that would be much more effective. I could fully support a program like that. You know, it's been stated that addiction is a disease, not necessarily a crime, but the addiction itself is a disease. And we don't criminalize a disease. Cancer patients don't have to do chemo in an alley. But then again, this is in treatment. A safe injection site is not treatment. It's like bringing a lung cancer patient into a smoking room and giving them more cigarets this is not treatment. If this bill offered more in the way of an aggressive path toward treatment and resolving the addiction for the individual client, I could be more supportive of it, but a supervised injection room enables continued addiction and not a treatment. And for that reason, reluctantly, after weighing all of the options, reluctantly, Mr. President, have to vote no. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. Rosa. I also love to hear from my constituents as well and all the key issues that we face. A council I normally survey my constituents and I did on the supervised injection. As well, had 665 of my constituents in District ten responded. Just want to share a little bit of their data with you. What was their feeling about reducing drug deaths and combating illegal drug use as a priority for the city? Over 76% of the residents who responded said yes, it is a priority reducing deaths as well as fighting drug illegal drug distribution. Do you support the supervised injection site in Denver? 56% of my Rosas responders said, yes, we do support the drug addiction center. The question is, in addition, should we wait until we make sure the Colorado approves such a program as we submit our program? And that's what the plan is, that Colorado will need to pass that legislation first. And the last thing to mention to in addition that Councilman Flynn mentioned, in addition to the the safe injection site, we need to do more in terms of treatment centers. Treatment is if we are able to help these folks get off of drug use where they do not have to use a self injection site, that'll be a credible goal for for everybody. So we want to make sure that that there are treatment facilities in that. And I have received this assurance from the chief of police that there will be no reduction in in combating illegal drug use. Drug sales will still have a robust effort to make sure that illegal drug sales will be converted in the city. So I'm pleased with that. I still hope that the Denver health will be a part of this program down the road as we as it comes forward and this passes and from a super from a community health standpoint, they are valuable partner. And I hope they'll play a vital role in this program. And I do like the pilot project. Mark Justice has said over and over, and this makes sure that the metrics for evaluating this program are meaningful, that you actually can see how effective this program is. And treatment treatment facility referrals obviously is an important metric to so. So I just want to share that results from Mark decision. I'll be supporting this tonight and I just wanted to let you know how they felt about. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very supportive of this. We're not going to arrest ourselves out of the problem. Jail is not going to be the cure for addiction. And it is anybody who understands this issue and understands the population, understands addiction, understands what folks go through when they're when when they are addicted, the process that it takes , the amount of resources. If we could have it our way, I know that we'd find it left and right. But it's not just up to Denver, it's also up to the state. There are so many systems that are failing that whole treatment model that are not addressing it. The hours are not there for folks. Sometimes their hours are very limited. There are stigmas associated. There are so many different factors outside that that that need to be addressed. In the meantime, while we're debating in government about what to fund and whether we're going to get mental health dollars or treatment dollars for a model like this , people are dying and people are dying. They're overdosing. They're doing it in areas where they're not being found or there's nobody around them to save their life, to give them a dose of Narcan or to even talk to them. This model allows for that interaction to happen because if not, it's not going to it's not going to prevent folks from. It's one of very many tools. One of very many tools that can be employed, that can be used to address the addiction issue and. The last thing you want. Is to not support something like this and know that the person who was ODing in a park in your neighborhood, your neighborhood, store, bathroom, because they're there, that's the only place that they can be. Right. Knowing that that can happen and knowing how you're voting right now, I rather have that option for someone to be there and not be alone. To have to talk to somebody, but then to make sure that they that what they're doing is is being supervised and can potentially save their life. And I think that's that's something and that's also an entry way to services. Right. This is a professional these are area these are people who know what they're doing. And it's an opportunity for folks to interact that way and could save some lives. The last thing I want to say is that, you know, when we think about this and we think of the folks on the other side, oh, all you're doing is enabling. You're not enabling. You're being there as a supervisor to make sure that they're not killing themselves. Oh, well, you're not. You know, why not just treat me? Well, treatment's very expensive. Yes, we rather have treatment, but not everybody has the access to treatment. It's not that simple. And it's not an either or. It's not supervised injection sites replacing treatment. This is just another tool and another tool for a society that still doesn't know how to address addiction. And a country that still is in the Stone Age is when it comes to addressing addiction. We have to look around the world for these models. We have to look at these other cities. And they are doing it right. And sometimes sometimes you just employ that. And by doing that, you've got to remove your fear. You got to you got to deprogram everything you've thought of to be an addict. Remove that fear and look at this person as a human being. And the end goal is saving their life. That's what this bill allows Denver to do. Should the state act? So I. Councilman Brooks, folks at the Harm Center, thank you for your work. Thank you for all for bringing this to us. I know this would be historical if we were to pass it, but I want folks to get out of this mindset that all this is scary. This is just a bunch of folks shooting up and and we're enabling them now. And this is replacing other treatment. It's not. This is another tool that we need to treat addiction. So thank you. I support this wholeheartedly, Councilman. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. As I said last week, we know people are dying on the street, letting people die in our restaurant bathrooms and doorways and our parks and our trails behind trees in wherever. It's not reducing the opioid crisis. Okay. I had a letter from a constituent today in email and he said, well, what's what's going to be next? Well, we're going to have government sponsored locations where alcoholics can go to drink their booze. We have it now. They're called bars. Well, think about it. They're called bars. And we license every last one of them. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of places to get alcohol in Denver. We continue to license them. Now, not everybody who walks into a bar is an alcoholic, but thousands and thousands and thousands of them are. And all we do is we keep serving them. We pat them on the back and we send them out into the night. No one gives them a brochure that says, Hey, here's where the local Alcoholics Anonymous meeting is. Or here, here, here, here's a place you can go to get treatment if you're having trouble. As I read the bill for a proposed site and all the discussions I've heard is, as is the case with the Harm Reduction Center, when people come in to get clean, clean needles, they're offered help. They're counseled on where they can go. They're not just sent off into the night with a wink. So if we're serious about addressing addiction in this country, at some point we need to look at the fact that the Super Bowl is sponsored by Budweiser and our baseball team plays in Coors Field. You know it I don't know if we're ever going to get the stomach to look at the alcohol industry, but people are. I understand the concern with drug addiction. Absolutely. We need we need to cut it cut it back. We're talking about Vision zero four for traffic deaths. We need a Vision Zero for drug deaths as well. But as a society, we haven't made that commitment and it's about time that we do so. I will also be supporting this wholeheartedly. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank all of my colleagues for for their diligence and hard work in this. I want to thank all the folks in the audience for being engaged and supporting this effort as well. This is an ordinance that allows for a pilot in the city of Denver with the General Assembly's approval and for a supervised use site. And how I got to this point, I had a council person say, you know, what's where's the data? Where's the information? How what's the work that you've done? Let me give you a number over 25 years. Over 60 cities, ten countries in over 100 sites. That's our data. We actually have the information that shows us that this. Innovative idea that started over 30 years ago works. But in our context, in this American context, it's so hard to wrap our our mind around. And I understand that and I get that. But the fear mongering and the talking down to our neighbors who are experiencing addiction, I've heard it all day today. I think it's ridiculous and it's actually disgusting. These are our neighbors. These are folks all over the world who are struggling with this, and we have an opportunity to address it. Let me also say, we 100% support the mayor's plan to address the opioid crisis in this city. He released a plan from 2018 to 2022. It's three prongs, guys. It's prevention. It's treatment, and it's harm reduction. And one of the strategies is to supervise you say. So let's not get stuck on this being just the one answer. Like Councilman Lopez says, there are several strategies that we're working on. And so I'm excited to support this. And and I'm excited to to have Denver lead boldly in this area. It's a big moment for our city. And as this. This council approves this and it gets sent to the mayor's desk to sign. There's a couple of things for my heart that I just want to say. This is more than just public policy. This is about enacting justice in the city of Denver. There is a national health crisis in front of us and cities are on the front lines. Philadelphia, New York. Portland. Just heard Portland, Maine. Now, is is starting to move forward on this. Seattle, Los Angeles, there are so many cities that are trying to move forward with this issues. And tonight we act to save lives and repair families. And this is a beautiful moment for our city to form a healing union with our state legislature and governor elect, because this is what it comes down to when we view people simply as addicts, we rob them of their humanity. And it becomes easy for us to stigmatize their struggle and ignore their pain. This ordinance is not about addicts. This is about our neighbors. This is about our neighbors experiencing addiction. When we see people as our neighbors, we see their stories. And they become deeply connected with us. And that is how we save lives. And that is why we are here tonight. And with that, Mr. President. Let's vote on this day. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Flynn. No. Black. All right. BROOKS Oh, yeah. ESPINOSA All right. Gilmore i Herndon. I Cashman. I can h. I. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Sussman Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please call the voting and announce the results. Are we missing? Missing? A couple of. Minutes. They were missing a couple. Know now. We got 12, 12 eyes in one day. 12 eyes one accountability 1292 has passed. That does conclude the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published were now ready for the block vote on proclamations, resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman, can you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that proclamations, resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 1422 1168. 13, 12, 13. 13, 13. 1714. 19 1197. 1268 1301 1302 1305 1306 1307 1286 1289 1315 1329 1207 1269 1270 1280 1281 1283 1284 1263, 1282, 1273. All series of 2018. Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Black. Hi, Brooks. Hi. SBC. Hi Flynn. Hi Gilmore. Hi Herndon. Hi Cashman. Hi can reach hi Lopez. I new Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 1339 As the proclamations and resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight, there will be required public hearing on Council Bill 18, Dash 1208, designating 2600 Milwaukee Street, the Henderson House, as a structure for preservation.

DenverCityCouncil_07252016_16-0388

Approves a three-year $4 million on-call contract with Muller Engineering Company, Inc. for comprehensive engineering services to support various Wastewater capital program or infrastructure needs and general engineering services (201627885). (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a three-year $4 million on-call contract with Muller Engineering Company, Inc. for comprehensive engineering services to support various Wastewater capital program or infrastructure needs and general engineering services (201627885). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-?-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 7-7-16.

So we have $32 million in eight bills that are for engineering contracts for wastewater and. What I'd like to do is get information that talks about how many of these have been utilized. Oftentimes we have these on call contracts that we do, and it costs money to go through this whole publication process to negotiate with the attorneys on both sides. And some of these go unused. And, you know, people think they got a contract with the city and then they're never utilized. So I'd like to know, you know, how many of them have we utilize? I and I haven't looked to see if they're all meeting the goals where we normally. So I'd like to get that information as well. I'm not going to hold these up, but I can't imagine that we have $32 million worth of work that we're going to be spending. So can you just speak to that a little bit? Absolutely. First, just good evening. Members of council, Mr. President, pro tem Jim Potter with Public Works. So, too. Good question. The overall kind of limits that we'll set when we do on call contracts. Like this and the professional engineering side, we try and be mindful. Of what the community has already with the city as well as the kind of needs. We may have upcoming. And we try and take a look at where we're going to be. Needing those specific pieces. So typically where we're doing about that 75% expenditure on most of our on calls, I can give you some specifics on some of the ones that are similar to this, if you'd like that. Following the meeting, we can look that up for you. That would be very helpful. I also want to know if any of this work can be done by our own wastewater staff. I know historically much of this work was done internally and it wasn't contracted out. So I'd like to know why we're not utilizing our wastewater staff to do some of this work and why it's all being contracted out. Okay. Well, the. Contracts that are before council tonight are there's eight total contracts. Those are only a maximum capacity contract. There is no promise to utilize. Those are internal forces within wastewater capital specifically do perform levels of all the design, the planning, the feasibility. We do the construction management services in-house as well. But with the recent rate increase passing for wastewater, there is an increase to the capital program, the $223 million wastewater capital program. We have come around and talked to most council members so far. We have a few left to do the private meetings where to discuss that program, but it will primarily support the needs that our internal staff cannot perform in-house, as well as getting a large jump on some of these bigger projects. Okay. The information that you've committed to provide, i would greatly appreciate that. I do know that on the large plat to Park Hill project, for example, a lot of that design was done not internally but by some of the contracts that we've had underway. And so, you know, understanding the distinction between which ones we are doing internally versus which ones we're contracting out is is really important for me to understand and to be able in the future to support additional. On call contracts to be, you know, adopted. So I appreciate the information you've offered to provide. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. And so to clarify, are these contracts for the Hill? Is this contract related to the plant to Park Hill project? No, sir, not specifically. The these on calls can be used citywide. The primary intention was for our capital program, which is the $223. Million piece of the program for storm and sanitary sewer that is separate from plat to Park Hill. Okay. Thanks. Angela, did you want to say something, too? Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I just wanted to add that we've gotten several questions from a few of you about on call contracts and how we report those. Now we are in the process of developing a more formal report to give a more thorough overview of what we're doing with our annual on call contracts. So you'll you'll see that coming probably this fall. It'll be a very comprehensive report for counsel. And we have a meeting set with Councilman New in August, I believe, to discuss the report and how we how we plan on presenting it, rolling out to council. That will be much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. I think that's it on that one. So moving on. We have for 45. Councilman Espinosa, what did you want us to do with that one? I just wanted to comment. All right. So in the explanation, it once again says District nine, Council District nine. And so I don't either. I'm going to be frustrated that we continue to put money in contracts for Council District nine. Well, the Council District one at Confluence Park wallows in a in a pit of unrealized construction. So is this are we doing that or are we going to actually acknowledge that this is both council district one and Council District nine so that we can actually address I mean, what's going on over there at Confluence Park? This is an administrative error. We I did ask that it be corrected for the record. And I mean, it just. His administrative. Thing. Okay. So it is money going towards trying to resolve what's going on in District one side of Confluence Park. I do not have that information. I can get it to you. All right. Great. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. Moving on. All right now councilman suspend under bills for final. You've called out council bill 249. What would you like for us to do with this bill? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to reopen the public hearing to allow for limited additional testimony on Council Bill 249, changing the zoning classification for 3250 South Colorado Boulevard. To update Council on the following, an update on public comment received since the May 23rd. Public hearing from Teresa Lucero of Community Planning. Second, an update from Doug macKinnon, an applicant representative and three and an update from Jay McCormick, a neighborhood representative.

DenverCityCouncil_07142014_14-0502

Approves the Service Plan for the formation and establishment of the GCC (Globeville Commerce Center) Metropolitan District No.1 northwest of Washington Street and 51st Avenue in Council District 9. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves the Service Plan for the formation and establishment of the GCC (Globeville Commerce Center) Metropolitan District No.1 northwest of Washington Street and 51st Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-17-14.

Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill five oh to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in, seconded the public hearing for council bill. Final Two is now open. May we have the staff report? Good morning or good afternoon. Good evening. Mr. President. I'm Andrew Johnston. I'm here at the Department of Finance on special districts and I'm here on Council Bill 502 Series 2014, which is an an ordinance to approve the service plans for the creation of the JCC Metropolitan Districts, number one. And two, the service plans for the JCC Metropolitan Districts. One and two are being submitted for the City Council approval on behalf of Globeville One LLC, pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Control Act, Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. This are these districts that we're going to hear about today have been a true collaboration between the Adams County and Denver County as the metro districts are located on a site that is the former Asarco smelting plant site, with approximately 80% of the project being located in Adams County and 20% located in Denver, generally located at the northwest corner of East 51st Street and Washington, running north to East 55th Street. The development will not have any residential development and accommodates only commercial and manufacturing development within the district's physical boundaries. The service plans address public infrastructure financing on the multi-jurisdictional, multi-jurisdictional site districts one and two are located in Denver and are the service plans pending for approval tonight. The service plans of districts number three and four are concurrently going through Adams County approvals process and should receive final approval on July 22nd. The service plans of Adams County are substantially the same as Denver's service plans. Adams County has agreed to include Denver's requirements of prevailing wage, smaller disadvantaged business enterprises, discrimination and public art. The districts will be responsible for coordinating the construction operation, financing and maintenance of all the improvements the JCC metropolitan districts have. All the powers of a metropolitan district described in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes as limited in the pending service plans. The financing plan specifies that a debt cap of 50 mills for debt and a total debt cap for all four districts not to exceed 25 million. The service plans anticipate 9.6 million of estimated infrastructure cost, utilizing only 40 mills for debt and issuing bonds to fund the infrastructure over time, including principal and interest. The service plans also anticipate levying ten mills for operations. The district's proponents are aiming for a November 2014 election for district creation upon approval by property owners in the districts at the November election and the court order, the districts will have the authority to operate in a manner prescribed in their service plans, city staff recommends and approval of Council Bill five or to the applicant. Their representatives and city staff are here tonight to respond to your questions regarding this Council bill. We will hear quickly a presentation from the developer and via finance group Cameron Birch, Ron and Sarah Laverty are here. The law offices of McKee de Cisneros, including Cassie Affirmant and Megan Becker, are here, and the city attorney's office. Karen Adolescent Nathan Lucero also worked on this project. Now we'll hear from Cameron Bertrand. The presentation, Madam Secretary. And. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Cameron Bertrand. I work for Enviro Finance Group and our company, Globeville One LLC is the applicant. Our company is located at 475 17th Street in downtown Denver. We are a Denver company, and I just wanted to provide a brief bit of context around the technical portions of the metropolitan district that Andrew just brought forward. Enviro finance group is a company that is Denver based. We're headquartered here and we specialize in what we call brownfield redevelopment. We acquire, remediate and finance the redevelopment of environmentally contaminated properties. And it's always exciting for us to have a project in our own backyard, as this one very much is. The project itself, as Andrew said, is located between 55th Street and 51st Street in north central Denver, along the corridor that is Washington. It's a 77 acre site which in a fully built out city like Denver, is quite a large area and we think create a great opportunity for the neighborhood and for Denver as a whole of that area. You see the county line in the slide in front of you is located along 52nd Avenue. So approximately 15 acres are in Denver and approximately 62 are in Adams County. That being said, I think it's worth noting that the neighborhood most immediately affected by this site, both historically and going forward, is the Globeville, Elyria, Swansea neighborhoods. This was a historic source of employment for them and we hope will be again in the future. Once we accommodate for roads, drainage, infrastructure, we get about 60 net developable acres. It is a contaminated site and has been for many, many years. The history of this site is one of the Asarco companies Globe plant where they've smelted metal dating back as early as 1886. On the good side of that is it created a great many jobs for a great many people for a long time. The downside of that is that the process of smelting metal contaminated the buildings, the soil and the groundwater. And it's been that case for many, many years. Our company has gone about the remediation process, and that includes the abatement and demolition of all the buildings that were out there, remediation of the groundwater that would otherwise flow as a base and into the South Platte River and then also soil remediation so that the soil itself is not a danger to health and human environment. I won't go into the details on this slide, but I've got it here. If anybody has questions later, the process for development is to take the site where we find it today or where we found it in 2011 when we started abate and demolish those buildings. That work has been done and was completed in 2012. That sets the stage for groundwater and soil remediation, which then sets the stage for grading and infrastructure. And then that middle slide, what you see is what what? Once we've been stopped, once we've graded out the site and installed the infrastructure you will have, which is basically four large super pads that can then accommodate individual commercial development . So that image on the right is one version of how this site might build out. That grading is not a small matter. There's about a 40 foot grade difference between 55th and 51st. So a lot of the exercise is one of creating flat, developable pads. The picture that you see on the right is just one example of how it might built out. But that example, there is a million square feet of new commercial development, which we think is an exciting opportunity for central Denver, north central Denver, but also its capacity to create jobs for for the residents of North Denver. In terms of timeline, like I said, we completed abatement and demolition of the buildings in 2012. Groundwater remediation was fully installed in two phases and completed by late last year. It is working, we think, extremely well. All the readings that we're getting suggest that the remedy is working and we believe that by the end of this year , the first quarter of next year, the groundwater remedy will be completely signed off on by the Colorado Department of Health and Public Environment. Soil remediation is follows. Groundwater remediation is underway now. It's an exercise of mixing the contaminated soils to stabilize them and then place them in a location where they don't come into contact with either groundwater or people. That is work that we expect to be done before the end of this year and it will then concurrent with over lot site creating or the placement of clean soil on top of the contaminated soil. What that does is that puts us in a position at the end of this year to actually begin to install site infrastructure, stormwater pipes, sewer pipes, water pipes, roads, streetscapes, etc. Which brings me to why we're starting this process now to create the metropolitan districts to do this site entitlement, to get the sign off so that at the end of this year, when the remediation is done, we'll have all the approvals that we need to go immediately into site site development and we think set the stage for vertical development as early as the second half of next year. So we think it's an exciting opportunity. The Metropolitan District is the tool that helps us finance that site infrastructure. Specifically, we think we have about $9.7 million worth of public infrastructure to install on this site, mainly consisting of streets, streetscapes, stormwater, sanitary sewer and water. The metropolitan district, we believe, has a bonding capacity of about 11.85 million, which, after fees and other costs, yields about $9.7 million worth of capacity to spend. It's worth noting that those models were run at 40 mills while the district has a capacity of 50 mills. So that extra ten mills that we don't intend to use do provide an additional $6.1 million in capacity if the infrastructure were to cost more than we anticipate the district is. The service plan includes a $25 million maximum debt issuance with a 50,000,000 million maximum. Debt service limit in terms of the mills on the site. And the other thing that we just put on here to note is that this site is also an urban renewal area with a property tax increment area, again in both Adams County and our county. So we will also have an agreement with Deer to provide for what I would call sort of the pass through of those property taxes that would go to Daera and then come back to the district so that the district can make its debt service. And then just in in in closing, I just wanted to say a broad thank you to an enormously long list of people that I won't go through. But this is a project that has been around in Denver since at least 2007, if not longer. The cooperation between Denver and Adams County has been remarkable. The work that the city agencies from Finance and Office of Economic Development that provided a grant, Adams County provided a HUD 108 loan, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority and the City Council provided a backstop for that loan to give HUD the comfort, to put it in place in the first place. And then all of the many, many neighborhood groups and neighborhood meetings that have gone into it. And a personal thank you to Councilwoman Monteiro, who has been there every step of the way, sometimes patting us on the back and sometimes kicking us in the butt to keep this one moving forward. And it has been a real privilege to work on it. And we're excited to be at a place where we can start talking less about cleaning it up and more about building buildings. And with that, I'll sit down. I do. If you have actual questions or hard questions. Kathy and the folks from D.A. Davidson are here and we can answer those questions. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Johnston for the staff report. We have three speakers signed up and all three of them can come to the front pew and speak. We have Kathy Affirmant, Zachary Bishop and Mr. Saco. Good evening, councilors. My name is Kathy Offerman. I'm here with Mike Cisneros on behalf of the applicants of the JCC metropolitan districts. I don't have any independent comments, but I'm. Available for questions. Should the Council have any? Thanks. Thank you. Zachary Bishop. Good evening. I'm Zach Bishop with D.A. Davidson and Company. We are bankers for the Metropolitan District located at 1600 Broadway and also just here available for questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Germans say Ku Klux Arts Movement Self-defense advocates for poor, working, poor and homeless people. Metropolitan districts. We require a lot of research and study. Especially when they're being organized and sponsored by corporations. And if you don't have strong community support in education, then what you will have happen is that a superimposed authority, quasi judicial, who can tax commercial and private properties through the House written up. And I haven't seen the write up in terms of how this thing is going to operate, operate because you have to create a board that's going to control this thing, say. And when you get to talk about how the board is going to be appointed or elected and how the community is going to be involved in that in terms of selection of the people who are going to participate in this thing. And then it's a hidden tax because most people don't even know they're in metropolitan districts who are in metropolitan districts because most of the citizens don't either look at this stuff going on down here or is explained to them thoroughly what this is going to happen before it gets on the ballot. And then they missed it. And then it pops up in the text and they say, What is this? And then it becomes the law. Because you didn't participate, because you weren't paying attention, because you was watching a baseball game. When these kind of decisions are being made, that's going to impact you for the next 20 years. 20 years. And you don't even know these people here. You don't even know him. You haven't even been in the corporations to see what their community involvement has been historically. And you're going to pass this. You've already made up your mind to do it. I know you're going to do it. And that's okay. Because one thing I've learned from coming here for three and a half years is that I had to learn tolerance. There were things that I was going to have to accept that I hated, and yet I'd have to tolerate it because of the misinformation and education of the masses of people. They wouldn't understand what I was talking about anyway, and what he was just talking about was so garbled and mixed up with folks who had happy. Y'all don't even know what he was talking about. Mr. Speaker, you. Say with this. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your time. Support this thing just on the strength of tolerance. Until the people wake up to this. Thank you. That concludes our speakers for Council Bill five of two. Do we have any questions for members of council? Starting with council members? Yes. CAMERON Well, I'm sorry I stepped down and you may have already talked about this, but I'd love to get kind of a grander vision of what you guys hope to accomplish here on the site. You talked a little about commercial, but I don't know if some some visioning has been done. And maybe you can go into that a little bit. A little. The answer to your question is a little bit. Sorry. I'm trying to see if I can make that this image a little bit bigger. But the the site is is for a variety of reasons, got a number of restrictions that will stay in place that will prohibit residential use, agricultural use. So commercial use is the is the principal use. And we really think, given its location at the really the crossroads of I-70 and I-25, that it's a fabulous opportunity for Denver and Adams County to build new warehouse logistics distribution, flex new modern manufacturing. So I would I would really describe it as a business park. And then the site layout itself is actually dictated to some extent by that grade differential, where the Adams County site is almost 35 to 40 feet higher than the Denver County side. So the infrastructure almost starts to lay itself out. But the way I would describe it is sort of akin to Stapleton Business Center or Compaq or other large, you know, commercial business parks in the metro area. The nice thing about this one is, is it's right in central Denver where we're losing a lot of that opportunity to years. But it's exciting to get some light in manufacturing capacity. What's the zoning on this? It's today the zoning is it's got four zoning districts because it's got two in Denver and two in Adams County. In the old code, I would sort of call it eye to. Yeah, well, on the Adams County side, there will be a pudi that'll overlay that zoning. But we're really focused on clean, modern manufacturing logistics distribution. And we think that the other thing that's nice about this site is it's got some the potential for some very large parcels where you can build some some 300,000 or larger square foot buildings, which is kind of unique for central Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman Montero. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'll just I'll ask this question and then you guys can figure out who who should take it. So let's talk about the election and who's going to pay for the election. When is the election for the metro districts? And then who gets to vote? Looks like he's gonna like Councilwoman Monteiro. I'm happy to respond to those questions. Garcia from Anthem. Mickey D's for. Should the service plans be approved by both city. And county of Denver and Adams County? We're gearing up for a November 2014 election. The electors of the districts will be. Qualified by the property owner. The district is consist the district boundaries consist of only, while the service area consists of only the 77 acres, which is our commercial property. So in order to vote in an election, they will be qualified by the property owner, which at that time will be Global One LLC. Okay. So this is I just want to want to clarify that city of Denver, across the board will not be voting on these two particular metro districts. Right. How many property owners will be voting. At this point? There will be only one property owner. That would be Globeville, one LLC, we anticipate at the time of the election, and that is also the only property owner that will be subject to any taxes of the district. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Montero. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. So the first one is, can you, Cameron, tell me where the entrance to the site will be? I'm assuming that there will be access points both from Adams County and Denver, Kelly. You bet. And is it is it possible to put this back on the screen? I'm secretary of the department. Oh, it is on the screen, is it? Sorry. There you go. So I tried to make that one image just a little bit larger, if that helps, folks. So the two main entrances to this site will very likely be 52nd Avenue, which is the county line on the south. Yep. Because that will come in if. I don't know if you can see my cursor. Yeah. That will come in right in the middle of the lower what I call the lower pad because that everything to the left of this road right here, all this area is about 35 feet lower than everything up here. So this is larger. Adams County area will very likely enter off of 55th Avenue, where we expect through the pad process to install a new traffic light. So 55th Avenue will see those larger buildings on the north end and then 51st and 52nd will feed the traffic and the low and the smaller and medium sized buildings on the south end. So do you expect the the development on the south side of 52nd Avenue to look and feel any different than the development that will be on the north side? I think it will in that the nature of the buildings are necessarily probably different right there. Those are 20 to 50, maybe 100,000 square foot buildings, whereas the buildings on the north side at least have the potential to be 150 to 300, even 500,000 square feet. So I definitely think there's an architectural difference there and a use difference. That being said, we have we are imposing a set of design standards and architectural guidelines over the entire site so that will function and feel like a single cohesive business park. So I want to ask some financial questions and I'm not sure. Maybe here you might be the right person. So help me understand the cost sharing on the administrative cost to get us to this point. And then what is any of the cost sharing look like as the revenue is being generated? I mean, you know, just looking at the map alone, you could see that you're going to have bigger buildings on the north side. Obviously, there's more land in the Adams County side. So how does that work? I think I understand the question. So by cost sharing, you mean infrastructure cost across the site relative to where then where the income is generated? Right. Got it. So to answer your first question from the cost, not only to get us here, but the cost to where we're going will be financed entirely by Global One LLC, in part through assistance from the HUD one away alone. So we do have some financing tools that help us spend what will ultimately be more than $10 million, both to bring the site to this point, but also build all the infrastructure that you see on this on this page. The Metropolitan District, on a day in which these buildings are built and taxes are generated, we hope will be able to issue debt to reimburse those costs in the future. But they are not going to be financed by the Metropolitan District on day one. Globeville one will advance those funds and hope to be repaid. And what was the amount of the Hudson-Odoi loan? It's a maximum outstanding principal balance of $10 million. Okay. So one last question and this is about the the tax increment piece. So it's my understanding that Doura is playing that role and I see Tracy in the audience for the entire property. Correct. So does that function in the same way then in terms of cost share, all of that associated with where the taxes are being generated and where they're going to be applied in terms of offsetting any of the infrastructure costs or any of those things? You would think so. So that the answer to your question is yes. The the urban renewal area covers the entire site and is sort of agnostic as to where revenues are generated and where costs are needed because we're trying to redevelop the entire site. So it is truly regional cooperation. And in that regard, I did want to be clear, though, that the purpose of of the urban renewal area in the tax increment area that has been approved so far. Was to backstop that had 108108 loan. And so as we sit here today, we, we don't actually believe that we will need to utilize tax increment to repay that loan, which is great news. Okay. So, so given that it was created as a Doura district, that typically when Doura participates in these projects, there are some administrative costs that are reimbursed back to Doura. Is that going to be handled like they're typically done with this project? So Tracy, I'm looking at you. Do you want to come forward and just elaborate on that? Good afternoon, members. Good evening, members of council. I'm Tracy Huggins. I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. The answer is yes. To the extent that there are administrative expenses incurred by Doura, it is the developer's responsibility to reimburse those costs that are incurred. Which may or may not happen. I understand there have been some costs already incurred and already reimbursed, so they are doing what they're supposed to do. Okay, great. Thank you. That answers all of my questions. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. I have two additional questions. The the first one is, why is in viral finance not able are future developers able to build residential on the parcels in the city and county of Denver? And then the second one is maybe you can answer. It also is, can you share with my colleagues the public outreach efforts that you have gone through? Thank you. Yvette. To the to the first question, it it dates back to first and foremost, the legal answer is there's an environmental covenant that is restricts uses on the site. It was put in place by CDP. She at the time that CDP and EPA were imposing on then Asarco as the owner the cleanup standards that today we're implementing and it's fairly simple it is while we are remediating remediating the site to an end to a commercial industrial standard where it will be safe for people to work on the site and build buildings on the site and construct buildings on the site. The cleanup standards don't meet those for a residential development. It would not be you would not want children, you know, playing vegetables, growing. It really is that straightforward. And it is not a choice that Denver had. It's not a choice that Globeville one had. It was imposed by EPA and CDP. And it is it is the law of the land is where the site is regard is is regarded with regard to public outreach. It really goes back, almost to my knowledge, as early as 2007, there was a lot of public outreach both around the clean up of the site and the property around the site, then surrounding the creation of the urban renewal area, then surrounding the passage of the HUD 108 loan. Globeville one EFC is a company, has met at times quarterly, but always at least biannually with with the community to update them both on the status of the clean up answer questions about the trucks that were driving in and out of the community and what was going on there. And then most recently about the development plans and the creation of this metropolitan district, we had a meeting, as you know, because you were there the as recently as last month surrounding the Pudi on the Adams County side. So we I haven't counted them up, but I'm sure it's north of 20 or 30 and I'm sure there will be that many more to come as we develop the site. And then with two months ago that the Globeville Neighborhood Planning Steering Committee, we did a bus tour. Yeah. And yelled and talked for about this is like 45 minutes about about the development there on the site. Yeah, it's it's it's a it's a it's been a long time coming. But this this neighborhood really has gotten very involved. I think that they they really do understand what caused the contamination. They understand what we're doing to to clean it up. And they're excited to be moving into the to the to the point in time at which it gets gets redeveloped and and the buildings can be built and jobs can be created. The only other thing that I just want to clarify is I just want to ask the question can can housing be built on this property? Housing cannot be built on this property. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Councilmember, you said something mean. Did you want to. Oh, just going to have camera make sure that all the acronyms that he was describing. Colorado Department of. Oh, got it. Yeah. I'm sorry. So, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, CDP, Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. See, EPA has given its authority to CDP to oversee us as we clean the site. Housing and Urban Development, thousands of viewers. Yes. Even give that. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Gotham Councilwoman Lyman, for bringing that up. Any other questions from members of council and seen the public hearing for Final Two is closed now? Time for comments from members of Council Council Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you so much for your presentation this evening. As was mentioned, we've been talking about the Asarco site for four years and I then I choose to count. But in this in this particular situation, I'm very excited about the cooperative agreement and partnership between Adams County in the city of Denver. The majority of this property is in Adams County. And as I understand it, they're probably going through a similar review for their service plans around this situation. This particular project has a possibility on the Denver site. I sound so territorial and the city and county of Denver to create a possibility of between 350 and 400 jobs and on the Adams count and around 1500 to 2000 on the whole site, including Adams County, that depends on the density and the development. But also we'll focus on middle skill and middle wage jobs in this in the city of Denver. In my opinion, there's a huge need for light manufacturing in industrial locations in the city, since many of the operations have been taken up by another industry. As far as the locations in Council District nine, the industrial park areas, as was shared with me, have the lowest vacancy rates to date. And on this particular site, the facilities will be modernized industrial areas, making them even more attractive to to the Globeville area. So I wholeheartedly support advancing this forward and ask for the support of my colleagues as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Councilwoman Ortega. Mr. President, I want to also express my support for this project moving forward. I think having known much of the history of this site and worked with these neighborhoods back when it was actually an operating smelter and lived through the whole process with the neighborhood and the whole CDP, you know, process of of cleaning up the neighborhood and working with EPA and, you know, looking at the cleanup that really went beyond the Globeville neighborhood, but realizing that there's an interested party that is wanting to do this development and has taken the steps to remove the buildings which in themselves required significant cleanup. This is exciting for these neighborhoods, creating the opportunity for employment. Looking at a site that has sat there as a vacant, sort of abandoned parcel that really wasn't contributing to the community at all in creating these new opportunities for something that will look nice in the neighborhood, that will add the jobs, stimulate our economy for not only that area, but for the city of Denver as a whole and in the interface with our neighbors to the north. So I think overall, this is really a great opportunity for Denver, and I appreciate the role that Dora has played in sort of brokering this between the two counties to help move it forward. And I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for her role in working with the neighborhoods to make sure their voice was a part of the process throughout every step of the way. So with that. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know if folks remember, but when we have the urban renewal area come through for this part of the city, during that process, one of the residents of this area said, you know, industrial, you don't need more industrial. That's how we got into this spot in this neighborhood. And I think it's such a testament to Councilwoman Montero's leadership and the outreach of EFC that we now have residents excited about the jobs, because I think we've really educated folks about the way that, you know, I always say from my mother's factory, right, that that modern manufacturing doesn't have the same environmental impacts if it's well planned and well designed for high quality, you know, high input, low, low output kind of production. So I'm excited about the potential and I'm so pleased and so appreciative of your leadership and the level of community support that we have for this use. My one favor to ask is that since this may be our last time to see you for this project before you go out and flourish, is that please hold out for the manufacturing over the warehousing warehouse is great. It takes up huge stretches of land. It's important for getting products to market very few jobs per square foot. And so please don't jump at the first tenants if they are, you know, distribution warehouse, please hold out for some of that higher intensity employment if you can, because it would be really great to see the higher end of those estimates rather than the lower end. So if that's possible in the market, if it does, it have a real spur. If it did, it would be perfect. We have so many employers who need that, but the great transportation asset access should be an asset even without rail. So thank you very much. And I'm very enthusiastically supportive of this district tonight. Thanks. Thank you. Councilwoman Canete. See no other comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Montero by Neville. I. Ortega I, Rob Brooks. I. But I can eat lemon lopez. All right. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting and announce the results.